Thoughts on Kasich not attending the GOP convention...

[Weiner/Holder]

He was in Cleveland, three blocks from the Q center during the floor fight on rules. He was a guest of the IL delegation.

There. He's shown up. Good enough.

I think Kasich is trying to play it safe to run against Clinton in 2020 and in doing so can't be portrayed as at the hip of Trump.  Do you agree Kasich would've made a good president?

[Badger]

He was in Cleveland, three blocks from the Q center during the floor fight on rules. He was a guest of the IL delegation.

There. He's shown up. Good enough.

I think Kasich is trying to play it safe to run against Clinton in 2020 and in doing so can't be portrayed as at the hip of Trump.  Do you agree Kasich would've made a good president?

Absolutely, but being an active Ohio Republican makes me a tad biased I'll admit.

[DINGO Joe]

Right now, he looks pretty flippin smart.

[Weiner/Holder]

He was in Cleveland, three blocks from the Q center during the floor fight on rules. He was a guest of the IL delegation.

There. He's shown up. Good enough.

I think Kasich is trying to play it safe to run against Clinton in 2020 and in doing so can't be portrayed as at the hip of Trump.  Do you agree Kasich would've made a good president?

Absolutely, but being an active Ohio Republican makes me a tad biased I'll admit.

Are you voting 3rd party now?   I know a lot of people in our party who might.  If you don't mind me asking.

[Hermit For Peace]

I watched most of the Republican debates and early on I thought that Kasich was the sanest of the bunch. If I was Republican I would have voted for him. I actually thought Jeb was going to get the nomination but he sure tanked fast.

Especially since Kasich was always polling ahead of Hillary, I surely thought the voters would embrace him. But no, they went for the carnival act. Shows what I know about that party.

I think Kasich is a very principled man and that's why he could never stand by such a clown as Trump.

[Badger]

He was in Cleveland, three blocks from the Q center during the floor fight on rules. He was a guest of the IL delegation.

There. He's shown up. Good enough.

I think Kasich is trying to play it safe to run against Clinton in 2020 and in doing so can't be portrayed as at the hip of Trump.  Do you agree Kasich would've made a good president?

Absolutely, but being an active Ohio Republican makes me a tad biased I'll admit.

Are you voting 3rd party now?   I know a lot of people in our party who might.  If you don't mind me asking.

<Sigh> I'm seriously considering writing in Kasich.

[Weiner/Holder]

He was in Cleveland, three blocks from the Q center during the floor fight on rules. He was a guest of the IL delegation.

There. He's shown up. Good enough.

I think Kasich is trying to play it safe to run against Clinton in 2020 and in doing so can't be portrayed as at the hip of Trump.  Do you agree Kasich would've made a good president?

Absolutely, but being an active Ohio Republican makes me a tad biased I'll admit.

Are you voting 3rd party now?   I know a lot of people in our party who might.  If you don't mind me asking.

<Sigh> I'm seriously considering writing in Kasich.

I'll vote my party because I consider Clinton's foreign policy failures as Secretary of State, who she'll nominate to the courts, her carpet bagging when Arkansas was no longer good enough for her, and her husband handing her everything she has politically.  Aside from that though I don't see much difference in her and Trump on economics.  I'm actually closer to Clinton on free trade and Trump hasn't spoken much about his views on taxes.  Higher taxes aren't necessarily a bad thing either but I disagree with what Clinton proposes to tax.

[Redban]

I disagree with Kasich on plenty of issues, but his refusal to give in to Priebus and Trump proves that he's a principled and honorable person.

Very proud of him for actually sticking to his principles.  Hopefully he is rewarded for it in 2020.  I gained so much respect for the man.

There's no obligation for officeholders to support the nominee of their party. So this is what he should do if the party has a terrible pick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except Kasich took a pledge to vote for the party's nominee. You don't take that pledge if someone for whom you will never vote is running; that is dishonesty.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the stubby-fingered rapist was the first to back out of the pledge, guys. your talking point is nonsense, as usual.

[Sir Mohamed]

Well, actually he should ask himself, whether this party is still representing a moderate like he is. Kasich should become a centrist Democrat.

[Redban]

the stubby-fingered rapist was the first to back out of the pledge, guys. your talking point is nonsense, as usual.

So? If Trump does something wrong, then is Kasich justified in doing wrong too?

[Torie]

The only reason to attend the Pub Convention is to walk out at an opportune moment with a bunch of cameras rolling. It would be good to get a copy of Trump's speech, to see if there are any sentences in it that would be a good precipitating event for such a mass walkout.

[PeteB]

the stubby-fingered rapist was the first to back out of the pledge, guys. your talking point is nonsense, as usual.

So? If Trump does something wrong, then is Kasich justified in doing wrong too?

Not to get too bogged down in moral and ethical dilemmas, but the "pledge" was meant to be a unifier for the GOP, around certain policies and values.  Trump clearly does not believe in them, nor does he have any set values or beliefs that I can discern (certainly none that cannot quickly be changed for opportunistic reasons).  He is not GOP nor was he ever going to be.  

Kudos to Kasich (and others), who recognized this, and who saw how much his divisiveness and entertainment reality show was an abomination of the normal primary election process.  If I had to say it from a legal and ethical standpoint, Trump's conduct and comments nullified any so-called pledge.

I am just sorry that Kasich did not stay in, as there could have been a real fight, now that Trump's ineptness is clearly coming out.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the stubby-fingered rapist was the first to back out of the pledge, guys. your talking point is nonsense, as usual.

So? If T***p does something wrong, then is Kasich justified in doing wrong too?

the pledge was explicitly built around every candidate following it. the minute one of them pulled out, it became null and void.

[Redban]

Not to get too bogged down in moral and ethical dilemmas, but the "pledge" was meant to be a unifier for the GOP, around certain policies and values.  Trump clearly does not believe in them, nor does he have any set values or beliefs that I can discern (certainly none that cannot quickly be changed for opportunistic reasons).  He is not GOP nor was he ever going to be.  

Kudos to Kasich (and others), who recognized this, and who saw how much his divisiveness and entertainment reality show was an abomination of the normal primary election process.  If I had to say it from a legal and ethical standpoint, Trump's conduct and comments nullified any so-called pledge.

I am just sorry that Kasich did not stay in, as there could have been a real fight, now that Trump's ineptness is clearly coming out.

the pledge was explicitly built around every candidate following it. the minute one of them pulled out, it became null and void.

Really? Tell me what part of the pledge supports that thought (especially since you use the word "explicitly"):

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/02/us/politics/document-the-republican-national-committee-presidential-loyalty-oath.html

The pledge is as straightforward as possible, affirming that the losing candidate will support the party's nominee no matter what. There is no ambiguity or fine print that enables a losing candidate to break the pledge if the nominee is bad or if someone else breaks the pledge first. In fact, the pledge pointedly says, "regardless of who it is," which indicates that bad candidates must get support too.

You're just mis-characterizing the pledge in manner that fits your defense of Kasich.

[PeteB]

Not to get too bogged down in moral and ethical dilemmas, but the "pledge" was meant to be a unifier for the GOP, around certain policies and values.  Trump clearly does not believe in them, nor does he have any set values or beliefs that I can discern (certainly none that cannot quickly be changed for opportunistic reasons).  He is not GOP nor was he ever going to be.  

Kudos to Kasich (and others), who recognized this, and who saw how much his divisiveness and entertainment reality show was an abomination of the normal primary election process.  If I had to say it from a legal and ethical standpoint, Trump's conduct and comments nullified any so-called pledge.

I am just sorry that Kasich did not stay in, as there could have been a real fight, now that Trump's ineptness is clearly coming out.

the pledge was explicitly built around every candidate following it. the minute one of them pulled out, it became null and void.

Really? Tell me what part of the pledge supports that thought (especially since you use the word "explicitly"):

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/02/us/politics/document-the-republican-national-committee-presidential-loyalty-oath.html

The pledge is as straightforward as possible, affirming that the losing candidate will support the party's nominee no matter what. There is no ambiguity or fine print that enables a losing candidate to break the pledge if the nominee is bad or if someone else breaks the pledge first. In fact, the pledge pointedly says, "regardless of who it is," which indicates that bad candidates must get support too.

You're just mis-characterizing the pledge in manner that fits your defense of Kasich.

I just explained it to you but you obviously cannot or do not want to see it. The pledge includes one key word - "Republican". This has some connotation, meaning and beliefs. If you do not share them, then your pledge to be a "Republican candidate" is worthless, and so is a pledge from anyone else to support you.

Trump is not simply a "bad" candidate, as you put it. He is a populist candidate who hijacked a major party for his own gain - he believes in nothing it stands for, and I sincerely doubt he believes in anything at all, other than the material gain for himself and his family.

[Hermit For Peace]

Seems to me that the GOP candidates who were standing on that stage were coerced into signing the pledge they would support the winner, whoever it was. Even Trump, who did not want to make that commitment, agreed to it eventually, but then later threatened to go out on his own because the "GOP was treating him badly" kind of thing.

Personally I wouldn't hold any of the candidates to that coerced pledge. To me it's a non-issue. So to accuse Kasich of violating his pledge is a waste of time. He has the right to endorse who he chooses, or not to endorse.

[Dr. Arch]

Seems to me that the GOP candidates who were standing on that stage were coerced into signing the pledge they would support the winner, whoever it was. Even Trump, who did not want to make that commitment, agreed to it eventually, but then later threatened to go out on his own because the "GOP was treating him badly" kind of thing.

Personally I wouldn't hold any of the candidates to that coerced pledge. To me it's a non-issue. So to accuse Kasich of violating his pledge is a waste of time. He has the right to endorse who he chooses, or not to endorse.

FF Kasich.

[SillyAmerican]

Seems to me that the GOP candidates who were standing on that stage were coerced into signing the pledge they would support the winner, whoever it was. Even Trump, who did not want to make that commitment, agreed to it eventually, but then later threatened to go out on his own because the "GOP was treating him badly" kind of thing.

Personally I wouldn't hold any of the candidates to that coerced pledge. To me it's a non-issue. So to accuse Kasich of violating his pledge is a waste of time. He has the right to endorse who he chooses, or not to endorse.

Well, I agree that the pledge was a pointless gimmick, and I would have put money on it being broken by somebody at some point (there was absolutely no way Trump was going to support Jeb Bush if he won, and vice versa). I wish politicians would stop doing these kinds of meaningless things, as they just serve to illustrate how completely insane our party politics have become.

[Hermit For Peace]

Seems to me that the GOP candidates who were standing on that stage were coerced into signing the pledge they would support the winner, whoever it was. Even Trump, who did not want to make that commitment, agreed to it eventually, but then later threatened to go out on his own because the "GOP was treating him badly" kind of thing.

Personally I wouldn't hold any of the candidates to that coerced pledge. To me it's a non-issue. So to accuse Kasich of violating his pledge is a waste of time. He has the right to endorse who he chooses, or not to endorse.

Well, I agree that the pledge was a pointless gimmick, and I would have put money on it being broken by somebody at some point (there was absolutely no way Trump was going to support Jeb Bush if he won, and vice versa). I wish politicians would stop doing these kinds of meaningless things, as they just serve to illustrate how completely insane our party politics have become.

I agree with you. It's stuff like this that cheapens the political playing field and which is why so many people are turned off by politics today.