In a better world, Ohio Gov. John Kasich would be the GOP front-runner. For a Republican, he’s a sign of where the party should be heading: Via NBCNews.com:
Kasich spoke to large crowds of college students, and found himself pressed on gay marriage by a student during a town hall at Michigan State University. The student identified himself as a “staunch Democrat—always have been, always will be” before Kasich jokingly told him, “well that’s a good open mind. You don’t know that.” The student identified himself as gay and told Kasich he “faces discrimination daily and weekly,” and wanted to know the candidate’s views on same-sex marriage and LGBT protections under the law.
“If I see discrimination in anything, like I said earlier, I’m willing to do what I can,” Kasich said. “Whether it’s executive order or legislation. That’s fine with me. As for marriage equality—let me be clear I’m for traditional marriage but I’ve been to my first gay wedding. … And I had a great time. …
The student pressed back, “I don’t think that’s enough for you to say you’ve been to a gay wedding.”
“Well, we’re not changing any laws,” Kasich told him. “We’re not changing. We’re not going to allow discrimination on this.”
Compared with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the tone and substance is markedly more inclusive and in favor of maintaining equal treatment under the law.
But this isn’t a better world; not yet. And Cruz may be surging. Update: Or not, that poll now seems like an outlier and the Trump phenomenon shows little sign of abetting.
28 Comments for “Kasich: For the Future”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Kasich accepts Obergefell as a fact on the ground, and has since the day the decision was handed down (“I made it clear I don’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision but I’m going to respect the Supreme Court’s decision.“). The fact that Kasich accepts the decision as the law of the land and doesn’t plan to fight it tooth and nail puts him at odds with most of the still-standing Republican candidates, including (as you point out) the apparent “establishment” favorite, Senator Rubio.
Cruz and Rubio are singing out of the same hymnal on Obergefell, and I don’t see a dime’s worth of difference between them on that score, although Rubio boyishly smiles and Cruz scowls when promising to toss us under the bus.
As you point out, Kasich is going nowhere fast, and will probably suspend his campaign before long, as will the previous “establishment” candidate, Jeb! Bush. The mathematics of Republican delegate selection suggest that one or both will have to hang up the towel relatively soon if Rubio is going to garner enough delegates to prevail. You can bet that the Republican “establishment” is going to turn the screws shortly.
I would not make too much of the NBC/WSJ poll as of yet. A CBS poll released today shows Trump with a healthy national lead, and polls in Nevada and South Carolina both show Trump handily ahead. The NBC/WSJ poll may be an outlier or it may be an early indicator. It is too early to tell. Wait a couple of weeks, and see how Trump fares in Nevada, South Carolina and the SEC primaries. If Trump is going to collapse, we’ll see it in those primaries.
I wonder whether the President’s remarks the other day and the Pope’s this morning will provide a boost for Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Trump’s poll numbers climb a bit in response.
I notice that LCR is crowing this morning about having secured a sponsorship role at CPAC this year, after years of being denied “a seat at the table”. I wonder whether LCR will experience buyer’s remorse when it comes time to endorse Cruz or Rubio in the general election. You know that is going to be the price of sponsorship.
Has anyone else noticed that the initials for “Obama Derangement Syndrome” (ODS) is pronounced like “odious” and that the initials for “Hillary Derangement Syndrome” (HDS) is pronounced like “hideous”?
Enough random thoughts.
posted by Houndentenor on
That someone like Kasich is no longer considered conservative enough for the GOP primary votes should give moderates and even mainstream conservatives pause. Whether or not it will be enough to get them to realize just how far off the deep end the party has gone I do not know. My sample of Republican voters is skewed here in Texas. But from polling results it seems that my sample is more representative of the current party than the blue-state homocons who seem to still be in denial about how anti-gay the party really is.
posted by Jorge on
In a better world, Ohio Gov. John Kasich would be the GOP front-runner.
Huh?
Kasich spoke to large crowds of college students, and found himself pressed on gay marriage by a student during a town hall at Michigan State University.
Oh, this is the Gay News analysis. Carry on.
Compared with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the tone and substance is markedly more inclusive and in favor of maintaining equal treatment under the law.
To be clear, I consider that two separate considerations. Possibly more.
That someone like Kasich is no longer considered conservative enough for the GOP primary votes should give moderates and even mainstream conservatives pause.
Well I did leave the Republican party after I got a letter from tne RNC accusing me of being a conservative. I really only care about myself on that question.
In my humble opinion, Kasich’s problem is not that he’s not conservative enough for the GOP. Trump is markedly more socially liberal than he is. More conservative candidates than Kasich have already dropped out, unable to break out among the tea partier or evangelical segments courted by most of the “non-establishment” candidates. In this respect Kasich’s competitiveness in the three way contest for the establishment segment of the vote should more sensibly be considered a sign of his ideological credibility. But it’s really more a sign of Rubio’s and Bush’s weaknesses.
Kasich’s problem is that he does not convey a sufficient amount of loyalty, not to the Republican ideology, but to the Republican electorate. On illegal immigration, Kasich staked out a dissenting position from not just Trump’s extreme, but from most of the other candidates, in a way that was a little sharp and critical, a smaller version of Trump’s attacks on President Bush in Saturday’s debate. He should have conveyed his position more affirmatively, what he was for, not what he was against. None of the attacks by Cruz on Marco Rubio’s flip-flopping on illegal immigration have landed to this point even though it sounds like gobbledegook. That’s because Rubio is smarmy on the issue. That has the benefit of making him a convincing unity candidate. The “moderates” see him playing up his old sympathies convincingly enough, the conservatives see him acknowledging their ideological position convincingly enough. Kasich doesn’t have to change his ideology. He has to articulate his position clearly and logically.
posted by Jorge on
I wonder whether the President’s remarks the other day and the Pope’s this morning will provide a boost for Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Trump’s poll numbers climb a bit in response.
Hmm, will President Obama saying “You’ll never be president!” heighten or blunt the impact of Donald Trump’s anti-President Bush comments?
I think Obama just signaled to the FBI they’d better call off their investigation on Hillary Clinton so she can beat up Trump.
As for the Pope, I dunno.
posted by Doug on
“I think Obama just signaled to the FBI they’d better call off their investigation on Hillary Clinton so she can beat up Trump.”
Time to take your tin hat off.
Obama did NOT make that categorical statement, he said ‘I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president’. That is a very different statement.
posted by Jorge on
Too much poetic license?
No, I think not.
posted by Doug on
Poetic license. . . not so much. Misrepresentation. . . definitely.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t that the HDS angle explains the President’s obvious disdain for Trump. I instead, I suspect that there is been no love lost between them since Trump exposed the “fact” that the President was born in Kenya and is an illegitimate President. Or maybe the President just thinks that Trump is an ignorant, dangerous demagogue, and that the American people will catch on to that eventually.
posted by JohnInCA on
Kasich *literally* fought to the SCOTUS to keep James Obergefel’s name off of John Arthur’s death certificate. And yet he somehow gets to be the “gay friendly” candidate among Republicans?
And this is your evidence of progress among Republicans? A losing candidate who fought to the SCOTUS to make sure that a gay man wasn’t legally a widower in his state.
Please. At least in 2012 your losing candidate, Gary Johnson, actually believed in equality. Now the best you have is a guy that isn’t going to *continue* to fight existing gains (that he fought the first three times around. State, appeals and SCOTUS). This is a *regression*.
posted by Doug on
You are forgetting that in ‘Stephen’s World’ it is the progressives that forced Katich to fight so hard against LGBT rights. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen’s argument is not that Kasish is “gay friendly”. Stephen’s argument is that, relative to the Republican field, Kasich is the least hostile, the lesser of evils, specifically when compared to Cruz and Rubio.
I agree with him on that latter point. While Kasich is not “gay friendly” in any sense of the word — he fought Obergefell to the end, he has a long record of opposing LGBT adoption, both in Congress and in Ohio, and an equally long record of opposing non-discrimination laws — Kasich is content to let the decision stand, however grudgingly.
By Republican standards, that is enlightenment itself.
Nobody can reasonably expect any Republican candidate to be “gay friendly” this election cycle, or for several election cycles to come. Opposition to Obergefell, opposition to non-discrimination laws and Executive Orders covering gays and lesbians, opposition to LGBT adoption and so on are, at present, articles of faith among Republicans.
The 2013 “Priebus autopsy” acknowledged as much indirectly, calling not for any changes in position, but for softer “messaging” on social issues. You may recall that Priebus pointed to Huckabee as a model for how to “message” — give not an inch on opposition to equality for gays and lesbians, but do so with an smile.
Rubio fits the Priebus model to a “T”. Rubio takes all the standard Republican position on social issues — he opposes abortion in almost all cases, he pledges to overturn Obergefell, and he promises to appoint judges and Justices in the mold of Justice Scalia rather than, say Justices Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, and so on, up and down the line.
But, unlike Cruz, who has an inner darkness and anger to him that anyone who looks can see, Rubio does so with his happy face on.
That’s what the “Priebus autopsy” called for, and Rubio is the incarnation of the “new messaging” strategy recommended by the autopsy.
The Republican “establishment” is many things (“politically inept” comes to mind) but it is not stupid. The party’s leaders and donors like Singer know full well that the party cannot shift its positions on LGBT issues without losing a significant part of the Republican base, a segment that cannot be ignored until demographics of the party change, which is a polite way of say that older Republicans have to die off to give birth to a change in position. As a result, the party “establishment” does not want change, because to do so would blow up the Republican coalition.
Rubio, as I think about it, is a near-perfect “establishment” candidate.
He is, because of his sunny, boyish demeanor, able to take hard-core stands on LGBT and other “culture war” issues, without looking like he scowling and angry. His appeal is not a matter of age (he and Cruz, who puts out a very different vibe, are the same age (45/46), but Cruz looks and acts “old” and Rubio “young”) but of demeanor.
Rubio will be able to keep the conservative Christian agenda on the front burner, so to speak, without offending voters as much as Cruz will do, and will be, as a result, able to cement hard-core opposition to “equal means equal” into the party’s political DNA for another decade without turning off otherwise gay-friendly or gay-neutral voters who don’t put a priority on “equal means equal”. In a decade, the party’s positions will be allowed to fade away, like an old athlete, and no one will care. The critical thing, to the Republican “establishment” is to keep the coalition alive meantime.
Think Nixon and Reagan. Nixon scowled. Reagan smiled. Reagan’s positions were more conservative than Nixon’s. And yet Nixon divided the country every time he opened his mouth, and Reagan did not. The Republican “establishment” sees Rubio as Reagan-like in that respect, and Cruz as Nixon-like, which is why the “establishment” is pulling out the stops for Rubio and trying to stop Cruz.
That’s my guess, anyway.
posted by JohnInCA on
There’s a reason I put “gay friendly” in quotes.
And like I said, if this is the best Republicans can offer this year, it’s a regression, not an improvement.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And like I said, if this is the best Republicans can offer this year, it’s a regression, not an improvement.
I agree. The Republican Party has more stridently anti-equality in the last four years. Stephen scoffs (see previous thread) at the 350+ anti-equality bills Republican legislators have introduced around the country this year, but I don’t. I see them as a reflection of the increasingly anti-equality shift in the Republican base.
posted by Houndentenor on
As he doesn’t live in any of those red states where Tea Partiers are ramming through anti-gay legislation, why should he care? Empathy was never a strong suit for American conservatives.
posted by Jorge on
Empathy was never a strong suit for American conservatives.
In that spirit, I would like to celebrate the wit and wisdom of the late Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, as remarked in an opinion piece in today’s New York Post:
“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
posted by Jorge on
The 2013 “Priebus autopsy” acknowledged as much indirectly, calling not for any changes in position, but for softer “messaging” on social issues. You may recall that Priebus pointed to Huckabee as a model for how to “message” — give not an inch on opposition to equality for gays and lesbians, but do so with an smile.
In other words, act like a Christian psychopath.
I do not recall that. Had I known that, I think I would have puked.
Rubio fits the Priebus model to a “T”.
You are conflating opposition to gays and lesbians to opposition to gay rights policies. The former is particular to Huckabee. The latter is almost universal.
As far as I’m concerned, the jury’s still out on Rubio. That damnable Robot Rubio act is foiling even my formidable anti-gay detection. In all fairness, barely any LGBT-related questions have been asked in the primary debates. The last time I remember any question being asked was when Mary Catherine Hamm asked a Social issues: Abortion + Gay Marriage” question. The candidates gave one-liners on traditional marriage and then jumped up and down on abortion. It’s hard enough to evaluate candidates when your concerns are treated like a sideshow, impossible when they’re an afterthought.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are conflating opposition to gays and lesbians to opposition to gay rights policies.
No, I’m not. I don’t give a flying fork what Rubio thinks about gays and lesbians. I do care about, and my comment was limited to, Rubio’s positions:
Rubio’s anti-equality record has been consistent for at least a decade.
In all fairness, barely any LGBT-related questions have been asked in the primary debates.
With Rubio, you don’t need questions. He’s been hammering the issues and his positions loud and clear without being asked.
posted by Jorge on
No he hasn’t. Just marriage.
…fine, you managed to squeeze out adoption. It is unsurprising we would have a position from a Florida politician on that issue. I’m still not impressed. I might be more impressed if you gave a date for that statement.
Let’s search “Marco Rubio on gay adoption.” Oh, Daily Kos: May 19, 2015: “Does Marco Rubio still think gay adoption is a ‘social experiment’?”
The Daily Kos is a partisan progressive, inflammatory, and overall shameful website. They’ll have the dirt.
“Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, in particular, have avoided commenting on it [gay adoption]. . . . It’s a sharp contrast from about a decade ago.”
“More recently Bush said, ‘Previously, I opposed gay adoption, but it has since become the law in our state, and I respect that decision.’ But that doesn’t tell us what he thinks now.”
I consider your statement that Marco Rubio opposes gay adoptions on the grounds it is a social experiment false. There is no question it was a past position (the Daily Kos quotes him directly in 2006), and it was a position he held at a time when it was a reasonable position for a conservative politician to hold. But now that the facts have been given a fair hearing (much like gay marriage was), we have no evidence that he has continued to stand by that position.
Fortunately for the Robot Rubio, he has never declared his opposition to marriage to be based on social experimentation concerns.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m not sure which is worse, Jorge.
That you think it’s unfair to judge Rubio by his record, or that you think you have “formidable anti-gay detection”.
Rubio has rejected “equal means equal” at every opportunity. He has stated, outright, that he intends to continue to oppose “equal means equal”, and endorses legislation that gives special right to discriminate and thinks that judges should rule that already exists (see: his support for Kim Davis).
I don’t have hyperbole strong enough to properly convey my dismay here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Rubio did more than just make a statement in 2006. As House Majority Leader, he used the power of his office to block gay/lesbian adoptions. The ban remained in effect until it was overturned by a federal court in 2010.
It is certainly possible that Rubio has changed his position on adoption to something less offensive. But I doubt it.
Rubio has had plenty of opportunity to walk back or change his 2006 position — he has been asked repeatedly since he began his quest for the Presidency, and his campaign has studiously ignored the questions posed by journalists.
I’ll grant you that Rubio has flipped on quite a number of of issues — most obviously on his signature issue of immigration reform — since his Presidential campaign began, but he has indicated that his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion is religion-based (“‘If I were to change my position on those issues or even waver on them, I would now be in direct conflict with my church and I would be in direct conflict with what I teach my children. And at that point, I can tell you then I’ve lost the essence of who I am. So that’s just not going to happen.).
Given the strong opposition of the Catholic Church to gay/lesbian adoption, it seems to me that it is more likely than not that Rubio’s position on adoption has not changed and he just doesn’t want to talk about it.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll grant you that Rubio has flipped on quite a number of of issues — most obviously on his signature issue of immigration reform
I consider that more of a waffle than a flip–and he actually gives an answer that says his preference was not to. Of course, I consider that to be pandering to split the difference.
…I see. We don’t exactly have precedent for his changing his heart, only his mind. And Rubio is as allergic to revealing it as almost every other Republican. It’s a good thing I argued his position was reasonable for a conservative to hold at the time.
Given the strong opposition of the Catholic Church to gay/lesbian adoption, it seems to me that it is more likely than not that Rubio’s position on adoption has not changed and he just doesn’t want to talk about it.
Maybe he’s personally pro-mother/father but politically neutral. Aren’t you more about the issues than people’s feelings?
I think there’s a good chance you’re right. My takeaway is that he probably would still oppose gay adoptions if there was any political opportunity to doing so–there isn’t, and for him I think it’s extremely unlikely to occur in the future even if Obergefell is overturned. Really he’s showing himself to be someone who weighs religious questions with socio-political calculation. No, wait, that’s Pope Francis. Rubio does the opposite: he weighs political questions with religious calculation. But there is a bit of hypocrisy in the way he talks about it because as you say, the church takes a consistent position on many related issues.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s a good thing I argued his position was reasonable for a conservative to hold at the time.
It was never a reasonable position. All of the reputable studies, even a decade ago, showed that children did as well in gay/lesbian homes as in straight homes. Rubio’s position was bullshit and blather then, and, if he continues to hold the position now, it is bullshit and blather now.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I think that Gary Johnson quit the GOP, and ran for President under the Libertarian Party banner. So, that mean that he probably opposes government discrimination against LGBT citizens, but sees private sector discrimination as a First Amendment right….or he does not really believe in the party’s platform.
Kasich answer to the University student, could have been MUCH better said (agree or disagree with it). Having heard him speak and answer questions, I would say that his public speaking needs work…or he needs better speech writers…or both.
Trump has money, name recognition (i.e. Trump was involved with reality TV shows and Macy’s sponsorship) and his difficulty with the English language is still being spun as somehow meaning that he has a connection with “average” Americans.
Now he still seems to be running his campaign a bit like a contestant for some sort of trashy, reality TV show. The GOP “establishment” does not mean him, and a substantial number of GOP primary voters are still a bit uncomfortable with his personality and style.
IT is actually very difficult to figure about what Trump actually stands for, except his “shooting from the hip” comments on foreign policy and immigration.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I also have no idea why Kasich would even stick to the “I only believe in traditional marriage” concept. If he had been serious about his presidential run, he probably would focused on being a “Independent-minded”/”socially liberal, fiscally conservative”-type candidate.
It is not like Kasich had the name recognition, a family or a political background to endear himself to “religious right/Tea Party” crowd. So, why simply take the same positions as every other candidate?
This is what Fred Karger essentially tried to do (in terms of an Independent minded campaign), when he ran for President. However, the party was never going to take an openly gay candidate seriously, Kasich, in contrast, would been able to raise the media attention and funds required to be taken seriously.
Yes, it would have been an uphill battle in the primaries, but it could have been a honest campaign that would have generated interest among the media and among voters.
So, what is most interesting about the Kasich campaign, is the campaign decisions that they DIDN’T make, because they are holding onto some notion that their campaign would somehow ignite with primary voters.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I also have no idea why Kasich would even stick to the “I only believe in traditional marriage” concept.
I suspect that he sticks with it because he believes it.
Kasich attends St. Augustine Anglican Church, a member parish of the Anglican Church in North America, a conservative communion that withdrew from the Episcopal Church in the United States in 2003 in the aftermath of Bishop Robinson’s appointment.
I don’t give a whit about Kasich’s religious affiliation or personal religious beliefs. I care about his positions on the issues as a public official and candidate for office.
posted by Jorge on
How in heck did Donald Trump win South Carolina’s primary while going nuclear on President Bush?
South Carolina is a very peculiar state. First its Republican party keeps Lindsey Graham in a primary challenge, and handily, then it selects Donald Trump. Truly there is a method behind its shifting schism. Maybe Trump was in South Carolina when he read his campaign’s response to the Pope in front of a live audience?
You Pope Idiot! You snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by making people forget he blamed Bush for 9/11. He blamed Bush for 9/11! In a state Lindsey Graham won. And then he insulted the sitting Senator to boot. What? The numbers actually add up? Don’t tell me that!
posted by Doug on
‘How in heck did Donald Trump win South Carolina’s primary while going nuclear on President Bush?’
The answer is really quite simple: Trump is correct in his assessment of President Bush.
posted by Jorge on
Trump has been wrong on easier calls.