John Kasich doesn't do loud, shrill or mean very well.

The Ohio governor is in a very curious spot in the early Republican presidential campaign. He's a candidate of solid achievement, speaking many truths, rightly chiding his rivals' phantasmagorical economic and budget claims and represents a clear potential threat to the Democrats if he ever got to a general election.

He is, after all, a combo of budget-cutting happy warrior and compassionate conservative, who circumvented his own legislature and actually expanded Medicaid. You could make the case that, of all the GOP aspirants, he's got the most potential to lure what might be a growing army of post-Obama independents who could be crucial in 2016.

But he's got to get on the radar screen and, so far, it's been a challenge. Tending toward the folksy, he can't out-shout Trump, pander to core conservatives like Ted Cruz, offer himself at age 63 as "new" like Marco Rubio, extract establishment dollars like Jeb Bush or provide the baffling allure of earnest but enigmatic Ben Carson.

"He is hoping for a complete Jeb collapse and a slingshot from a New Hampshire victory," says John Feehery, a Republican consultant who was a top aide to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

"He needs to get a better campaign narrative. He is trending too close to Huntsman territory," says Feehery, a reference to the failed 2012 campaign of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a candidate who was a media favorite in early prognostications but quickly tanked in no small part because of his tendency to criticize his own party.

Kasich spent 18 years as a congressman, including as a top lieutenant to House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He chaired the House Budget Committee, where I saw him close up (and where he had a reputation for being really smart but also a smidgen quixotic and undisciplined at times). He had a big role in the 1997 Clinton era act of balancing of the budget, a fact he brings up on the stump and, given our impoverished grasp of history, most listeners probably don't recall.

Then came eight profitable years as an investment banker for Lehman Brothers, though he was not involved in its 2008 collapse that help send the entire economy into deep recession. He returned to politics and was elected Ohio governor in 2010. He'd effectively appealed to both blue-collar voters and a GOP elite.

While proving himself at times prickly, impatient and combative, he's had a strong record there and knows that no Republican has won the White House without winning Ohio. He's not really doing much in Iowa so far and is focusing far more attention on New Hampshire, prompting Feehery's mention of the seemingly high stakes for him there.

Did voters there watch him vent during last week's CNBC debate about the porous nature of his rivals' economic plans? He was very much on the mark. That prompted my tracking him down Tuesday in Mobile, Ala., and asking him to expand on some of those remarks and the general flow of the campaign before he did a little fishing and golfing along the Alabama Gulf Coast.

One got a sense in your answer to a John Harwood question at the debate that there is a persistent frustration on your part with the quality of discussion about budget-related, fiscal-related, overall economic-related topics during the campaign. Speak to that.

It really is important for Republicans and the conservative movement to put forth ideas grounded in reality. I have always had conservative solutions of reducing taxes, balancing budgets, common sense regulation, so the next generation can do better than I have done. When I heard some of these ideas that are either unrealistic or fantastical, they don't make any sense to me. We won't abolish Medicare and Medicaid and you can't come up with tax plans that put you trillions of dollars in debt. I think the voter looks at the enormity of problems in a system not functioning and says, "What can be done about it?" It's thus incumbent on us to show there is a rational way to solve these problems. It will take time and get done with a pro growth policy that's coupled with restrained spending. It's no different than what I have done in D.C and Ohio. But your numbers have to add up. You can't just make up the numbers.

Assess Carson's tax plan. Obviously, the cohost at the CNBC debate [Becky Quick] found his responses confounding, especially his refusal to concede their impact on the deficit?

I was thinking these proposals aren't going to work out. I even said it would put my children deeper in debt. I have conservative solutions but you just can't get that [Carson plan] done. This deficit hangs over us, the national debt hangs over us, with slow economic growth. Yes, we need tax cuts to provide incentives for growth but also limiting spending. It's like needing two wings on a two-wing plane. My top rate is 28 percent, the Reagan numbers, and I would bring the corporate rate down to 25. I'm still working on the other rates. But it will be in the narrative of a balanced budget. Some think corporate rate cuts will pay for themselves. We don't believe that. I believe in dynamic scoring [to assess the impact of fiscal policies] but scoring that is reasonable. Growth, spending restraint, change, reform and innovation.

But I find that many voters, when I ask, "How many people in here think you can have a 10 percent flat tax?" they chuckle. It's hard to know exactly what they're thinking but I do believe when they look at the problem, they see it as a very big one in a system that has become dysfunctional. Where do we go, they ask? My job is to tell them how the problem can be addressed with a reform agenda. But we can do this. It is absolutely doable.

All due respect to Governor Bush, how might you compare your record to his when it comes to economic growth?

I haven't studied his Florida record. That was a time of the housing bubble and all kind of things. Haven't studied his record. But I know we now need the plain and aggressive leadership to get people to do things they know they should do but don't want to. That has been a hallmark of mine.

Make sure I understand: Do you still advocate for a balanced budget amendment [to the Constitution] and, if so, what about those who say it's simply unworkable?

It's absolutely essential. That is how I got here. I traveled around for that and it became clear I had to run myself (for governor). Without it, you won't consistently balance the budget. The surplus was projected to be $5 trillion when I left (Congress). The Republicans controlled everything but then spent it all. You need that discipline or politicians will revert back. Is it workable? Yes. Some of the extreme people in the party say if you go to a [constitutional] convention, they will take away your guns. As president, I do believe you could get it done. Nothing easy but could get it done.

What is your current take on Reagan-like supply side economics?

I believe in them. We cut capital gains in '97. It will have a positive side on the supply side to cut regulations and taxes.

I know you'd prefer taking a higher road but what's your general take on Trump's seeming resilience? And do you have any gut feeling of how he fares over the next few months?

I won't get into that.

Final question: What would your serious advice be to Paul Ryan, the new House speaker, if he asked?

I think Paul is going to do very well. He doesn't need to call me. He sees the world in many of the same terms I do. From what I see so far, he is advising that not a lot of dramatic things can be done right now. So have to wait for the next president.