I thought John Kasich did a good job in the debate. Apparently many people disagreed, vehemently. ...
I thought John Kasich did a good job in the debate. Apparently many people disagreed, vehemently. Many even called him a liberal.
But I think I see why they think what they do. Basically, Kasich has the same problem John Kerry used to have: he's a victim of having too much policy and nuance in his presentations.
So when Kasich said, for example, that he disliked Cruz' claim that he wouldn't bail out the banks, Kasich went into the details, and didn't well-explain his view, which was more about bailing out the individual investors, and it came out muddled. Then, worse, he talked about maybe not bailing out people who can "afford" the losses, sounding to many as if he is picking winners and losers. That's not what his point was ... but it's hard to make the case for it in a debate.
Kasich is my favorite candidate. I disagree with him in small ways on lots of things (for example, minimum wage, and drug legalization). But he is far more conservative than he often comes off in these debates, because he -- unlike Cruz -- isn't willing to give the red-meat soundbite that many people want. He is saying what will actually happen, rather than making hollow promises about being tough on bailouts and immigration.
Kasich knows how to do the job; he can work across the aisle while still promoting conservatism and helping to increase prosperity; and he can win a general election. Most of the candidates can't say any of those things, let alone all of them.
But I think I see why they think what they do. Basically, Kasich has the same problem John Kerry used to have: he's a victim of having too much policy and nuance in his presentations.
So when Kasich said, for example, that he disliked Cruz' claim that he wouldn't bail out the banks, Kasich went into the details, and didn't well-explain his view, which was more about bailing out the individual investors, and it came out muddled. Then, worse, he talked about maybe not bailing out people who can "afford" the losses, sounding to many as if he is picking winners and losers. That's not what his point was ... but it's hard to make the case for it in a debate.
Kasich is my favorite candidate. I disagree with him in small ways on lots of things (for example, minimum wage, and drug legalization). But he is far more conservative than he often comes off in these debates, because he -- unlike Cruz -- isn't willing to give the red-meat soundbite that many people want. He is saying what will actually happen, rather than making hollow promises about being tough on bailouts and immigration.
Kasich knows how to do the job; he can work across the aisle while still promoting conservatism and helping to increase prosperity; and he can win a general election. Most of the candidates can't say any of those things, let alone all of them.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment