Home / "family values" / Kinder, Küche, Kasich

Kinder, Küche, Kasich


Gov. John Kasich, America’s Last Moderate Centrist He’s Just an Old Softy, Really Republican, has a cunning plan to become the next PotUS.

The problem? All this modernization means there aren’t enough women sitting at home, waiting to enlist in the John Kasich Army.

“How did I get elected?” Kasich asked the crowd, recalling his first run for state Senate in Ohio in 1978. “Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, who, and many women, who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me. All the way back, when — you know, things were different. Now you call homes and everybody’s out working. But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me get elected to the state Senate.”


The solution? Make sure more ladies are at home with the kiddies!

Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed a bill Sunday prohibiting the state from contracting for health services with any organization that performs or promotes abortions, blocking government funds to Planned Parenthood.

Sheer. Centrist. Genius.

(Alternate explanation – Kasich is a dick and calling him a centrist or a moderate shows a poor grasp of the meaning of words.)

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • dr. hilarius

    I can’t believe he actually said that. Trump could probably say that with a smirk on his face and get away with it, but surely the “moderate” Kasich attracts people who like to pretend they’re decent folk and would be put off by that.

    • Cheap Wino

      The thinking man’s R candidate is, not shockingly, not very smart. Not only tone deaf shit like this but exhibits the completely ignorant stupidity blended with irrational bravado that typifies GOP foreign policy:

      KASICH: …It would be an overwhelming force. I’m not talking about just some special forces. It has to be an overwhelming force, and we have to be a leader in this.

      SIEGEL: Go back into Iraq.

      KASICH: Yeah, absolutely, and in Syria to destroy ISIS where they exist.

      SIEGEL: But you just drew a distinction between Iraq and Syria when you were talking…

      KASICH: …No, I said I wouldn’t involve myself in a civil war in Syria, but that’s a different issue than fighting ISIS – a big distinction.

      If “big” is a synonym for nonsensical, maybe. Yeah, just send an overwhelming force into Iraq and Syria, clean out ISIS and leave. The people will wave good-bye to us like liberators while thanking us on their knees, knowing once and for all that the US is the best, greatest country ever given to man by god. Problem solved oh foreign policy genius.

      • CrunchyFrog

        Well, you know, this is pretty much mainstream GOP thinking.

        Recently I was party to a conversation in my local conservative enclave – that is, I was a welcomed listener but didn’t actually say anything – in which one of our club members was talking about his last year in Qatar working for the military. I’m not clear whether he’s still active or, like most of the locals, double-dipping with a yuuuuge officer pension and working full time for the DoD. In any event, his job involved logistics for fighting ISIS. He was guarded in giving out any specifics, but his take was that the battle can’t really be won because the politicians are holding them back. Now, to his great credit, he actually didn’t advocate any position and discussed this in a very balanced way. But he pointed out that the majority of the people who live around known ISIS strongholds have nothing to do with ISIS. Also ISIS gets all of its revenue from oil, but the people doing the actual work are just employees trying to get by, not ISIS militants. Pretty much like it is in any occupation. They could try door-to-door fighting, but the locals won’t give them any reliable info about where the booby traps are set or where people are hiding (echoing our discussion on the post yesterday about torture). The upshot was that in order to get rid of ISIS they’d basically have to wipe out much of the civilian population, as was done in Fallujah over 10 years ago, and there isn’t the political will to do that.

        This is very similar to the view that Vietnam could have been won if we’d only been willing to break out the nukes.

        So, mainstream GOP view. What’s missing from that is any analysis of why ISIS is finding so many willing recruits (hint: most of them came of age during or after the Iraq invasion/occupation) or what the long-term strategy is for cutting off the source of the recruits (and no, wingers, genocide is not an option).

        • Cheap Wino

          Oh I get that it’s par for the course (why I said, “. . . typifies GOP foreign policy”). I’m annoyed that Kasich, who’s supposed to the smart one, is just as willing to charge head-first into another ME disaster as any of the other fools.

          I wonder if your acquaintance has gamed out any of the post killing a ton of civilians to root out ISIS scenarios? And was there any claim that it would be short and easy to do (just like overthrowing Saddam!)? Somehow I doubt any of the actual political consequences, both in the ME and here, register on the radar for people who are all in for another invasion.

          • CrunchyFrog

            Numerous questions came to mind, but in order to survive here socially I’ve learned not to ask.

            However, I really meant that he took the no-advocacy, descriptive-only approach. He talked sympathetically about the family next door to the house occupied by ISIS – “What are they going to do? They’ve dealt with Saddam and Al Qaeda. They just have to survive and wait it out.” – and about the guy who’s driving oil trucks to make ends meet. He did paint a picture of a populace that was victimized by ISIS as well.

        • D.N. Nation

          So, mainstream GOP view. What’s missing from that is any analysis of why ISIS is finding so many willing recruits (hint: most of them came of age during or after the Iraq invasion/occupation) or what the long-term strategy is for cutting off the source of the recruits (and no, wingers, genocide is not an option)

          Oh, if only it could be!

          President Bush has failed in five years to successfully make the case either to America or to the Western world that we are, in fact, in a mortal, worldwide struggle, what my old boss Newt Gingrich recently called World War III; what I called “The West’s Last Chance” in my book last year; and what I and many others have called the clash of civilizations.

          Only when that case has been made persuasively will the real struggle for victory begin. Only then will Europe raise armies to fight — not for Israel or the United States — but for their own survival.

          And we are not without resources. Europe — from Poland to the Atlantic, from Sweden to Greece — is over 700 million strong. Hindu India is over a billion. North America is over 400 million. It is absurd to think that such a mass of civilization cannot send sufficient troops to smash — door to door and hand to hand if necessary, and it probably will be necessary — a few thousand Hezbollah fighters. For that matter, a force could be raised to clean out the tribal lands in northern Pakistan and the Islamist/anarchic Horn of Africa and wherever radical Islamists have cover and succor. (Currently, in Lebanon and throughout the world, peaceable Muslims understandably can’t resist the violent threat of their radical co-religionists. We must give them a chance to be partisans for civilization.)

          – Tony Blankley, 2006.

          I always have that quote saved when I want to remind myself just how thoroughly violent and clueless wingnuts are.

          • CrunchyFrog

            Sigh. And the middle eastern region’s anger at the US has nothing to do with our long time interference in their politics in pursuit of carbon deposits, and all of the pain an misery that has entailed. Nope. It’s ’cause they envy our freedumbs or something.

          • Brad Nailer

            Let’s ask Tony what he thinks about reinstating the draft. In fact, let’s ask everybody who thinks “overwhelming force” is the answer to the question of war in the Middle East.

    • DrDick

      Further proof that there are no “moderate” Republicans any more.

    • ThrottleJockey

      You can’t believe what? That stay at home mothers came out in droves in 1978 to support his campaign?

      This is the biggest pile of politically correct horse shit ever. He never said a woman’s place was in the home, he simply remarked that he was supported in his first race by an army of women. And when the touchy, sensitive audience member expressed her, ahem, indignation at his statement he quickly backed down. And he even apologized though he had said nothing for which to apologize.

      He might be conservative on planned parenthood, but this statement is hardly sexist.

      • dr. hilarius

        The intentionally obtuse reactionary strikes again.

        • ThrottleJockey

          The only one whose being obtuse is the person that thinks this statement is evidence of sexism.

          • DrS

            FFS, That statement was inarguably sexist. What’s changed is the context, where it’s now recognizable as such, even if it was considered mainstream in 1978.

    • Manny Kant

      What can’t you believe he actually said? The comment seems entirely anodyne to me – a little patronizingly sexist, I guess, but sort of at the level you’d expect for a 60 year old politician. I’d not be at all surprised to hear some Democrat like Biden say something similar.

      • If you read the statement he clearly distinguishes between “people” and “women.” That’s all. Its very common, rhetorically. If he said “we got an army of people who, and even black people…” you’d see it immiediatly. Women are a marked catgory here, and “people” i.e. men are an unmarked category.

        • dr. hilarius

          Thank you. But please, more cocksplaining, TJ and Manny.

          • ThrottleJockey

            Dude why’d you have to bring cock into this? You know you’re bound to lose that fight.

            • sparks

              Oh god, he’s whipping it out now.

        • ThrottleJockey

          That’s incorrect. He’s simply being specific about who his primary supporters/volunteers were in his first race. This is why he says afterwards that “everyone” is out working when you phone homes now. He notably doesn’t say that “even women” are out working when you phone homes now.

          If Hillary thinks this is a good way to win go right ahead, but it might be better to keep her powder dry until something worth attacking comes up–as it surely will.

        • cs

          Huh. My reading of Kasich’s intent is that the women were part of the “army of people”, not separate from it. I don’t think you can take the words hyper-literally because he kind of changes direction in the middle of the sentence.

          He comments specifically on the women because he thinks their participation is notable, but that doesn’t in itself mean that he thinks “women” is a marked category more then “men” would be.

          • Origami Isopod

            That was also my reading. “Many [of them] women.”

            That said, his whining about how few women are left at home these days to do his hard work for him has been noted.

        • Manny Kant

          Okay, didn’t catch that, but even if we put the most unsympathetic interpretation on a somewhat unclear spoken remark, I think this fits under “low level condescending sexism of the sort we would generally not be too surprised to find said by older male politicians of either party,” and not under “astonishing thing you’d never expect John Kasich to have actually said.”

      • dr. hilarius

        I’d not be at all surprised to hear some Democrat like Biden say something similar.

        Yeah, great argument pal! Joe Biden, the guy who called Obama “articulate” and “clean cut.” Hey, sometimes Democrats also say racist and sexist things therefore…*tap dance, jazz hands* Look a squirrel!

        If Biden said something like this I’d give him shit for it. That you think this is a good rejoinder…says a lot about you.

        • Manny Kant

          Ugh. I wasn’t objecting to the idea that it was sexist – I said I thought it was sexist, in fact. I was objecting to your claim that it was astonishing he would possibly say something like this. Surely he deserves a lot more shit for his shitty policies than for this nothing burger.

    • AlanInSF

      If all the other candidates were saying, “Let’s kill all the Jews,” the guy saying “Let’s kill as many Jews as we can” would be a moderate.

  • Sly
    • I clearly need to be watching Samantha Bee more often. Thanks for the link.

      • sibusisodan

        Seriously. Daily Show alums are on fire.

        • trollhattan

          Nobody on TDS could make me dive between the sofa cushions like Sam Bee. She’s a treasure and we’re darn lucky she has a platform. John Oliver has made a strong argument for the weekly format with long-form stories, and she’s clearly been paying attention. Great shows. both.

    • D.N. Nation

      Sam Bee’s editorial policy/aesthetic is, simply: “Fuck these guys.” I appreciate the lack of nuance. They don’t deserve it. Nothing more needs to be said.

      Kasich is a real piece of work, either completely ignoring questions on abortion or “homina-homina-look-over-there”-ing. I faux-appreciate these people’s rancid politics more if they’re forthright about them. Kasich is a wuss.

  • Todd

    The venn diagrams comparing the frustrations of the non-Trump Republican candidates and the frustrations of reverse mortgage telemarketers is just a circle.

  • Denverite

    I said this on the other thread, but the bill is almost certainly illegal under 42 USC 1396a(a)(23). That generally precludes a state from depriving Medicaid recipients of their freedom to choose their preferred Medicaid provider for reasons unrelated to provider qualification. There are exceptions related to fraud and abuse, and states can opt out as part of an MCE waiver (it would be impossible not to restrict freedom of choice under an MCE model), but neither of those are applicable to the two Planned Parenthood entities in Ohio (I checked yesterday).

    Planned Parenthood is going to get this struck down ASAP. They’ll get a preliminary injunction for sure, and probably a TRO. Hell, if anyone has any contacts with them, let me know. I’ve litigated this issue before.

    • CrunchyFrog

      Thanks for this. So the suit would have to be filed in federal court in the district that contains Ohio, correct? Wondering what the makeup is of that district court – you know, conservative vs. rational. If majority conservative they might still find a creative way to uphold it, then 4-4 at the SCOTUS.

      • Denverite

        Ohio has two districts — Northern (Cleveland, Toledo, Akron and Youngstown) and Southern (Columbus, Cincinnati and everything else). Which district PP files in will depend on which entity is the lead plaintiff (there are two PP entities in Ohio — one in the north part of the state, and one in the south). If they both file, my guess is that it will be the Southern District, since the all-things-being-equal preference in this sort of lawsuit is to file in the district containing the state capital, which makes expedited discovery easier.

        The district court proceedings will be in front of a single judge. I’m too lazy to look up the composition, but the caselaw is pretty black-and-white in this issue. There was a Seventh Circuit decision in 2012 on an identical lawsuit out of Indiana. If it’s appealed, it will go to the Sixth Circuit. That court is heavily Republican (surprisingly so), but there are a number of judges that have shown a willingness to depart from the party line (I’m thinking Sutton). And again, it would be a pretty big break from the current caselaw from other circuits to go the other way.

        • random

          Thanks a bunch for the low-down on this Denverite.

    • mds

      Planned Parenthood is going to get this struck down ASAP.

      Which is legitimately good news, but (1) OH will just move on to the next set of tactics to shut down abortion access; and (2) Kasich will thereby have managed to take his victory lap with the pro-rapist forced-birth crowd and have the whole thing magically disappear by the general. Of course, (2) might not matter anyway, given that the latest poll has Trump slightly ahead in the Ohio primary.

      • CrunchyFrog

        pro-rapist forced-birth crowd

        pro-rapist, forced-birth, and anti-health-insurance for low income fetuses and babies.

    • SamChevre

      That generally precludes a state from depriving Medicaid recipients of their freedom to choose their preferred Medicaid provider for reasons unrelated to provider qualification.

      You might know something I’ve been wondering for awhile. Why didn’t that provision protect healthcare providers that had employment policies or patient qualification policies that ensured qualified personnel, but didn’t align with federal objectives? For example, racially segregated hospitals were ineligible for Medicaid for a long time.

      • Denverite

        I thought hospitals were desegregated as part of the Medicare/Medicaid Acts?

        • SamChevre

          I think they were.

          What you are implying is that only the Federal government–not the states–can have requirements on providers other than medical qualification. That makes sense.

          • Denverite

            Well, yes, 42 USC 1396a(a) imposes requirements on states (through state plans) and not the feds. I suppose you could make the argument that a federal policy or reg that told states to act inconsistently with that is impermissible, but I’ve never seen that argument.

            I’m curious now, though. There’s a Medicare freedom of choice statute (42 USC 1395a(a)) that I’m less familiar with — I wonder how the feds got around that.

        • Correct.

  • I have an honest question–does the term “moderate” ever apply to women or minorities when they are Democrats? Has moderate slipped into some specialized term where it can only mean “Republican who is covering up his extreme behavior because we can’t call Republicans extremists because they play the refs so hard?”

    • Denverite

      Yes. I’ve heard, for example, McCaskill called a moderate:


      The problem, though, is that “moderate” means different things for Democrats and Republicans. For Democrats, it means that the person advocates certain policy positions that are to the right of the mainstream positions endorsed by the Democratic party. For Republicans, “moderate” means that they endorse the same positions as all of the other Republicans, they’re just not such a raging asshole about it.

      • Manny Kant

        The Medicaid expansion in Ohio is surely a genuine example of moderation on Kasich’s part, isn’t it?

        • Denverite

          Fair point.

          • postmodulator

            He is also not completely horrible on the subject of higher education, certainly not compared to, say, Walker.

        • advocatethis

          In a way, I guess it is. When two right wing obsessions, rejecting ACA and don’t raise taxes (while balancing the state budget), buck up against each other, something’s gotta give. It’s to his credit, I guess, that he chose the Medicaid expansion rather than offer a poor state-run substitute.

        • Linnaeus

          Rick Snyder supported Medicaid expansion in Michigan, too. But he’s no moderate.

          • Manny Kant

            I will hold to the point that supporting Medicaid expansion is a genuinely moderate policy within the context of the current Republican Party. That doesn’t mean that everyone who supports it is a moderate, although I suspect that Snyder is more moderate than any of the Republican candidates this year besides Kasich.

            Kasich can be both a conservative asshole and also genuinely and in real ways the most moderate Republican candidate (barring Trump, whose positions are so idiosyncratic he’s hard to categorize).

            • NonyNony

              is a genuinely moderate policy within the context of the current Republican Party.

              But you’re redefining moderate to mean “the median of the Republican Party” and not “the median US voter”.

              The Ohio Chamber of Commerce was absolutely dead set on getting Medicaid expansion passed in Ohio after the SOCTUS made it optional. They saw exactly how much money it was going to cost them to do otherwise and pushed Kasich into doing it.

              Kasich pushed against Medicaid expansion when the PPACA was up for debate. So did the Chamber of Commerce. Then both pushed for accepting it once the law passed but the SCOTUS threw a spanner in the works.

              This doesn’t make them moderate, even on this single issue. It just means that they understand budgets.

              • Manny Kant

                Understanding budgets seems to put one at the far leftward edge of the Republican Party these days.

      • ThrottleJockey

        Exactly. Rubio is called a moderate even though his position on abortion and Planned Parenthood is to the right of George W Bush.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks

        Mary Landrieu, too, was frequently called a moderate.

    • NonyNony

      “Moderate” when applied to a Democrat means “has beliefs close to the median US voter, erring to the left of that median, but probably to the right of the median vote in their own party”.

      “Moderate” when applied to a Republican means “believes exactly what other Republicans believe, but knows to keep the quiet parts quiet and only say the loud parts loud.”

      For a Democrat it’s about ideology. For a Republican it’s about tone.

      They use the same word for two different concepts because without that kind of wordplay it’s hard to make it seem like “both sides” are equivalent.

      ETA: Heh – Denverite got to the same conclusion more succinctly than I could manage.

    • DrDick

      Certainly. I would argue that both Clinton and Obama are “moderate” (centrist/center-left) Democrats. Whether the media will ever do that is a whole different matter. For far too many in the media, “moderate” means not batshit crazy right.

      • Right. “Moderate” when it comes to Democrats means any democrat when they are at some perceived midpoint between so hawkish they would reinvade vietnam and so left that they are Bernie Sanders. But “moderate” when talking about a Republican just means someone who appears in public in a sweatervest without blood dripping too obviously from his fangs.

    • Sly

      It’s the “Awww shucks, I’m just a simple boy who grew up in a simple town during a simpler town” routine that a lot of conservative white men fall back on to mask their dumbassery, their rotten soul, or some combination of the two. It plays big with people who run cable news shows because they think its some kind of distilled form of Middle-America authenticity, when really they’re just victims of their own gullible provincialism.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks

      Harold Ford, Jr., was called a “moderate” back when he played a quasi-major role in our nation’s public life.

  • leftwingfox

    These days the only measure of “moderation” is tone and volume. Policies are for nerds.

  • Malaclypse

    Binders full of women, leaving their kitchens…

  • Warren Terra

    Kinder, Küche, Kasich

    If he adds a bit more Kirche he might actually gain some momentum. And, obviously, bashing Planned Parenthood is all about adding a bit more Kirche.

    • Mellano

      Kinder presumably being Richard Kinder, who was a supporter of the late Jeb? Bush campaign. Seeing as Texas oil money represents a much more powerful faction in Republican politics than post-natal children do.

      • Warren Terra

        I assume when he gets around to “Kinder”, meaning “Children”, it will be to bash the children of immigrants. It sure won’t be about being a kinder person, not this primary season.

  • CrunchyFrog

    Kasich is definitely a moderate/centrist if you consider just the small circle of people who make up the Washington consensus.

  • ThrottleJockey

    Alone among Republicans that leaves Donald Trump to support Planned Parenthood. Talk about a topsy turvy election.

    • Rich men with disorderly sex lives are almost always covertly pro contraception and pro-abortion, its how they don’t end up having to divide property with their ex wives, ex mistresses and legitimate and illegitimate children.

      • tsam

        The rest of those guys are rich, spoiled, entitled pricks. The Donalde is the only one with guts enough to say it. The rest are much scummier than he is.

        • D.N. Nation

          Trump: You’re damn right I’ll make sure she gets an abortion. You think I want a court handing over my stuff to a freeloader?

          The rest of the GOP field: She took a trip upstate to get rid of the vapors. Anyway liberals are evil.

      • DrDick

        The thing is that the rich fucks know that they will always be able to provide those things regardless of the law, just as they did before Roe v. Wade. What makes Trump different is that he is a cheap fuck who does not want to pay extra for it.

  • keta

    Until Kasich says he’d like to “punch him in the face” when referring to a rowdy rally attendee, he’s the moderate in field.

    Honestly, the bar isn’t being set lower and lower, it’s been sucked up by the gravitational pull of Republican bullshit and can’t even be found any more.

  • Joe_JP

    That video is great — the insert is almost just gravy.

    Good comments on the thread overall. Often they are more interesting than the specific dispute.

It is main inner container footer text