Who is still Voting for Kasich? And Why? OR Kasich, the Contradictions and the Campaign Continue

John Kasich, current Republican Governor of Ohio, is still campaigning for the Presidency. He has somehow convinced himself and those in his immediate circle of staffers that there remains a plausible as well as possible way to the White House. Reliance on the remote possibility of a brokered convention is not a political strategy of any merit or substance. In fact, the argument can be made that such poorly spun strategy disenfranchises or at least marginalizes those who fall victim to this unique form of folie a deux, so often seen between conservatives and their candidate. The campaign continues more for the hubris of said candidate than to effect change or influence the national conversation. Kasich's campaign calculus is rooted in fiction much more than it is in fact. This scenario then begs the question--Who is still voting for him? And why is anyone, irrespective of party affiliation, supporting his campaign?
Kasich is against paid maternity leave; opposes the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); opposes equal pay for equal work; and is governor of a state which has yet to pass into law any legislation against female genital mutilation (FGM). And arguably the most nonsensical, contradictory part of this candidate's composite is that he is father to twin daughters.
Recent studies show that less than one-third of working women in the United States are employed by companies that offer paid maternity leave. In addition, 40 percent of the Nation's labor force remains ineligible for the paid leave mandated by the Family and Medical Leave Act. Consequently, women who are either the sole or primary wage earners for their family have a vastly reduced or completely evaporated income should they become pregnant and take leave to deliver. When Kasich was in Congress, he voted against the FMLA not once but twice. Apparently, Governor and Candidate Kasich is either too arrogant or too inept or a combination thereof to ever imagine either of his daughters being single mothers or working mothers or mothers. Because if he did, the following series of sentences would never have been spoken in response to a reporter's question regarding paid maternity leave: The one thing we need to do for working women is to give them the flexibility to be able to work at home online...The reason why that's important is when women take maternity leave or time to be with children, then what happens is they fall behind on the experience level, which means that the pay becomes a differential. Besides the fact that his response is barely coherent and makes absolutely no sense either economically or sociologically, somebody keeps voting for this man and electing him to office. And even more frightening is the fact that in the US, Kasich is considered an educated man. An educated man votes against legislation that could only benefit his daughters, their future children, their future families? An educated man believes that his daughters deserve to earn less than a man for the same work? An educated man does not see female genital mutilation as a human rights violation?
Again, Governor Kasich does not support equal pay for equal work, nor does he support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This is demonstrated by the gender-based disparity in pay among those employed by his campaign. For example, the average salary for a woman employed by the Kasich presidential campaign is $55,300, with a  median salary of $44,900; while the average pay for a man employed by his campaign is $60,700 with a median salary of $60,000. Of the ten highest paid Kasich campaign employees, nine are men.
Only 23 states in the US have specific laws against female genital mutilation, despite the remote and recent passage of Federal legislation proscribing the practice. Ohio, the state to which Kasich is governor, does not have legislation prohibiting FGM practices nor does it have legislation prohibiting parents, grandparents, legal guardians, from taking girls out of the country for the purposes of female genital mutilation. The World Health Organization recognizes four types of FGM: Clitoridectomy, total or partial removal of the clitoris or prepuce; Infibulation, the most radical form of FGM in which there is removal of all external genitalia and the vulva is stitched closed; Excision, partial or complete removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without concurrent removal of the labia majora; Other, all other procedures, practices done to female genitalia for a nonmedical purpose.
FGM is performed for several reasons: to control a woman's sexuality, i.e. maintain virginity before marriage and fidelity during; to increase a girl's eligibility/attractiveness for a marriage match and ultimately make her more accepted within her ethnic/religious community; and as a traditional rite of passage. According to a January 2016 survey conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services, more than half a million women in the US have either been subject to FGM or are at risk for an FGM procedure. Internationally, female genital mutilation is recognized as a form of torture and extreme violence against women and girls, and is a human rights violation. It is performed without benefit of anesthesia, anesthetic or analgesia; it can and often does cause sepsis, infection, incontinence, miscarriage, hemorrhage, as well as birth and pregnancy complications. It is also a cause of neonatal and maternal death.
Maybe, Governor/Candidate Kasich doesn't believe that Republican girls have these parts and could never be caught in a scenario where they or their daughters could fall victim to FGM. As a physician, I feel compelled to inform Mr. Kasich that Republican girls, in fact all biological and some not so biological girls, are endowed with this anatomy and can be subject to FGM if not granted legislative protection. In Ohio, according to the Population Reference Bureau, 24,320 women and girls are at risk for FGM; 12,079 are under the age of 18 years, while 12,241 are older than the age of 18 years.
In fact, women are vulnerable to all sorts of equal rights violations and indignities when legislation is not put into place to offer protection and deterrence. By choosing to exclude women from such considerations as equal pay, paid maternity leave and protection from female genital mutilation Kasich squarely disqualifies himself from consideration for President of the United States, as he does not feel an obligation to advocate for more than 52 percent of the population, women--a special interest group to which three members of his immediate family belong.

Please reference: law.cornell.edu, equalitynow.org, theslot.jezebel.com, dispatch.com. npr.org, prb.org

If You Didn't Vote for Bernie Sanders because You Think He's a Socialist--Think Again, You are Too

One of the most poignant lessons of the 2016 campaign season thus far, is the profound deficiency within the electorate regarding basic knowledge of civics and government. This dearth of information and/or knowledge is best illustrated each time the former candidate Marco Rubio and current candidate Ted Cruz identify Bernie Sanders as a socialist. If these Ivy League educated Americans truly believe that socialism is one of those -isms unique to Russia, the FSR's and China, then they must have absolutely zero understanding of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Democratic socialism, one of the layers within the bedrock upon which the foundation of this country was built, posits that both the economy and society should be structured so as to meet the needs of the public and not just benefit the wealthiest one percent. In the United States, civic texts commonly used this term, democratic socialism, to describe the services provided by state and federal governments--services supported by taxes collected from the public.
One would be hard pressed to find an American politician from either side of the aisle daring enough to speak against the long-protected sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Conversely, turn on any talk radio station in the Midwest and callers as well as program hosts regularly provide exhaustive soliloquies in which communists and socialists are blamed for the death of the steel industry, the diminishment of the auto industry and the steady deliquescence of the American dream. Those same individuals who indict socialism are the same individuals who benefit from the socialist safety net put in place by the federal government as far back as FDR's administration, if not earlier.
Please consider the following: On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act. This legislation created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers a continued wage after retirement. The funds for this program, to this day, are extracted from the paycheck of every worker in this country. More specifically, Social Security benefits are funded by a dedicated payroll tax which is paid by workers, employers and taxes paid by those who are self-employed.
President Johnson signed the Medicare Bill (Title XVIII of the Social Security Act), July 30, 1965. This legislation created a National Health Insurance program funded by the Social Security Administration--in other words, the taxpayer. It serves, primarily, retired Americans and some disabled individuals. Medicare is an entitlement program rather than a needs based program like Medicaid; thus the poor, rich and the middle class may receive Medicare benefits provided they meet eligibility requirements. Similarly, Medicaid was established in 1965 as part of the Social Security Act. This program provides health care and medical services to low-income families. Since 1982 Medicaid has been available in all fifty states. Eligible pregnant women were granted coverage in 1985; and undocumented/illegal immigrants were given coverage for certain emergent health situations the following year. Under this program, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 2000 was also added, which allows any uninsured woman diagnosed with either breast or cervical cancer to receive coverage, even if she does not meet eligibility income standards.
The benefits of the aforementioned programs could be explored in greater depth, but the point has been illustrated--the tenets of socialism underwrite a large part of this country's programs. It is hypocritical to deny this obvious state of affairs while cashing a Social Security check or  presenting a Medicare/Medicaid card at the physician's office or pharmacy. It is equally myopic to dismiss a candidate based on an -ism to which each of us, as Americans subscribe to and heartily underwrite--if you need further evidence of this, have a look at your latest pay stub.
Having programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid is an irrefutable benefit to so many in our country; however, it is not possible to support the theoretical basis of such programs while indicting the political theory upon which they rest. Democratic socialism is not the political equivalent of communism nor is it the political equivalent of soviet socialism. The differences are many and varied; and it is the unique responsibility of the voter to understand and know these differences. Talk radio generalities and Republican debate night misstatements, rooted more in self-interest than in the greater good, are not acceptable substitutes for an educated electorate.

Please reference: medicare.uslegal.com, socialsecurityadminstration.org, trumanlibrary.org, gomedicare.com