New York Times endorses Kasich in GOP primary

posted at 4:01 pm on January 30, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

The headline on this endorsement from the New York Times editorial board sounds more plaintive than aspirational: A Chance to Reset the Republican Race. Sure, it is … if one ignores practically everything that has driven the primary race to this point and hearken back to a time when tenure in the party establishment was considered a boon rather than a handicap. Plus, one has to dismiss practically everyone else in the field with substance-free one-liners.

Mission accomplished, I guess:

More than a half-dozen other candidates are battling for survival. Jeb Bush has failed to ignite much support, but at least he has criticized the bigotry of Mr. Trump and the warmongering of Mr. Cruz. Senator Marco Rubio, currently embracing the alarmist views of the front-runners, seems to have forgotten his more positive “New American Century” campaign, based on helping the middle-class. The terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino exposed Ben Carson’s inability to grasp the world. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has said he would shoot down Russian planes, engage with the dead king of Jordan and bar refugees, including orphaned Syrian toddlers.

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.

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.

Oh, and on that slap at Christie:

Well, sure, the Gray Lady loves Kasich now. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that Kasich somehow comes out of nowhere to win the GOP nomination. How much of the third paragraph will the Times’ editorial board remember during the general election? And how many times will the editors dismiss Kasich with one-liners from the second paragraph? Count the thumbs on your right hand for the first question, and the days between the convention and Election Day for the second.

Anyone who doubts this should recall the Times’ endorsement of John McCain in 2008. The Times followed closely after their endorsement with a false claim about him having an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist, and demands to see his medical records on the suggestion he might be unfit for the office. Their public editor at the time took the editors to the public woodshed for running the first story at all, but their quasi-extortion on McCain over medical records continued into the late springNice campaign ya got there, governor … shame if anything happened to it … heh heh…

Besides, which Republican primary voters will be swayed by the New York Times’ endorsement … and in which direction? By the time McCain got their seal of approval, he’d all but wrapped it up. Kasich isn’t within shouting distance of the front rank. This is practically voter repellent. We’ll see if Kasich’s campaign realizes it, or whether they start trumpeting it.

Oh, the Times also made another endorsement:

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.

Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.

In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.

Maybe the check cleared:

The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, a charity run by members of the Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives, received more than $29 million in charitable contributions over the last five years from mostly anonymous donors, tax records obtained by the On Media blog show. …

The Times’ policy meant that the company did not disclose a $100,000 donation in 2008 from Bill and Hillary’s Clinton Family Foundation, recently reported by the Washington Free Beacon. The Times has said that the CFF originally sent a $100,000 check to the fund in 2007, months before the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, then sent a replacement check in 2008 after the original went missing. Murphy has said that “this donation and our editorial board’s endorsement of a candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary have absolutely no connection to one another.”

Sure it doesn’t. Interestingly, the Times’ editorial board never mentions the Clinton Foundation in its endorsement — or Libya, or Benghazi, or Hillary’s use of a private e-mail system to thwart legitimate oversight of the State Department, or the massive spillage of intelligence through that system, for that matter. They never get around to explaining how the Clintons managed to earn more than $57 million in the four years she served as Secretary of State, thanks in no small part to millions earned by her husband giving speeches funded by entities with business at the State Department. But the donations to the Times’ editorial board charity have nothing to do with this memory loss, of course.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That’s a minus, but some of the Cruz kids will vote for Kasich, Rubio and Jeb! now.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 4:04 PM

Kasich will be happy, but then who cares?

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 4:04 PM

Meh

cmsinaz on January 30, 2016 at 4:05 PM

Kasich

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 4:06 PM

As an Ohio voter, I learned the hard way.

I’ll pass on John “Fredo” Kasich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgHXHtHSsNo

BuckeyeSam on January 30, 2016 at 4:07 PM

First prize: NYT endorsement.
Second prize: Two NYT endorsements.

orangemtl on January 30, 2016 at 4:08 PM

John K.

A Chance to Reset the Republican Race.

:)

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 4:08 PM

Interestingly, the Times’ editorial board never mentions the Clinton Foundation in its endorsement — or Libya, or Benghazi, or Hillary’s use of a private e-mail system to thwart legitimate oversight of the State Department, or the massive spillage of intelligence through that system, for that matter. They never get around to explaining how the Clintons managed to earn more than $57 million in the four years she served as Secretary of State, thanks in no small part to millions earned by her husband giving speeches funded by entities with business at the State Department.

Directions to Claude Rains’ grave:

Drive north from Boston on Interstate 93 into central New Hampshire, and take Exit 24 (Mile Marker 76.16). Turn onto US Rt. 3/NH Rt. 25 South, and follow that for 9 miles to NH Rt. 25-B. Turn left and follow 25-B 5 miles to Centre Harbor, where you turn left onto NH Rt. 25 East. At the lights, turn left (north) onto Bean Road and follow about 2 miles to the tiny Red Hill Cemetery on your right. Can’t miss the elegant stones for Claude and the Mrs.

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2016 at 4:10 PM

OT or on, who knows

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 4:10 PM

uff too much reading for someone with 2% in the polls. who cares about these losers! really!

nathor on January 30, 2016 at 4:12 PM

You FILTHY ILLITERATE KLOWN-KAR RIDIN KLOSET LIBERALS HOWLER MONKEYS Do you hear that sound? That is the sound of Invisibility…oops I mean Inevitability. It is the sound of your death!

With this the Masters Plan comes to its fruition! Soon you & your Silver-Backed-Muqtada al-Sadr shall bow before ZO…….. KASICH!
If He is Merciful he will let you live & will dispatch that Silver-Backed Hitler Pack Leader the Merciful Hand Chop of Death…..

JFKY on January 30, 2016 at 4:14 PM

Should be a GOP candidate kiss of death. WTF is wrong with the New Hampshire voters?

melle1228 on January 30, 2016 at 4:15 PM

The check is in the mail!

Christien on January 30, 2016 at 4:17 PM

Return to Sender

Christien on January 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM

What a joke. My fox terrier has a better chance at the Presidency than Kasich…..

Indiana Jim on January 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM

Alternate headline: Kasich Gets NY Times Stamp Of Approval

Christien on January 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM

Kasich better stop mailing it in.

Christien on January 30, 2016 at 4:21 PM

On zee roll,……………………………

John Kasich Retweeted
Fox News [email protected] 23m23 minutes ago

.@JohnKasich: “I’ve got 7 out of 8 newspapers in New Hampshire & I’ve got the @BostonGlobe & @nytimes.”
========================================

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/693471402263986176

canopfor on January 30, 2016 at 11:54 AM

canopfor on January 30, 2016 at 4:22 PM

canopfor on January 30, 2016 at 4:22 PM

Proving how stupidly tone-deaf the establishmentarians are.

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 4:29 PM

Kasich only has a shot at the nomination if all of the other candidates are replaced with Ed Fitzgerald.

Myron Falwell on January 30, 2016 at 4:31 PM

It’s like the political version of the Sports Illustrated cover curse.

DarthBrooks on January 30, 2016 at 4:31 PM

♫ Oh yes, an endorsement’s in it Mr. Postman ♫

viking01 on January 30, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Kasich……LOL!

Dick Richard on January 30, 2016 at 4:36 PM

If they wanted to have an impact, they would have endorsed Trump.

They could have said “He’s a closet liberal blah, blah, blah” and it might have hurt him. But I’m sure this KaySick endorsement will be hugely important.

Skipity on January 30, 2016 at 4:38 PM

Sure it doesn’t. Interestingly, the Times’ editorial board never mentions the Clinton Foundation in its endorsement — or Libya, or Benghazi, or Hillary’s use of a private e-mail system to thwart legitimate oversight of the State Department,
==============================================

They, the (NYT), don’t want to be ahem, Vince Foster’d!
(sarc)

canopfor on January 30, 2016 at 4:40 PM

British bookmaker has Trump as 1-2 favorite to win Iowa, 1-4 favorite to win New Hampshire

Senator Philip Bluster on January 30, 2016 at 4:42 PM

Kiss of Death. Kashich: “Thanks. Thanks a lot, NYT.”

HiJack on January 30, 2016 at 4:45 PM

Murphy has said that “this donation and our editorial board’s endorsement of a candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary have absolutely no connection to one another.”

At least Trump is honest in saying he buys politicians.

And I’d let in Syrian orphaned toddlers, provided they are placed in good Christian homes that’ll convert them.

rbj on January 30, 2016 at 4:48 PM

I’ve seen enough of Karate Chop Kasich.

David in ATL on January 30, 2016 at 4:50 PM

I wouldn’t let kasich rake my driveway.

Andy__B on January 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM

Kasich only has a shot at the nomination if all of the other candidates are replaced with Ed Fitzgerald.

Myron Falwell on January 30, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Kasich is so bad, Fitzgerald might need to announce that his running mate is Eric Kearney. As a Cincinnatian who used to ride an elevator bank with that POS, I loved seeing that guy dropped from the ticked after little more than two weeks because he and his wife had an outstanding federal tax liability in the high six figures. And the Dems hadn’t asked about it or didn’t think it would be a problem.

BuckeyeSam on January 30, 2016 at 5:03 PM

Amusing. Why even bother? Anyone know the last time the NYT actually supported the Republican nominee in the general?

dorkintheroad on January 30, 2016 at 5:04 PM

Kasich, is he the short funny looking guy who is married to the tall redhead?

agmartin on January 30, 2016 at 5:13 PM

Really? A newspaper on its last throes endorses a GOPe globalist on his last gasp in politics. Sounds about right. Will help as much as cry baby Beck’s endorsement of Cruz. Looks like both are about to go belly up.

OT or on, who knows

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 4:10 PM

they lie on January 30, 2016 at 5:14 PM

VA

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 5:17 PM

What does the Times have against Jim Gilmore ?

celtic warrior on January 30, 2016 at 5:17 PM

Besides, which Republican primary voters will be swayed by the New York Times’ endorsement

…I’m still flabbergasted that no tolit paper company has come out with a toilet paper roll that replicates the New York Times. I think it would be a heck of a seller and conversation piece for every bathroom in America.

JugEarsButtHurt on January 30, 2016 at 5:20 PM

If they wanted to have an impact, they would have endorsed Trump.

They could have said “He’s a closet liberal blah, blah, blah” and it might have hurt him. But I’m sure this KaySick endorsement will be hugely important.

Skipity on January 30, 2016 at 4:38 PM

They would be eaten alive – and not in a good sense of the word – by their liberal readers to whom “Sun Tzu” is a takeout dish and “Clausewitz” is just a word in Austrian.

Rix on January 30, 2016 at 5:24 PM

Choose wisely, America.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2016 at 5:31 PM

DES MOINES – “Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a “voting violation” based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

Additionally, the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office never “grades” voters. Nor does the Secretary of State maintain records related to Iowa Caucus participation. Caucuses are organized and directed by the state political parties, not the Secretary of State, nor local elections officials. Also, the Iowa Secretary of State does not “distribute” voter records. They are available for purchase for political purposes only, under Iowa Code.” – Paul D. Pate, Iowa Secretary of State

VorDaj on January 30, 2016 at 5:32 PM

A ‘New York Times’ endorsement is ALMOST as significant as being endorsed by ‘The Japan Times’–Japan’s English language newspaper. I’m sure Trump is gnashing his teeth in anguish.

MaiDee on January 30, 2016 at 5:44 PM

An NYT endorsement for a GOP primary candidate is the kiss of death. It simply means he’s the most likely to give the Dems what they want. Buh-bye John boy.

MadVlad on January 30, 2016 at 6:04 PM

Well, now that Kasich has the coveted NY Times endorsement, it’s Katy bar the door.

bflat879 on January 30, 2016 at 6:22 PM

Perfect pic!

NY2SC on January 30, 2016 at 6:22 PM

More proof that the NYT is a liberal joke.

Blake on January 30, 2016 at 6:25 PM

Murphy has said that “this donation and our editorial board’s endorsement of a candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary have absolutely no connection to one another.”

Hide your crime(s) in plain sight, then feign ignorance.

“Oh my! Did I somehow do something that’s illegal? Surely you don’t think it was intentional.”

The Clintonian method (patents pending).

Oxymoron on January 30, 2016 at 6:38 PM

I’d rather be endorsed by the National Enquirer.

diogenes on January 30, 2016 at 7:02 PM

He’s a Common Core guy and believes in GWarming… just one of those would do it for me..and he’s my Gov..

Xango Annie on January 30, 2016 at 10:43 PM

So, does the NYT endorse candidates in each state primary or are they calling the nomination already?

Did David Brooks have a meeting with himself on this topic?

As in many other issues, the opinion of the NYT is not a factor.

virgo on January 31, 2016 at 3:26 AM

They call the NYT the mainstream Media. This Kasich endorsement just shows how unrepresentative of the Mainstream the NYT is. But these illiterate librul pukes are wrong about almost everything else, also. They have been riding on their reputation for years. Now they have a new reputation of not-so-good.

By the Way Hot Air, when are you going to stop linking to sites that require a subscription to read? Particularly ones that stink, like the NYT.

Old Country Boy on January 31, 2016 at 8:55 AM

That’s just the NYT getting creative. Their first choice was Jeb!

steveracer on January 31, 2016 at 9:05 AM

.@JohnKasich: “I’ve got 7 out of 8 newspapers in New Hampshire & I’ve got the @BostonGlobe & @nytimes.”

That is an awful lot of newspaper subscriptions. Are you sure you can afford them?

Old Country Boy on January 31, 2016 at 9:06 AM

Amusing. Why even bother? Anyone know the last time the NYT actually supported the Republican nominee in the general?

dorkintheroad on January 30, 2016 at 5:04 PM

I’m pretty sure the last time was for Eisenhower in 1956.

J.S.K. on January 31, 2016 at 9:37 AM

The NYT posted their complete list of general election presidential endorsements at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html?_r=0 .

Eisenhower was indeed the last Republican they chose. They endorsed him both in 1952 and 1956, then went Dem every election since then.

J.S.K. on January 31, 2016 at 9:47 AM

But the donations to the Times’ editorial board charity have nothing to do with this memory loss, of course.

Honestly, it probably doesn’t. The NYT was always going to endorse Hillary, just like they do every time she runs.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 31, 2016 at 1:09 PM

I like the picture, the KOD from Michael to his brother, with love.

billrowe on January 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM