1562

Hmm, I don’t think so.

1563

It’ll be interesting to see what happens if/when Kasich gets real traction. My recollection is that he attempted early on to be Scott Walker 2.0, and paid heavily for it – in terms of declining popularity, inability to get his agenda anywhere, etc. – despite having solid majorities in both chambers in Columbus. It was only after that exploded in his face that he became the kinder, gentler Kasich that we’re seeing now.

I haven’t followed his career closely, but what little I do recall of him makes me think he’s more of a career politician rather than ideologue – i.e. he’ll head in whatever way the wind is blowing.

1564

That’s part of the problem with our current political climate… that somehow, being effective at governing, which inherently requires the ability to compromise and pragmatically adapt your policy to the realities of the world, is somehow a weakness.

It’s not a weakness at all. It’s called, “How shit gets done.”

1565

The word you are looking for its Integrity. Biden has it, and the perceived lack of it is Clinton’s biggest issue.

1566

Normally I’d agree. However Kasich ran on a number of relatively moderate issues when he ran for governor. Once elected, he took a much more conservative bent than he’d run on. When those more conservative (read: Koch) priorities – like union busting – nearly derailed his administration, that’s when you saw him licking his wounds.

I wouldn’t mind him running and governing as a moderate. I do mind someone running one way, trying to govern another, and then simply doing what’s politically expedient. Political expedience isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but if you’re a pragmatist, don’t run (or attempt to govern) as an ideologue.

1567

It would be great if someone could start asking this of all of the candidates. Let’s see if we can get some traction going on that question.

I agree with everything you said here 100%

And, ironically, I just said exactly this in almost the same words to a co-worker after reading the most current polls out of New Hampshire which show Kasich picking up speed. He’s now at a solid 11%, second only to the insanity that is Trump. I thought Walker and Bush were the only true options the Republicans had but they are both (thankfully) sinking fast under the weight of their negatives and, surprise, surprise, the last man standing on the realistic option depth chart is Kasich who would have likely suffered the same fate as 2012 Huntsman if Trump wasn’t drawing the laser focus of the lunatic fringe towards himself. I think he is ironically leaving breathing room for a guy like Kaisch who otherwise would have had to either play the game of escalating madness by way of pandering to the loons or draw their ire.

I do worry that Kasich would beat any Democratic candidate simply because this country, for some reason, really, really wants to vote Republican every time and only elects Democrats when the Republicans self destruct as they are won’t to do. I can’t for the life of me figure out why this is when you look at polling on the issues but there it is.

1568

Kasich’s stated policy points:

  1. The EPA should not regulate emissions.
  2. Cut education spending.
  3. Repeal the ACA.
  4. Opposed to abortion, ban after 20 weeks.
  5. Cut Planned Parenthood funding
  6. Cut corporate and income taxes.
  7. Increase sales tax.
  8. Further limit union powers.
  9. Fight ISIS with American troops in a ground war.

These are either tea-party objectives or pander to Fox talking points. All are bad policy. The fact that he is slightly less crazy than some of his peers is no consolation.

1569

I live in Ohio and here lately Kasich sure sounds like one. He’s been going after teachers (unions are teh debil) and was recently asked the question I posed upstream regarding $1 tax hikes for $10 spending cuts. His response was MOAR tax cuts, more deregulation of the corporate world.

And I love how the GOP are able to sell to their base the meme that they oppose all forms of additional taxation. They don’t. They oppose any taxes that hit their ruling overclass, plain and simple. The debt ceiling fight in 2011 smoked their hypocrisy out quite nicely on this issue. And look at states like Kansas that seek to plug a deficit hole driven in large part by the unnecessary income tax cuts for upper earners by raising sales taxes, a regressive form of taxation that hurts those least able to absorb the pain. In no way is the solution to repeal part or all of those income tax cuts.

1570

Could you provide the source where kasich describes his platform as such? I’d be interested in seeing it, as I’m not sure that list really correctly describes kasichs positions. I mean, for instance, repealing the ACA seems unlikely. Especially since the ACA is in many ways actually John Kasich’s own plan for healthcare reform that he presented in the 90’s.

But I’d like to see the sources that are leading you to your opinions here.

1571

Most of that list by Miramon can be teased out here: http://ballotpedia.org/John_Kasich_presidential_campaign,_2016

1572

I’m not seeing it. That site just lists various actions he’s taken and statements he’s made over his fairly long career.

For instance, the claim that Kasich thinks “The EPA should not regulate emissions” isn’t really supported by that site, where Kasich’s environmental posititions actually show him voting multiple times to support EPA regulations.

I guess some of those points are fairly straightforward, like opposing abortion, but that isn’t a tea party talking point. Tons of people, even pro choice people oppose abortion. That’s not the same thing as trying to make it illegal. Hell, he even specifically stated back in 1999 that he didn’t even oppose abortion at all in those cases. Opposing abortion isn’t a crazy extreme view. Thinking that abortion is a trivial act that cannot even be questioned is an extreme position. Again, there is a difference between opposing abortions and believing that they should be banned.

Likewise, cutting taxes is not an extreme position either. Lots of Democrats have cut taxes too.

So sure, some of those things in the list are certainly true, but not in a fashion that would involve some kind of crazy tea party perspective, i don’t think.

1573

I should’ve added the belief that all tax cuts pay for themselves, which is what I meant to write. Which is most definitely a position today’s GOP takes almost universally.

1574

On the EPA point I couldn’t find that position, hence “most.” :) The rest can be supported between how he has voted and the positions he states now.

On abortion, “Kasich received consistent ratings of 100 percent from the National Right to Life Committee during his tenure in Congress.” I never hear “pro life” people what policies they would advocate to reduce the incidents of abortion, either.

His tax policy reads like bog-standard supply side Republican economic policy, including the Norquist pledge. That doesn’t work. Never has, never will. And it’s not just about ‘cutting taxes’, it’s how and for whom they are cut. Raising sales taxes to pay for corporate/capital gains tax cuts is nuts. The entire U.S. tax policy needs to get ripped up and redone but that will never happen in our current political environment. And even if it did we all know who would gain.

1575

Kasich’s tax/economic policy in Ohio has been fairly successful though, hasn’t it? It has been successful across the board, benefiting the general population and not just rich folks.

I mean, sure, he cut taxes. But he also turned a large deficit into a surplus, and created a ton of jobs. Cutting taxes isn’t BAD. That in itself is not a negative thing.

That’s probably why he’s currently sitting on a 61% approval rating. He’s done a good job.

1576

I don’t know where you get your info from, Timex. Job growth in Ohio is anemic at best and among flat-lined wages we’ve yet to recover the jobs lost from the 08 crash. In large part because Ohio is more dependent upon the nation’s manufacturing base than most other states and we all know what that means for recoveries. But Kasich’s policies certainly look like they’re geared toward the wealthy. Income tax cuts, sales tax increase, blah blah. Hell, his signature economic initiative is JobsOhio, which is sheltered from public audits and record laws and reeks of cronyism. Kasich has cut and cut money from education, public libraries, etc. These are great ways to help balance your budget and tout your record as governor, but they are not good policies for the future of the state. If I personally wanted to make my debt-income ratio look fantastic so I could sell myself as some great financial advisor I could move my family into a trailer court, pay for it easily with the equity in my current house, and send my kids off to a shitty school. On paper I’d look great, really well set up for early retirement.

1577

There is no denying his approval ratings are high. At the same time:

In his very first budget, Kasich flat out cut $1.8 billion in funding for public schools across Ohio, leaving over 100 K-12 school districts with crippling budget deficits, and forcing local school districts to ask voters to back multi-million dollar emergency funding levies.

All of this, while steering hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into a scandal-ridden charter school system, which has seen failing grades and has been called “the most troubled in the country” — A move pushed by a charter-school operators who made the maximum legal contribution to Kasich’s political campaign along with his wife.

Kasich has given huge tax breaks to the rich, while nearly half of Ohio families and my constituents are living paycheck to paycheck. His prioritization of trickle-down economics places him directly in line with the most conservative members of the Republican Party.

1578

Ok, I change my stance. I’d vote for Hillary over that bullshit.

1579
1580

I think that source is somewhat poorly supported, when you look at some of those statements and the actual sources that they provide to back them up. Or at least, it attempts to paint Kasich’s positions in a more negative, extreme light.
For instance, the first one:
“Climate Change: Climate change is real. The EPA should not regulate emissions.”
When you dig into the sources, there are a few things to note. First, he is clearly not saying that the EPA should not regulate any emissions, but is specifically talking about greenhouse gas emissions. That is an important distinction, as opposing any EPA emissions regulation would be crazy.

However, it goes beyond that, because not only is the conversation limited to greenhouse gas emissions, nowhere in the cited speech from 2012 does he actually say the EPA should not regulate emissions at all. He merely stated that:

“I am a believer — my goodness I am a Republican — I happen to believe there is a problem with climate change. I don’t want to overreact to it, I can’t measure it all, but I respect the creation that the Lord has given us and I want to make sure we protect it,” Kasich said at a Columbus, Ohio, energy conference hosted by The Hill.

“But we can’t overreact to it and make things up, but it is something we have to recognize is a problem,” Kasich said.

Now, I’m sorry, but that is a perfectly reasonable position. Response to environmental issues needs to be well reasoned and considerate of things like economic prosperity, because ultimately economic prosperity can support movement to cleaner energy.

You can read the story on the actual speech from 2012, and there’s nothing crazy in there. He seems pretty reasonable.

In terms of things like school funding, the claim that he just wants to “cut education funding” is, again, pretty disingenuous. When you look at the stuff he vetoed from the budget, cited by the PBS story, you see things that really aren’t quite as crazy as you might be led to believe.

Note, the claim is that he “cut $84 million in funding” for schools, but this isn’t actually the case. What he DID do was veto certain provisions in the budget (some of which came from republicans), which increased funding for those schools. So this isn’t actually a CUT in spending, but rather a veto of an increase. Now, some of that increase was directed at replacing revenue lost by removal of the tangible property tax, but that’s the thing… SOME of educational funding increases ($50.6 million) he left in the budget. But some of the other ones he cut.

One of the ones cut, which I believe was actually put forth by republicans, was a guarantee that wealthier districts wouldn’t lose state funding. This seems totally reasonable to me. Wealthy districts can fund their own schools. Wealthy districts aren’t having problems with public education.

I mean, look at this (from the source of the PBS piece you linked to):

Kasich, whose bid for dramatic school-funding reform fell to a plan to ensure no districts lose state aid, killed a provision giving schools $78.3 million in 2016-17 to help offset money they lost to the phaseout of the tangible personal-property tax.

He kept intact $50.6 million in tax-replacement money for K-12 schools for the fiscal year beginning today. Kasich opposes the so-called guarantee embraced by lawmakers to ensure that no districts lose state dollars.

Kasich also killed the “guarantee” that wealthier districts would receive no reduction in state aid. The funding loss was estimated at $6 million to $9 million a year this morning by administration officials.

In his veto message, Kasich said the money he eliminated would predominately have gone to better-off school districts with the ability to raise taxes locally.

The total K-12 budget of $15.8 billion contained about a $600 million increase before the line-item veto.

So he vetoed some things, which seem like reasonable cuts… and the end result was a school budget which was hundreds of millions of dollars HIGHER than it was previously. And this is a “cut to education”?

I don’t think that’s really a legitimate description of his policy.

When you look at the details, it seems a lot more reasonable.

And that’s kind of important, because that’s how you make actual workable budgets. Turns out, spending money on “education” isn’t really a legitimate goal. Some money is spent wisely, and some is not. Just like it is in every other public spending sector. To effectively handle your budget, you need to actually dig into it, and cut out stuff that doesn’t make sense, even if it’s under giant umbrellas like “education”.

1581

Aren’t these kind of boilerplate republican positions?

Maybe as timex points out he secretly doesn’t want to repeat ACA, but no republican is going to openly say they won’t try to repeal it. It would be political suicide.