Actually, to some people in the media out here, its a bigger "scandal" then what they're calling the "Trump assault fairy tale".

Governor Kasich was in the city yesterday trying act like a New Yorker.

He went to a local pizza place and got a slice.

Then what does he do ?

Starts eating it with a knife and fork. (Scandal #1)

When it was pointed out that this isn't how you eat pizza out here,he picks up the slice.
But he doesn't fold it in half. (Scandal # 2)

There really has to be more important stuff to talk about with Presidential candidates then this.

It was important enough that Governor Kasich made a reference to it at a news conference today.
He said something to the effect that he thinks he can get beyond the pizza incident.

At least he's got a sense of humor.

Allen,to be honest,I didn't at first.

I was just surprised Governor Kasich felt it necessary to even respond.

As for why we eat pizza the way we do.
You fold it in half and then "lean " the slice back towards the crust so nothing falls off.

Another "trick".
When you buy two slices to go, you put one on top of the other so you can walk and eat.
(John Travolta does this in the opening scene of Saturday Night Fever)

Actually,its not limited to one party or even "out of towners".

Mayor Deblasio got blasted for using a knife and fork to eat a slice when he first became Mayor.

Ah, yes. We can only hope America gets to meet the real John Kasich some day soon. This touchy, feely, "let's all hold hands" guy impersonating him across the country is a little creepy.

In the 2014 race, the DEM nominee for Governor was marginal to begin with, then ran a laughably bad campaign. To top it off, sometime in the summer (iirc) leading up to election day, police found him in a parked car "with a woman who was not his wife" (can't remember if one or both of them were drunk, either). He claimed nothing untoward had been happening in that car, and that instead he was just helping his friend (part of a trade delegation to Cleveland) find her way back to her hotel.
The real kicker to this story (And in my opinion far more damaging than had he actually been gettin' busy, consensually, with said woman in said car in said parking lot) was that he didn't have a driver's license and hadn't had one for the better part of a decade.
This led people to say to themselves "wtf? how does someone not have a drivers license for so long?" (by all appearances he never stopped driving over this time, just didn't have a license) and also led to the realization that while executive of cuyahoga county he had fired numerous county employees (who needed to drive for their job) for not having valid driver's licenses. Basically in terms of candidate quality, Fitzgerald fell somewhere "between the Jims" (Pancake and Traficant that is). All of this was very good for Kasich, but it does make his margin of victory somewhat overstated

In 2014, Gov. Kasich ran against what amounted to a cardboard cut out.

I give John Kasich all due credit for solid governance as a Congressman (years ago) and as the best in the current field in that aspect of things. It is true that he expanded Medicaid in Ohio (Clap, clap), which is why the Republican "establishment" is having a hard time with him now. Besides being a good thing, that happened to be a federal money grab at a time when the Ohio Treasury was in bad shape.

My comments were simply to the cosmetics of it all. He has never been shy about letting everyone around him know exactly what he thinks of them, their mother, their kids and anyone they may have met while in grade school. Google "stupid cop +Kasich" as one example. Also look back at the public frenzy surrounding the creation of "Jobs Ohio", a private organization, funded by public dollars, headed by a Kasich crony and exempt from the Ohio Auditor's oversight by design. That's a case study for you! Then there was the whole public union thing.....

Again, seeing him speak on the campaign trail as a healer just does not square with my perception.

All these references to the mythical "GOP Establishment" are about to drive me nuts. There is one commentator on the air who keeps acting like a multi-ballot convention will be controlled by some mythical ghost finger from the RNC. That's just not the way things work. If a multi-ballot convention picks Cruz, or Kasich, or Rand Paul, it'll not be because of a conspiracy but because that's who the delegates want. Abraham Lincoln was nominated on the third ballot, interestingly, when four Ohio delegates switched their votes late in the roll call. If the person with 48 percent of the vote on the first ballot had been given the nomination, we would have had President William Seward, a good man but not the skilled politician that Abraham Lincoln turned out to be.

My point is that this talk of the GOP Establishment is way overblown. The Establishment is not some monolithic "they" out their pulling various strings. It's a bunch of people with varying interests, attitudes, and points of view, that sometimes manage to coalesce around mutually agreeable ideas.

I'll put you down as undecided. ;-)

Comparing this cycle to that of 1860 is a bit disingenuous. The first primary in the United States was not until 1912 (Oregon, the first to set one up). Read The Bully Pulpit by Doris Kearns Goodwin for more information about that awesome election between Roosevelt and Taft. That got messy, because only 20 states had elections, the voters wanted Roosevelt, but Taft was able to control the party. Thus, he received the nomination as the sitting president. Before that, it truly was the 'Establishment' that chose the nominees of the party, not the voters. Slowly, other states starting getting on board with open caucuses or primaries.

The craziness of the 1968 Democratic National Convention set the current process in motion. Since that year, the top vote-getter from each party has been the nominee. That is the voice of the people, whether many choose to agree with the voice or dissent.

As a fan of the game of politics and presidential elections, I am eager to see how this plays out. However, there is no precedent for somebody who was not on the ballot for the primaries to be selected in an open convention. The great story of 1860 is one of back-door politics, not of the will of the people being overturned.

In 1976, Republicans had an open convention between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Ford had 1,106 (though some places list it as high as 1,121) delegates, Reagan had 1,034. That was a difference of only 72 delegates, with 119 uncommitted. The winner needed 1,130 to earn the nomination. It was undecided before the convention, but once again, the only two candidates were the two on the ballot and the winner was the one with the most delegates and the most votes.

Point being, the people now vote, not the Establishment. If the Establishment overrides the will of the people, I think the drive to fracture the party in a year when people feel that the government is not acting in the best interest of the people will be high.

More to the national vs. local perspective on Governor Kasich. I am not the only one who is a little skeptical.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/04/06/...

OCF,

While I disagree with some of your assertions, I do respect the process and the way it has changed over the short life of our awesome country. Without getting into a disagreement, it seems that we both share a love of history and of the presidency. I would then recommend that you listen to the podcast from the Washington Post, 'Presidential'. They are releasing a new podcast every Sunday on the next president in the line. This week, I was treated to an understanding of the Millard Fillmore presidency. I have listened to each multiple times thus far and have really enjoyed all of them. The John Adams and the John Tyler episodes really were interesting. Give them a listen, I imagine you'd enjoy.