Caucus on despite exit of Romney / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, February 8, 2008

By George Diepenbrock

February 8, 2008

Voters could caucus twice due to loophole

A loophole in the registration process could allow local voters to participate in two caucuses this week. Enlarge video

Election 2008 - Kansas Caucuses

Full coverage of the 2008 Kansas Caucuses, including interactive map of polling places and a Q&A about the process.

Don't worry.

The Kansas Republican caucuses will go on as planned Saturday, even though one contender ended his campaign Thursday.

But how the exit from the race of former Gov. Mitt Romney, of Massachusetts, will affect turnout and the results in Kansas was unclear Thursday, party and campaign leaders said.

Douglas County Republican Chairman Craig Campbell said a Romney staffer sent him an e-mail Wednesday night indicating Romney had an interest in maybe attending the caucus in Lawrence. Then, on Thursday, Campbell saw Romney's announcement about suspending his campaign.

John McCain's Kansas supporters said it pointed to another big victory to add to the Arizona senator's momentum.

"I cannot imagine that Sen. McCain will not sweep all 36 delegates (at stake Saturday) from Kansas," said Steve Cloud, co-chairman for McCain's Kansas campaign.

But one of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's Kansas supporters said the campaign's grassroots efforts should not be overlooked.

"Now with Romney stepping aside, that conservative base will rally around Gov. Huckabee," said Matthew Pennell, Kansas coordinator for Huck's Army.

One Kansas Republican leader said the state is still competitive although Romney's exit might affect turnout.

"If anything, the real interesting story that's going to come out is: Where do Romney's supporters go?" said Christian Morgan, executive director of the Kansas GOP.

Morgan said he still expected 20,000 to 30,000 participants, but it could be a few thousand fewer now without Romney.

Kansas Republicans will caucus at 10 a.m. Saturday at sites across the state, including Lawrence at South Junior High School, 2734 La.

McCain's supporters said he would make a stop at the Wichita airport today, and Huckabee plans to tour the state with stops in Olathe, Wichita, Topeka and Garden City.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul will have Barry Goldwater Jr. stumping on his behalf today in the Kansas City area and Wichita, said Mark Rinke, a Paul campaign volunteer.

At the Lawrence site, doors open at 9:30 a.m., and participants must to be in line by 10 a.m. Organizers encourage voters to bring a photo ID.

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.

8 February 2008
at 7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

I had planned on attending the Republican caucus on Saturday. Now I will not. At first I was going to go and support Duncan Hunter, but he dropped out. Then I was going to go and support Mitt Romney. Sadly, he has now dropped out. i cannot support Amnesty Mac! He has authored or co-authored too many bad pieces of leftist legislation: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy(last summers Amnesty bill), and now McCain-Lieberman(which will indirectly or directly increase my energy costs by $1000/year due to the taxes/penalties in that “Green” piece of legislation. McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts which even Greenspan credited for ending the last recessession. Amnesty Mac claims to be a conservative. The only area where he is conservative is in his support of our military and our war on terrorism. THAT is not enough to win my support. In my view, he is a liberal in conservative clothing. Electing him as president would be as bad as electing either Hillary or Obama. Nor can I support the Huckster. He and his gang of relgious bigots who ran around telling conservative Christians that a vote for a Mormon would send them to hell are not people I can hold my nose and vote for. Who am I going to support? I don't know. Maybe I'll write in a name when I'm in that booth in November.
8 February 2008
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lukec (Anonymous) says…

You can still come out and vote for Romney, he is still on the ballot.
8 February 2008
at 11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

—Mike Huckabee
Monday January 14, 2008

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabe…

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archiv…
8 February 2008
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

bkgarner, have you considered Ron Paul?
8 February 2008
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

1029 (Anonymous) says…

The conservative ideology will eventually die because it can't adapt to an evolving society. The internet has helped more people to have access to information and subsequently realize that many “conservative” ideas are dangerous to the greater well-being of global society. For years, conservatives relied on being able to exploit the ignorance of simple religious people, and are now seeing that this is not working so well any more.
8 February 2008
at 12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

Do the Republicans split the delegates, or is it a winner take all?
8 February 2008
at 1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

1029, true conservatism isn't a bad thing. What we have now parading around as conservative politicians are not really conservative, and they truly are dangerous to the American way of life.

8 February 2008
at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

Thanks for the info, logicsound04
8 February 2008
at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

To Agnostick:

I cannot support Mr. Paul. He is NOT a conservative but a Libertarian masquarading as a conservative. His foreign policy positions are neo-isolationistic and would be a disaster if implemented. His domestic platform so closely parrallels the libertarian line as to make him indistinguisable from them. So again, as I posted, I have not a candidate in this election. I will look for true conservatives to support in the senate and house, but I have no such person available to me for the presidency. However, IF we can elect enough true conservatives to the senate and house, we can block/stymie most if not all of the idiocy that a Hillary or Obama would propose and that would include the leftist judges they would nominate. That, therefor, is my strategy and my plan.
8 February 2008
at 1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“”Now with Romney stepping aside, that conservative base will rally around Gov. Huckabee,” said Matthew Pennell, Kansas coordinator for Huck's Army.”

Not likely - more likely they will become 'downticket republicans' before voting for the huckafraud.
8 February 2008
at 1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

“Texas Congressman Ron Paul will have Barry Goldwater Jr. stumping on his behalf today in the Kansas City area and Wichita, said Mark Rinke, a Paul campaign volunteer.”

Well, at least he got mentioned this time. And with Goldwater's kid! Goodness. Paul has gone from being kind of entertaining to listen to his ramblings to just plain sad.
8 February 2008
at 1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bastet (Anonymous) says…

bk and 75

Your arguments might have more weight if you didn't engage in so many irrelevant ad hominem attacks: “Amnesty Mac,” “huckster,” “huckafraud,” etc.
8 February 2008
at 1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

Ron Paul not a conservative? LOL. bkgarner, do you even consider Barry Goldwater a conservative? Ron Paul does not advocate isolationism, but non-interventionism…there is a big difference, most notably in economics and trade.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interve…
8 February 2008
at 1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

bastet -

yawn.

You clearly are a not a frequent traveler in these parts.
8 February 2008
at 2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bastet (Anonymous) says…

75,
Oh, that's a really intelligent response. Thank you so much for clearing up my confusion. I didn't realize that the considerations of good argument and discussion were suspended on the LJW forum.

8 February 2008
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

To Mkh:

Non-interventionism is just another name for isolationism. How do you do the non-intervention concept? Does that mean the US does nothing outside its borders? Ron Paul's non-interventionistic foreign policy contridicts his own defense policy statement. Pursuing the terrorists overseas, especially in Islamic countries would most certainly be just as interventionistic as George Bush has been. Those two concepts, taken from Mr. Paul's own website, are an internal contradiction. Mr. Paul's argument is that if the US wasn't there, then these Islamics would not hate us and would leave us alone. I wonder if Mr. Paul has even read what the various Islamic leaders have said is their goal and objective. I wonder if you have. These people advocate and work for a world wide Islamic Caliphate. They don't care if we are in the Middle East or not. The only difference will be how long it takes them to get to us. Ron Paul's approach would be similar to seeing a wildfire approaching but doing nothing about it until it is upon you. That does not strike me as prudent. The last time the US could have sat out a major international conflict was World War I. Since that time, our presence in the world has made it necessary to protect our interests overseas. Withdrawing from the Middle East will not protect us, but will only delay the inevitable conflict. Thus, Mr. Paul's argument is not in line with historical fact nor trend. He needs to read more history.
8 February 2008
at 3:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

At least the nation could afford Ron Pauls foreign policy. Nation building and policing the world are bankrupting the US. If you don't have the money, you should not buy it.

Maybe some of you should check out the book. “Don't buy stuff you cannot afford.”

http://consumerist.com/consumer/clips…
8 February 2008
at 4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

getreal (Anonymous) says…

I received a push poll this afternoon for Huckabee.

The whole Republican slate is worthless. They are all war mongers and can't seem to understand that 70% of the country wants our troops brought home.

I bet there aren't even 10,000 at the Republican caucus.

I was one of thousands Republicans who changed parties on Tuesday to caucus for Obama!
8 February 2008
at 4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Navin_R_Johnson (Anonymous) says…

dr paul is a conservative as defined: a conserver of the principles of liberal democracy and the vision and philosophy developed by the founders duly documented in the constitution.

he is also an authentic liberal, (not the neo-counterpart represented by Sorosian democrats and moveon.org wingnuts or neo-con big spenders), believing in self-rule, distrust of central government, and the protection, at all costs, of individual liberties.

he may indeed need to read his history like 99.93% of all americans today, but he doesn't need a single lesson in the foundational principles and documents of this once great “evolved” welfare/warfare State the vast majority of the US citizenry seem hopelessly addicted to.

I do remember much written regarding “no entagling alliances,” being wary of a strong central government and the erosion of state's rights, not to mention fearing the consolidation of power within the executive branch of government.

Who, among the “conservatives,” is talking about reducing the size of the federal government?

Who is talking about State's rights?

Who, among the “conservatives,” is talking seriously of eliminating the IRS and whole departments?

Who desires the overturning of Roe v. Wade and delivery back to the States for adjudication and ruling?

Who is talking seriously of, not merely reducing taxes, but eliminating personal income taxes altogether?

Who talking about monetary policy?

Who wishes to abolish the Fed?

Who is talking about restoration of individual liberties by eliminating penalties for responsible people who desire to opt out of “compulsory” systems because they can educate their children better than bureucrats or save with a high return than a collectivist system?

here's a hint: not a single one of the media annointed “conservatives” given massive air time. Only Dr. Paul. he might not be an enthusiastic supporter of invading other soveriegn nations which historically results in crushing debt (which turns new conservatives off it would seem), but he is strong on defense.

when will conservatives see that the party has left them behind, favoring new populist liberalism fused with war fever, over the core principles that they're supposed to be “conserving.” conservatives have only two choices: Dr. Paul or Alan Keyes.

i know, i know, “neither can win.” as long as you believe that, the longer it will remain true, and we will get the candidates we deserve; namely “McCillary.”
8 February 2008
at 4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Navin_R_Johnson (Anonymous) says…

obama is not really the peace candidate.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw…

See the youtube presentation.

Only Dr. Paul is the peace candidate.
8 February 2008
at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

Just an observation, o' irritable one. I can't help it if (your?) candidate portrays himself falsely, and is likely to become even more 'conservative' with Romney dropping out. Watch and see, and then decide if it was 'ad hominem' or not.
8 February 2008
at 5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jcjayhawk1 (Anonymous) says…

“The whole Republican slate is worthless. They are all war mongers and can't seem to understand that 70% of the country wants our troops brought home.” -getreal

Um….the ONLY candidate that VOTED against the war and that has vowed to withdraw them immediately is Ron Paul.

No other candidate Dem or Repub can say that.

Ron Paul wants to save lives/ save money/ and save our country
8 February 2008
at 5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

bkgamer, Can you give me your definition of a “real” conservative. It seems like there are a lot of definitions out there now, so you need to be specific.

8 February 2008
at 7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

A true conservative:
Lower taxes. Taking more than 20% total (federal, state, local) should not be allowed.

Smaller size government. How many cabinet level positions do we really need? We have more people working for government (federal, state, local) than not. This is not right.

Oppose abortion. LIfe begins at conception. Exceptions should be allowed in the case of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is geniunely in danger.

Stand for personal responsibility. Each person must be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof.

A strong national defense and a strong foreign policy. Hostile nations/groups respect only strength. Our military is too small. Build it up.

Sanctity of the family. Meaning a man, a woman, and their children. Sorry, no homosexual marriage. History is replete with evidence that when nations embrace moral degeneracy, they fall. See Rome and Greece. This must include an end to the glorification of adultery/fornication that we see in ALL our media.

Respect for the right to own property. John Locke argued that freedoms stem from the right to own property. Take that right away and we are serfs.

In this day, opposition to illegal immigration. I know, we are all immigrants or descendents of same. But this is not the 1800s when there was practically unlimited land out west and the US could absorb all the immigrants who wanted to come. Legal immigration yes, but illegal immigration no. Punish the employers who hire them. That will dry up the jobs and they will self-deport. Look at Oklahoma and you will have proof.

An end to earmarks! This is nothing but the corrupting of public office and the buying of votes!

A true conservative leads a moral life, meaning, there are absolute right and wrong not this relativism that is taught today. No lies! No backroom deals! Be honest, not deceptive.

A true conservative is not just conservative on fiscal matters but also on moral matters. As such Swarzenegger is NOT a conservative.

Now some will say this sounds like Ron Paul. I have read all of Mr. Paul's positions and agree with most. But his weakness is in the foreign policy area. There he seems to live in an idealized world, not the real one.

Well, this is not all inclusive but should be enough to make plenty of people angry.
8 February 2008
at 7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

To logicsound04: You miss an important point. Gulf War 1 did not end with a peace treaty. It ended with a cease fire. Mr. Hussein agreed to live by certain conditions. We agreed to stop shooting if he did. He did not keep his end of the agreement. In a ceasefire, if one party fails to abide by the agreement, the other side can resume hostilities without notice or warning. This is an important principle of international law. Mr. Bush did not really need Congressional or UN approval to attack Iraq in 2003. Since Hussein had violated the ceasefire numerous times, the US would have been justified and legal in resuming hostilities at any time of our choosing. Despite how we would all like to think, in the international community it is force or the threat thereof that brings compliance with agreements. Therefore, logicsound04, I fail to see your point.
8 February 2008
at 9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

Yet, the conservatives jumped all over Clinton when he bombed Iraq to blow up the places where Hussein was making weapons, and when he violated air space. Why was it ok for Bush to invade the country, but wrong for Clinton to bomb them? You're being hypocritical.
8 February 2008
at 10:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TJMc (Anonymous) says…

bkgarner, why don't you vote for the candidate that your candidate Duncan Hunter endorsed: Mike Huckabee.

Mike Huckabee won the states that a Republican will have to win in November. He is a real Conservative who was overwhelmingly re-elected twice by the people of Arkansas.

He is pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-strong military, anti-amnesty, and on and on.

Don't judge Huckabee by what his opponents say, judge him by his own record. When he left the governorship, the tax rates remained exactly the same as when he first came into office, even though he had to work with a majority Democrat legislature.

There's no room here to go over all the reasons why Mike Huckabee is a better candidate than John McCain. Visit his website for a start.

Everyone should go vote for Mike Huckabee now, before John McCain really does win the nomination.
8 February 2008
at 11:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

Conservatives let their party be taken over by neocons who have made a disaster in just 7 years.

Conservatives aren't going to be forgiven for that. I don't care if you're a “true conservative.” You all supported the neocons and you're going to pay by being left out in the cold for a long, long time.

Next time try to think for yourselves, some of you, instead of following like a herd of lemmings.
8 February 2008
at 11:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

cjayhawk1 (Anonymous) says:
Um:.the ONLY candidate that VOTED against the war and that has vowed to withdraw them immediately is Ron Paul.
No other candidate Dem or Repub can say that.

You are very, very wrong. Dennis Kucinich voted against giving Bush the power to wage war and so did Barack Obama. Kucinich vowed to withdraw them immediately on becoming president; unfortunately the media blacklisted him and he's dropped out of the race. Obama pledges a phased withdrawal over 16 months - not as fast as I'd like but a lot better than Hillary's plan.
9 February 2008
at 12:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

storm (Anonymous) says…

I really dislike how people interchangably use liberal for Democrat and conservative for Republican. Say, two people believe in legalized prostitution - for the Republican, it'd be up to the smallest unit of government, and for Democrat, it would be across the State, U.S.A. Say two people believe abortion should not legal - the Democrat would want the law applied across the land, and the Republican again up to the State. McCain and Swarzenegger are true and traditional Republicans. Those definitions above sound like talk-radio blather courtesy of Dobbs-Anne-Rush (which created the neo-con cult that hijacked the Republican party).
9 February 2008
at 4:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Guardian (Anonymous) says…

Storm- You have a valid point about interchanging terms, but that's about as far as I can agree with you. You obviously listen to those who talk about Rush rather than to Rush. If you did listen to the EIB Network, you would find Rush says exactly the same thing and has for years. You would also know Rush is a Constitutionalist, therefore not a creator of the neo-con movement as you suggest. You would also know that he has stated he would rather vote for Hillary than McClain for the simple reason that if the President is going to destroy our nation, he wants to blame it on a Liberal Democrat rather than anyone who loosely associates himself with the Republicans.

9 February 2008
at 11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

storm (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, I wasn't surprised when I heard Rush tell us he would not endorse McCain. McCain is a traditional Republican, whereas Rush is only conservative-minded.
10 February 2008
at 7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

To TJMc: I cannot support Huckabee because of his bigotry. He, and his band of evangelicals, are avidly anti-Mormon. During Mr. Romney's campaign they made numerous public and not so public swipes at his religion. Including telling congregants that a vote for a Mormon was a vote for the devil and would send their souls to hell. I cannot support such bigotry.