LJWorld.com

hawkbygod (Anonymous) says…

Thank God that someone in this Party is talking some sense. Thats right you crazy right wingers, normal people are taking our party back. Smaller Government, Pro-Business, open markets, strong education, and small taxes. That is what the Republican Party stands for, no one is buying your brand of crazy anymore.

MtOread (Anonymous) says…

It's interesting that they claim to support lower taxes, responsible spending and limited government, yet are highly critical of two groups that support lower taxes, responsible spending and limited government. Makes you wonder what their true goal is.

Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…

Of course that hack Alan Cobb is whining. “Americans for Prosperity” and “Kansas Club for Growth” are front groups for David and Charles Koch, the 2nd and 3rd richest oilmen in the world, who will do anything to keep from paying their fair share of taxes: http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_K…

dotteboy (Anonymous) says…

Arminius, why do you hate freedom? Don't misunderestimate this new group. Fool them once, shame on you. Fool them twice…you better not try to fool them twice.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Buhler wasn't in the Senate very long, but while there he voted with Democrats on every issue. He not only voted to expand eminent domain powers so that governments can seize private property from one person to sell it to another, he argued in favor of it. His stance on that issue, alone, is enough for me to distrust his agenda.

badger (Anonymous) says…

I think this will be very interesting.

In general, I'm just interested to see the fragmentation of the factions within the Republican Party brought on by the general willingness to kowtow to the Radical Right. If a version of the Republican Party eventually emerges that does really work towards smaller government (not just for corporations, but also for individuals), lower taxes, and personal responsibility, I'll be rather happy to see it and will probably go back to being a slightly right-leaning moderate instead of a strongly left-leaning one. This social agenda the Christian Right is using the party to push shoved a lot of people like me right over into the Democratic camp, frankly.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

The Republican wing of the Republican Party resurgent! At last!

All extremists eventually reach too far and self-destruct. Resent dissention that Shallenburger wasn't conservative 'enough' of all things (is Genghis Khan available and interested in being GOP Chairman instead?) was a key sign that the meltdown moment had arrived.

At least things didn't devolve to the point of someone like Phill Kline suggesting the incorporation of the Bible into the State's constitution or Charlotte Esau suggesting changing the State motto to “Jesus saves” (or is that “Ad astra per Iesus”?)

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

If these people are “really” republicans, then they need to realize how risky this action is. Polarizing the GOP in Kansas could sprout a new party altogether, which would weaken the party as a whole. Anyone ever heard “Unitied we stand, divided we fall”? This will not go well for the party if it gains any steam.

badger (Anonymous) says…

Honestly?

I think that moderate Republicans are willing to risk that, because no other tactic of taking back their party seems to have worked. No matter what they do, the Radical Right pulls the spotlight, the focus, and the agenda back to themselves.

I think it's just taken this long for them to say, “If this is what the Republican Party is going to be, then it's better to distance ourselves and see if the rest of the party comes to us than it is to allow ourselves to be carried along on this train any longer.”

Frankly, if the Republican Party is going to be the Party of Jesus, they could do with a little weakening. Jesus is not so good on the economic policy, really. For some reason, the moneylenders just refuse to work with Him…

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

The religious right in Kansas is showing textbook signs of radicalization: ignoring science, facts, and reason; and dismissing mainstream institutions as biased against them and part of a “left-wing conspiracy”.

The moderate reps are somewhat getting their comeuppance: they used the religious right to take control of the government, but now the religious right wants their due.

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

What I think a lot of liberal Kansans don't seem to recognize is that the extremism that is occuring in the Kansas GOP and on various levels of government in Kansas is being driven by VOTES. I mean, how can our present culture of governance be called something other than democracy when… it came about in a one-citizen-one-vote system? I'm not voicing support for one way or another, but it seems to me that those saying “let's restore the American way to Kansas” are not understanding that what we have in Kansas IS courtesy of the American way.

I'm not one to rudely say “love it or leave it”, but folks, if you cannot change with your votes what Kansas is, and if you cannot stand living in a place like this, then you have a choice to make: deal, or move. We all have choices. If you want to stay and work for change, OK, do so. But, staying and griping when you don't see change on the horizon and you aren't involved in facilitating change doesn't make a lot of sense. If you think “I can't raise my kids here” and you don't see any opportunity for change, then load the U-Haul. Life is too short to be nothing more than a complainer.

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

I hope the Christian Right does get their due: crushed and marginalized.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

OldEnuf: Indeed. Spoken like a true member of the ruling majority.

I could parse your argument about the extremism in Kansas being “vote-driven”, but it is true enough.

I would say the same thing to you but on a local level: if you don't like the “liberal” atmosphere of Lawrence (about which I have read a few of your complaints), then by all means pack the U-Haul and move to Pratt.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Neocons came in big time with Reagan/Bush with Newt as their mouth piece. Reaganomics was a failure then as it is now. Then the neocon christian coalition proceed to denounce evolution and civil rights not to mention women's rights. I've interacted with republicans all my life additionally my in laws are very conservative republicans and what's going on in this administration is not necessarily republican but extremely radical right wing. My in laws are apalled at the direction of this administration.

So why do republicans support neocons as they are representative of neither republican nor conservative values? Throw them out. We have our share of neocons in Topeka I would say.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Elections in Kansas go according to formula (Phill, take notes):

Moderate GOP voters and independents (the largest plurality of voters) look at the Republican nominee and measure the distance from their middle-of-the-road views to that of the nominee's.

Moderate GOP voters and independents then look at the Democrat nominee and do the same thing.

The shortest difference wins (assuming the nominee is forthcoming with their views so voters can measure and assuming the office is sufficiently visible for voters to reflect upon). Thus we have a Democrat Governor. Thus, Dennis Moore, even with a redrawn, GOP majority district, even with a lavishly funded Radical nominee, wins the biggest victory of his career. Thus it will forever be.

Dissatisfied Radical voters stay home on election day (can't very well vote for the Democrat), which is a problem only where there are a large number of Democrat voters, i.e., Lawrence. Dissatisfied moderates vote for the other candidate (although some stay home).

badger (Anonymous) says…

OldEnuf said:

“If you want to stay and work for change, OK, do so. But, staying and griping when you don't see change on the horizon and you aren't involved in facilitating change doesn't make a lot of sense. If you think “I can't raise my kids here” and you don't see any opportunity for change, then load the U-Haul. Life is too short to be nothing more than a complainer.”

Actually, I couldn't possibly agree more with this paragraph. If you don't like where you are, try to change it. If you don't have or use the power to change it, you either accept that it is what it is, or you leave and find someplace that is what you want.

Eventually, though, there comes a point where mouthing off on the internet about how nothing ever changes (when you're not doing anything to change it) becomes kind of a futile exercise. There are those who use public forums as a means to debate issues and look for reasonable solutions. Then there are those who use them to rail against the status quo without providing any reasonable means of compromise, and expect that just because they don't like something, their dislike of it should be enough to motivate others to change.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Kansas Club for Growth, which opposes “tax increases,” and Americans for Prosperity, which supports “a budget and tax limit amendment” are both neocon in nature. Kansas Club for Growth is actually some offspring of Club for Growth out of D.C. organized by Brownback yet was/is directed by Brownbacks former chief of staff.

Sen. Brownback qualifies as a neocon in my book.

badger (Anonymous) says…

Arminius -

Perhaps a part of what they oppose is what you seem to espouse, the reduction of an entire party's agenda and direction to a single hot-button issue instead of, I don't know, an actual balanced platform that seeks to address a variety of issues.

You may only vote based on abortion, but a lot of the rest of us out here have other priorities, and resent seeing every political contest come down to whether or not the candidate in question will vote the 'right' way on a single issue - regardless of that candidate's actual fitness to lead.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

An interesting view:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/08/1…

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Neocon 101:

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon…

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Worst:

You write in English, so I assume you can read it. I didn't say that those who “didn't like” Kansas should leave. I never came close to that, and I think you know that I didn't say that. You seem to think that being someone's worst nightmare is some sort of accomplishment. It's not. Finding pleasure from insulting others is a sign of immaturity. Even the name you chose for yourself says that. You have yet to post one constructive post on this site. What I find interesting is that you don't even understand that you are basically in bed with John1945. You think that because he's “right” and you are “left” that there is a difference, but you are wrong about that. You both come here with an angry, insulting tone and say nothing that anyone can use for good. You both get a rise, not from contributing, but from debasing and tearing down others.

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

By the way, I DO take my own advice: I can cope with Lawrence. I actually wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I'm OK here.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“Another contradiction made by KTRM is their claim that they represent 'traditional values' while simultaneously denouncing so-called “radicals.”

This is a FALSE statement - KTRM does not speak anywhere in this article about “traditional values.” They do speak of tradition and of values separately. “Traditional values” in politics means one or two things: (A) a throw-away line given by a politico because 'apple pie' sounds too corny, and/or (B) a code word to fundamentalists resisting the conflicts and pace of the modern world by reference to a past culture that either (1) never existed or (2) ignores shameful elements of the past. Arminius, not being a candidate and therefore not needing to kiss babies (yuck), means (B).

Since Arminius insists on making the topic here solely one of abortion, its key to point out that all (or virtually all) Republicans oppose abortion (heck, most Democrats do as well). The divide is whether that opposition trumps other “core values” of the GOP such as limited government and respect for individual's judgments over government's? Radicals are all ready to shoot the tax collector to protect their freedoms (put the gun down, Jedidiah!) unless its the government in their bedroom (must be a crowded bed) - or more accurately, the government in someone else's bedroom - where the Radicals want the State to break down the frontdoor. It is the lack of respect for other's judgments or expertise - pregnant mothers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, professors, social workers, career JAG attorneys, spouses making guardianship decisions for those in persistant vegitative states, etc. - that form a key characteristic of modern day Radicals - not that they represent the “root” of anything. Indeed, it is their separation from the roots of our society - the nuanced, messy, contradictory, at times positive, at times negative roots - that mark them. Otherwise, you'd never have to lecture a “Republican” about the meaning of limited government.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

OldEnuf,

Don't give me this “I'm not that way” crapola. Please.

Re-read your last two posts. Your attempts at feigning innocence are truly unbecoming. You're certainly not as good a martyr as my dear old mom.

You think that what I say is not helpful chiefly because you don't agree with it.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Jamesaust,

Great post. What was that definition of fascism again?

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Voter turn out is the key to take Kansas politics back to a more moderate stance and a very strong voter turn out in the primaries. Voter turn out is serious lacking. Democrats and moderate republicans usually fair better when large numbers of voters show up at the polls.

Extremist rarely represent the majority of any party.

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Just because you say “re-read your post” doesn't mean anything. I know what I stated, and I know what kind of stuff you write. You are dodging yourself by trying to call someone else the vicitmizer. You think that the constantly agressive tone in which you write will deflect attention away from your deficiencies. Bullies use that tactic on the playground. Keep them on the defensive so as to not feel threatened yourself.

Please don't reply to this post. You'll play “I know what you are, but what am I?” all day long if I let you.

badger (Anonymous) says…

Arminius said:

“You've got it backwards. It's the liberal Republicans who are overwhelmingly motivated by a single issue, i.e., abortion. Abortion is one of the issues I consider when voting, but far from the only issue.”

Um, if the only issue they're motiviated by is abortion, then how come they're not Democrats?

Far-right Republicans are making abortion a litmus test for everyone from Supreme Court Justices to city dogcatcher. If you're not pro-life, you're not invited to their party, no matter what else you may believe, support, or espouse. That's the message they've sent. Ergo, they're reducing the entire definition of 'Republican' to 'pro-life Christian' and that irks me, because I don't fit that mold on two counts, and I never will, but I do believe in the values of small government, personal responsibility, low taxes, individual liberties, and reasonable freedom for businesses with moderate civil and environmental safeguards in place. Why that doesn't make me a Republican, given that it's in line with a hundred or so years of Republican philosophy and governance is utterly beyond me, but here I am a registered Independent who ends up voting Democrat in every election higher than the city level.

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Merril makes a good point in that this is probably more of a battle about who goes to the polls and who doesn't. Conservative and liberal views tend to have a generational attachment, and no amount of snow or rain could keep a retiree from the polls. When I go to the polls, it's me, a couple of college girls and the entire Lawrence AARP chapter in line waiting to vote. It seems that old folks tend to vote conservative, and tend to vote incumbent. It has been stated before that many of Kansas' problems (poverty, education) would be better handled by a democrat-driven government; yet the voters keep voting republican. I think the liberals just aren't voting and the conservatives are.

badger (Anonymous) says…

Remind me again why the Democrats are now in this conversation? You keep bringing in groups to compare, well, something, to, but you get less and less coherent so I'm kind of starting to understand why people let you froth instead of trying to reason with you.

The first words of my post are “Far-right Republicans.” I'm not talking about the whole of the GOP, because there is a quiet base of conservatives who are *not* obsessed with abortion. However, the spotlight and the news bites are being dominated, as is the discussion over the party platform, by the far-right fundamentalist Christian Right. They are, within the actual members of the party, a minority. But because they are the loudest, and the most adamant, and the most likely to show up with five hundred raving picketers waving Bibles (thus making much better news video than a quiet gathering of an equal number of businessmen), they have the appearance of speaking for the whole of the party much more than they actually do.

I think that the highly visible moves back towards the middle that we're seeing more often these days are the effort by moderate Republicans to demonstrate that they are willing to break with the Radical Right.

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Arminius' words remind me of this truth: it takes two to make a polarized situation. Even the evolution/ID controversy requires at least two entrenched sides or positions. Everyone has a litmus test that they'd like to impose on someone else.

The Green Party was spawned out of the far left of the Democrats. I wonder if we are about to see the same in the GOP. A new “Red” party? When you consider that Gore lost to Bush because of Nader stealing votes… it makes one wonder what sort of impact a “Red” party would have on the political landscape.

I think the difference is that the Green party came about because the liberal side of the democrats was tired of the moderate ideals in the democratic party (“Republicrats”). Here in the Kansas GOP, there is a movement of the moderates against the fringe, not the other way around.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

BTW - Look for anti-abortion democrat candidate Bob Casey (a species of politico you insist cannot exist) to kick Bible-thumpin republican Rick (“man-on-dog”) Santorum's you know what in the upcoming Senate election in Pennsylvania. Santorum, the incumbent, is running 15-20 points behind in the polls and sinking fast.

Is there a more “pro-Arminius” Republican than Rick Santorum?

badger (Anonymous) says…

Arminius-

I think perhaps that your word usage and my word usage are suffering from a difference in colloquialisms.

That is the only explanation I can offer for the fact that you aren't actually responding to what I write, but to some sort of subtext that only you can see. Perhaps I am unwittingly adding commentary in the infrared spectrum, which is (owing to your being bitten by a radioactive water moccasin some years ago) viewable only to you.

Either way, I concede that you have brought my hopes of intelligent discussion with you to a standstill, and concede to you the field of the ludicrous and almost-relevant. Good day to you, sir.

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Arminus:

Yes, I meant “extremists” not “fringe”. I guess I'm used to the days when extremists WERE the fringe.

Sorry, but I'll have to say that, on a practical level, Nader took the office from Gore. Nader's followers were all former dems, correct? If there had been no Green Party, then those votes go to Gore. I remember Nader boldly stating “Gore stole the election from ME!” A gutsy statement, but when a guy gets as few votes as Nader did, I think that answers the question of whether or not his movement has legitimacy. Or let me put it this way: the democracy didn't find Nader very legitimate, I'd say.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Arminius —

I note that you're telling tall tales again. Can you read or do you just read the part you want? As I exposed your error earlier, traditional GOP values and “traditional values” are quite different.

“KTRM's main focus will be social issues…” To the extent the Radical's are obsessed with social values.

“I'm not focusing solely on abortion.”

The record shows eighteen times through that post on this page you cited “abortion.” All other's: a handful - in response to you. When someone pounds the table everytime they use the word “abortion,” and one's ears begin to hurt, its fair to conclude their focus is abortion.

“[KTRM's] failure to emphasize—or even address—those issues as they announce their founding speaks volumes.”

Okay, leaving your fantasy world - KTRM: “We will no longer concede the good Republican name to extremist Republicans who push a narrow social agenda….” Seems like they address it just fine. They just aren't obsessed with it like Radicals such as yourself.

“fellow travellers”

Code word for deceptive fronts for Communist Party subversives meant as a subliminal signal that the subject is fake.

“the fringe”

Everyone from Tim Shallenburger to the left, approximately 95% of voters. You know - the Dole/Kassebaum GOP “fringe.” The moderate/Radical divide depends on how you separate them. As the only Radical victories in Kansas in the last year have been picking on gays and electing candidates to the most obscure offices on the ballot, I'd say moderates are clearly the majority of the GOP. What's more, they are indisputably the vast, VAST majority of voters, which at the end of the day is all that matters.

Guiliani as “front runner”

Again, what fantasy world are you in? That a famous, popular person would be a favorite with voters is hardly news. But as all conceed with a sigh, there's no way that Radicals in the prerequisite primaries wouldn't mimic W.'s 2000 campaign and pull a “John McCain” on him and transform his image into a fornicating, racial-mixing, crypto-liberal, mentally unstable liberal.

Casey.

You stated “The Democrats clearly have a litmus test when it comes to abortion.” I demonstrated that this is false.

” your posts would have more clarity”

Is “clarity” your new buzzword for 'agrees with me?' Besides, you make it so easy to score points. Stick to distorting articles on other pages than the one the article is on and lazy people, who won't be bothered to verify, might believe you. Here, its too easy to scroll up to the actual article.

Admit it - you don't believe in limited government when it involves people's bedrooms. That's not a traditional GOP view. Jeez, one would never know that Republican Kansas was one of the first states to liberalize its abortion laws before Roe. Or that Kansas was among the first to extend suffrage to women (definately not a “traditional value”).

John1945 (Anonymous) says…

Just another stealth group of liberals, apparently funded in part by George Soros. See:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/00393…

If liberalism is so popular, why is it that they can't run as what they really are instead of masquerading as Republicans?

The dishonesty speaks volumes as does the lack of research by the media.

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (Anonymous) says…

I'd like to see the radical neocons kicked out of office, but it's all a matter of votes. Only 1 in 10 people in the 18-24 group voted in the 2004 presidential election. They could have made a difference but willingly chose not to. When Bush drafts them for the war, they'll have noone to blame but themselves. Sure, it's a lot of fun to wear tie-dyes and beat a bongo at an Anti-Bush rally, but that doesn't mean much if you can't get motivated to get off the couch on election day.

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Wow. Ascot's post makes me wonder. Probably the best thing that could happen to the left would be for Bush to institute a draft. 1 in 10 is shocking. Citizen-soldiers DO vote.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

One more reason to clean house:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/08……

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Arminius,

I must admit that I am ignorant about Abraham Lincoln's position on abortion.

Does a pro-life agenda include support of the death penalty for criminal offenders?

Interesting that you elude to the idea that women's suffrage is a traditional republican value (it was) that is being supported by current radical republicans (it's not). Listen to the rants of Kay O'Connor for an example.

Traditional republican values also included protection of the environment, strong science-based education, strong separation of church and state, and trust of professional opinion and expertise.

The republicans were up against the populists and democrats, who were pro-slavery, anti-intellectual, against women's rights, fiercely christian, and deeply distrusting of the “elite” that “ran society” (i.e. professionals and experts).

The populist mantle has been seized by the radical wing of the republican party, and the democrats now more closely resemble the republicans of 100 years ago. There are still some old time democrats (e.g. Zell Miller) and more old-time republicans (the moderates).

This transformation began in the mid 20th century and was consolidated under Ronald Reagan.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“”You stated 'The Democrats clearly have a litmus test when it comes to abortion.' I demonstrated that this is false.” Then explain to us why liberal Democrats in the Senate opposed John Roberts and are opposing Alito.”

Admit that I demonstrated the Democrat Party did NOT have a litmus test in probably its single most targeted 2006 Congressional race, and I'd be glad to. Admit that you - despite your assertions to the contrary - have spent the day posting references to abortion to this article's page as counted in the documented history of this page. (While you're busy with SpellCheck, others use Search to find the precise number of uses you made through your denial claim: 18.) Else, if you're going to keep shifting your distortions in ever-growing ripples, there's no point, other than continue to point out your fraudulence.

Are you coming out from fantasyland?

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

BTW - for any person interested in the Soros claim, here's a shortcut to avoid wasting 5 minutes of your life.

Malkin's conclusion?: “There is no official affiliation” (although to be fair Malkin isn't what most would call a reliable source) but there are “tentacles.” That admission doesn't keep Malkin from pulling a 'James Carville' to the subject's good name, all apparently because they dare to oppose ANWR oil drilling! Who says politics isn't sordid? I wonder though if Malkin recognizes lying as a sin? or is that not a “traditional value?” or is it not lying if you carefully hedge your insinuations?

dviper (Anonymous) says…

Upon first reading of this news article I was intrigued, because I would like to see the radical Liberals and radical Conservatives voted out of office. However after reading some of the posts to this story I began to wonder. I know Mr. Buhler from business interests, and he is in my opinion just barely ‘by the skin of his teeth’ a Republican. His voting record also suggests that he may in fact be a Liberal Democrat as stated by an earlier post by ‘Godot’. Secondly, the KTRM group’s objectives would indicate that they should support the Kansas Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity. (I am not familiar with these groups, so I’m relying on the LJW for accurate reporting, which is often questionable.) It would be interesting to read an elected Liberal Democrat’s view on this group. Maybe the LJW headline should have read as “Political group pledges to disempower far right”. Labeling them as GOP or Republican doesn’t seem to fit. So, it seems that Ms. Esau’s views of this group may be accurate.

KSMeadowlark (Anonymous) says…

See more info about this group here:

Political Profile of Members of “Kansas Traditional Republican Majority”

http://www.saljournal.com/blogs/?p=381