The demoted establishment of Gov. Kasich

A few days ago, Gov. Kasich delivered another whopper to the swamp of this year's presidential  races. Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", Ohio's contribution to demonic lore said in all seriousness but with his trademark smile that
"Guess what?  The establishment is afraid of me."

He even cited cyclical  history that the establishment  was afraid of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, for whatever value he perceived in being part of that mix. The mailman's son boasted that he doesn't take orders from anyone, which makes the well-heeled Big E "nervous".

Did he say establishment? So, to borrow one of his favorite rhetorical lead-ins,  Guess what?

The fearful establishment has fingerprints all over his campaign treasury as the biggest donors.  There's the Schottenstein Management Co., for example, the  company that once signed his paychecks, gave New Day for America,  Kasich's super PAC, $1 million, POLITICO reported.  AVI Foodsystems and Richard L.Bowen & Associates, each having had state contracts,  donated $100,000 each, POLITICO  said. And coal mine operator  Murray Energy gave $250,000.

There's more - a lot more  - L Brands, Crown Equipment Corp., and Worthington Industries came up significantly  from the big guys that   Kasich doesn't call the establishment. Worthington's  John P. McConnell and Peter Karmanos served on the board that once had a seat for Kasich  and each  chipped in at $500,000 to the super PAC.

Saving the best for last, POLITICO reported that Kasich's favorite initiative was the creation of JobsOhio, a private operation that replaced the state's development department.
The first president of JO was Mark Kvamme,  POLITICO noted.  He persuaded then Ohio State University  President E. Gordon Gee too invest $50 million of the school's money in Job/Ohio.   (Is anybody wondering how that money is doing today?)

Well, this is the tip of the Kasich dollar sign.   Not bad from  all of those nervous folks who no longer qualify as the establishment.  Did I say whopper?

Kasich's "your people" retort gets a wider audience.

Our new governor is already grabbing national attention - but unfortunately it's not likely to enhance Ohio's woebegone image. POLITICO, the national Republican-tilting Web site, topped its page with this AP photo of John Kasich over a report on his choice of an all-white cabinet. It quoted Sen. Nina Turner, a black Democrat, who told the Columbus Dispatch that she and the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus are demanding a meeting with Kasich to express their concerns.

Turner says that when she personally raised the question with Kasich, he replied that that he "didn't need your people." Huh?

A Kasich spokesman said the governor was actually referring to Democrats, not blacks, which was not at all persuasive to Turner. In any event, Kasich is demonstrating a deaf ear to the fallout from his clumsy remarks. And now the entire country is hearing about it.

Is "man up" the same as "man overboard"?

THERE IS AN absolute in political campaigns that very little is said that is original. Ever since the proprietors in colonial days insisted that they should not be taxed, the idea has persisted among Republicans that taxes do nobody any good, particularly the wealthiest one or two percent who control most of the money anyway. Not a fresh idea.

But ancient anti-tax talk is now sharing the political dialogue with another idea that doubtless emerged from the prairies of America. From what I've read, men were men in those days. They carried six-shooters, drank their bottles dry, never shaved and killed cattle thieves for the hell of it. If guys like Gene Autry whipped out his guitar to fetch Frosty the Snowman, it was Hollywood's way of assuring us that life on the frontier wasn't all bloody macho.

Now, in the age of steroidal whacks at baseballs, the candidates, particularly the much heralded Mama Grizzlies, are insisting that you can't trust a man who won't man up. It has become an overworked talking point for the 2010 election as the Grizzlies challenge their male opponents to man up for no reason at all other than it's a catchy way (they suppose) to convince the audience that we have a newly vulnerable weaker sex on our hands. Even Newsweek picked up on the echoes in a cover story a few weeks ago by telling us that the "Traditional Male is An Endangered Species. It's Time to Rethink Masculinity."

That may be so. But as a threatened male, I have to keep telling myself they used to say the same things about buffaloes. There is even a term for this: the blog POLITICO calls it "man-upsmanship", so you see how the mere mention of unmanly things keeps getting recycled these days. When the word spread to Nevada, Republican Sharron Angle promptly challenged her rival, Sen. Harry Reid with "Man up, Harry Reid!" Moving to Missouri, POLITICO recorded these words from Democratic senate candidate Robin Carnahan, as she sought satisfaction from her Republican opponent in a debate over health care. "Man up," she challenged him,"and do what you ask of other people to do."

I've tried to rethink my male-ness and have asked myself, "Do I really want to be Hulk Hogan?" He had manned up long before Sharron Angle arrived on the scene. But I really don' t want to be a Mama Grizzly or a Hockey Mom, either. As a former poker player, I've decided to just play the cards that have been dealt to me and wait for somebody to invent another cliche.

In the meantime, I would caution the man-up ladies that there is a risk involved here: Now that you have the weakening sex right where you want them, do you really think it's a good idea to have them return to their old domineering ways?

McCain:'nice guy' turned critic

CAN WE ALL recall the noble storyline of John McCain's failed campaign to win the presidency? He cast himself as the Great Emancipator who would free the Congress of its ugly bonds of partisanship. No issue would be so divisive that he couldn't find a way to work out a consensus for the good of the nation. He offered that pledge with benign assurances, a friendly smile and a full guarantee that it would happen if he were in the Oval Office. He was a Dr. Welby with political ambition.

To express his gratitude, Obama turned up at a dinner for McCain soon after the election and declared, "There are few Americans who understand this need for common purpose and common effort better than John McCain."

The president's math was flawed. There is one fewer today. A year into the Obama presidency, McCain has become a thuggish partisan critic of the Administration's policies. POLITICO`recounted the McCain record and it referred to the shifty Arizonan as "critic-in-chief."

POLITICO WRITERS Jonathan Martin and Manu Raju observed:

"For years, McCain relished being an outsider and a maverick, a style that often led to battles with his own party's leadership. Today, for reasons that friends and McCain observers say could range from unresolved anger to concern for his right flank as he seeks re-election to genuine dismay about Obama's agenda, he is helping lead a fiery crusade of GOP loyalists against Democratic priorities - and irked some of his Democratic colleagues in the process."

He has long been known to have an explosive temper, which was carefully suppressed during the campaign. Forced sincerity didn't come easily, beginning with his robotic opening TV speech to reach out to an audience wider than his home state's Grand Canyon. Whatever corrective action his handlers took, it didn't get much better in the following months.

The problem with McCain and his Republican colleagues remains: How could a war hero POW from the ruggedly correct Southwest lose to an upstart African American from Chicago? How, indeed?

The question doubtless continues to eat at McCain in the twilight of his political career - as well as lock-stepping a Republican Party that refuses by words and deeds to recognize that historical trends are becoming far more decisive against a party wedded to white politics.