Dems to moderates: Join the party / LJWorld.com

Archive for Monday, October 31, 2005

October 31, 2005

Topeka — When President Reagan was asked why he left the Democratic Party, he answered, "I didn't leave them; the party left me."

The Democratic Party had become too liberal for Reagan, who joined the Republicans.

Kansas Democrats hope the tide is turning.

Last week, Johnson County's top prosecutor, Paul Morrison, stunned state political circles by leaving the Republican Party to become a Democrat in an effort take down Atty. Gen. Phill Kline, a conservative Republican, in the 2006 general election.

Morrison said the GOP had become too concerned with social-conservative issues, such as Kline's effort to get medical records from abortion clinics, instead of safety and security.

"Maybe we are on the other side of that spectrum right now," House Democratic Leader Dennis McKinney said after recalling Reagan's famous line.

McKinney and other Democrats are hoping for more defections of moderate Republicans who feel stymied as conservatives in control of the state GOP increase their power.

Moderate and conservative Republicans usually split ways on abortion, stem cell research, support of public schools, budgetary matters and the role of the judiciary. The recent appointment by conservatives on the State Board of Education of public school critic Bob Corkins as education commissioner also has given moderates a bad case of heartburn.

"For candidates supportive of public schools and doing something about health care, that will probably cause more people to consider filing as Democrats," McKinney said.

Others say more switches are unlikely.

Republicans hold such a commanding edge in voter registration in Kansas - 46 percent Republican, 27 percent Democrat and 27 percent independent and other parties -- it is only in unique circumstances, such as Morrison's, where a Republican would switch parties, political observers say.

The theory goes that Morrison had to jump parties to have a chance at election because he couldn't have defeated Kline in the Republican primary, which historically has drawn more conservative voters.

"This is a unique situation," Bob Beatty, a Washburn University political science professor, said of Morrison's move. "There are a number of frustrated Republicans, but asking them to switch parties is a huge move."

Some Republicans are open about why they carry the GOP label. It has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with getting elected in traditionally Republican Kansas.

State Republican Party Chairman Tim Shallenburger says it's time for everyone to show their hands and declare which party they really belong to.

He criticized state Rep. Ward Loyd, a Republican from Garden City who often works with Democrats, and was quoted as saying he stayed in the Republican Party to get re-elected.

"That's not very honest," Shallenburger said. "People should be honest. We would all be better off if everyone registered what they really are."

But Shallenburger said he didn't know whether more Republicans would bolt.

He has an idea, though, to find out.

He said the state GOP was in the process of writing a party platform, and he called on Democrats to do the same.

Then Kansans could look at both platforms and decide which party is closer to their ideals.

"I would hold it up and have registration day," Shallenburger said.

Discussion

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.

31 October 2005
at 6:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

If Kansas republicans continue to show neocon signs a platform will mean nothing. Republicans in this state should produce a very right wing platform if they are honest.
31 October 2005
at 6:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

grubesteak (Anonymous) says…

Did you know there is even a place in Kansas for Democrats for Life? This group met in Lawerence a few months ago (and I made its web site). Check them out at http://kansas.democratsforlife.org.
31 October 2005
at 8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Abortion is not the only issue regarding a neocon platform.
31 October 2005
at 8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

magnificentbastard (Anonymous) says…

Wow I didn't realize the Republican's were this scared. It's like they're the last ones to realize they're only representing a small but loud minortiy of the state anymore. I guess they thought their whole constituency was as crazy as the radical right.
31 October 2005
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

erichaar (Anonymous) says…

“Neoconservative,” or “neocon,” is a term that is often misunderstood and misused. “Neoconservatism” is used to describe a way of looking at two issues primarily: United States foreign policy and federal budget and tax policy.

Not every conservative is a neoconservative. George Bush, for example, is a neocon, but Patrick Buchanan is a traditional conservative and detests the neoconservative policies of foreign intervention and federal spending increases without budget offsets.

Having said that, it is difficult if not impossible to identify any position held by a state political party as neoconservative.
31 October 2005
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BDub (Anonymous) says…

Out of curiosity, erichaar, what is your source for that definition? Can you cite it here? I'm just interested in reading more on it.
31 October 2005
at 9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

I see no evidence of moderate Republicans switching parties (other than Morrison, which the article takes pains to paint as a strategic move).

Indeed, why should moderates switch parties? They can always switch candidates in the privacy of the voting booth. THAT's what the more radical members of the GOP have to worry about.

Still, Democrats may be energized and that is a problem for Republicans. The only uber-conservatives who seem to win easily are those who face no (Brownback) or token (Ryun) Democrat opposition. Maybe Kansas Democrats just need to focus on developing a 'farm team.'

31 October 2005
at 10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Densmore (Anonymous) says…

Still waiting, erichaar.

I have used the term “neocon,” but I try to avoid it as well as those folks to which it is typically applied.

Putting people into political pigeon holes is risky. If we are to use two broad classifications for the people right of center, I would agree that there are traditional conservatives and that Pat Buchanan would fit into that group, but I would not put him out there as an example of the quintessential traditional conservative. Among traditional conservatives are many who are more moderate than Pat. That being said, I have respect for the traditional conservatives and while I don't always agree with them, I attribute many of this country's successes to them.

I don't know what to call those that fall to the right of the traditional conservatives. They are beginning to become so diverse. You've got folks who are essentially religious fanatics, you've got your “spend now but do not tax to pay for it” destroyers of our childrens' futures, you've got greedy anti-tax folks who have no concern for anything other than their wallets, you've got your “let's use our military might to build nations and force our ideology on to other cultures” wack jobs. I don't know if one term will suffice for all of those who are right of the traditional conservatives.
31 October 2005
at 11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

concerned_citizen (Anonymous) says…

Kansas politics are so interesting! I've lived a lot of places and we seem to have a real mixed bag here.

It'd be easier to be a Democrat if the elected dems weren't constantly bowing to the most extreme members of the Left, too. The Marxists-in-everything-but-name members of the radical Left are the one's with the ears of Dem politicians. I don't believe for a second that the Dems have anything for moderates as long as radicals call the shots on their platforms. The Democrats for Life might as well not even bother for all the impact they are going to have on their party, though I do respect their efforts.

Many average small-c conservatives (like me) can't stand the way that the fringes of the Left and the Right have taken over, but you tend to stick to what you know. I DID vote for Kerry in the last election breaking with my better the Devil you know voting philosophy, mostly because I thought Kerry can't possibly swell the gummint as much as “conservative” Bush has. Sheesh!

I do tend to look at the extremists in the parties to see where they could end up, and the extreme Lefties scare me more than the extreme Rightists (but just barely. At least the righties pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment which is to deal with such things as tyrannies when they arise) thus I tend to stick with the right.
31 October 2005
at 12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

CC, it's just Lawrence that they're interesting in….well maybe Wyandotte county too. So glad I got of if it. Liberals are off their nut and that's why they can't win elections. I'm not for promoting or supporting a radical homosexual agenda which is exactly what the left does. I don't want the government in my life or the courts having all the power like the left does. The ACLU and groups like them only serve to bring America down which most Americans know.
31 October 2005
at 12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Snoop (Anonymous) says…

“Johnson County's top prosecutor, Paul Morrison, stunned state political circles by leaving the Republican Party to become a Democrat in an effort take down Atty. Gen. Phill Kline, a conservative Republican, in the 2006 general election.”

This guy is a coward, this switching parties mess is a bunch of crap. He did not do it out of principal or change in ideology, he did it because it was easier for him to do this on the Democratic side rather than run against Kline on the Republican ticket. How difficult is this to figure out.

He in his press conference said that “he was not a political person” and what is the first thing he does act political!

Any politician that does this is not worthy of your vote. The attention this idiot is getting is also ridiculous. I am not a big Kline fan, and if there were another choice even a Democrat, I would consider, but not this man. Someone who switches parties for an election is already showing you his true colors and character.

Democrats would be better served by ignoring this jackass, put up a TRUE Democrat and run on those merits and platform.
These types of political moves are done by punk ass types who have no backbone and want to get into office the easy way. And hope he can get a few votes from angry libs, mad a Kline. Classic!
31 October 2005
at 12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meggers (Anonymous) says…

Bankboy,

What, precisely, is this “radical homosexual agenda” you claim the left is promoting? Equal rights and protection under the law doesn't seem all that radical to me.
31 October 2005
at 12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

It's not equal rights it's extra rights and extra protection and silencing anyone who says that it is wrong and has other opinions.

Do you know that in CO a lady, ex-lesbian nonetheless, was told by a judge that she could not condemn homosexuality? What place does the judge have to tell her that? None.

In NH a man was sentenced to an extra 26 years in prison on top of an original 3 for theft, because he used “hate speech,” which in actuality was a brash word for homosexual.

The “hate speech” bill that is going through Congress right now looks to silence anyone that says there is absolute truth. If some one is “offended” by language that one could say, for example, if I said homosexuality is wrong, which it is, and some one said that they were offended, then I could face legal action. Where has free speech gone and what is wrong with liberals?
31 October 2005
at 1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Densmore (Anonymous) says…

From bankboy:
“Liberals are off their nut and that's why they can't win elections.”
How close were the last two presidential elections bankboy? Who is Governor of Kansas, bankboy?
From bankboy:
“I'm not for promoting or supporting a radical homosexual agenda which is exactly what the left does.”
I am left of center, but I am not for promoting or supporting radical agendas.
From bankboy:
“I don't want the government in my life:”
Do you want good roads and highways, clean water to drink, the government to protect your bank account, and cops to protect your person and tangible property?
From bankboy:
“I don't want:.the courts having all the power like the left does.”
I am left of center and I don't want the courts to have all of the power.
From bankboy:
“The ACLU and groups like them only serve to bring America down which most Americans know.”
If most Americans know this, why mention it?
From bankboy's second post:
“Where has free speech gone:”
Free speech is intact. Witness Fred Phelps, who disproves your two central arguments. (1) I don't see Fred being locked up for his anti-homosexual activities, and (2) Fred is enjoying his right to free speech and the ACLU has supported his right to speak out against homosexuals. The ACLU supports your right to do the same.
bankboy, you've got just about everything wrong. Please stay in the Republican party. You do the Democrats a great service. It is through association with people like you that many Republicans are learning that things are not right with the GOP.
31 October 2005
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meggers (Anonymous) says…

Bankboy,

Could you please provide links to the stories you paraphrased? I would be interested in reading them in their entirety.

I haven't read the hate speech legislation, so I'll withold judgement until I can learn more about it.

From what I've read so far, it sounds like you're using fear-mongering in order to justify your own predjudice. The same scare tactics were used with regard to women's suffrage, slavery, interracial marriage, ect. In the end, common sense prevailed, as it will eventually in this case.

31 October 2005
at 2:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

Dens,

Liberals haven't been able to win elections, and who cares how close they were, GOP still won.

The left has continued to lose elections in the Senate.

By voting for Senators that endorse the homosexual agenda you are promoting it as well.

Free speech is currently intact in some aspects, but the “hate speech” legislation will bring it down.

Meggers, I'll try and find the links, I did get those stories off the radio actually but I'll find the print editions.
31 October 2005
at 2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

The term “moderate” brings to mind someone who is thoughtful and well reasoned. It could also mean someone who hasn't thought about the issues, or is apathetic.

Anyone who cares about the future of our country will not knowingly throw in with a party that has Howard Dean as its mouthpiece, Michael Moore as its propagandist, and George Soros as its defacto leader. It is up to Republicans to point that out.
31 October 2005
at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

Okay I haven't been able to find the NH case that I was talking about but you can read this until I can

http://www.rense.com/general67/hatm.htm
31 October 2005
at 3:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meggers (Anonymous) says…

bankboy,

I'm not at all surprised that you heard about the cases you cited above on the radio- I would guess Limbaugh or a similar talk show. The problem with those types of shows is that they don't always, if ever, tell the full story. The purpose is to represent one particular viewpoint and then to find stories that can be used in all or part to support that viewpoint, regardless of the context. The same can be said of some internet sources. For instance, the Pennslyvania story cited in your link has been greatly exaggerated:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religi…

As far as the “homosexual agenda”, I still don't see where you are coming from. I believe there could and should be a robust debate about the hate speech bill you refer to, however that is a First Amendment issue, separate from what you coin “the homosexual agenda”.

Gays are already considered one of the protected minority classes under federal law, I believe. It stands to reason that because they are already included in that classification, they would also be included in the proposed federal legislation regarding hate speech. That doesn't mean they are the purpose of the legislation, and it certainly doesn't mean that the legislation has been proposed as part of what you term “the homosexual agenda”.

If you are strongly opposed to that particular piece of legislation, perhaps you should debate it based on it's First Amendment implications- a point I find quite valid and worth debating. By continually making it an issue about gays, I can't help but feel that you are more concerned about how the law might impact your own prejudices, rather than opposing it based on the broader First Amendment concern.
31 October 2005
at 4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

You mean we can't believe everything we hear about on the radio shows and TV shows or the things we read about on the internet, newspapers magazines etc. Here I thought if it was in black and white or if someone important says it, its gotta be true.

I think we might be screwed.

What do you think Bankboy?
31 October 2005
at 4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

Liberals need to finally be honest of who they are and what they believe. for one thing, a moderate republican is a liberal, period. please, if you are a moderate (really means: liberal or Republican In Name Only -RINO) republican, please leave and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya! (liberal translation: don't let the door hit ya where the *big ghost in the sky gobbledyguke* split ya!)

the democrats are attritting themselves every day through their promotion and use of abortion as birth control. their numbers are slowly but surely dwindling - they would've won the last two (2) presidential elections by landslides if their potential voters weren't aborted. the democrats are desperate that's why they are begging for voters in Kansas. :)
31 October 2005
at 7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

johngalt (Anonymous) says…

As a conservative Republican, I hope that more “moderate” Republicans join the part that more accurately reflects their values. That include David Adkins, Dick Bond, Audrey Langworthy, Ward Lloyd, Steve Morris, Jeff Jack … the list goes on and on.

It shouldn't be a big deal. There is no malice here. The Dems should welcome them with open arms, and they should be very willing to bolt, like Morrison.

It should have happened long ago.
31 October 2005
at 8:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hawkbygod (Anonymous) says…

But the moderates don't want to leave the republican party. I honestly have more in common with the crazy right then the crazy left. I hate the fact that our party has been divided at the state level by an issue that will only be decided at the US Supreme Court. Lets come up with a state platform that can make a difference on the state level. I don't think that the republican party has left me, I just think that one side has become much more vocal.

31 October 2005
at 9:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

meggers (Anonymous) says…

Kodiak,
I watch C-SPAN daily in order to find out what is really going in the world. I also read the JW for local news, but in my view, our mainstream media has become nothing more than a capitalist enterprise- especially cable news. I'll freely admit that I enjoy watching Kieth Olberman, but I also take it for what it is- a point of view that I welcome, but a partisan one. I just think it's important for everyone to realize that while it's easy to find someone who supports your point of view, it's not necessarily wise to choose that route exclusively.

lunacy detector,
I agree that wolves in sheep's' clothing come in all forms. I believe Bush has alienated the fiscally conservative republicans who don't feel as strongly about some social issues as socially conservative republicans. The fiscally conservative republicans are the folks I would define as moderate, in that they don't march in lock step with a social agenda, but they prefer less spending and less taxation. The problem that exists now is that spending is at record levels, the deficit is at record levels, and the upper-middle to middle class folks aren't seeing the results of Bush's tax breaks. It just doesn't add up.

In a nutshell, I view a moderate conservative as a fiscally responsible conservative who prefers smaller government and less intrusion of government into the lives of citizens. A social conservative really isn't really conservative at all, in that they will spend like there is no tomorrow, if they think the president can put them in a position to have more control over the lives of other citizens. It looks as though the social conservatives are winning for now, at the expense of the fundamental ideology and reputation of the republican party in general. I'm not, nor have I ever been a republican, but that is the party split as I see it.

Hawkbygod,
I doubt that I agree with your position on the issues, but I think we might be in agreement about why the republican party seems so divided right now.