Home › Blogs › John Kasich's blog ›

The Future of Ohio and the Republican Party

by John Kasich | November 5, 2008 at 1:03 PM
in

[Former Congressman John Kasich says this is the time to rebuild, reorganize and restructure the Republican Party. - Jon Henke]

Congratulations to Democrats on their victories in elections across the country yesterday.

As pundits continue to analyze the exit polls and the final election results, we Republicans must take a minute to look in the mirror, and then refocus on the daunting task before us.

Now is not the time for hand-wringing or finger pointing, which has already begun. Now is the time to dig in and start rebuilding for the future. We must figure out how to reorganize and restructure ourselves so that we can once again command the confidence and respect of not only the members of our own party, but voters of all stripes.

In recent years we've lost our way, but that ends today. From here forward we must be committed to winning the battle of ideas in this country and in this state.

Ronald Reagan once captured the imagination of a country that he called a shining city on a hill. Like Ronald Reagan, I'm hopeful about the future of our party and our country. But as we get ready for the fight ahead, we must return to the fundamentals of what it means to be a Republican. We must communicate clearly what we stand for, and make the case for why our ideas are better. We must reassert the importance of limited government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, individual responsibility, and restrained government spending.

America is not about entitlement, but about being given the opportunity to pursue the American Dream, whatever that dream may be. As Republicans we must find new and innovative ways to think about the role of government in our lives so that we are free to pursue new opportunities and create prosperity.

Here in Ohio, our economy is in a death spiral, our tax system is burdensome, and people are fleeing the state. We must redouble our efforts to reinvigorate businesses and foster an environment that creates jobs. This will require new leadership and a new vision as we seek to overcome these problems.

The path ahead for our party is not easy, but we must embrace this challenge. I know together we can make a difference to reposition our party, revitalize our state and reconnect with voters to ensure a better America and a better Ohio for ourselves and the next generation.

This post is also posted at RechargeOhio.com

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Sounds great, but...

Submitted by MnK on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 13:36.

"We must communicate clearly what we stand for, and make the case for why our ideas are better. We must reassert the importance of limited government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, individual responsibility, and restrained government spending."

Then you'd better find some Republicans that actually put these ideas into practice.

 

Problem is, the few that do still hold to these as being core ideals (like Senator Hagel) are precisely the ones that the ultra-right wing of the party wants to boot from the party in a quest for ideological purity.

Really?

Submitted by Snowden on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 13:53.

MnK:

You can't be serious. I can't think of a major movement to do anything to Chuck Hagel, let alone oust him. He had moments of unpopularity, but that hardly means that some serious people wanted to boot him from the party.

I tend to be more libertarian on the immigration issue, but I can understand why many GOPers were irritated that he worked with Teddy Chappaquidick on the CIRA. And I don't think that his July 2007 "out of Iraq" stuff was very popular either.

If we're going to rebuild our party, we need to be clear-eyed in our analysis. I don't think that the GOP is in shambles because the ultra-right drove out a bunch of moderates, though I would love to see someone try to make that argument.

Mr. Kasich: good luck and keep preachin'.

Your moderates are gone

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 14:01.

New England was Republican.

New Jersey was Republican.

The Midwest was where Republican started.

What do you have now?

Boll weevil Democrats and the Know Nothings.

 

You have lost the WHIGs. Good luck doing anything without our modernist faction.

Hagel is one of those

Submitted by MnK on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 14:13.

Hagel is one of those commonly labeled as a RINO - kinda like McCain frequently was labeled. Like how Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are frequently branded. Schwarzenneger earns the label too.

Hagel isn't targeted because it's well known that he's not running again - I use him as an example of the kind of Republican who doesn't toe the party line and obey the dictates of party superiors. That's exactly the kind of person that the far-right elements want to get rid of from the GOP. If Hagel isn't going to run, so much the better for them.

If you don't think that there is and has been a major effort to oust RINOs from the party, you need only read Michelle Malkin and Ed Morissey on their day after blogs - rallying the troops to defend ideology rather than develop ideas, fueling determination to get rid of the moderate party elements that they believe caused the loss, etc.

Some un-asked for advice

Submitted by prs17 on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 14:39.

from an outsider.  I agree whole-heartedly that the Republicans need to return to being a party of ideas.  For the past several elections, you've put biographies up for the Presidential ticket.  George Bush - a guy you'd like to have a (non-alcoholic) beer with.  John McCain - war hero.  Sarah Palin - hockey mom from the "real" America.  You've concentrated on winning at all costs - by which I mean making (or trying to make) the election about issues that really don't affect the way the country is going - William Ayers and Rev Wright this time around, and the culture wars of past cycles.  Yes, abortion and gay marriage and NEA funding are issues worth talking about, but our national security and economic future don't depend on them at all.  Personally, I lay some blame on Vince Lombardi, who was one terrific football coach, but gave us "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."  If winning means destroying that which you're striving for, then I think it isn't worth it.

As a Democrat, I would like nothing more than to see a strong, viable Republican Party as a counterbalance.  But it has to be a Republican Party of ideas.  A debate between that Republican Party and a Democratic Party of Barack Obama would serve the country very well indeed.

Agreed

Submitted by AeroSpear on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 14:50.

As a young conservative, I agree with you.  However, I believe the ideas are there already.  Some conservatives just assume that the populace knows the basics, which is not necessarily the case. 

The Conservative mission is to challenge the "common knowledge" that most people think they have.  Issues are nuanced, principles aren't.

core principles

Submitted by John Kasich on Thu, 11/06/2008 - 11:43.

I appreciate your comments. There is no doubt that Republicans have lost their way, but this in no way invalidates our core principles. The last time we got back to basics was in the mid 1990s. We stuck to our values, reached across the aisle and worked together to balance the budget, reform welfare, and produce a period of incredible economic growth in this country.

Interesting that you don't see your own shortcomings.

Submitted by dean2 on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 14:43.

John's list in italics and and my comments in "normal" text

We must communicate clearly what we stand for, and make the case for why our ideas are better. We must reassert the importance of

  •  limited government, FAILED
  • lower taxes, FAILED
  • fewer regulations, FAILED (with disastrous consequences)
  • individual responsibility, Who doesn't stand for this?
  • and restrained government spending.  FAILED.  Try pragmatic government spending and stop, please, demonizing any government expenditure - it's just foolish rhetoric.

Conservative policies as listed above have been repeatedly indicted, proven and convicted.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  Your ideas, at heart, are important, but when you push them as the only option, you fail.  Can't we discover the common ground and go with what has proven to actually work instead of what you simply keep trying to force down people's throats despite overwhelming evidence that plainly proves their collective failure?

Oh good lord

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 15:12.

If by "failed" you mean roughly 25 years of basically uninterrupted economic growth, then yes, it's a brutal failure.  We used to have recessions on about the scale we're going to have right now every decade or so; its been 25 years (ie, since we stopped over-taxing and over-regulating) since the last one now.

I'm all for "pragmatic" government spending, but looking at a government that spends one out of every three dollars produced in this country and saying "gee, I think we need to tack an addition $300-$400 billion" in spending is not "pragmatic" government spending.

ROFL

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 15:16.

you gotta be fucking kidding me.

you so stupid, you can't see the parallels between now and 1873?? Grant == Bush, for goodness sakes.

How in hell do you think we won't have a great deflationary spiral when the hedge funds spontaneously combust in December?

Do you by any chance read any economic reports at all?

Worst Auto month since 1945. That's not since carter, for goodness sakes!

I'm all for good honest government spending -- the kind that takes a while to rattle around before it comes back to the gov'ts pocket. That's defense and that's aerospace and that's science.

WE HAVE NOT GROWN OUR ECONOMY IN THE PAST EIGHT YEARS. Man, now I feel like Krugman. Please excuse me while I go bang my head into the wall again, I normally have more patience. But hell, why not read him or the Oracle from Obamaha?

Why these ideas need some brushing up

Submitted by MnK on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 15:38.

Limited Government - The rallying principle of Republican/conservative used to be "states rights", but it is increasingly becoming difficult to make this a workable principle. Take, for example, McCain's stance that education standards should be decided and set by individual states, not at the national level. I would say that this concept was workable maybe 50-60 years ago, and then only because we lacked the technology for information sharing that we do now, and we did not have the same level of economic competition from foreign nations. Now, the United States as a nation faces competition for resources from several other nations (that are not our allies), competition for jobs within the country from non-American workers, competition for markets, etc. To suggest that differing education standards somehow serves the needs of an America that faces global-scale economic competition is outdated.

Lower Taxes - This only works with lower spending, because clearly, lowering taxes and increasing spending is worse than raising taxes and increasing spending. But it's pretty clear that most people aren't interested in spending reductions. Massachusetts even had a ballot proposal to eliminate certain state taxes, and the voters rejected it because of the massive spending cuts it would require.

Fewer Regulations - Enron. Bear Stearns. Arthur Andersen. These failures are just a few of the many failures that come with more and more deregulation.

Individual Responsibility - Nothing wrong with this, except that the Republicans have typically scapegoated the poor as being those lacking in individual responsibility. But all you have to do is watch men like the CEO of Lehman Brothers publicly shift blame to everyone but himself, men like Bush shift blame to everyone but himself, to see that a lack of individual responsibility actually infests every economic segment of our country. We can applaud McCain for taking responsibility for the failures of his campaign, we can applaud Obama for calling on Americans to take greater responsibility for rebuilding our economy.

Restrained Government Spending - Yeah it sounds good in principle. But in practical application, the past 16 years tell a different story. It's not about restrained spending, it's about responsible spending. After all, no one would accuse Clinton of restrained spending - yet during his tenure, our economy did well and we wound up with a budget surplus and a significantly reduced debt. Certainly no one could say Bush has restrained his spending, but it's how he has spent that has mired us in enormous debt and enormous future debt.

The Parallels of 1976

Submitted by MartzMimic on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 18:12.

An earlier poster compared this election to 1873.  I think a better parallel is that of 1976.  An unpopular Republican administration, energy concerns and economic problems ushered an inexperienced populist Democrat into office.  He immediately starts bring his home state cronies into the government (though I will admit that Rahm Emmanuel has more Beltway experience than Bert Lance).

I do hope that we won't see an encore of Jimmy Carter, but I'm not overly optimistic.  I think John is dead on.  In 1976, we didn't foresee 1980, and in 1992, we couldn't have forseen 1994.  Unfortunately, we forgot the ideals of the Contract with America's and became what we abhorred.

Because of this, Barack Obama is president-elect today.  Some might argue that the votes were not so much for him as against Pres. Bush, but that's ultimately a meaningless argument.  We deserve this.  Now is the time to cultivate true conservatives in the mold of John Kasich and Newt Gingrich; people whose actions -- not just their words -- spoke to their beliefs.