Letters to the Editor

State cheated

August 21, 2012

Advertisement

I heartily agree with your editorial “Full-time job?” (Aug. 17). If Mr. Kobach is hired as the “full-time” Secretary of State for Kansas, what is he doing working for Arizona, Alabama, or Pennsylvania?  Either (1) he gets a lot of vacation time, or (2) he has more than the allotted 24 hours in each of his days, or (3) the people of Kansas are being royally cheated when it comes to his “full-time” employment with our state. I suspect it’s No. 3!

Mr. Kobach’s actions are more than just “troubling;” they are downright outrageous! What are we going to do about this?

Comments

Abdu Omar 3 years, 10 months ago

Agreed, 100%. So let's elect someone else next time. I remember him saying that he would do other things while being sec of state. Well, people didn't listen and he was elected, now we see his work ethic.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 10 months ago

Whats the difference between between 6 state workers looking down into a hole at one state worker looking up... non of them doing much of anything, and Kobach not being at his post?

I doubt there is really much to this except partison politics. Heck, many of you lefties would be more angry if he was in the state taking care of our problems caused by distaste for the law and/or illegal immigration.

Instead of complaining, why don't you use your time to go get a legal ID so you can vote for a bunch of liars that take from the producers and give to those who have zero desire to work?

Peacemaker452 3 years, 10 months ago

"Jeffersonian Democrat"? If there are any, I would likely vote for them.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 10 months ago

There are 168 hours in a week. If there is the expectation that a salaried employee will work somewhere between 30-60 hours per week, that still leaves a lot of free time for that salaried employee to do whatever he/she pleases. And that's with the expectation of 30-60 hour work week. Maybe it only takes 25/hrs. per week. Or 20/hrs. per week. Maybe the job description itself should be examined and if it's really just a part time job, we can then pay the employee a more appropriate amount. But just because someone uses their free time in ways we don't like is not evidence that they are not doing their job here.

Kate Rogge 3 years, 10 months ago

There's clear evidence that, having forced through draconian restrictions upon voter eligibility here in Kansas, Kobach chose to train poll workers how to recognize voter IDs and then dusted his little hands of the problem of voter disenfranchisement. He should be spending all day of every single day between now and the November election making sure that valid Kansas voters have the voter ID he has required of them. That is his job. That is what he is refusing to do. Thank heavens for Democrat Jamie Shew here in Douglas County.

voevoda 3 years, 10 months ago


"If the topic of your post is "Liberty_One" then you've lost the argument."

Yes, Liberty_One doesn't react well when people point out that his logic and his facts don't comport with the truth. As in this case, where he assumes that dereliction of duty is preferable to performance of duty.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 10 months ago

Here's another question-- Do fewer laws make a better society?

voevoda 3 years, 10 months ago

The Secretary of State doesn't enact any new laws. That's up to the state legislature. However, when Kobach is in other states, he is drafting new laws for them. So, Liberty_One, if you were actually being logical here, you would be insisting the Kobach give up his consulting work with other states and focus on doing his job to ensure that our elections in Kansas are run fairly.

voevoda 3 years, 10 months ago

"If the topic of your post is "Liberty_One" then you've lost the argument." If people don't reply, you claim that you have won the argument because nobody contests your position. If people do reply, you claim that by the very act of replying they are conceding to your position. You can't distinguish between someone challenging your logic and evidence, and someone "attacking you personally." I'm not surprised, given the message you sent to my personal email on August 18, after you were unable to convince me (or bully me) into agreeing with you. Do you remeber what you wrote then? Here's a reminder:

Private email from Liberty_One, August 18, 2012 Hello,

The user Liberty_One sent the following message to you via LJWorld.com:

==============================

Well, I proved to you that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to US history and the post office. I've done this many, many times to people on here. I state a fact, you guys act as if I'm just making it up, then I prove it with multiple sources. I have never been proven a liar with this kind of stuff, yet you guys keep acting like I'm making it all up. I've spent years studying US history. I know my stuff and can prove everything I say. Maybe you think my theories about WHY things happened are wrong, but I know WHAT happened far better than you or anyone else here and I'm sick of being questioned by ignoramuses when I've proven it over and over again.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're a child compared to me. Learn. Your. Place.

[End of Liberty_One's message]

I don't think that you're in any position to object to "personal attacks," Liberty_One.

voevoda 3 years, 10 months ago

Liberty_One, Every time you ridicule the other people who post here; every time you claim that you are smarter than all the rest of us and we should "learn our place;" every time you send other posters the kind of email you sent to me, every time you try to shut down interchange by unilaterally declaring yourself the victor, you undermine the "libertarian" position you are trying to advance. Ron Paul once advised his followers (and as I recall, you are one of them): "We must learn to present our ideas in an inoffensive manner. Hysterics, emotions and name-calling will never help in achieving our goal of a society that maximizes individual freedom.” "Hysterics, emotions and name-calling," Liberty_One. Perhaps Ron Paul had persons such as yourself in mind.

voevoda 3 years, 10 months ago

Well, Liberty_One, in this case, you have made your own conduct on-line the "news." And if your goal is to "discuss," why do you try to bully people such as myself into refraining from engaging in discussion with the statement, "If the topic of your post is "Liberty_One" then you've lost the argument"? It seems that you're confused about the difference between using someone's moniker to identify which posting you're replying to, and a "personal attack." It's not the presence or absence of an individual's name that makes the difference, Liberty_One. I'm being entirely civil to you, responding to the content of your posting, using your name politely as my mother taught me to do when you are talking with someone. You, however, since last Friday have sarcastically called me "genius" and deridingly called me "a child" and an "ignoramus" and told me to "Learn. Your. Place." And still more insults. That's name-calling, even if you didn't use my moniker.
Everyone who follows these forums knows how you choose to conduct yourself, and how often you resort to put-downs and name-calling. I doubt that very many people are inclined to take your views seriously, much less "discuss the news" with you, given how vituperatively you respond every time someone disagrees with you. I'm sure that many people don't bother to respond to you any more--you now explicitly discourage people from responding--because of your propensity to be so unfair in arguing and gratuitously nasty. I have chosen to continue to challenge you, on occasion, on the content of your postings--whether they concern the news or devolve into snide posturing and name-calling. That's because I do not want you or other people to confuse silence for consent to your often-outrageous statements. I do have to wonder why your postings so often devolve into arrogant and unkind rants. Is there something in your so-called "libertarian" (in actuality, anarcho-capitalist) ideology that leads you to be so angry and misanthropic? In any case, you damage your cause by the way you behave in these forums. If your goal genuinely is to "discuss the news," start by adopting a civil tone and open your listening ears. You could learn something.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 10 months ago

Voevoda, Having been down this road with Liberty before, rest assured, he will fade away quickly when cornered. But in this case, by posting the reference to himself at the bottom of each of his posts, he falls victim to his/her own conclusion. Having thrown himself on his own sword, he finds great satisfaction walking around telling other folks he won when anyone notices the blade sticking out of his back or the handle protruding from his chest.

In other words, point out the trail of blood if you feel you must, and call 911 if it makes you feel better--I certainly have done that myself--but then feel free to show him the door and get out the mop.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 10 months ago

You are the one caught in your own web. You are the one whose posts reference yourself as the topic, so you fall guilty of your own accusation each time you post. As you know, I am always ready to discuss climate change with you whenever you decide to return to an actual discussion of the topic and leave the safety of your ad hominem attack arena. It is you who have topped yourself by falling on your own sword this time, and it is you who refuses to discuss the topic at hand.

In deference to not prolonging this specacle, I will only reply to on-topic ideas with you, and leave others to make their decisions on the content of any of your future off-topic posts.

parrothead8 3 years, 10 months ago

But that's all you presented...YOUR idea. There are no facts behind what you presented either. It's just your own personal opinion, so what's to address? You're entitled to your opinion, but I daresay that you're likely in a minority. Most people I know would prefer that their elected officials actually work at the job they've been elected to do.

Phil Minkin 3 years, 10 months ago

I agree that Kolbach is short changing the state on the time he spends on the job, but considering the damage he does, it might be better to have him as far away, as often as possible.

labmonkey 3 years, 10 months ago

A question for the LTE writer... Were you complaining when Kathy was flying all over the country while campaigning for Obama in 2008? Unless you complained then, you have absolutely no argument now and this is just partisan bickering.

Abdu Omar 3 years, 10 months ago

I assume you mean our sec of Human Services? She campaigned for a part of a year, not for her entire term in office. My objection to Kobach's work for the people of the State of Kansas is that he cares little for his job and finds time to do other things. I suggest NOT to complain, but to elect someone else next time.

deec 3 years, 10 months ago

Maybe if these guys had to punch a time clock it would be possible to tell whether the state is getting their money's worth. Make their jobs hourly.

George Lippencott 3 years, 10 months ago

maybe we are fortunate. Mr. K may be soo... unique that we must share him. That suggests that we will have less to deal with here.

Kate Rogge 3 years, 10 months ago

Not as long as he continues to operate a political super PAC in our current election cycle. How is that even allowed by a Kansas Secretary of State? What part of the office's impartial and nonpartisan election responsibility is unclear to him?

Phil Minkin 3 years, 10 months ago

Is this directly from Fox News or do you have real documentation?

deec 3 years, 10 months ago

As usual, this is copied directly from right-wing blogland with no attribution.

Phil Minkin 3 years, 10 months ago

Great answer when person making the statement does't have substantiation, put the burden of proof on the questioner. Harry Reid proved how successful making that kind of claim with no proof can be. Harry would be proud of you rockchalk1977.

Abdu Omar 3 years, 10 months ago

If you want facts, no president has spent more time on vacation that GW Bush. He started two wars and robbed our treasury of a great surplus. So let Kobach go on vacation and we will elect someone else.

mom_of_three 3 years, 10 months ago

well, I found this online, not the best source, but seems credible... in 31 months in office, Obama had 61 days of vacation. Clinton had 28 during 31 months, Reagan had 112 and Bush had 180.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 10 months ago

"If you substitute nobama for Kobach in the above rant and change the states for countries, (mexico, Libya, syria, ...etc) never mind."

Don't worry-- it made no sense, so we never minded in the first place.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 10 months ago

What about the Governors time away to attend political fundraisers? As a former beltway boy it has been estimated that 6-8 hours a day are spent chasing campaign dollars. An expensive habit to bring back to Kansas.

Absolutely challenge Kobach! Absolutely challenge Brownbach!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.