Friday, June 4, 2010

I think you forgot a paragraph.

A writer at Mother Jones recently took issue with John Kasich's youtube video where he highlights what he's done to fight special interests.

Here's the video...

He makes claims that Kasich can't claim to be against special interests for the following reason:
National City Corp (a.k.a. NatCity), was a giant subprime lender and Kasich's third largest donor during his second term in Congress (1999-2000). As the Cleveland-based company imploded in 2008, it announced plans to cut 15 percent of its workforce (about 4,000 jobs) before being bought by PNC Bank with the help of several billion dollars in taxpayer assistance.

The PNC acquisition led to more cuts, as the Pittsburgh-based bank didn't need another headquarters in Cleveland. Kasich blames Strickland for those lost jobs, but the truth is more complicated. While in Congress, Kasich voted for "Foreclosure" Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a bill that helped make possible the explosion of "synthetic CDOs," credit default swaps, and the subprime mortgage market in general.
First off, 1999-2000 was Kasich's 9th, and last, term in Congress. Not his second. The strange and easily fact-checked talking point makes one question what else is inaccurate in the article.

But here's the biggie.

The same bill that the author rips into Kasich for supporting....also had the support of then Congressman Ted Strickland. Not only that, the bill had the support of nearly 70% of the House. The author also seems to forget that the bill also passed through the Commerce committee where Strickland was a member.

Without getting into the bigger question of who really is to blame for the subprime crisis, the failure of the author to acknowledge Strickland's complicity makes one wonder what he's really getting at. He infers Kasich is wrong to say Strickland was responsible for those specific jobs lost(without posting a link to such a claim, I might add), but then says that vote was partially responsible. Then he fails to mention Strickland also voted for the same bill. That's intellectually dishonest.

I understand the need for the left to attack John Kasich. Without any positive record to speak of, they really don't have any other choice. But I guess this kind of obtuse and disoriented effort is what we have to get used to as we head into the fall.


  1. Just posted a comment about the shoddy reporting at Mother Jones. Thanks for the heads up!

  2. But how do any of these take away that when John Kasich claims to be the anti-special interest candidate, he IS LYING....

    Oh, wait, you're INTENTIONALLY attacking the story at the margins because you can't address the central tenet... That's right.


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.