Archive for Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Democrats amass largest war chests

Sebelius, Morrison lead fields on campaign donations

July 25, 2006


Kansas is a Republican state by voter registration.

But two Democrats are leading the way in raising campaign funds, according to finance reports filed Monday.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has banked nearly $2.1 million as she awaits the winner of the Aug. 1 Republican Party primary.

The three leading Republican hopefuls in a field of seven have spent a combined total of approximately $600,000 this year.

And in the attorney general's race, newly converted Democrat Paul Morrison has $764,839 on hand for his November general election matchup against Republican incumbent Phill Kline, who had $418,492.

"Sebelius has successfully split the Republican Party in Kansas," said Bob Beatty, political science professor at Washburn University.

"The divide between the moderates and conservatives has just become stark with the phenomenon of Kathleen Sebelius," he said.

Republican hopefuls

In the GOP gubernatorial primary, state Sen. Jim Barnett of Emporia has the most cash on hand for the final days of the race - $194,213, according to the reports, which cover 2006 through last Thursday.

Former House speaker Robin Jennison had $56,736, and author and consultant Ken Canfield of Overland Park had $6,536 heading into the primary campaign's final days.

Rounding out the race, attorney Tim Pickell of Prairie Village had $5,026 left for the campaign, and former legislator Rex Crowell of Longton, $829. Attorney Dennis Hawver of Ozawkie and retiree Richard Rodewald of Eudora reported they would each spend under $500 for the entire campaign.

Barnett, a physician, had spent the most so far in the Republican race this year, nearly $300,000. His war chest included $110,000 of his own money.

"I think we have enough money to get our message out in the final week," said Rodger Woods, a spokesman for Barnett.

The winner of the GOP primary will face Sebelius, who started the year with $1.75 million in campaign funds, raised an additional $1 million and then spent approximately $600,000.

"I appreciate the confidence, prayers and financial support of the people of Kansas. I pledge to continue my commitment to accountability and progress we've achieved together," Sebelius said.

Kline vs. Morrison

While the attorney general's race featured no contested primaries, Morrison and Kline have been gearing up for a fierce general election showdown Nov. 7.

Morrison, the Johnson County district attorney, touted his campaign finance edge.

"People all across the state are joining our campaign because they share my view that, by electing a new attorney general with the right priorities, we can do more to keep our families safe," he said.

Kline's campaign was undaunted.

Sherriene Jones, a spokesman for Kline, said he will run on his record of successfully defending the state's death penalty before the U.S. Supreme Court and fighting for tougher laws against sexual predators.

Down-ballot races

Further down the ballot, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger of Lawrence reported spending $279,905 this year. She faces state Rep. Eric Carter of Overland Park in the Republican Party primary.

Carter reported spending $78,901, but he has a sizable sum left for the end of the campaign - $92,312 to Praeger's $8,677. Praeger has had television ads up the past several weeks in the race, and has the backing of former U.S. Sens. Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum Baker.

Another Republican incumbent, Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, faces a challenge within his own party. State Sen. Kay O'Connor has $4,466 on hand to spend, while Thornburgh reported having $46,835.


erichaar 11 years, 10 months ago

Morrison finally came out of the political closet admitting he was only masquerading as a Republican because, at the time, it was the most politically expedient and financially profitable thing to do.

Now the bone looks jucier on the other side, so he's hightailing it to what he sees as the next best thing.

badger 11 years, 10 months ago

I can't help it.

I see headlines about Democrats' 'large war chests' and wonder if that means they've locked in the stripper vote.

I'm a bad, bad badger.

Jamesaust 11 years, 10 months ago

"Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger of Lawrence reported spending $279,905 this year...Carter reported spending $78,901, but he has a sizable sum left for the end of the campaign - $92,312 to Praeger's $8,677."

So, is Carter planning to spend all $92k in the one week remaining? Seems more likely that Carter has far bigger political ambitions than Insurance Commissioner, and since the politicians have written the law so that candidates can keep funds for future races, it may be that Carter will hold onto the cash and dream of the future.

Ironically, despite his expertise on insurance (from the insurance companies' point-of-view) Carter would be a far more formidable candidate for other offices, such as U.S. Representative or Governor, where his libertarian / conservative agenda would find more fertile ground. (Heck, Carter would probably have run for AG except Kline already has 'dibs' on that spot. Goodness knows that Carter is as much if not more qualified than Kline.)

Wilbur_Nether 11 years, 10 months ago

Come on, Agnostick, you're putting words in erichaar's mouth and you know it. You can't accuse him of hypocrisy for something you're hypothesizing he might say under different circumstances. Or, rather, you can but it doesn't make him a hypocrite cause he ain't done it!

meggers 11 years, 10 months ago

"Come on, Agnostick, you're putting words in erichaar's mouth and you know it."


If you want to look at things that way, go back and look at what erichaar initially wrote. It seems to me that it is he who is putting words into Paul Morrison's mouth. Unless, of course, he can can come up with a quote from Morrison to back up his allegations.

staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

Whoa must be new around here. Can you cite all those numbers you just threw around?

Dani Davey 11 years, 10 months ago

Arminius wrote "I'm just amazed at how easily you Dems accepted Moore. Out of all the Democrats in Kansas, no one else was qualified for the position of AG?"

I'll assume you meant Morrison, and yeah, there are a lot of great Democrat lawyers in Kansas, just none with the bitch-slapping-Phill-Kline potential of Paul Morrison.

Klickhammer 11 years, 10 months ago

The hypocrisy lies not in the funding so much as the contentious regard the Republicans have for the people footing the bill. Sure, both sides receive special interest funding, and both sides commit atrocities of that are both war and economic in scope, but both sides do not also attempt a point-blank robbery of the citizens. One side does, in fact, advocate some change that has anti-establishment leanings -- universal health care, human rights, worker rights, and environmental responsibility. One side does believe in privacy and freedom. That side is not the current Republican party.

John Ralston 11 years, 10 months ago

What so-called "human rights" do the Democrats advocate that are not current human rights? The same question for "workers rights?"

How about "all men are created equal"? Every time this comes up, the Republicans pull out the "special rights" canard--and they do it specifically to distract people from your first assertion: they are, in fact, the side that's in the business of taking money from people who don't have it and giving it right to those who already do--the giant corporations who are their real constituents.

fletch 11 years, 10 months ago

Ahhh, poor GOP. I guess it's a pain to have to spend the little money you have fighting a primary because nobody in your party can get along, only to have the big bad Dems stomp you in November because we've found party cohesion and smart funraising tactics. At the very least, you now know how we've felt for all those years the KS GOP was steamrolling up.

I guess the Blue Tide is rising.

staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

Arminius- "He did cite all those numbers. Why cite them again?"

Uhhhh....he hadn't cited them until after I asked him. Where in this post, to which I replied, does he cite anything?

"Republican hypocrisy differs from Democrat hypocrisy exactly how?

The Democrats, who howl that the Republicans are captives of "Special Interest Fat Cats," receive over 80% of the donations from 8 of the top 10 political donors (over 90% from 6 of those). Furthermore, they receive 49% from the 9th, and 36% from the 10th.

In addition, they receive 84%, 91%, 91% of the donations from 3 of the top 5 individual donors.

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, Agnostick, but I guess you don't care about it if it belongs to Democrats."

I don't see anything cited there. Again, Arminius proves that just because he says it, don't make it true.

Scott Tichenor 11 years, 10 months ago

"Sebelius has successfully split the Republican Party in Kansas," said Bob Beatty, political science professor at Washburn University.

This just in: National Enquirer Magazine announces the hiring of Bob Beatty as headline writer. The Enquirer editor was quoted as saying, "you should read the stuff this guy makes up!"

Klickhammer 11 years, 10 months ago

Nice mythology. Gee, I wish I could believe too. I don't dispute that both sides serve their own self-interests, often at our expense. But to say that government programs are wasteful is to only read half of the story. This perception is a myth specifically created to ease the transition to private ownership. The myth is simple: government is wasteful and abuses your trust; private ownership is more efficient and can be held accountable. It makes sense to spread this bit of propaganda because there is a ton of money to be made by the privatization of various services. Republicans are more in favor of this than Democrats are.

Why is it a myth? The private sector engages in vast strategies to dump waste onto the tax-payer. It's called externalization. Since they're not elected and not Federally funded, the people don't have any control over what they do. They commit human rights violations, environmental degradation, cost-benefit analyses that puts profits ahead of human life, and encourage the army to fight wars for them. The list goes on and on, is well-documented, and hidden from the public's eye. The ultimate bill is paid by us. I guess you could call that hugely wasteful and inefficient if you side with the tax-payer, who foots the bill. I certainly do.

These human rights I speak of. One of the main human rights issues these days is gay rights. These have been trampled upon by right-wingers for a long time now, and god seems to disapprove of their fair treatment as well. Are they not people? Do they not deserve fair treatment? How about the right of a worker to keep his job? How about anti-trust laws? How about privacy? How about citizenship? These tenets are being abused in fantastic numbers by the Republicans in power, and can only be upheld and enforced insofar as the administration is willing to take them seriously. The prevailing paradigm suggests that they are not.

badger 11 years, 10 months ago

Now that's just semantic pointlessness.

Seriously, Arminius, I thought even you had some vague standards for usefulness of posting at some point.

If you really didn't understand, perhaps it would help you to know that 'cite' is commonly used academic shorthand because most of the English-speaking world knows that what you cite are sources.

staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

Arminius- Wow. That might go on my list as the most pathetic reaching I've seen from you.

staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

To be fair, a better reference would be the FEC website, which also lists all of the political numbers. Either way...


You only succeeded in making yourself look stupid. Everyone who reads this knows that I was asking for a reference to the numbers. Again, I know you think you are some kind of authority, but just because you sez it, doesn't make you one.

ksmoderate 11 years, 10 months ago

I would think that one would not achieve the position of professor of political science without having proven an adeptness at political science. I agree with prof. Beatty that the GOP in Kansas has had (or is having) a schism. The term "RINO" comes to mind.

I for one am enthusiastic that the moderate (sane, for the most part) republicans are showing the stones to split from their extremist hard right brethren.

staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

Read the 2nd definition of cite, ass.

Who is the authority?

I'm done with you and your meaningless drivel.

drewdun 11 years, 10 months ago

Solomon said: "One side does in fact advocate wholesale re-distribution of wealth from those that have earned it to those that have not. That same side, when it has been in power, implemented programs which proved to be hugely wasteful and inefficient, and encouraged people to not be responsible for themselves"

Actually, it was the redistribution of wealth by the New Deal Democrats that saved the nation from fascism or communism. They had to do this because the reckless greed engendered by the laissez-faire Republicans (I guess history repeats itself) who ruled before them led to an economic cataclysm - perhaps you have heard of the Great Depression. And in reality, the programs instituted by the New Deal Democrats were designed to benefit businesses, so they could re-establish themeselves, grow, and hire more people. For more in-depth reading on the subject, I suggest "The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, Vol. 2" by Alfred Kelly.

Also, perhaps you have never heard of this:

"In the nineteen-sixties, many economists believed that economic growth and government intervention would eliminate poverty. Between 1964 and 1973, as Johnson's Great Society programs went into effect, the poverty rate fell from nineteen per cent of the population to 11.1 per cent. But, while the nation's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has virtually tripled since 1973, the poverty rate has hardly budged. In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, it stood at 12.7 per cent"

But I guess making up your own reality is part and parcel of being a right-winger, so you can't really be blamed.

staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

Sorry cowboy.

2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof

He did qoute something, but "example, authority, or proof" are absent. I don't think that your childish attempts to atagonize brought anything to the forum today. I stand by my "clumsy" sentence, but it was not "imprecise."

I'm disappointed in myself for even engaging you off topic, and I will do my best to not do it again. You really amaze me in your attempts to pull the most random BS out of the sky and try to turn it against posters with whom you disagree.

I'm not surprised that you consitently stray from the topic or make ad hominem statements...when you stay on topic, you usually get your ass handed to you...

Klickhammer 11 years, 10 months ago

The U.S., specifically the CIA, and Pakistan trained bin Laden and other "al Qaeda" to fight during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. It's common knowledge.

John Ralston 11 years, 10 months ago

"U.S. Did Not Create Bin Laden, U.S. Says"

Klickhammer 11 years, 10 months ago

That document presents about three or four conflicting explanations, admits that the area is gray at best, and is sponsored by a group that has quite a bit of interest in disassociating the two, but let's look at a section from paragraph two:

"The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan."

The link between the CIA/ISI and al Qaeda is well established. It is known that OBL's group was supplied with US arms, fought along side the Afghan mujÄhidÄ»n fighters, was supported by American dollars, and trained by American-back factions. We know this from sources as diverse as the BBC, Juan Cole, the Guardian, Al Jezeera, the Federation of American Scientists, PBS, the SAAG, and the State Department.

Interesting side note: the CIA through the ISI also encouraged heroin production and smuggling into Afghanistan in order to make the Soviet troops into addicts.

bthom37 11 years, 10 months ago

" Democrats need war chests like the ones mentioned in the article as they have to buy elections; witness Old Man Kennedy buying the Presidency for John in 1960.



Really? I invite you to reflect upon the 2004 election.

Bush: 367mil Kerry: 301mil

Who buys elections?

since we're all so cite-y today:

Klickhammer 11 years, 10 months ago

The ISI was funded by the CIA, had CIA members working directly with it, trained, coordinated by the CIA, and took their orders (at least partly) from the CIA. They, in turn, directed, funded, and trained all of the seven principal rebel organizations. You can find documentation anywhere from PBS to CNN to the Wallstreet Journal.

Here are two relevant quotes from the Wikipedia articles on the ISI and the Afghan war, respectively:

"A number of officers from the ISI's Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Arab volunteers"

"Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and Special Service Group were actively involved in the conflict, and in cooperation with the CIA and the United States Army Special Forces supported the armed struggle against the Soviets."

We know that the rebels used American-made FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and we know that the US sought to buy these and other weapons back from the rebels after the war. We also know that covert action by the US started well before the actual war began.

We don't have photos of OBL with the Carter or Reagan, but the link is pretty clear. CIA to ISI to OBL.

Now. You claim that the link between the two has been "proven false". Please provide credible sources outside of the government as evidence.

Klickhammer 11 years, 10 months ago

Actually, your original source proves my point quite nicely. It begins with a thesis: the CIA never provided support DIRECTLY to the Afghan Arabs -- it provided it though the ISI -- then embarks on a set of misguided paragraphs citing numerous questionable sources (including Al Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri) that conviently leave out the ISI connection. The propogand machine at its finest.

The best part is this section at the end:

From 1983 to 1987, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf was in charge of the Afghan Bureau of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which ran Pakistan's covert program to aid the Afghan mujahidin. In his book The Bear Trap: Afghanistan's Untold Story, Brigadier Yousaf confirms the matching U.S.-Saudi arrangement, stating:

"For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of the ISI." (The Bear Trap, p. 81).

The very separate sources that your argument hinges on are nothing more than a front for a U.S.-Saudi arrangement.

Klickhammer 11 years, 10 months ago

I apologize for the misspellings in the previous post. The first paragraph should read:

... that conveniently leave out the ISI connection. The propaganda machine at its finest.

badger 11 years, 10 months ago

Arminius said:


This is a case in which it would be much better for you to admit that you simply wrote a clumsy and imprecise sentence."

I reply, "This is a case in which it would be much better for you to admit that you can make no reasonable direct response to the position of your opponent, and so rather than withdraw gracefully, you confine yourself to grasping at semantic linguistic straws to promote the illusion that you're still somehow engaged in what substance remains to this discussion."

I post lots of useful things. Usually, they're naughty knock-knock jokes and puns, but I think I once put up some very saucy limericks. So nerts to you.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.