RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Berney writes: "John Kasich is such an appealing guy, isn't he? He went to a same-sex wedding once. He thinks Donald Trump's plan to deputize the violent thugs at his rallies so they can kick out all the brown people is pretty unreasonable. His folksy Midwestern-dad charm gives Democrats fits of terror when we imagine facing him in the general election."

John Kasich. (photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)
John Kasich. (photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)


'Moderate' John Kasich Is Actually Terrifying

By Jesse Berney, Rolling Stone

19 March 16

 

Kasich may not be the racist egomaniac Trump is, but he'd take America backward in a thousand ways

ohn Kasich is such an appealing guy, isn't he? He went to a same-sex wedding once. He thinks Donald Trump's plan to deputize the violent thugs at his rallies so they can kick out all the brown people is pretty unreasonable. His folksy Midwestern-dad charm gives Democrats fits of terror when we imagine facing him in the general election.

He's the anti-Trump and the anti-Ted Cruz, neither a demonstrably racist egomaniac nor a pinched and sleazy blowhard.

Add that all together, and it spells M-O-D-E-R-A-T-E.

Kasich was always supposed to be the moderate in the race, which is why he wasn't given much of a chance of surviving until Iowa, let alone this late in the game. But on Tuesday, he won his home state, winner-take-all Ohio, throwing a genuine wrench into Trump's march toward the nomination.

He has as much a shot at that nomination as Cruz does. Both are going to need a brokered convention to win, and Cruz's habit of alienating literally every human being he comes in contact with might put his chances at risk. Why shouldn't the convention turn to Kasich, who will come in with the third-most delegates and the best shot at beating Hillary Clinton in the fall?

After all, he'll tempt plenty of independents who distrust her. And the Bernie Sanders supporters who will hold their nose to vote for Clinton to avoid a Donald Trump-led apocalypse might not be as motivated when the aw-shucks governor of Ohio is her opponent. A Wall Street Democrat versus a moderate Republican? Why bother? (Nader voters from 2000 will be familiar with this sentiment, as well as the feeling of being proven terribly wrong over the next eight years.)

Despite his carefully cultivated appearance, and despite comparisons to the moron and the goblin left standing next to him, John Kasich is no moderate. A cursory look at his record proves the opposite: On the issues that matter, Kasich is a deep-red conservative who would do everything in his power to move America in an uglier, more regressive direction.

Let's look at just one issue: the right of women in Ohio to get an abortion when they need one. As governor, Kasich has done everything in his power to put roadblock after roadblock in their way.

Kasich has worked with the legislature to jam some of the nation's most restrictive anti-abortion policies into the state's budget (a neat trick that makes them easier to pass).

In 2013, the budget defunded Planned Parenthood, eliminating $1.4 million in federal funds that went toward a wide variety of health care services — and not a penny toward abortion, since federal dollars can't pay for abortion anyway.

That same budget funded so-called "crisis pregnancy centers," fake health clinics that offer free pregnancy tests and sometimes ultrasounds to draw women in the door, where counselors ply them with false information claiming abortion causes everything from breast cancer to cooties.

Thanks to Kasich, women in Ohio who need an abortion must undergo an ultrasound — and a doctor must describe the fetus to them — a condescending, harassing provision that implies women don't understand what being pregnant actually is, and that once they find out, they won't want an abortion anymore. (Turns out they pretty much all still do.)

Perhaps ugliest of all, Kasich's 2013 budget banned rape crisis counselors from referring victims of sexual assault to abortion services. Tell a woman who's been raped how to end a pregnancy, and you lose your funding from the state.

John Kasich thinks women who are raped shouldn't be told where they can get an abortion, and he used the power of his governorship to stop it.

The 2015 budget included further restrictions to abortion clinics, meaningless requirements masquerading as "protecting women's health" with the actual purpose of shutting clinics down. And shut down they have: About half of Ohio's abortion providers have shuttered since Kasich took office, and that number could easily rise.

That's the real John Kasich. Not the friendly dad on the debate stage shaking his head at all the bickering. Not the guy who attended a same-sex wedding — the one who went, and still opposes same-sex marriage. Not the one who sounds reasonable and kind — the one who would keep a rape victim from learning where she can end her pregnancy.

The Republican Party has three choices left: a man who would fundamentally destroy the values that actually make America great, a conservative true believer who would take America backward in a thousand different directions… and Ted Cruz.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+90 # vilstef 2016-03-19 15:24
Kasich is only a moderate when stood beside nutjobs like Trump and Cruz.

I fully expect Hillary to win the nomination, and I will give her a dutiful, no enthusiasm vote. I'm quite put off with her war mongering and her readiness to kiss the rings of Wall Street Bankers. But better that than any of the Republicans still standing.
 
 
+56 # bckrd11 2016-03-19 17:53
Bernie has pushed her to the left and she knows she cannot go back and keep their support.
 
 
+33 # mh1224jst 2016-03-19 20:28
These articles never discuss the biggest issue -- taxes. Here Kasich is as bad as all the rest. We simply must keep him way from the White House, if we want to keep our incomes and wealth.
 
 
+23 # Lgfoot 2016-03-20 11:40
Another trickle down plutocrat. 35 years since St. Ronnie promised trickle down and we are still waiting for the first drop. Cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn't create jobs. Infrastructure spending will, but that might require the billionaires to start paying some taxes, something no republican will support.
 
 
+89 # bmiluski 2016-03-19 17:07
I've listened to Kasich's townhall meetings and he DOES sound moderate until you really listen to him. He's actually scarier than the other two turds because he "sounds" moderate and a better choice. BUT HE'S NOT.
 
 
+12 # REDPILLED 2016-03-19 17:48
Hillary is no moderate, either, and far from progressive.

Only Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are progressive, but Bernie's foreign plicy is still imperialistic.
 
 
+82 # NAVYVET 2016-03-19 18:40
I strongly urge you to read this week's NATION magazine (for March 14) and learn what Bernie Sanders' REAL foreign policy ideas are. About as far from "imperialistic" as anyone can get--yet within the ballpark that most Americans would consider based on reason.

Do you watch Faux News? Where did you get this silliness?
 
 
+15 # DaveEwoldt 2016-03-19 19:11
That would be a good idea except you have to be a paid subscriber to The Nation to read more than a couple of articles a month, or to comment on any of them.
 
 
+20 # California Neal 2016-03-19 21:50
1. It's 3 articles a month.
2. Getting full online access to the Nation, or getting it in the mail & online, is well worth the cost.
3. Go read the article, as NAVYVET suggests.
 
 
+19 # randrjwr 2016-03-19 22:20
Quoting DaveEwoldt:
That would be a good idea except you have to be a paid subscriber to The Nation to read more than a couple of articles a month, or to comment on any of them.


I have a solution to your problem--go ahead and SUBSCRIBE!!! It costs less than a lot of useless rags and is full of information and inspiration that we progressives all need.
 
 
+12 # backwards_cinderella 2016-03-20 04:41
It's not that expensive. Even a poor old crone like me can afford it. The Nation is definitely worth it. Another great read is COUNTER PUNCH. Check it out.
 
 
+3 # randrjwr 2016-03-20 20:50
Quoting backwards_cinderella:
It's not that expensive. Even a poor old crone like me can afford it. The Nation is definitely worth it. Another great read is COUNTER PUNCH. Check it out.


Never heard of it, but I will check it out. A good read is hard to find (and will never be found in the MSM until some profound changes are made).
 
 
-18 # dquandle 2016-03-19 21:01
From his continued votes for war funding and for funding US imperial ventures:

"When Sanders attempted to frame Hillary as “pro-regime change” in relation to the catastrophe she created in Libya, Hillary pointed out that Sanders voted “yes” to support that regime change. As the war machine rolled into Libya Sanders wasn’t a speed bump; he was a lubricant. Clinton and Sanders both have Libyan blood on their hands.
Sanders has Afghan blood on his hands too, having voted for the invasion of the now-endless Afghan war that triggered the beginning of the flurry of Middle East wars. And while Sanders brags about voting “no” for the 2003 Iraq war, his vote soon morphed into a “yes,” by his several votes for the ongoing funding of the war/occupation.
Sanders also voted “yes” for the U.S.-led NATO destruction of Yugoslavia, and supports the brutal Israeli military regime that uses U.S. weapons to slaughter Palestinians.

From
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/does-bernie-sanders-imperialism-matter/

see also
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/22/the-not-so-nordic-bernie-sanders/

"He told me he’d even continue Bush-Obama’s drone assassination program, which is illegal since it has never been authorized by Congress."
from
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/27/my-critique-of-the-bernie-sanders-campaign/
 
 
+56 # DaveEwoldt 2016-03-19 19:17
How is Bernie's foreign policy imperialistic? He's against regime change, and he doesn't believe that it's our oil sitting under their sand.
 
 
+6 # Billsy 2016-03-20 12:15
We don't really know in any detail what Sander's foreign policy is because his campaign focuses primarily on domestic economic issues. His voting record has however been far less aggressive than Clinton's.
 
 
+51 # bckrd11 2016-03-19 17:52
He is absolutely as dangerous as every other GOP candidate who threw their hat in the ring. Every damn one of them have horrible and devastating plans for this country.
 
 
+53 # elly105 2016-03-19 17:56
Not impressed with what I heard Kasich say during his town hall meeting. Nice feel-good sort of guy but ultra conservative and hawkish
 
 
+17 # bev swan 2016-03-19 18:24
hillary clinton will say anything to get the nomination. just the other whey she made comments at the funeral of nancy reagan - she will say anything!
 
 
+46 # reiverpacific 2016-03-19 18:24
Remember those who felt good about Dimwits Bush because he "seemed like the kind of guy who'd be good to go for a beer with"?
Or Reagan's full-on B-Movie, "Aw-Shucks" plausibility acting?
Or even Bill Clinton's iron fist in the velvet glove, Southern folksy charm (about as genuine as the appalling Paula Deen)?
And you know where that lot got the country, especially the first two!
American Citizens apparently can't get enough of the "Father knows best" persona, no matter what the facts and their records betray; another example of the hypnotic effects of "Panem et Circences" by the owner media who tend to blatantly give these homey part-players headlines or primetime coverage.
Then there's Drumpf, who is nothing more than one of their own, a blowhard who always gets them good ratings and ad' revenues.
Clinton #2 is nowhere near as car-salesman effective as the aforementioned + Kasich but she's the darling of the media on the Blue-Dawg Democrat side and possibly just a little less of an actor than the others but her record is available to all who care to see her true colors.
Given this level of superficiality, no wonder Bernie Sanders gives the rest and their media-promoters the screamin' knicker-shits!
Only in America.
 
 
+14 # economagic 2016-03-19 18:35
I think you may have meant to say, "American Citizens apparently CAN'T get enough of the "Father knows best" persona"!
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2016-03-19 20:18
Quoting economagic:
I think you may have meant to say, "American Citizens apparently CAN'T get enough of the "Father knows best" persona"!


Right!
Just corrected it but thanks for spotting the faux-pas.
I'm constantly editing my own posts, even although I try to proof it -and I hate to drag my wife into everything I write on RSN.
Also, I was somewhat distracted at the time by following a very patchy BBC coverage of the final six-nations rugby games.
 
 
+3 # glyde 2016-03-20 01:01
Reiverpacific: Who won please?
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2016-03-20 09:52
Quoting glyde:
Reiverpacific: Who won please?


England (p'tooey)!!!!!!
Scotland had a better overall tournament this year though.
 
 
+25 # economagic 2016-03-19 18:33
For all else I THINK I know about Kasich (not a great deal), Mr. Berney could have said a great deal more in this article. He would seem to have been "Your Father's Republican" until that party headed off the rails 10-20 years ago, although perhaps a little on the zealous side all along. As such, during that time he seems to have been more or less what passed as a "conservative" in recent decades, not quite the historical sense of the term and leaning more toward Goldwater/Reaga n than Thurmond and the other Dixiecrats.

In the past 20 years he has apparently shifted quite a bit in the direction of Gingrich (remember him?), and more recently toward the Tea Party. He seems to have become a standard fare modern Republican, against almost everything except war and regressive taxation, though still with more genuine zeal than many his age, whose zeal is more for show.
 
 
+18 # Mainiac 2016-03-19 18:39
Reply to Redpilled: Bernie has said that he is against regime change. That is the fundamental strategy for our foreign policy. Would you agree that if we take that off the table, we don’t have much left?
 
 
+19 # Anonymot 2016-03-19 23:21
If you take regime change off the table you are taking war off the table. That leaves honest competition and diplomacy on the table to deal with matters that come up, to deal with conflicts, to deal with our ideas of a free and honest vision of the world.

And if we are attacked in our home land then we should have a military capable of defending us, not the bloated Intelligence and Defense departments run by the grossly midget-minded bunch of West Pointers who've not yet figured out how to fight a 21st Century war.
 
 
+2 # walthe310 2016-03-19 18:39
In comparison http://wp.me/p1H7Ki-69S
 
 
+3 # Kiwikid 2016-03-19 19:18
site didn't tell me anything, walthe310, and in spite of claiming that Kasich would take the US backward 'in a thousand different directions' Berney mentions only two.
 
 
+39 # help!! 2016-03-19 18:50
Kasich's boasts about balancing the Ohio budget are worthless--he simply cut all kinds of funding for human needs, and the costs devolved upon county, municipal, and school-board budgets. But most people have no idea about this. He wrote Nixon a sympathetic fan letter during Watergate and was invited to the White House, if I remember correctly--sort of his own Bill Clinton-JFK seminal moment. When he looks like the adult in the room, we have a problem.
 
 
+11 # reo100 2016-03-19 19:11
My conscious says vote for Bernie Sanders no matter what. So if he doesn't get the nomination I guess we're stuck with what ever is left over. I refuse to cast my vote for anyone else.
 
 
+15 # economagic 2016-03-19 19:49
"So if he doesn't get the nomination I guess we're stuck with what ever is left over."

Uh, yeah, and there's the rub, as ANY of them would be a nightmare.

The choice then would be among pretty much the same nightmare we've been having for 2-3 decades (Clinton), same thing only worse but possibly more honest (Kasich, Cruz), the Mouseketeers' Anything-Can-Ha ppen Day (Trump, anything from blustering buffoonery to a true fascist hell), or staying home and leaving it to chance.

Life under any of the Republicans would likely be worse, but "more of the same" could easily prolong the nightmare for a longer time. All of them accelerate the Juggernaut toward the cliff, which particular cliff we don't know until we go over it. But the longer we spend on "more of same," the higher the cliff, and the more damage when we hit the bottom.

Of course, there is always a possibility that at some point a sane person might come to power and at least attempt to turn the Juggernaut.
 
 
+6 # Cassandra2012 2016-03-19 20:57
Quoting reo100:
My conscious says vote for Bernie Sanders no matter what. So if he doesn't get the nomination I guess we're stuck with what ever is left over. I refuse to cast my vote for anyone else.


So you're essentially voting for Der
Drumpf-kopf, huh ?
 
 
+8 # Anonymot 2016-03-19 23:27
Better the honest enemy than the dishonest "friend".
 
 
+6 # reo100 2016-03-20 06:06
Yes, if that is the end result. I will not cast my vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I refuse to "settle" any longer. This election is about the earth and human race. If that's as important to you as it is to me, then we all need to vote for Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+23 # elkingo 2016-03-19 19:31
The absolute bottom line in this or any other political contest is: who cares about other people's suffering. The more capitalist influenced you are, the less you can. Vote for Bernie anyway.
 
 
+2 # suziemama 2016-03-20 22:51
I am simultaneously supporting Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. If Bernie does not receive the Democratic nomination, I will vote for Stein. We desperately need something other than our current two party system, and by voting for the Green Party nominee in the general election, it will enable the Greens to get on the ballot and receive federal matching funds more easily in coming elections. This option might be especially appealing to Bernie supporters who live in reliably "blue" states.
 
 
+1 # NW Mary 2016-03-22 12:28
I'm with you. I'll vote Green if Bernie is not the candidate and it won't be the first time. I will not be bludgeoned into voting against my conscience. If Hillary can't get enough voters to beat Trump or whomever is on the right, that's not our fault. I think if more people voted Green instead of giving in, the democratic party would be forced to move left. But that would take a big chunk of voters to really make a difference. I do think they're out there. But it takes courage and most don't seem to have it.
 
 
+11 # Cappucino 2016-03-19 20:00
Okay, here's the problem with articles like this. It's all contained in this quote:

"He has as much a shot at that nomination as Cruz does. Both are going to need a brokered convention to win, and Cruz's habit of alienating literally every human being he comes in contact with might put his chances at risk."

No, Kasich doesn't have the same shot. If this goes to a brokered convention, Ted Cruz will be the nominee. Not MAYBE, not MIGHT be-- WILL. So I do not understand why Cruz continues to basically get a complete free pass from any and all attention and criticism while the media concentrates on Trump's reality show (with an occasional bone thrown to someone like Kasich.)

And here's why. If this had been a two-person race all along, Ted Cruz would be FAR ahead of Trump. Not Kasich and not anybody else. Just Ted Cruz. The reason is that an enormous number of Americans are voting for him and have voted for him. Right now, as of this moment, he's thirteen points ahead of Trump in the general polls. (the link's below) The fact that NOBODY is talking critically about this has not erased it from reality. He's the only candidate that actual voters would tolerate coming out of a brokered convention, because THEY'VE ALREADY VOTED FOR HIM. No, Cruz hasn't alienated "everyone"-- a lot of people have already voted for him and they keep voting for him. Kasich, OTOH, has won exactly one state. ONE!!!


I'll have to continue this in the comments because of length...
 
 
+22 # Cappucino 2016-03-19 20:01
And Ted Cruz’s presidency would make Trump look like Lincoln. Donald Trump doesn’t care about anything but winning. But Ted Cruz will fight for a theocracy to his dying breath. There’s NOTHING he won’t do to get it. Evangelicals love him. LOVE. We know for a fact-- not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt-- that he will destroy Planned Parenthood. That's just barely the beginning, but there isn't enough space to even start to scratch the surface, so I'll stop there and let YOU fill in the blanks.

It is just totally beyond me why virtually no reporter, analyst, or media source seems to get this. It's not rocket science. But practically nobody is saying it. Oh, there are articles like this one where the Washington Post points out that Cruz would be 13 points ahead of Trump in a general election, but it's still just bizarre-- it's like they're reporting SOMETHING related to the reality without getting it at all.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-national-poll-march-3-6-2016/1982/

RSN NEEDS to start publishing critical articles about Cruz-- they're supposed to be doing better than the mainstream media, not just stuck at the same slack-jawed level. Hear me now and believe me later-- Ted Cruz will very likely be the Republican nominee.

Well, you read it here first, and I fully expect to open a 1-900 psychic hotline after this if I’m proven right.
 
 
+12 # Cassandra2012 2016-03-19 20:59
And his daddy thinks he's the 2nd coming... which of course means his daddy thinks that HE himself (daddy) is ...
 
 
0 # NW Mary 2016-03-22 12:30
I've been saying that - I think we agree. I've thought Cruz to be the most evil and scary from the beginning. A Cruz nomination would probably get me to vote for Clinton which I truly do not want to do.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-03-19 21:21
If it gets to a brokered convention, it doesn't matter what the voters want anymore. It doesn't matter if Cruz would have won the primaries against Trump. It is what the delegates want that count.
 
 
-31 # jpgarcesv 2016-03-19 20:53
This is incredibly ironical! To be against abortion is "terrifying", but to kill human beings in the womb of their mother is OK.... I am no conservative, on most social issues I am with Bernie. But to promote the killing of unborn babies is not progressive, it is just a consequence of the neoliberal individualism that pervades society today.
 
 
-25 # Kiwikid 2016-03-19 21:18
I agree jpgarcesv. Abortion is really the only thing that I don't get about what it means to be progressive. Pretty well everything else I'll follow the party line. I'm aware of the complexity of the issue and how gut wrenching making such a choice can be. To slavishly and simplistically put the right of the woman to choose ahead of all other considerations in such a morally ambiguous situation leaves me scratching my head in disbelief at what to me is an obvious disconnect.
 
 
+26 # Ken Halt 2016-03-19 21:32
jpg: The point is that it is the potential mother's decision to make, with the counsel perhaps of her doctor. Keeping choice legal does not "promote" abortion. It is not the business of the state to dictate what is correct or morally sanctioned. And, BTW, what you call an "unborn baby", indicating a certain bias, is actually a fetus.
 
 
-19 # Kiwikid 2016-03-19 22:09
So Ken. when does a fetus become a baby?
 
 
+11 # fletch1165 2016-03-20 13:34
When it has parents who will step up to raise it or proper surrogates/orph anages in place. In the United States no such programs exist. A child is more likely to survive from age one to age two in Mexico than the United States. We can't even take care of the "wanted" babies. How many will you adopt Kiwi? If not you, then who?

Its a women's choice if she wants to suffer through a pregnancy. It changes her body forever. Its hard to get back in shape for a mother, some never do fully really. Some are too small and can get pre-eclapsia and die in child birth. the baby takes a lot of life from a mother. Its not as easy as you might think. It should be carefully planned.
 
 
+3 # PCPrincess 2016-03-20 21:17
When it is no longer a part of a woman's body; like the heart, lungs, or kidneys.
 
 
0 # MNdem2002 2016-03-20 09:39
I agree with most Americans and 1/3 of Democrats who are pro-life that we need reasonable restrictions on abortion. Women should not be forced to choose their child over a career. Too many abortions are coerced by men who think women should have sex with them as long as the men are free to walk away from the relationship. We as Dems are losing elections all over the country, because we can't accept the truth which the vast majority of Americans understand that a fetus is a prenatal child and the women and her child deserve the full support of society.
 
 
+8 # fletch1165 2016-03-20 13:50
We are a democracy. Even though some might think it selfish a women choses to abort an unwanted pregnancy to continue her career it is her right to do so and not for a man to impose. It is her body that will bear the brunt of the pregnancy and no man's. There will be taxing physiological changes. Women with narrow birth passages face much higher risks.

I agree in concept if you bring back an orphanage system that could sustain unwanted fetuses which we currently do not have funding for, and also that the women were willing to carry them to term and never forced or coerced to do so.
 
 
+6 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-03-20 22:09
Then why don't either party support women and families by making work policies that are reasonable and supporting access to child care. In my town you have to put a kid on a child care list before they are born and you can not get care for just a day here or there. It is all or nothing. It is unaffordable for poor workers.
 
 
+9 # dusty 2016-03-19 21:14
Thomas Jefferson thought this country needed to renew itself every few years to prevent authoritarian oligarchs from destroying the democracy -- maybe the 3 goofy old repugnants are what he had in mind and this is the year that the majority of the people have to re-assert the powers of democracy.
 
 
+37 # Mainiac 2016-03-19 21:38
Pro-lifers don’t get it. The fetus does not grow in a bag in a dark closet. It grows inside a woman’s body and is nourished by her body. That alone gives her the right to do anything she wants with her own body. For the state to tell her she cannot is forced childbearing. That is a pretty ugly dictum. And get this – no one can predict whether a woman will die as a result of her pregnancy. I almost died because after my fourth baby was delivered I hemorrhaged. If I had not had a really excellent doctor, I would have. So, IMHO, people who do not understand all of the above, and I could write more, should sit down and shut up.
 
 
+13 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-19 22:07
Kasick, the voter suppression all inclusive action hero. He would have been very formidable, absent the Trump GOP fiasco. Keeps taking credit for stuff Bill Clinton, Obama, fracking did. Would be nice to see him humbled like JEB!, Little Marco, servile Christie, the insane surgeon, Carly Fonyia, Graham, Huckleberry, etc, etc.
 
 
0 # NW Mary 2016-03-22 12:33
So why did Ohio vote for him? He said he'd get Ohio and he did. How did that happen?
 
 
+10 # iris 2016-03-20 00:20
i wonder if bernie would throw all his supporters behind the Green partys dr. jill stein as a way to give us a real choice? We need a third party now more tan ever.
 
 
+5 # ericlipps 2016-03-20 13:18
Quoting iris:
i wonder if Bernie would throw all his supporters behind the Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein as a way to give us a real choice? We need a third party now more tan ever.

That would hand the election to the Republicans on a silver platter. I think, and hope, Sanders is less caught up in the "anybody but Clinton" mentality than some of his supporters seem to be.

Ad we're not getting a viable third party as long as it talks an absolute majority in the electoral college to be elected president.
 
 
0 # NW Mary 2016-03-22 12:34
Bernie said he would support Clinton. He tells the truth. He will. I might not but he will.
 
 
+14 # Floridatexan 2016-03-20 06:45
I agree with this article...Kasic h is no moderate. I've seen too many comments from Ohioans about his draconian "budget balancing", which is from the same playbook all the GOP governors use. And Ted Cruz, judging by the endorsements he's already received, will likely be nominated, even though he's toxic and a dominionist. Samantha Bee nails it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMgaqhTZBlg
 
 
-5 # dascher 2016-03-20 07:21
"(Nader voters from 2000 will be familiar with this sentiment, as well as the feeling of being proven terribly wrong over the next eight years.)"

This is a very hopeful dream about how how Gore would have responded to 9/11. Given that he was a 'new' Democrat and his circle of advisers on foreign policy were the same as Clinton's, I find it hard to be believe that his response would have been significantly different from what we got from GWB.

We'll never know, but to think that Nader voters were responsible for Gore's NOT being able to drub the shrub because of Nader and his voters, is a 'triangulation fantasy'.
 
 
+4 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-03-20 22:15
It is possible 9/11 would not have happened at all.

http://www.ae911truth.org

The book Another 19 looks at possible suspects. The towers did not go down from the plane damage and fires. Look at Building 7.
 
 
+1 # Ken Halt 2016-03-21 16:18
MsA: Absolutely a problem, or rather three, of steel erected buildings succumbing to fire. Never happened before or since, and one of them not even struck by planes. Something fishy here... Hadn't heard of the book before but will search for it. Interested people should also check out "Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth".
 
 
0 # NW Mary 2016-03-22 12:35
I voted Nader Bill Clinton's second term but not during the Gore election Gore would have been significantly better and we all know it. That was a no brainer except for people who wanted to have that beer with their best buddy. That was an expensive beer.
 
 
+2 # MNdem2002 2016-03-20 09:31
This is a pathetic article focusing on the pro choice issue. I am sure Kasich has a terrible track record on the issues that matter in this election to most Democratic and Independent voters: economics and environment.
 
 
+4 # Robbee 2016-03-20 09:40
is it really so easy to imagine others than cheney and rumsfeld and bush, oh! my!, inventing w.m.d.'s?
 
 
+7 # Robbee 2016-03-20 11:26
not mentioned here, but kasick drinks the same kool-aid as do all repug clowns - that billionaires need another 2001 dozen year massive tax cut for "job creators" who create no jobs here - tax-cutting socialism for billionaires - what i call "magic money!" - he fracced ohio to prosperity!
 
 
0 # NW Mary 2016-03-22 12:37
Again, how did such a right-wing governor win his state so handily then?
 
 
+9 # Firefox11 2016-03-20 12:32
Quoting dascher:
"
This is a very hopeful dream about how how Gore would have responded to 9/11. '.

IF Gore had been President, it is likely that there would have been no 9/11. Richard Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.
"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months".
The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."
 
 
+8 # Firefox11 2016-03-20 12:39
Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.
Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.
That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.
 
 
+1 # chapdrum 2016-03-21 15:59
Anyone who's been paying attention has LONG known this about Kasich. Naturally, he's exploiting the more manifest sociopathy of the other GOP "candidates"to make himself appear more reasonable (reminds of one of their many crocks, "compassionate conservatism").
 
 
0 # NW Mary 2016-03-22 12:38
Pleeeese, someone tell me how this unreasonable governor managed to win Ohio? Something doesn't compute. I'm no Kasich fan but I am confused.
 
 
0 # NW Mary 2016-03-22 16:24
crickets chirping ...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN