Forget about son's game, get to work, Sebelius says / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, February 28, 2008

February 28, 2008

Topeka — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday sharply criticized a state senator who has called for an investigation into a board game created by Sebelius' son.

"I find it really disappointing when a state senator may have some quarrels with me, decides instead to pick on my son," Sebelius said when asked about comments by state Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler.

Huelskamp last week called on the state attorney general to investigate the marketing and sale of the prison-themed game called Don't Drop the Soap.

The game is on sale at Hobbs Inc., 700 Mass., and on John Sebelius' Web site, www.gilliusinc.com.

Huelskamp alleged that John Sebelius was storing the game at Cedar Crest, the governor's residence. He also called the game obscene and racist.

When asked about the game during a news conference, Sebelius said, "There is nothing further from the truth that anything illegal or improper is going on."

She added, "I find it extraordinary that this becomes a topic of a Legislature that can't seem to move on any of the issues before them."

John Sebelius, 23, has said he made up the game as his senior class project at the Rhode Island School of Design.

Huelskamp said he purchased a copy of the game recently. He said he found out through FedEx that his order was picked up at Cedar Crest. He said the governor's mansion should not be used to store the game.

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.

28 February 2008
at 6:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bernard (Anonymous) says…

Amazing how desparate Republicans are to attack Governor Kathleen. Senator, get off your rhetorical duff and find something of value to work on. You are an embarrassment to the State of Kansas.
28 February 2008
at 7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nettieb (Anonymous) says…

Wow.

Really Huelskamp?

How pathetic.
28 February 2008
at 7:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

I'm a republican, but people like this make me not want to claim it. Do something that matters. Who cares if the game was at the governor's house? Are you saying you never had your parent's hold some of your stuff? It's good to see some more wasting of our money going on in Topeka.
28 February 2008
at 7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

We are so doomed if this is what we are electing people to do.
28 February 2008
at 8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Eride (Anonymous) says…

It is pathetic that our governor even had to make this statement.

The fact that our state legislature is blatantly wasting valuable time and funds on an issue that is obviously nothing more than a political attack with NO basis is asinine.

Welcome to Kansas, home to intelligent design.
28 February 2008
at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

I'd say Fed Ex tracking is a pretty confirmed basis.
If it's a crime to sell things out of the gov. mansion, then this has a point, board game or cars, whatever it could be.
If any other job place had restrictions, would the employer (or their insurance) allow it?
Now, do I think KS has a lot more important things to work on..of course.
i just hope he doesn't make a lot of 900 calls when he visits home, that wouldn't be good.
28 February 2008
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smgkag (Anonymous) says…

Is it appropriate for state employees to use their state-provided computers to run their Tupperware, Avon, or Amway business? If not, then why would it be appropriate for John Sebelius to use state property to run his business?

28 February 2008
at 9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…

Hey Dolly,when life deals lemons,make lemonade!!

I am happy that she is able to turn negativity into a tool of commerce.Shows her resourcefulness and diverse thinking.Good work Kathy,nothin' but love.
28 February 2008
at 9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

compmd (Anonymous) says…

I'm really curious how the senator determined the originating address. I have UPS and FedEx shipments coming and going daily, and the tracking does not provide an originating address. He must have called them up and asked for some detailed information about the package.

What's more troubling in my eyes is that the senator has dedicated time and effort to make a case against a person who happens to be related to a political foe.

This whole mess reminds me of the wonderful congressional investigations and hearings about baseball players taking performance enhancing drugs. We are fighting two wars, our economy and education are going to crap, and somehow congress has the time and resources to dedicate to juiced baseball players.

Nerf the neocons.
28 February 2008
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“I'd say Fed Ex tracking is a pretty confirmed basis.
If it's a crime to sell things out of the gov. mansion, then this has a point, board game or cars, whatever it could be.”

This isn't necessarily true. You can create your Fed Ex account with whatever address you want, but that does NOT mean that the item shipped from that address.
28 February 2008
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

inklines (Anonymous) says…

Is the game illegal or is it just offensive? If it is illegal, then we have a state senator who has purchased, and is in possession of, illegal goods. If it is offensive, then he has contributed to the game creators profits and use of the state-owned residence/distribution center by purchasing
the product.
28 February 2008
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

So I guess it would be fine for all the legislators children to use the Capital building as headquarters for their private business? Or should they have to pony up for office or business property?

How many of your employers allow you to use company property for personal business use?
28 February 2008
at 9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

janeyb (Anonymous) says…

“Is it appropriate for state employees to use their state-provided computers to run their Tupperware, Avon, or Amway business? If not, then why would it be appropriate for John Sebelius to use state property to run his business?”

Is John a state employee? Is Kathleen's name on the business venture? Cedar Crest is the Sebelius's home while Kathleen is in office. I think a governor and his or her partner are even allowed to have sex there. Imagine!!!
******************************
Neufeld
Kinzer
Huelskamp

When you see these names listed like this they are kind of freaky. They read like a list of war criminals from WWII.
*******************************
Are you playing John's game on family night Huelskamp? Or did you draw the short straw when the conservative right got together at the Statehouse? They have you draw first Huelskamp, because all the straws are short.
28 February 2008
at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…

“This whole mess reminds me of the wonderful congressional investigations and hearings about baseball players taking performance enhancing drugs - compmd

I suppose you would be opposed to senate investigation of the fluoridation of apple pies?
Its all about the decline of American values and the underlying communist subversion.

Damn people without lapel flag pins….
28 February 2008
at 9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rdave13 (Anonymous) says…

Sen. Tim Huelskamp please go back to sleep ….you were much more effective. Thanks for everything you do.

28 February 2008
at 9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

While we'd certainly be better off if extremist theocratic bullies like Huselkamp were run out of the state on a rail, it does not excuse the fact that Sebelius allowed her son to use Cedarcrest as the main address for his business. At best, it's shows a poor lack of judgement; at worst, it's inappropriate use of a taxpayer asset.

The “merchandise” in this situation is irrelevant. The game could be called “What Would Jesus Do?” and it would still be wrong.

Sebelius is out of line, telling legislators what to waste their time on. That's what voters are supposed to do at the ballot box.
28 February 2008
at 9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

livingstone (Anonymous) says…

compmd

“We are fighting two wars, our economy and education are going to crap, and somehow congress has the time and resources to dedicate to juiced baseball players.”

Well said!!!!! Who cares what those baseball players consume? I was puzzled why our congress even bother about this at all? Sure, what they did may amount to a crime, ain't that the job of a local judge or some sport industry's problems? The congress should dedicate their time to solve the problems we're facing right now, like catching OBL, improve our research facilities/capabilities, creating more industries to provide more jobs, how to deal with terrorisms in other countries that will affect US, trade negotiations, and even nuclear issues!

Oh, I forgot, Bush used to have some connections with a baseball team right?
28 February 2008
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

I have not seen this game, are you sure it about prision life? It might be about life with his mother!!
28 February 2008
at 9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

I wonder if these three legislators would be having a fit if the governor's child were selling Girl Scout cookies and storing them at Cedar Crest. I doubt it…
28 February 2008
at 10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

“This whole mess reminds me of the wonderful congressional investigations and hearings about baseball players taking performance enhancing drugs. We are fighting two wars, our economy and education are going to crap, and somehow congress has the time and resources to dedicate to juiced baseball players.”

Another big AMEN!
28 February 2008
at 10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

I can't believe I am even responding, but why are people worrying about a game that should be labeled “look at me” or “I am edgy becasue I am shocking”. It is a self published game based off a school project. A Pretty lit weight version of “Oz”. The more attention it gets the more both sides of this “perceived issue” get press. With the whole Reality TV thing in full swing any attention is considered good attention.
28 February 2008
at 10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Girl scout cookie revenue goes to a non profit orginization for children. Drop the soap is a for profit venture for a 23 y/o child. Big difference.
28 February 2008
at 10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

BTW Mouse Trap has more creativity than this one. Look at the contact address.

http://www.gilliusinc.com/dropsoap.html

28 February 2008
at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“Girl scout cookie revenue goes to a non profit orginization for children. Drop the soap is a for profit venture for a 23 y/o child. Big difference.”

How so? George, please show where the law has been broken. If you cannot, then you have no point and it is time to stop crying.
28 February 2008
at 10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

coolmarv (Anonymous) says…

The other GW asks
“How many of your employers allow you to use company property for personal business use?”

Heck, I'm doing it right now.
28 February 2008
at 10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

Does the law really matter? This is nothing but politics, which is fair game.
28 February 2008
at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acg (Anonymous) says…

Dollypawpaw (Anonymous) says:

Another sly back door endorsement of her son's game.

If its no big deal Kathy, why are you bringing it up? If you are such a big person, why don't you rise above the issue?

Is it because you can't ?

LOL. How dumb you are, dolly, never ceases to amaze me. I believe the article was quite clear. She wasn't the one to bring this up. Some sad little repubican who started the investigation is the one to bring it up. I don't find the game racist at all. If the morons in prison aren't smart enough to keep their moronic asses out of prison, then too bad. The rest of us have every right to make fun of them for being such worthless drains on society.
28 February 2008
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Defender if you can't see the difference maybe it is time to put down the bong and move out of your parents basement.
28 February 2008
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

This is a preemptive strike against the Gov due to rumors she may be a potential Obama running mate.

I like the advertising hook…Limited addition game and certificate of authenticity…like it is going like hot cakes.
28 February 2008
at 11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

Sucker…

http://cgi.ebay.com/Dont-drop-the-soa…
28 February 2008
at 11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Crossfire (Anonymous) says…

I hear that the game has been real hit in Lansing and that it is catching on in Leavenworth.

Mr. Huelskamp,
Conjugal visiting day is Sunday.
Anferney and Wheelz are waiting.

28 February 2008
at 11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

Shouldn't everyone give the kid a break? He's 23 and still lives at home. That in itself should be telling about our state's economy.
28 February 2008
at 11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rachaelisacancer (Anonymous) says…

“How many of your employers allow you to use company property for personal business use?”

Ummm… aren't we all at work? I am…
28 February 2008
at 11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

chemegirlie (Anonymous) says…

What if the govnor had a teenager that decided he/she was going to make some extra money in the winter by shoveling snow. He/she stores the snow shovel in the garage and has customers call his house (the govnors mansion) when they want their walk shoveled.

Would there be the same uproar?
28 February 2008
at 11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

I agree with Sebelius on this one.
28 February 2008
at 11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dumas (Anonymous) says…

I think Huelskamp is just jealous he didn't have the idea for the game. He also is still bitter that he was picked last for dodgeball in the first grade.
28 February 2008
at 12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“Defender if you can't see the difference maybe it is time to put down the bong and move out of your parents basement.”

Is that why you're crying so much George, that your bong is empty? Wow, sorry you lost the argument, but there is no reason to be a complete jerk.
28 February 2008
at 1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

compmd (Anonymous) says:

“This whole mess reminds me of the wonderful congressional investigations and hearings about baseball players taking performance enhancing drugs. We are fighting two wars, our economy and education are going to crap, and somehow congress has the time and resources to dedicate to juiced baseball players.”

“Nerf the neocons.”

Maybe you're a few years behind in the news. While I agree that the investigation into steroids in baseball is a ridiculous use of Congress' time (what on earth does the House Committee on Oversight and Government have to do with freakin' baseball???), you just *might* remember that this is a Democrat-controlled congress wasting their time, not the “neocons.”

As for this particular issue, as a former state employee (in a different state) and a former federal employee, I know there are usually pretty strict rules in place governing the use of state property for personal reasons, especially for running any kind of a business. It doesn't matter if he's not a state employee, he's still using state property - when I worked for the government, I couldn't let, say, my wife use a state-owned laptop to run an E-bay business.

And on top of everything else, it's pretty cheezy to run a retail operation selling boardgames out of our chief executive's home.
28 February 2008
at 1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Defender, why would a 23 y/o man be selling girl scout cookies from anywhere? And yes there is a difference between raising money for a non profit youth orginization and selling a game to put money in your pocket.

I hope he makes a million with this game, he just needs to not use taxpayor assets to house his private venture. Yes it is his parents temporary residence but the citizens of kansas pay the taxes, utilities, and up keep. If he wants to live there he needs to rent some space zoned for business.

I have not lost anything, nor do I own a bong.

28 February 2008
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Notajayhawk is now calling Henry Waxman a neocon. LOL
28 February 2008
at 1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Logic writes
“Because, of course, if someone doesn't agree with you, they must be a pothead, right george?

I guess your douchebaggery isn't limited to the coal plant issue, huh george?”

Thank you logic, this is more fun than a child can have at Disney World. I seriously cannot quit laughing, that was good.
28 February 2008
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says:

“Notajayhawk is now calling Henry Waxman a neocon. LOL”

Having trouble in your English as a second language course, george? The word “not” pretty much should have given you a clue that I was disputing compmd's linking of the “neocons” to the Oversight and Government committee's wasting time on the baseball investigation, not agreeing with him. Please do try to keep up.
28 February 2008
at 1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Sorry its hard for us western Kansas douchebags to keep up.
28 February 2008
at 1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“I have not lost anything, nor do I own a bong.”

Uh, yes you did, and apparently you do. You think you're going to foist that kind of crap on me and not get it right back?

Once again, show me what law was broken. Also, show me proof that the games were stored at the mansion. Not only that, but did this make the taxpayers pay more for the bills on the mansion? No, it has not, even if the games were there. But it is costing us for this moron of a representative to waste his time on partisan bullcrap. Of course, you have no problem with wasting money on partisan bickering as long as it supports your view. Not a sign of intelligence, george.

Ever stored anything at your parents house before? Sorry, but this gripe of yours is stupid, absolutely purely stupid and nothing but partisan foolishness.
28 February 2008
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

“Sorry its hard for us western Kansas douchebags to keep up.”

Clearly it is, as your focus on my use of Girl Scout cookies as a reference has clouded your ability to see that I am making a broader example. For the mouthbreathers posting on this story, the quote below is where you lose this argument.

“Huelskamp last week called on the state attorney general to investigate the marketing and sale of the prison-themed game called Don't Drop the Soap.”

The three moronic state legislators, along with many posters here today don't seem to get this? Huelskamp isn't going after him for any of the other stuff he sells on his website, just those that he finds offensive? It's fine to be offended, and it is fine to want to investigate, but the disingenuous nature of this effort is as clear as day. And you're going to sit there and say this isn't politically motivated? Gimme a break.
28 February 2008
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

YES! to Governor Kathleen Sebelius

The Bush PNAC Neoconservative wannnbe's are worse than the originals. Losers is the word.
28 February 2008
at 2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

No, what I will sit here and tell you is if the gov had let Bremby approve the air permits this would not be happening.

And I will sit here and tell you that if the permits are not issued Western Kansas with the leadership posts that it holds will kill the Manhattan Airport Project and any other economic devlopment for Eastern Kansas that comes up.

Yes this is all politically motivated, thats the way the game is played. You vote for mine, I vote for yours. And to prove it the coal plant legislation is very close to veto proof. So now it is your turn to tell me your name calling is not politicallly motivated.

In WK we are paying 8-10 cents a kw for power. We currently have one coal generator that supplies power to half of the state. We are using it all and need more, and are trying to build more, and to keep the cost/kw low need to sell power to cover all the fixed cost associated with the plants. We get 15% of the power and Colorado pays for it. If not our cost per kw goes to 20 cents or higher.

28 February 2008
at 2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“Richard, I have a funny feeling you'd feel quite differently if Kline's daughter was selling a creationist board game out of a public office space.”

So you have proof that these are being sold out of the mansion, glock? And when did the mansion become public office space? While the mansion is paid for by the taxpayers, it is not 'office space', it is a home. This is just political grandstanding, pure and simple.
28 February 2008
at 2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

“And I will sit here and tell you that if the permits are not issued Western Kansas with the leadership posts that it holds will kill the Manhattan Airport Project and any other economic devlopment for Eastern Kansas that comes up.”

Typical Republican that believes that quid pro quo attacks are A-OK.

“So now it is your turn to tell me your name calling is not politicallly motivated.”

My name calling is not politically motivated, it is intellectually motivated.
28 February 2008
at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Defender (Anonymous) says:

“Not only that, but did this make the taxpayers pay more for the bills on the mansion? No, it has not, even if the games were there.”

It doesn't matter if it cost more for the mansion. Again, if I had a government owned laptop I was allowed to take home, and a family member used it for an internet business (or if one of my kids used it to get to PBS kids online), it wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything, but it's still a prohibited use.

The fact is that by using a state-owned property to operate a business, he is deriving personal economic benefit (i.e., he doesn't have to pay for rent on a storefront or home of his own to operate the business) from that use of state-owned property, and he's not someone who's even entitled to use that property - except to live there - for anything, since he was not the person elected to office. What if the governor's son was an attorney instead of a board game designer, and there happened to be a vacant office in the state office building? Would it be okay if he set up shop there?

“While the mansion is paid for by the taxpayers, it is not 'office space', it is a home.”

Okay, it's his home (actually it's not his, it's his mother's, for now). But it's still owned by us, the taxpayers. A government official may have a state-issued car they're allowed to use for personal transportation, such as commuting back and forth to work. Can their kids use it to deliver Domino's pizzas or newspapers or otherwise engage in a profit-making business?
28 February 2008
at 3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Who did I call a name(other than myself)??

Intellectual arguments do not include name calling. Maybe you could try to get over yourself, I am quite sure you are not the smartest person in town.
28 February 2008
at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

napoleon969 (Anonymous) says…

The suggestion that calling the three legislators the 3 Stooges was wrong because they were really quite intelligent is good. How about Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest?
28 February 2008
at 3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SWGlassPit (Anonymous) says…

I love it!

Sebelius to Huselkamp: STFU and GBTW.
28 February 2008
at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fletch (Anonymous) says…

“he just needs to not use taxpayor assets to house his private venture.”

You mean his bedroom? Seriously? You're all mad because a kid is sitting in his bedroom making board games by hand? That really ticks you off? You need a flippin' government investigation of this? You're really that small and petty?

I'm just going to call this like I see it: If this whole story is an actual issue for you, then you're just a persnickety curmudgeon with an ax to grind. Grow up.
28 February 2008
at 4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

“Huelskamp said he purchased a copy of the game recently. He said he found out through FedEx that his order was picked up at Cedar Crest. He said the governor's mansion should not be used to store the game.”

Huelskamp the detective whoaaaaaaa.

I say it's time to quit storing Huelskmp in Topeka on the state payroll.

28 February 2008
at 4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“It doesn't matter if it cost more for the mansion. Again, if I had a government owned laptop I was allowed to take home, and a family member used it for an internet business (or if one of my kids used it to get to PBS kids online), it wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything, but it's still a prohibited use.”

Show me the law. If you cannot, then you have no point.

“The fact is that by using a state-owned property to operate a business, he is deriving personal economic benefit (i.e., he doesn't have to pay for rent on a storefront or home of his own to operate the business) from that use of state-owned property, and he's not someone who's even entitled to use that property - except to live there - for anything, since he was not the person elected to office.”

Is that a 'fact'? I don't see where anyone has shown it to be a fact that the games were stored there. And please provide links to the restrictions on use of the governers mansion.

“What if the governor's son was an attorney instead of a board game designer, and there happened to be a vacant office in the state office building? Would it be okay if he set up shop there?”

Once again, that is a public office, not a home. Now, if he were using any public supplies whatsoever, then yes, it would be a problem.

“Can their kids use it to deliver Domino's pizzas or newspapers or otherwise engage in a profit-making business?”

I don't see how storage can be considered the same as wear and tear on a car, along with the associated gas and insurance costs. This is completely different, not a good analogy.
28 February 2008
at 4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

This is just the same old game for these Kansas Republicans.

State of Kansas vs. Melvin Neufeld

(Blackmailing fellow legislator)

http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opi…

I imagine Huelskamp and Nuefeld and getting a big laugh over this waste of our time.
28 February 2008
at 5:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

Huelskamp, Neufeld, and Kinzer are on the verge of triggering an epidemic of coulrophobia. George hits rock bottom and starts digging. There are people seriously talking about coal. Coal. JHC on a stick.
28 February 2008
at 5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Defender (Anonymous) says:

“Show me the law. If you cannot, then you have no point.”

You wouldn't know a point if it was stuck in your eye.

For those who don't already have their minds blindly made up like Defenseless, I'll just note that the rules regarding the use of state property are generally part of employee policies. While her son may not be subject to those, the governor is, and it's her responsibility to ensure that family members that have access to state-owned property are in compliance with acceptable use, no different than if he had been using her state computer to do his shipping with FedEx.

“Is that a 'fact'? I don't see where anyone has shown it to be a fact that the games were stored there.”

At the moment the information available says the shipment was picked up there. Do your whining to FedEx. Or maybe you can tell us the governor's son has a home or storefront someplace else? Gee, didn't think so.

“And please provide links to the restrictions on use of the governers mansion.”

Why, sure, moron, I'll just “provide links” to the governor's personnel file so you can see what she signed.

Can you possibly be that obtuse?

“Now, if he were using any public supplies whatsoever, then yes, it would be a problem.”

So state-owned supplies are a problem but state-owned facilities and equipment are not?

“I don't see how storage can be considered the same as wear and tear on a car, along with the associated gas and insurance costs. This is completely different, not a good analogy.”

Oh, and storage is free for other businesses in this state? I'm sure they'll be happy to know that.

Geez you're a troll.
28 February 2008
at 5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Basically this is not too different than the Lincoln Bedroom hullabaloo. And no, I'm not picking on Clinton, it's my understanding that presidents of both parties let large contributors spend the night in the White House, and I'm not happy when any president does it. If they're going to rent out a room in a building that belongs to the taxpayers, then the money contributed shouldn't go into the coffers of either political party or to one person's campaign fund, it should go into the federal treasury.

If the governor's son is operating a profit-making business from state-owned property, and those profits are enhanced by free use of that property for storage of his product and as a base of operations (that he would otherwise have had to pay rent for somewhere else), then he owes the taxpayers money. And yes, it's up to the governor to ensure that the use of state property by her family is permissable under state employee policy, and it's somewhat improper for her to tell a state legislator who has reasonable cause to believe those policies are being abused to forget about it and “get back to work.”
28 February 2008
at 5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

I'm sick of do nothing and do nothing constructive policos. This is a non story, listen to the governor and get back to work for the people or we will replace you.
28 February 2008
at 6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Eride (Anonymous) says…

“If the governor's son is operating a profit-making business from state-owned property, and those profits are enhanced by free use of that property for storage of his product and as a base of operations (that he would otherwise have had to pay rent for somewhere else), then he owes the taxpayers money.”

I don't see a citation for your opinion that you so eloquently stated as a fact.

1. You don't know for sure what the exact classification of the governors mansion is. Stating it is state-owned and that it can't be used for anything other than state business sounds ridiculous considering the point of the mansion is to act as a private residence for the governor. So for you to state that as a fact without citing anything that actually *shows* it is a fact makes your entire post pointless.

2. You don't cite any relevant statutes, case law, administrative codes, etc supporting your basis that he owes the tax payers money if he did indeed keep a few boxes in storage at his mothers place of residence.

The list goes on. I am not meaning to pick on just you since several other people stated the same opinions erroneously as facts as you did, you just happened to be the last post so I quoted you.

The reality is, a political hack with a grudge accused the governor of improprieties in public with no proof, no bases in law, etc. Stating that the situation is illegal, or that the governor owes the tax payers money in a way that implies that your opinion is actually reality is helping that idiot get exactly what he wants from his personal smear campaign.

If you believe the situation is wrong feel free to make that opinion known, but try to avoid stating your opinions to the legality of it as if it is a fact.
28 February 2008
at 7:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

Just another example of Republicans wasting tax payers dollars addressing minor instead of MAJOR issues in this country. Throw the bums out, and hurry.

28 February 2008
at 7:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

gl0ck0wnr (Anonymous) says:

Richard, I have a funny feeling you'd feel quite differently if Kline's daughter was selling a creationist board game out of a public office space.
*****************
Glock..for crying out loud, DON't give anybody ideas, or we'll soon be on here with a thread about that new game!
**********************
Also, did it look to anyone else like those figures were carved out of soap?
28 February 2008
at 7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Eride (Anonymous) says:

“I don't see a citation for your opinion that you so eloquently stated as a fact.”

I provided the exact same citation as did those who stated the opposing opinion.

“1. You don't know for sure what the exact classification of the governors mansion is. Stating it is state-owned and that it can't be used for anything other than state business sounds ridiculous considering the point of the mansion is to act as a private residence for the governor. So for you to state that as a fact without citing anything that actually *shows* it is a fact makes your entire post pointless.”

Yes, “the point of the mansion is to act as a private residence for the governor.” Not the home of Kathleen Sebelius and family, the home of the chief executive of the state of Kansas. It is the residency of the holder of that elected office, a state employee.

And once again, I provided the same documentation as those who said it *is* an acceptable use. I spoke out my experience as a former government employee with knowledge of customary state policies. And your opposing opinion is based on - what again?

Is this different than an employee of the DOT who is allowed to take a state vehicle home from work, and their son uses it as part of his business? Or, as I said a couple of times, a family member using a state employee's state-issued personal laptop to run an internet business while the state employee is at home? How, exactly?

“2. You don't cite any relevant statutes, case law, administrative codes, etc supporting your basis that he owes the tax payers money if he did indeed keep a few boxes in storage at his mothers place of residence.”

And for yet a third time, I provided the exact same citations as those who said it's an acceptable practice. And you can trivialize it to “keep[ing] a few boxes at his mothers place of residence” if you choose to, but you're just proving your immaturity. It's the operation of a business out of the governor's home, a building whose upkeep is paid for by the taxpayers of the state of Kansas.

“If you believe the situation is wrong feel free to make that opinion known, but try to avoid stating your opinions to the legality of it as if it is a fact.”

Whereas you have no qualms about stating as a fact that it is *not* against any regulations or laws, without any basis in fact or knowledge of the law. Interesting.
28 February 2008
at 8:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says…

KsTwister (Anonymous) says:

“Just another example of Republicans wasting tax payers dollars addressing minor instead of MAJOR issues in this country. Throw the bums out, and hurry.”

As opposed to the Democrats in our nation's Congress taking the time to investigate steroid use in baseball. Right.

Personally, I find this all hysterical. All you good folks in La-La-Lawrence that whine about how Kansas is a laughing stock around the country during the biennial evolution debate, and you _don't_ think you're a laughing stock when someone mail orders a board game called Don't Drop the Soap, and the company's return address is your governor's mansion? Seventh smartest city - uh huh.
28 February 2008
at 8:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Barclay (Anonymous) says…

I guess it is “only a game” only if you have never dropped your bar of soap in prison.
28 February 2008
at 10:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Eride (Anonymous) says…

“”If you believe the situation is wrong feel free to make that opinion known, but try to avoid stating your opinions to the legality of it as if it is a fact.”

Whereas you have no qualms about stating as a fact that it is *not* against any regulations or laws, without any basis in fact or knowledge of the law. Interesting.”

I didn't say it was legal anywhere, nice try attempting to deflect my criticism but unfortunately for you I try to avoid making unsubstantiated claims when possible. You however *did* imply that it was illegal and that you *knew* it was. Yet even when responding to my post, pointing out the lack of evidence for your opinion that you were thoughtful enough to phrase as a fact, you again were unable to cite any facts.

Hmm.

“”I don't see a citation for your opinion that you so eloquently stated as a fact.”

I provided the exact same citation as did those who stated the opposing opinion.”

Yes, and they were also wrong to print their opinions as a fact. However, I notice a lot of the people commenting on this article were pointing out *not* that they thought it was legal but that it was *ridiculous* that our legislature would be spending time and effort on this while neglecting about every useful thing they could be doing instead. The majority of people criticizing the governor however happened to be the ones who were most likely to state it was illegal so that group, including you, was the most obvious target.

“”2. You don't cite any relevant statutes, case law, administrative codes, etc supporting your basis that he owes the tax payers money if he did indeed keep a few boxes in storage at his mothers place of residence.”

And for yet a third time, I provided the exact same citations as those who said it's an acceptable practice. And you can trivialize it to “keep[ing] a few boxes at his mothers place of residence” if you choose to, but you're just proving your immaturity. It's the operation of a business out of the governor's home, a building whose upkeep is paid for by the taxpayers of the state of Kansas.”

You keep pointing out how you provided the same exact citations as everyone else (i.e. none) as if that makes it acceptable for you to do it. That is a fairly childish attitude and it is a little disappointing to see that “argument” being made by someone I assume is an adult. The adult way to respond to someone pointing out the lack of a factual basis for your statements is… FACTS… not to defend oneself by pointing out someone else did it too… never mind that I also acknowledged other people were also at fault for this and I notice you didn't quote that part… wonder why?

See I can use quotations as well.
28 February 2008
at 10:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

to: Gov Kathy
from: Another Kansas Mom of Precocious sons

I understand your devotion to your son, and your determination to support his entrepreneurial activities.

However, as a feminist who has struggled to gain relevance and credibility in a male-dominated industry, I must say that there is no way, no-how, that I would have subjugated a position of such importance as the Governor of Kansas to support my adult son in marketing an adolescent, immature, rascist and obscene gimmick from my place of work.
28 February 2008
at 11:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Eride (Anonymous) says:

“I didn't say it was legal anywhere, nice try attempting to deflect my criticism but unfortunately for you I try to avoid making unsubstantiated claims when possible.”

Um, yes, you did. You stated rather unequivocally that “The reality is, a political hack with a grudge accused the governor of improprieties in public with no proof, no bases in law,” a supposition that can only be predicated on the assumption that there is, indeed, no regulation or law being broken. I.e., what you presented as “The reality” has no validity unless what he is doing is an acceptable use of the mansion.

“Yes, and they were also wrong to print their opinions as a fact.”

Like Eride, for instance.

“You keep pointing out how you provided the same exact citations as everyone else (i.e. none) as if that makes it acceptable for you to do it. That is a fairly childish attitude and it is a little disappointing to see that “argument” being made by someone I assume is an adult.”

And yet you fail to see that what you're accusing me of is precisely what you did yourself. I never said it was fact, the only time I used the expression “the fact of the matter” is when I said by using a taxpayer funded facility to operate his business, he was gaining an economic benefit by not having to pay the costs of operating from another location, and this is pretty simple truth - maybe even you can understand it. Other than that I clearly stated my opinion based on my experience as a government employee familiar with typical employee policies for such employees. *You* are the one who said I was presenting it as fact (again, interesting since you don't think your own statement come across that way), while *you* used the term “The reality of the situation…” I presume you equate reality and fact?
29 February 2008
at 8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

I think the average American considers the methods practiced by Nuefeld and Huelskamp to be an example of what we are sick of in American politics. I don't believe they represent all Republicans but Nuefeld is representing Kansas Republicans so they are stained with that image. The more Kansans understand the game they are playing the more inevitable their demise. I would like to see some new progressive Republicans (with College diplomas preferred) taking their place with a better understanding of today's most pressing issues.

29 February 2008
at 8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

peachesncream (Anonymous) says…

i dont care who they are rep or dem they are all liars and cheats….
29 February 2008
at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“For those who don't already have their minds blindly made up like Defenseless,”

Wow, notajayhawk, you're a real ass aren't you? I have not called you a single name, and yet you try to destroy my point with name calling. Very grown up. As a matter of fact, I have yet to make up my mind, and I figured if you were making the claims that you are, maybe you know something that I don't about the laws regarding this kind of issue.

“At the moment the information available says the shipment was picked up there.”

The return address on a Fed Ex package is not necessarily the actual point of origin. Anyone can use any address to set up thier Fed Ex account.

“Why, sure, moron, I'll just “provide links” to the governor's personnel file so you can see what she signed.”

Wow, the name calling again fort no reason whatsoever. Grow up. This kind of law or restriction would be a matter of public record and not tied to any governers personal records.

“So state-owned supplies are a problem but state-owned facilities and equipment are not?”

That is what I want to see determined, you have jumped the gun and convicted the governer without all the facts being in yet.

“Geez you're a troll.”

For asking you questions that are completely relevant to the issue at hand? I'm a troll? I think the name caller in this case would be the troll.
29 February 2008
at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

With an investigation in the works, she has no chance for the VP spot.

This means the coal legislation will sail through without another word.
29 February 2008
at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Eride (Anonymous) says…

“Um, yes, you did. You stated rather unequivocally that “The reality is, a political hack with a grudge accused the governor of improprieties in public with no proof, no bases in law,” a supposition that can only be predicated on the assumption that there is, indeed, no regulation or law being broken. I.e., what you presented as “The reality” has no validity unless what he is doing is an acceptable use of the mansion.”

I didn't say there was no bases in law for the situation but for the accusation. Your illiteracy looks like the root cause of your confusion. The state senator is guilty of the same offense as you. Making statements of his opinion and implying there is a factual basis for the statements when in reality there is none. He implied a law was broken but he didn't state what law it was, probably because he couldn't find one.
29 February 2008
at 9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“With an investigation in the works, she has no chance for the VP spot.'

Who is investigating? There is an allegation, but unless the Foolskamp can come up with a law that is being broken, there will be no investigation. I am just amazed at the idiocy of some of the folks on here, the facts aren't even in, yet the governer and her son are convicted. Talk about partisan stupidity.
29 February 2008
at 9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justfornow (Anonymous) says…

It's about time Vice President Kathleen Sebelius gets passionate about something.
29 February 2008
at 10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BABBOY (Anonymous) says…

I might just as well get this over with.

Dollypawpaw a poor excuse for an American citizen who relentlessly makes statements of ignorance reflecting nothing but poorly on our society in that no caring person would ever contemplate anything that she says on this web site as a serious or intelligent statement meant to accomplish anything good.

There, Thank you. I feel better.

Everyone – even poor silly little pawpaw who likes to get us all fired up – have a nice weekend!!
29 February 2008
at 11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

janeyb (Anonymous) says…

Read an article in the Kansas City Star that states as of Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008 Mr. Huelskamp had not contacted the AG's office, the Kansas Department of Corrections, or the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission. He claimed last week he had done this.

He has a feud with Sebelius over the coal-fired plants period. This really has nothing to do with John's game.

Mr. Huelskamp is designing his own board game which refers to the same part of the anatomy as John's game. It is called “Blow Smoke Up Your Constituent's A$$.”

29 February 2008
at 11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Eride (Anonymous) says:

“I didn't say there was no bases in law for the situation but for the accusation. Your illiteracy looks like the root cause of your confusion. The state senator is guilty of the same offense as you. Making statements of his opinion and implying there is a factual basis for the statements when in reality there is none.”

So, once again, you say “when in reality there was none.” But you're not stating your opinion as fact. Right. Speaking of illiteracy, it's one thing not to understand what you're reading, it takes a real winner to not know what they're writing.
____________________

Defender (Anonymous) says:

“As a matter of fact, I have yet to make up my mind, and I figured if you were making the claims that you are, maybe you know something that I don't about the laws regarding this kind of issue.”

Uh, yeah. That was so clear from your tone.

“The return address on a Fed Ex package is not necessarily the actual point of origin.”

He didn't say he read the return address, the story said he found out through FedEx the package was picked up there (perhaps if you'd read the story). I have tracked many packages and point-of-origin information was readily available.

“This kind of law or restriction would be a matter of public record and not tied to any governers personal records.”

Really? Well, then, Defender, why don't you just post us a link to the employee handbook for the administrative branch? When I was a government employee, the policies and regulations were available only over their intranet; you could access them from government computers or with special access from outside, they are generally not part of the public domain. Where do you work that your company's employment policies are posted online?

“That is what I want to see determined, you have jumped the gun and convicted the governer without all the facts being in yet.”

While you've only convicted the accuser without any facts. But that's okay, right?
____________________

So Eride and Defender say nothing improper has happened because they we don't have access to the employee regulations, and therefore there's no proof. Ignorance is such bliss. Now, who would have a copy of these regulations, who would know whether using the mansion for business purposes would be a violation? In short, who would know more about the employee policies pertaining to an elected official in this state? Another elected official in this state, or a couple of posters to the LJW's comment section? Unless Eride or Defender wants to post some proof that he's wrong about the policies, I think I'll listen to Sen. Huelskamp before I listen to them.
29 February 2008
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“So Eride and Defender say nothing improper has happened because they we don't have access to the employee regulations, and therefore there's no proof. Ignorance is such bliss.”

I never said such a thing. You claimed the law was broken, and I asked you to show WHAT law WAS broken.

“He didn't say he read the return address, the story said he found out through FedEx the package was picked up there (perhaps if you'd read the story).”

I did read the story, and I still do not see any proof of what he is alleging. When he can provide complete proof, I will believe him and support him as well. There is no way in hell that you would do that, you're far too partisan.

“Now, who would have a copy of these regulations, who would know whether using the mansion for business purposes would be a violation?”

You're stating a reg was broken, so PROVE it.

“Where do you work that your company's employment policies are posted online?”

My company isn't a public entity, like the governers mansion is. My work is not supported by taxpayers, so these kind of regulations would not be made public. No comparison.

“Uh, yeah. That was so clear from your tone.'

You cannot hear me speaking, so you do not know what my tone is, period.

“When I was a government employee, the policies and regulations were available only over their intranet; you could access them from government computers or with special access from outside, they are generally not part of the public domain.”

Were you an elected official?

“Really? Well, then, Defender, why don't you just post us a link to the employee handbook for the administrative branch?”

You and Foolskamp are the ones claiming a reg was broken, so PROVE it. Sure seems like Foolskamp hasn't been able to so far. And if he does, I'll support it. If not, this is an ignorant witch hunt that is purely politically motivated.

“While you've only convicted the accuser without any facts. But that's okay, right?”

I haven't convicted anyone, but I do say put up or shut up to Foolskamp. After all, he IS the one making the claim.

“Unless Eride or Defender wants to post some proof that he's wrong about the policies, I think I'll listen to Sen. Huelskamp before I listen to them.”

Foolskamp hasn't proven that there is any policy in effect for such a situation, and neither have you. So why would you listen to him (or you)? I will listen when he can prove his allegations.

“In short, who would know more about the employee policies pertaining to an elected official in this state? Another elected official in this state, or a couple of posters to the LJW's comment section?”

Then why has he not been able to show the regulation regarding this issue? You do know that he has not done that yet, correct?
29 February 2008
at 3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Defender (Anonymous) says:

“I never said such a thing. You claimed the law was broken, and I asked you to show WHAT law WAS broken.”

No, I'm sure when you refer to “the Foolskamp” it shows how you're being objective and haven't made up your mind yet. Completely open-minded, no partisanship there.

“Were you an elected official?”

Senator Huelskamp is. Again, I think I'll take his word for what's in the policeis related to use of state facilities and equipment before I take yours.

“Sure seems like Foolskamp hasn't been able to so far. And if he does, I'll support it.”

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Uh, sorry. But thanks for the laugh, I really needed it.

You really are one of those people that think a coin can have only one side, that it's possible to have an inside without an outside, etc., aren't you? The Senator says he has indications that something improper was going on - you're saying my argument is weak because I can't prove he has the evidence, but somehow your argument is valid when you can't prove he doesn't. Makes perfect sense. Maybe *you* can show us some law or regulation that says the Senator is under some kind of obligation to publish his evidence in the LJW's comments section for you to see.

Or maybe you're just dense - I'd love to be there when you're getting a speeding ticket written, to hear you rant to the cop “*PROVE* to me there's a law on the books that says I can't go over the speed limit!” The information thus far available is that the Senator was told by FedEx that the package was picked up at the governor's mansion. The Senator, being an elected state official and a state employee, would know (much better than you) whether that would violate any policy related to use of state property. But to you, all that's baseless, and the governor's claim that nothing improper occured is gospel. No partisanship involved, I'm sure.

But in perusing your past posts, it's pretty clear you're just one of these “Show me the proof” morons who will rant incessantly unless someone drops the engraved tablets with the proof you want on your thick head. Tell us, defender, how do you keep your feet stuck to the ground without someone showing you a link to where the law of gravity is written down?
29 February 2008
at 4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“Senator Huelskamp is. Again, I think I'll take his word for what's in the policeis related to use of state facilities and equipment before I take yours.”

He hasn't produced and policies or laws to show that this is an issue, period. He has no proof so far, so neither do you.

“Or maybe you're just dense - I'd love to be there when you're getting a speeding ticket written, to hear you rant to the cop “*PROVE* to me there's a law on the books that says I can't go over the speed limit!”

I can read speed limit signs, and I also passed my drivers test, so I already know this law. What a damned stupid argument.

“The Senator, being an elected state official and a state employee, would know (much better than you) whether that would violate any policy related to use of state property.”

Then he needs to produce the policy for all to see. He hasn't thus far.

“But to you, all that's baseless, and the governor's claim that nothing improper occured is gospel.'

You state that Foolskamp would know the law better than me, and that is true. However, why do you automatically believe his side instead of the governers? Seems like the governer would be even more well versed in the laws regarding her office than Foolskamp would be. You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.

“But in perusing your past posts, it's pretty clear you're just one of these “Show me the proof” morons who will rant incessantly unless someone drops the engraved tablets with the proof you want on your thick head.”

I would rather see proof than believe a politician. What's wrong with proof?

Your ability to debate sucks, name calling just makes you look immature and stupid.
29 February 2008
at 4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…

Defender, how long have you been employed in the gov's office?
29 February 2008
at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Defender (Anonymous) says:

“He hasn't produced and policies or laws to show that this is an issue, period. He has no proof so far, so neither do you.”

And you know this because of 25 lines in a LJW story. Don't know how he had this little oversight - heck, everyone knows that you can't investigate possible wrongdoing without sending certified copies of the documents to Defender on the LJW's Comments section first for his approval.

And once again, you state this as fact: “He has no proof.” I'm sure that was just a slip, you being so objective and all. I'm sure you really meant to say “*I* haven't *seen* the proof,” not state as a fact that he has none. Since you don't state things as fact without basis, and you haven't made up your mind yet.

[groan]

“Your ability to debate sucks”

Defender's “debating” skils:

“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”
“Show me the proof.”

Yep, true maturity.
29 February 2008
at 6:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“And you know this because of 25 lines in a LJW story.”

Same to you. I will have to say it like this. 'Innocent until proven guilty.' You state the governer and her son are guilty of breaking a law, yet you fail to specify exactly what law that is. However, I am waiting for the facts, if wrongdoing is determined to have been commited, I will will completely support the law. However, not all the facts are in, and you have already convicted the gov and her son.

“And once again, you state this as fact: “He has no proof.” I'm sure that was just a slip, you being so objective and all. I'm sure you really meant to say “*I* haven't *seen* the proof,” not state as a fact that he has none.”

I will totally agree with you there, I should have said I haven't seen the proof. I can make the mistake of not being objective just as much as the next guy, unfortunately. But, it doesn't make much sense to make allegations of this sort, without having it all spelled out first, wouldn't you agree?

That is the kind of thing that makes a politician look extremely partisan, and I don't know about you, but I am sick of partisan politics. Partisan politics takes money out of my pocket and yours in a very wasteful manner.

“Defender, how long have you been employed in the gov's office?”

George, you don't even deserve an answer, but I have never worked for the government or any goverment employee, period. That's a freebie.
29 February 2008
at 7:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

“That is the kind of thing that makes a politician look extremely partisan, and I don't know about you, but I am sick of partisan politics. Partisan politics takes money out of my pocket and yours in a very wasteful manner.”

Agreed. However, I have to say this: I am a relative newcomer to this area. I had to go back and look again in the story to even see what party the Senator was from and I know little about some of the conflicts that have been alluded to in this thread between the governor and the senator or his party. Neither my concerns nor my taking him at his word had anything to do with partisanship.

It seems your major concern was with the potential partisan nature of the allegations, which I can understand. But that unfortunately works both ways.It seems from reading this thread that there are an awful lot of people who rejected the allegations out of hand because of the source. Just as there are people in these forums who would grab an umbrella before going outside just because a particular poster said the sun was shining.

While your major concern seems to be the potential partisanship, mine is the potential abuse of state property. As I said earlier, I see a lot of parallels with the Lincoln bedroom deals, and as I stated, I am aware that this goes on with both parties and I'm not happy when either does it. And as far as I know, there are no regulations or laws that preclude presidents from doing it, but that doesn't mean it's not objectionable. Afterall, is there really a difference between renting out the Lincoln bedroom to a political contributor, and using your state-issued car to travel to a political rally, or using your office computer or copier to print re-election campaign materials?

In other words, my concerns regarding the potential for taxpayer-supported property being used to line the pockets of someone might make me tend towards accepting at face value the allegations as presented, while your concerns about the partisanship might make you tend towards rejecting them.

And I am also concerned about the governor's response. It appears she is not disputing whether the game was shipped from the mansion, more like she's saying there's nothing wrong with doing so. And it certainly does not make her look good to respond as she did; rather than say she would be happy to let an investigation go forward because there's nothing to hide, or even to respond as you did and say show me in the regulations where he can't do that, she basically told him to butt out, that he had no right to inquire into potential abuses when he (at least as far as he says) has indications that there may be some. Not exactly the poster-girl for open government, and it sounds too much like she's saying her family is above investigation.

29 February 2008
at 8:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Sebelius has demonstrated her disrespect for the office of Governor of Kansas by not only allowing her son to use the Governor's mansion to distribute his incredidibly tasteless game, but also by approving of, and defending it, as well.

Shame on you, Kathleen Sebelius.
29 February 2008
at 9:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Democrats. At least they are consistent: okay to distribute a tasteless game about prison rape from the governor's mansion; okay for the president to be the recipient of blow jobs in the oval office while conducting official business.

After all, if you are a Democrat, the more you debase the office of governor or president, the more respect you garner from your constituents,
1 March 2008
at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

Godot:

What makes you think the Republicans aren't doing the same kinds of things? Wake up and smell the coffee.

Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. Ring a bell?

We are just suckers if we believe their sales pitch about morality.
1 March 2008
at 8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

well, jayhawklawrence, glad to see you agree with me that what Sebelius is doing is reprehensible. Nice reach across the aisle!