Topeka — Kansas is currently on a right-wing joyride.
Name an idea that carries the right-wing label, and it's getting serious play in Kansas.
Constitutional ban on gay marriage - done.
Science standards critical of evolution - done.
Investigating abortion clinics - done.
Obstacles to sex education - in the works.
Politically untouchable ultra-conservative congressmen - ongoing.
The list goes on.
Right-wing causes have always had varying degrees of success in Kansas, but lately they are rolling fast and furious.
Jon Wefald, president of Kansas State University, seemed exasperated at a recent Board of Regents meeting when discussing increasing efforts by anti-tax groups to amend the Kansas Constitution to install a spending cap.
"Kansans are not wild-eyed spenders. We don't need this," Wefald said.
Social conservatives rule
Some say the state's political climate should come as no surprise because Kansans are overwhelmingly Republican and generally considered conservative.
So-called conservatives and moderates have been duking it out for decades in Kansas.
But political scientists say there are conservatives and then there are conservatives.
- Kansas leaning further to right
- Cultural tilts leave Lawrence standing alone more often
- GOP group pledges to disempower far right (12-8-05)
- Corkins' transition team touts vouchers, charter schools (12-06-05)
- GOP leaders stand behind chairman (12-04-05)
- TABOR is topic for Thursday forum (11-30-05)
- Analysis: Board's actions show majority question educators' attitude (11-21-05)
- Club for Growth suit won't affect Kansas (09-21-05)
- Bush can't win in Douglas County (11-04-04)
- More stories about evolution in Kansas
- More stories about the gay marriage issue
- More stories about school financing
- More stories about abortion
Some see another conservatism gaining strength in the state, which for lack of a better term is called social conservativism.
"The social conservatives don't see themselves as the old definition of conservatism," said Bob Beatty, political science professor at Washburn University.
"They are movement conservatives, revolutionaries, and they are willing to use the state to accomplish their goals," Beatty said.
Traditionally, conservatives have been associated with fiscal prudence, turning a cautious eye to new trends.
But new conservatives have tossed that aside, Beatty said, if it furthers their agenda on social issues.
For example, he said, traditional conservatives would not have hired Bob Corkins as state education commissioner because he lacked qualifications for the $140,000-a-year job. Traditional conservatives wouldn't charge taxpayers $339 a night for six nights in a resort hotel room to attend a conference, as school board member Connie Morris did. She later repaid the expense after the media reported about the Miami trip.
But Corkins satisfies the social conservative agenda to push for tax funding of private schools, and Morris has gained accolades from social conservative circles for her opposition to teaching the children of illegal immigrants, Beatty said.
The backlash
But the movement from fiscal to social issues has turned off many so-called moderate Republicans.
"The social conservative wing of the Republican Party seems to be doing quite well and may be starting to drive out some moderate Republicans from the party," Beatty said.
Their dominance within the state Republican Party prompted Johnson County Dist. Atty. Paul Morrison to become a Democrat to have a chance to take on Atty. Gen. Phill Kline in the November 2006 election. The conventional wisdom was that Morrison couldn't have defeated Kline in the GOP primary because it is dominated by social conservatives.
Morrison said Kline, an ardent opponent of abortion who has launched an investigation into abortion clinics, had strayed from the office's role to focus on law enforcement and not political agendas. Kline has said he was investigating alleged crimes.
David Adkins, a former state senator who was defeated by Kline in the 2002 GOP primary, said Morrison's move showed frustration among moderates. But will it mean more will switch to the Democratic Party?
"A lot of Republicans will stay to vote in the Republican Party primary to try to moderate the views of nominees," he said. But in the general election, if there are no moderate Republicans to vote for, he said, they will vote for the Democrat.
"(Gov.) Kathleen Sebelius has benefitted from that as has (U.S. Rep.) Dennis Moore," he said. Both Democrats have won elections by wooing moderate Republicans.
Clear lines
A group called the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority announced last week it would get involved in fund-raising and campaigning to counter what it called "radical groups" that are involved in Republican Party politics in Kansas.
Those groups named by KTRM included the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity.
Both are anti-tax groups linked to the state's top Republican officeholder, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, who is one of the most socially conservative lawmakers in the country and has indicated he may run for president, and Wichita-based Koch Industries, which funds numerous conservative and libertarian think tanks and whose owners have been longtime movers and shakers in Kansas politics.
David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries, helped found Americans for Prosperity and serves as its board chairman. He was the Libertarian Party candidate for vice president of the U.S. in 1980.
The Koch family have been longtime supporters of Brownback, whose former chief of staff David Kensinger runs the Club for Growth. Both the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity were active in many of the same legislative campaigns in Kansas last year.
Ryan Wright, the executive director of the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, said the party had strayed so far from its roots that a venerated Kansan, former U.S. Sen. Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, would have trouble winning a GOP primary today.
But the conservative Kansas Republican Assembly blasted the group. KRA Director Charlotte Esau called it a sham organization "who will talk Republican before the election and vote Democrat once in office."
Meanwhile, another group has formed to reclaim, as it says, the core of mainstream Kansas values. The nonpartisan Kansas Alliance for Education, headed by lifelong Republican Don Hineman, is dedicated to unseating the 6-4 majority on the state school board.
Eyes on Shallenburger
The dissension within the GOP ranks has increased the pressure on state Republican Party Chairman Tim Shallenburger.
Shallenburger, widely known as a conservative Republican who angered many moderates when he was House speaker, is now taking heat from his right flank.
Mark Gietzen of Wichita, head of Kansas Coalition for Life, has called for Shallenburger to step down as chairman because he accepts pro-abortion-rights candidates in the GOP.
"There's no difference between us and the Democrats right now," Gietzen said.
"The defining issue of our era is the abortion issue. If you're pro-choice then you are in the wrong party. If not, then what on earth does it mean to be a Republican?" he asked.
Gietzen has formed a group called the Kansas Republican Action Assembly to counter the Kansas Republican Assembly, which has supported Shallenburger.
But Shallenburger said it's not just conservatives who were changing.
"The entire spectrum has changed. There are moderate Republicans who are just downright liberal, and there are conservative Republicans who are just way out there," he said.
But some social conservatives are over-reaching, he said.
For example, he said he found it confounding that some Christian groups criticized President Bush for using the word "holiday" instead of Christmas in his seasonal card.
"Eight years ago that wouldn't have happened," he said. "We were just so happy to have George Bush instead of Bill Clinton."
With that kind of variance within the GOP, he said it's hard to keep everyone inside the "big tent."
"Kansas is a big state. It does make it difficult to keep the holes patched because we have a lot of holes," he said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
b_asinbeer (anonymous) says…
I have no problem with republicans. After all, a little debate is always good. But like the article says, I'm concerned about the extremist ones. I hope this doesn't further stifle Kansas's image and economy (heck, how do you draw tourists to a state that already ranks 50th in the country in tourism, and is damaging its reputation by the minute?)
jayhawk2000 (anonymous) says…
Hmmm, why is it everything on the right-wing agenda involves unenforceable, moralistic intervention on matters of personal choice? It grabs the headlines and makes certain people feel smugly patriotic, but ultimately it's all smoke and mirrors to distract everyone from Republicans smoothing the way for Big Business. Remind me again which corporate taxes Jesus would cut?
Meanwhile, debate has disappeared on the things that really affect our lives and livelihood (things like taxes, jobs, infrastructure).
Instead of debating what goes into textbooks, people should focus on how to pay for them.
coldandhot (anonymous) says…
Typical article from Rothschild. He is a blatant liberal. Could we get someone that is not partisan to write articles on Kansas politics. Has he ever wrote an article not slamming conservatives?
CanadianPassport (anonymous) says…
Yawn.
badger (anonymous) says…
Kansas leans right.
In other breaking news, much of it is flat.
DaREEKKU (anonymous) says…
Conservative slant? He merely speaks the truth. I worry, but the more I see those wackjobs screw over the Republican Party and slam the country further to the right, the more I laugh. They are on a sinking ship, and it is only a matter of a short period of time before people finally are affected enough to get off their La-z-boys and do something differently (like actually vote). I was frankly suprised that Bush didn't send out chocolate crosses for the holidays, but was pleased that he actually respected other traditions enough to be inclusive. What a crock of crap Christmas has become anyway. Fat men, deer, and buying the most crap for people. Isn't this supposed to be a humble time of year? If so, why would they care so much about shoving Christmas in our faces? I don't think Jesus would care too much for that....
DaREEKKU (anonymous) says…
Hahahahahha! Wendt just made an extremely stressed, pre-final college student laugh on no sleep. Thank you :-).
bankboy119 (anonymous) says…
Wendt, your blatant ignorance always amazes me.
"What was the conservative goal, you ask? Violently suppressing and counterattacking any criticism, no matter how well deserved."
If defending your position is "counterattacking" then yes that's what ALL politicians do, not just conservatives. By violently suppress, do you mean that they are able to defend their positions in such a way that any argument that tries to be formulated against theirs is ineffective? If that's the case then truth should always win out no matter if the position is liberal or conservative.
badger (anonymous) says…
Truth rarely wins when it's being decided by popular opinion and political process.
Densmore (anonymous) says…
Like most liberals and moderate conservatives, the relatively recent strengthening of the far right, while initially annoying, has become frightening. I believe, however, that I am becoming more at ease with the situation. As more and more of these ultra-conservatives shoot off their mouths, their illogical and sometimes hateful views are placed in the open and subjected to public scrutiny. Thoughtful voters in Kansas and elsewhere will respond and this movement toward the far right will self-destruct. We saw the beginning of the self-destruction of the far right with the election of our current governor.
The far right has been given a lot of rope and I sense that they are now in the process of hanging themselves with it. For example, witness the attacks on Shallenburger.
As I mentioned above, I am more at ease with the situation. Once this ultra-right fever breaks, our political immune system will be more resilient to such illnesses and we can get on with the matter of providing proper educations and health care for our children, a proper infrastructure for the growth of business, prudent use of our military, fiscal responsibility, and other matters which should be the subject of healthy political debate, as opposed to vicious attacks on one another over issues of morality.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
'"A lot of Republicans will stay to vote in the Republican Party primary to try to moderate the views of nominees," he said. But in the general election, if there are no moderate Republicans to vote for, he said, they will vote for the Democrat.'
Not me. I register Republican and then vote in primaries for the biggest whackjob I can find. It serves to weaken, if not defeat (Kobach, 2004) the better candidate, improving his/her chances for being defeated by raging liberals like Dennis Moore and Kathleen Sebelius... *snicker*
Arminius--
I can't cite the information because I can't recall exactly where it came from, but I'll assure you that it came from a polling company: of Kansas Republicans, 51-53% consider themselves to be religious/social conservatives.
Last I looked, Kansas ran between 60 and 65% Republican. So, the point is, a majority of Republicans, yes; a majority of Kansans? Hardly, friend.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
I should back that last argument up a little bit, in reading it now. When there are three *credible* candidates in the big races, ie. conservative R, moderate R, and moderate D (let's face it, a liberal D isn't credible and isn't going to win any of the big races), the Democrat wins. Because the majority of Kansas R's nominate extremists in primaries, the majority of Kansans voting in the general election speak, and it has been, lately, to the defeat of conservative Republicans.
Densmore (anonymous) says…
Arminius:
Here is an example extremism:
No new taxes of any sort under any circumstances.
Juxtapose the above example with the following issue: How do we attract quality employers to Kansas? One method might be to have enough tax revenue to provide an infrastructure that is attractive to business. Businesses are obviously concerned with taxes, but also of great importance are roads, highways, airports, corruption-free utilities and sufficient law enforcement. Businesses want to attract excellent employees. Prospective employees want to be able to send their kids to great public schools, with excellent teachers, (and science courses that are without religious interference). The list goes on and on. However, someone has to pay for the infrastructure.
Maybe the answer is to forget the quality of our infrastructure and give businesses huge tax breaks. Maybe that is what is needed to attract quality businesses. On the other hand, maybe the answer is to invest in a quality infrastructure, thereby attracting employers of choice. The point is, the "no new taxes" position, or even worse, the "much less taxes" position, are extremist positions that slam the door on what would be a worthwhile debate.
badger (anonymous) says…
Positions held by a majority of Kansas Republicans are not necessarily held by a majority of US Republicans.
I think the Republican Party is going to break, with the social conservatives splitting off one way, and the fiscal and traditional conservatives splitting off another. Without the traditionalists to curb their rabid tendency to use the political process as a pulpit, and to frame their agenda in more palatable and reasonable terms, the social conservatives are likely to self-destruct eventually. It may take ten or fifteen years, but one day there will be an argument over whether, when they begin the convention with the Lord's Prayer, they should say, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," or "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors," and that will be the beginning of the end.
All conservatives should take hope in the fact that the Democratic Party will probably also lose power when the social and fiscal conservatives split as the moderate fiscal conservatives, who defected to the Dems because they were been unable to stomach the domination of the Republican Party by the social conservatives, defect back.
For a while, we could end up with three evenly balanced parties, and that would be very interesting.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
Is there news anywhere in this article? Were there no abandoned puppies to use to fill the pages of the LJW today?
"But some social conservatives are over-reaching, [Kansas GOP Chairman Shallenberger] said. For example, he said he found it confounding that some Christian groups criticized President Bush for using the word 'holiday' instead of Christmas in his seasonal card."
Jeez, imagine if 'soft on immigration' W had said Feliz Navidad.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Conservative and liberal as labels have lost their usefulness, as have democrat and republican.
There are really three major constituencies in Kansas and in the US.
From left to right:
Progressives: the "liberal" wing of the democratic party. Another term might be "left-wing liberals".
Conservatives: moderate democrats and moderate republicans. Other terms might be "centrists" or "moderates".
Populists: the religious right wing of the republican party. Another term for populists might be "right-wing liberals".
These various groups have centered themselves in both of the major political parties in US history.
100 years ago the republicans were the progressives and the democrats and populists carried the populist mantle. Now, the republican party is home to the populist mantle.
prospector (anonymous) says…
Badger, it is my humble opinion that nationally we have one party, the Republicrats. Another party would really make a difference because "none of the above" is not on the ballot.
badger (anonymous) says…
Prospector, I disagree. That argument has long been used to justify voter apathy: "They're all the same, so why bother voting for any of them?"
There are differences between the parties, and though those differences are less than they once were, they remain. A big part of the problem is that when the far right started dominating the Republican Party, the Dems got a lot more moderate with the influx of those fleeing. What appears to be inconsistency or 'Republicraticism' is actually the result of the same party containing far-left liberals (think Dennis Kucinich) and a bunch of moderate Republican expatriates trying to pick the least liberal path they can without joining the social conservatives.
This rise of the social conservatives has brought about an interesting state of affairs in which Republicans start advocating states' rights, Democrats start being the ones opening the dialogue on welfare reform, and moderates spend a lot of time trying to figure out which candidate will be the least likely to take away personal freedoms but also able to keep the economy stable.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
Arminius--
You said: "If you name what you consider extremist positions, chances are that those positions are held by a majority of Kansas Republicans, if not a majority of Kansans. The question then is can you accurately label positions held by a majority as "extremist"? Certainly, the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority is being disingenuous when it says it represents a majority of Republicans."
I believe I was discussing positions in addressing your first post, but in re-reading that post, you bring up an interesting argument...is the government there to serve a majority of Republicans, or the majority of Kansans/Americans?
That was my point.
classclown (Class Clown) says…
Ballots may not have "None of the above" as a selection on them, but they do provide a space for a write in candidate. Everyone should use that space and write "None of the above in it.
Wouldn't that be a hoot? Now that would be interesting.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Sandman (anonymous) says…
In the interest of balance, the JW reporters will surely issue a statement about the rise of liberals in Lawrence.
Yeah, right.
prospector (anonymous) says…
By Badger--"Truth rarely wins when it's being decided by popular opinion and political process."
What can be done to correct this?
I feel both sides want my personal freedoms and my money. The Dems want to protect us from ourselves and the Reps want to control us. They all seem to know what is best for us and spend our money like drunken sailors. To me, they all have a self preservation agenda that does not represent the people that voted them in.
I do vote and chastise thoses with the "why bother" atittude. I hope that we the people can find a good, sensible fix to keep us from all the above.
I will still cast my write in vote for sheriff, Mickey Mouse. He was a strong second here last election.
badger (anonymous) says…
Prospector -
For me, 'what can be done about this' is to make as many people think about it as possible.
I challenge anyone who says that something must be right 'just because the majority of XXXX population want it,' as opposed to whether it's constitutional, ethical, or fiscally and socially a wise course of action.
I may disagree with people as to what that course of action should be, or what is constitutional or ethical, but those discussions stay civil and useful so long as neither side tries to bring in, "I'm right because more people agree with me."
People have spoken about how a democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and that's true. It's one of the reasons I'm kind of glad we're not a straight-up democracy. It's too easy to whip a majority of people into a hysteria over a non-issue (*cough*bird flu*cough*) and get them out to vote idiotic public policy into effect that will roll right over the rights of a minority of the population 'for the greater good.'
The best approach is to simply refuse to allow others to define truth as 'what everyone thinks is right' and to demand a certain degree of accountability when people start claiming they've got the market on truth cornered.
I always question those who immediately challenge their opponents with, "There you go lying again." They're most likely to launch into a tirade of their own vague truths in response, and then debate wallows in a nit-picky exchange of sniping attacks on each other's 'facts.'
prospector (anonymous) says…
Badger
I thank you, as always, you do your part very well. The truth will set you free.
Maybe we could get the Republicans and Democrats to look up the meaning of republic.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
Arminius-
Conservative is a position. So is moderate and liberal. They are all positions on the political spectrum.
You got me on the purpose of government, but in your own post you equated the views of a majority of Republicans with the views of a majority of Kansas. I merely attempted to address this, but I can see it doesn't go far with you.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
Arminius--
Thank you for clarifying your second point. I didn't extract that meaning from your first post.
"Moderate" won a House seat (and maybe 2 if you count Moran, which I do in most cases) and the Governor's office, not to mention 4 school board seats and many other, lesser offices. Conservative won two house seats and the AG's office.
Republican and Democrat are meaningless in Kansas to the point that scholars and writers who have studied state politics in the last fifteen years or so will tell you that there are three parties in Kansas.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
"Republican and Democrat are meaningless in Kansas to the point that scholars and writers who have studied state politics in the last fifteen years or so will tell you that there are three parties in Kansas."
Agreed. See my previous posting.
Miyagi_Rules (anonymous) says…
Just a couple of points.
First, under a two-party system there will always be contradictions within the party itself, it's simply impossible to get all of the pieces that fit underneath a broad umbrella to look the same and carry the same ideals. That's why we continually have shifts in this country as to what it means to be a Republican or a Democrat. Which is why it's vitally important to critically think about how you are going to vote and not to just check all to the right or all to the left based upon your basic party affiliation.
Second, as a right-leaning Christian, it still seems to me that the greatest polarizing force in our country right now is religion and the attempts by social conservatives to moralize the country. Instead of focusing on more pragmatic issues that effect our daily lives like education, healthcare, helping businesses be more innovative, preparing our workers to be competitive in a global economy, and national security we spend all of our time focusing upon things like ID and homosexuality. In my opinion legislating morality is a dead-end course that only polarizes.
I'm not saying that moral discussions are not salient and valid, quite to the contrary I think they're terribly important but making that a foundation for a political platform is very problematic. We as a society have to determine what our moral values will be and in a post-traditional culture we need to build arguments around pragmatism and the best interests of the country and not base them on "because God says" logic. In the mean time our political discourse should focus on the problems and issues facing every day Americans.
Just my thoughts, I'm sure you all will let me know where I'm wrong!
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Arminius,
After reading many of your postings and those from like-minded individuals, it seems as though you have the idea that everything--everything--is political.
Education of our youth is a political football as are scientific facts and theories. Your attitude seems to be that it doesn't matter what the truth is as long as you win politically.
Not everything should be political, Arminius.
Education of our children should not be, nor should science and religion.
badger (anonymous) says…
Miyagi_Rules said:
"In my opinion legislating morality is a dead-end course that only polarizes."
That (and in fact the rest of your post) was very well spoken. Moralities will differ across the population, and in any attempt to legislate morality, it will come to pass that at some point, people on opposite sides of the issue will come into conflict with one another over what is 'wrong' vs. what is 'right.' Because at that point not only politics but also personal ideologies and philosophies are being challenged, it's very hard for either side to give any ground without conceding some part of their core beliefs.
Usually in those cases, neither side is completely focused on 'what is best for the city/state/nation/world' they have undertaken to govern.
prospector (anonymous) says…
Miyagi_Rules
And very good points they are.
If the "social conservatives" could only understand this position, this would be a much better world.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Arminius:
Yes, this article is about the politicization of science and religion by the extremist religious right wing.
Densmore (anonymous) says…
Arminius' post from above (3:33 p.m.), first quoting yourworstnightmare and then responding to yourworstnightmare:
"After reading many of your postings and those from like-minded individuals, it seems as though you have the idea that everything--everything--is political."
Not true. In another thread I wrote about a liberal who tried to pick a fight with me over Mirecki and Iraq Friday night at a Philippine-American holiday/birthday party. I told him we were there to celebrate not to debate politics. There is a proper place (such as this forum) to discuss politics.
--------------
Here is Arminius' actual post from December 10 at 12:06 p.m., first quoting another poster and then responding:
"Truly a shame that people would go to such lengths do attack a person's beliefs."
In my opinion, the Left goes to much further lengths. Consider this:
We attended a Philippine-American holiday party last night. I was enjoying the food with my extended family when this 65-year-old dwarf with a mail-order bride half his age asked me, "So how's that big pickup truck of yours?"
"I don't have a truck," I responded.
------------------
What a fine example of a non-political post. In your non-political post, you accuse "the Left" of attacking personal beliefs, based on a simple little bit of discussion with "a 65-year old dwarf."("Dwarf?" Showing your Christian love, I guess.)
See, yourworstnightmare is correct. It is all political to you. You can't even relay a holiday anecdote without getting political. Who cares if the guy who wanted to argue politics was left, center, right, far-right, or so far out on the right that he was in the Arminius Zone.
You provide evidence that "everything is not political to Arminius" by recounting the rudeness of a person and making sure that everyone knows that he is on "the Left." Hilarious.
middleman (anonymous) says…
When you sit in the nose-bleed section of the far left, everything to the right looks radical. When you live in a town that is out of step with the majority of the nation and certainly this state -- it should make you question just WHO is out of step. You want people with morals to look at your material seriously, but you fail to look at ours. Morals matter--when morals decay, the nation suffers.
Densmore (anonymous) says…
Middleman:
Thanks for reminding us that the Right has the high ground on issues of morality. Especially the Kansas Taliban and their national leaders like Pat Robertson.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Middleman, you said:
"You want people with morals to look at your material seriously, but you fail to look at ours. Morals matter--when morals decay, the nation suffers."
What do you mean by "morals"? Do you mean christian fundamentalist dogma? Anything that is not in agreement with religious right-wing dogma is immoral?
I guess I don't know what immoral "materials" you are referencing. Evolution, literature, science?
Agreed that when morals decay, the nation suffers. Illegitimate war and attacks on science and education seem pretty "immoral" to me.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Also middlinman, you seem to be indignant that "those in the nose-bleed section of the left" won't listen to your "materials".
What do you care what "the left" thinks? You are obviously in the majority in the state and in the US, so why the indignation? Don't see why you and your "materials" need to be validated by "the left".
Densmore (anonymous) says…
From Middleman:
"Morals matter--when morals decay, the nation suffers."
In the political arena only, the majority decides what is "moral." This is no different than after a war, when the victors determine the "war criminals."
In pre-Nazi Germany, the majority decided what was "moral," and the Nazis were installed. After the war, the Allies decided what was "moral" and prosecuted war criminals accordingly.
"Morality," when decided by the majority, is shifting sand. As such, standards of morality in the political arena are tenuous at best. The point is, "morality" has nothing to do with the majority. Otherwise, a lynch mob, which is a majority, cannot be immoral.
To succeed as a nation and to distinguish ourselves from the fanatical forces that crash airliners into civilian office buildings, we must leave "morality" out of politics.
Densmore (anonymous) says…
From Arminius:
"Densmore:
Speaking of Liberals turning things political, do you happen to remember how they turned Paul Wellstone's funeral into a campaign rally?"
Yes I do. It was disgraceful. What is your point?
Densmore (anonymous) says…
From Arminius:
Densmore:
"See, yourworstnightmare is correct. It is all political to you. You can't even relay a holiday anecdote without getting political."(Comment by Densmore.)
Reading's not your strong suit, is it? That anecdote was to illustrate that the Left often makes everything political. It was a Liberal who introduced politics into that holiday setting, not I. Without the Liberal, the entire event would have been a celebration, as intended."(Comment by Arminius.)
---------------------
Reading your posts is sometimes difficult, Arminius. The point is, you cited one of your posts as an example of how everything is not political to you, while using a political label in the post to underscore the alleged depredation committed by the "dwarf."
I disagree with you on many issues. I respect your right to voice your opinions. I do not respect your disingenuous tactics. You are an amateur, Arminius. You go into a "heads up" fight with brass knuckles because you need the edge.
Densmore (anonymous) says…
wendt:
Maybe the problem with Arminius is the Haldol. Rather than Haldol, I suggest a cocktail of good old fashioned Thorazine and Stelazine. They potentiate one another and provide direct relief for chronically psychotic dipsticks, as well as providing indirect relief for those of us who must suffer the otherwise bizarre behavior of said dipsticks.
Biodude (anonymous) says…
Are you serious?
The most immoral thing a person can do is kill another person. How about killing thousands and lying about why you are doing it? How about lying about why we as a nation are in imminent danger unless we kill? Right, the Rebulican party and GW are so moral. Many far-left liberals just want people to love one another and stop killing inocent children. They also often want to spend money and effort on things like providing food, shelter, medicine, etc. to those in desparate need.
You folks are always going around asking "What would Jesus do?"
This is so amazing to me how any human being can be so damn dumb. Jesus would be a left wing liberal democrate. Next question?
Densmore (anonymous) says…
From Arminius:
"wendt:
For the record, you have made numerous statements in just this one thread that are demonstrably false. KU Med Center fired you because you were dishonest and that pattern continues, doesn't it?"
Arminius:
You are using your brass knuckles, you coward. You can't argue the issues, can you?
Densmore (anonymous) says…
wendt:
I think he enjoys getting poked in the vicinity of the glutes.
Lynn731 (anonymous) says…
Kansans may not be wild eyed spenders, but their governments are. Our taxes keep going up, up, UP. I would vote for anything that would limit the ability to tax us more. We need a spending cap to rein in government, and especially the school districts. They are bleeding us dry. Retired people, on limited and fixed incomes, cannot take much more of this. I know, I am one of them. You can bet I will vote for any type of relief that is proposed to be able to stay in my home until I die. The government should not be able to tax seniors out of the homes they have worked all their lives for. Thank you, Lynn
laughingatallofu (anonymous) says…
Lynn,
>>
Are you a Republican? They're in control right now. Blame them.
laughingatallofu (anonymous) says…
Wendt,
Arminius may not make sense, but he/she is no Ann Coulter.
I'd suggest PorkRibs as an alternative.
microsrfr (anonymous) says…
Being a native Wichitan, I can tell you that the founder of Koch made his initial fortune designing and building refineries for Russia during the 30's. He together with the head of Coleman were active participants in the rabidly anticommunist John Birch society which was successful in the 60's in having books and teachers removed from Kansas schools.
Apparently, the apple still doesn't fall far from the tree. In the guise of protecting our children, David Koch is funding organizations whose real aim is the protection of big business. I guess owning the largest privately held corporation in the US with sales in excess of $60 billion is not enough.
These groups would have the disabled, the unemployed and the retired residents of our country fend for themselves, something that is not done in any Democracy in the world. Perhaps they would like to do away with the Democracy part as well!
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
Lynn Jenkins hates Christmas, where are the Cons on that?
http://kansasstatetreasurer.com/prodw...
Nothing but holiday holiday holiday.
And this liberal Republican group? It is headed up by a former Lynn Jenkins staff person.
Was he wearing his uniform he got for being at war on Christmas?
Liberal liberal liberal war on Christmas Lynn Jenkins.
disaacs (anonymous) says…
Just because someone uses the term "holiday" does not mean that they hate Christmas. Quit buying into that O'Reilly/Limbaugh bull.
People need to respect people of all religions. That is why this country was formed, to be free of religious hostility and persecution. The people who celebrate Hanukkah and Kwanzaa should be free from your persecution, as well as vice-versa. It's only respectful. Did your mother not teach you to be respectful of people who are different from you?
jayhawk2000 (anonymous) says…
I wonder if Lynn731 really thinks it is the aim of the Republican Party to cut taxes for the common man.
All their calls to end 'big government' is actually a means of decreasing taxation and regulation on big business. And when you stop taxing the fat cats scoring the big bonuses and record-breaking profits, where are you going to find the money? By taxing the working man.
Don't believe any Republican claim that less government and lower taxes have the ultimate aim of helping working people. While they are trotting around attracting votes by making unicorns illegal (sorry, banning gay marriages and other things that don't exist) they are also screwing the farmers, the workers and the single parents for every penny they can.
Kitt (anonymous) says…
Wow... all I have to say is that when the KS Republican Party starts sounding like a mouth piece for Fred Phelps the battle is probably lost and its time to change parties.
Now, with both parties going to such extremes what is a moderate to do?