NY Times Endorses Hillary And John Kasich
On the latter, John Kasich, quite a few people are going “who?” But, really, any Republican who receives the endorsement of the NY Times Editorial Board is received the kiss of death. What Republican would be interested in backing that candidate? Of course, the endorsement is more about Kasich not being Cruz or Trump. The endorsement spends more time bashing them, and the few others left, than saying why one should vote for Kasich, until we get near the end and find
Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race. And Mr. Kasich is no moderate. As governor, he’s gone after public-sector unions, fought to limit abortion rights and opposed same-sex marriage.
Kasich does, in fact, have some good Libertarian leaning Conservative cred. On The Issues pegs him at 85% economic issues/35% social issues. Many consider him a “Compassionate Conservative”. He has experience in governing. He has been very good on fiscal issues during his career. He is a big supporter of gun rights. He very much believes in American exceptionalism. Unfortunately, many consider him a big jerk. Nor has he put that image aside as of yet. The Times goes on
Still, as a veteran of partisan fights and bipartisan deals during nearly two decades in the House, he has been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives. He favors a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he speaks of government’s duty to protect the poor, the mentally ill and others “in the shadows.” While Republicans in Congress tried more than 60 times to kill Obamacare, Mr. Kasich did an end-run around Ohio’s Republican Legislature to secure a $13 billion Medicaid expansion to cover more people in his state.
So, a type of amnesty and expanding Obamacare in his state. That should certainly help bring the Republican base to his side. Really, if the Times wanted a moderate Republican, they should have chosen Chris Christy, who is very much a moderate. He’s also bombastic, but, is a great debater. Or, they should have endorsed Cruz and Trump, which would have immediately turned Republican voters off to the two.
As for Hillary, delusional land. The NYTEB actually writes “Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history”
Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
So, essentially they’re endorsing her because 1) she’s a woman, 2) she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, and 3) she served in elected and appointed positions. As to the last, they cannot really say what she’s done, other than meet people and travel. They say she helped get the nuclear deal with Iran in place, forgetting that the majority of Americans are opposed to the deal.
Most of what the say are her positives goes more to speeches and policy platforms rather than accomplishments. What did she actually get done while a Senator? Does she have any signature legislation? How about while SoS? What major accomplishments were there for the win column? We know about the failures. Libya is a failed state half-run by Islamic terrorists. Russia is on the rise. The US blew off the Arab Spring. Benghazi
Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
That’s the same thing we heard about Barack Obama. It hasn’t worked out too well. What in Hillary’s actions shows this? Nor is there a mention of her complete disregard for national security vis a vis her home-brew server. Nor using her position as SoS to enrich family, friends, and her foundation. Nor that there is a pretty darned good chance that she’ll be indicted for her criminal actions. Imagine that she had an R next to her name: would the Times be so glib in their endorsement?