Letter: GOP concern

November 23, 2012


To the editor:

As a registered Republican, political events in recent years have left me feeling distanced from my original party. The article in Sunday’s Journal-World covering the new leadership in the Douglas County GOP was even more disheartening for me. Two thoughts jumped to my mind when reading the comments of the new chairwoman, Jana Rea.

The first thought came when I read Rea’s negative comments about Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger. Rea’s stated opposition to her fellow party member reminds one of watching movies or TV shows where the leader of a gang gets into a disagreement with one of the gang members and has him rubbed out. One wonders, why do the other members stay in the gang when any disagreement with the leader can spell one’s demise?

The other thought came when Rae said, “I have a strong respect for the Republican Party platform. It is congruent with my faith.” Someone should explain to her that a governing body based on someone’s specific religious beliefs is not a democracy, it is a theocracy. Before the local “crew” alienates all registered Republicans with an ability to think critically, they should stop and consider the fact that two of their favorite candidates lost earlier this month. The Republicans have been accused of being a party of exclusionists who won’t compromise. Nothing from the article or Rea’s comments helped to dispel that accusation.


Abdu Omar 5 years, 6 months ago

So then, why stay in an outdated theocratic party? I was a republican for most of my life until Bush II invaded Iraq and wouldn't listen to the people who were against that war. He was the decider and decided to invade a country that didn't threaten us in any way. The religious aspect of the GOP bothers me too. I mean, I am not your typical religious nut, but what has religion got to do with the party? I know there is the issue of Abortion and gay this and that, but those are personal choices and to be a one issue thinker or one who only looks at the candidates and says "hmmm, he voted for __, so I won't vote for him." This isn't the way to run a country. We must be heedful of all laws and the laws passed must be equitable to the majority of persons. Equal opportunity under the law.

msezdsit 5 years, 6 months ago

Couldn't agree more. I grew up in a republican household but I just can't support the radical turn from reason and moderation that the party has taken.

This , for me, started with water gate , arms for hostages, and the reagen administration and oliver norths reign of terror in South America. This was all done by what would be considered fairly moderate republicans. The political which hunt they conducted against Clinton was the ground work for "nothing but" one political which hunt after another they engage in today while ignoring the needs of the people. I don't think they even have leaders that are ready to bring the party back to moderation as of right now. I have voted for Sandy Praeger every time she has run for office and think she would make a much better governor than the disaster we have now. As for religion, Barry Goldwater thought it should be kept out of politics and he was about as conservative as you could get and maintain some moderation.

The party of hate and war and me me me only.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

I can't believe you would defend Clinton. This man sexually harassed a young female subordinate and that is a fact - no WITCH hunt.

msezdsit 5 years, 6 months ago

You may have claimed to have left the republican party but your clinging to their revisionist history. An affair between consenting adults doesn't necessarily make it right but it certainly isn't sexual harassment. If you are so disconnected from reality that you can't see the republicans attack on Clinton was a political witch hunt than your judgement is flawed. You have at least taken the first baby step by leaving the republican party so their is hope that you will continue to move on and be able to judge things for what they truly are. By the way Clinton would have won this years election by a landslide had the constitution allowed him to run.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 6 months ago

The harassment was of Paula Jones. She made that claim in court and the courts ruled that she was entitled to her day in court, which included her right to question Clinton. That he lied during that questioning should be troubling to all.

As to the affair between consenting adults, when it happens between two individuals who have such different levels of power, such as a CEO and a secretary, the potential for abuse of that power discrepancy often leads to a relationship where one is indeed being used, the very definition of harassment. If anyone believes this was an equal affair between two consenting adults, they are willfully looking the other way towards the details of that affair. A young barely adult was being used by a rich and powerful man.

That said, the politicization of the affair by the Republicans in Congress was nothing short of shameful. They did in fact turn a sordid affair into a witch hunt. Those who carried out that witch hunt deserve our scorn as well as the man who conducted the sordid affair.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

The definition of sexual harassment is not when one person is in a position of power over another, it is when that power is used on another against their will. Lewinsky was interested and was 25 years old. That is young, but it is a far from "barely adult." Would you use that excuse for a 25 year old who commits a crime? 25 is post college age, and possibly even post graduate school age. Sorry jhf, but I just can't buy the "poor child" routine.

Was Clinton in the wrong? HELL YES! However, it was a consentual relationship.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 6 months ago

Shall we smoke a cigar to that?

That woman was used. Clinton was certainly seen as pro-woman in his public policy decisions. Therefore he was beyond reproach by many who were perfectly willing to overlook this shameful affair.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

A cigar. Oh how clever, as we all know the messy details of the affair. Wasn't that a good use of millions of dollars at the taxpayer's expense. Clinton was also far from reproach and his affair was not overlooked (say, unlike McCain's when he was the GOP nominee, which was completely overlooked even though he married his former mistress). It was also recognized for what it was -- an affair and the broken vows made between a man and his wife. The rest was none of our business, but we learned about it because of a witchhunt.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 6 months ago

I thought we learned of it when Paula Jones sued Mr. Clinton. And I believe she alleged that she had been fired from her state job because she refused the advances of the then Governor. Isn't that the definition of sexual harassment. I though it was during sworn testimony before in a legal court proceeding. You know, the one where we all got to snicker when someone quibbled about what the meaning of the word "is" is. You know, the one with perjured testimony. It was then we learned of the sordid affair.

After all that, we had the millions wasted during what can only be described as a political witch hunt.

But let me ask you something, Bea. We all know sexual assaults are not reported in very large numbers. But they still are sexual assaults, aren't they? We all saw the woman during this last campaign vilified for speaking openly about her use of birth control. Or in the case of Ms. Lewinsky, the harassment happened, whether reported or not, whether litigated or not. Her reasons for not making such allegations are the same as the victims of sexual assault and the woman during the campaign. They become victimized all over again.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

True that assaults happen, whether reported or not. In the case of Lewinsky, however, she was an adult woman who entered into an affair with a married man of her own free will. It was not harassment. Calling it such is patronizing. Women are capable of making bad decisons without being forced or harassed into making them.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 6 months ago

You keep ignoring my reference to Paula Jones. My first sentence in this thread was "The harassment was of Paula Jones".

The problem with people in power having these types of relationships with subordinates is that it creates a significant grey area. Is their job on the line, as with Ms. Jones' claim. Is their internship on the line? Did Mr. Clinton intend to use his position of power to get someone canned or was it just the subordinate feeling that way? That's why as a matter of policy this type of behavior is frowned upon.

Frankly, Bea, given what we now know of the Lewinsky affair, I'm far more comfortable calling it sexual harassment than saying it's patronizing to her. You are free to disagree with me. Even she is free to disagree, just as the victims of sexual assault are free to deny it ever happened.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

You are mixing both the Jones and the Lewinsky incidents. The cigar incident was with Lewinsky, and we know thanks to Ken Starr. If what Jones claimed was true then yes, that indeed appears to be harassment. However, that case was dismissed before it even went to trial. I agree that bosses messing with interns is a very bad idea, but if the intern is all for it, goes in stating their goal is to sleep with the boss and then they follow through, it is impossible for me to see that as harassment. That doesn't forgive Clinton of really bad judgment, but that doesn't make it sexual harassment, just a poor choice.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 6 months ago

Now it is you mixing up a couple of things. We're not really talking about a man and a woman sleeping together, are we. That didn't happen. One person performed and another got played. Isn't that really what happened. One person was satisfied while the other demeaned. One person got theirs, the other got a stain on a dress.

If it's equality within a relationship that we're striving for, I can of nothing that more clearly defines inequality than what happened there.

As I recall, the Jones legal proceedings had the President of the United States lying while under oath. Call me old fashioned, but it's my belief that when someone is under oath, they are expected to tell the truth. Ms. Jones was entitled to the truth. Her rights were violated. But as I said, I'm old fashioned.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

Ms the difference between you and me is I can see right and wrong regardless of party. The GOP may have been wrong but that doesn't excuse Clinton's actions. And you can't honestly tell me if the situation involved Bush the Democrats would not have politicized it.

If Clinton was a CEO of a corporation and did what he did he would have been fired. What he did was wrong on many levels and it speaks volumes of the Democrats that he is still held in such high esteem.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

You mean the way Gingrich is still held in high esteem among Republicans? The way Herman Cain was defended by Republicans? The way Anita Hill was railroaded by Republicans in defense of Clarence Thomas? Spare me the indignation.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

Beatrice what is your point? Do you not read posts before you jump in and rant? Do you see me defending the GOP? Want it argue then pick another subject.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

You demean an entire party based on the actions of one individual. That is starting an argument. Given that we have (for all practical purposes) a two-party system, demeaning one party and its supporters for similar actions found taking part in the other party is your starting an argument. I was pointing out the discrepancy of your observation: not ranting ... but read it as you wish.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

So how idles proving the GOP is as bad as the Democrats change what I said about speaking volumes about the party?

Do you think it is a positive thing that Clinton is held up as the face and voice of the democrat party after what he did?

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

It doesn't speak volumes about the party. If anything, it speaks volumes about the people who seek public office since it is proven to take part in both parties.

I think that if Clinton is saying reasonable things that others are not saying, or is saying them in a way that people best understand the situation, then he should be listened to. This is why some in the GOP still listen to Gingrich. However, your statement is false. Clinton is NOT the face and voice of the party. That would be the current president, Obama.

Reasonable questions are, if an intelligent person in a public political position does something distateful in his/her private life, should that person be forever shunned by the public? For example, are we truly better off as a nation if generals resign if we learn they have cheated on their spouses? If Gingrich had reasonable views and had actually presented a clear vision to get us out of our current economic situation, should he be ignored?

Since when did we become a nation of busybodies all concerned with people's private lives?

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

When people do private things in the public eye then we become concerned. Remember Clinton didnt have sex with Monica in private he did it in his place of employment.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Folks who care about these sorts of things generally don't make that distinction - if they found out he had an affair in private, they'd be all over it as well.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

Right you are jafs - both sides would try to exploit it for political gain. And the ravenous public just eats it up.

Here is a question for you. If a candidate has an affair even in private does the public have a right to know to help them judge his character? The rallying cry we heard about Romneys taxes was it would provide insight into his character and the public had a right to know. What does the public need to know?

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

That's a very good question.

I don't have a definitive answer on this one, and I do think that character is a real issue. But, unfortunately, we don't have angels running for political office, we have flawed human beings. And, often it seems that those yelling the loudest about "moral values" are some of the worst offenders.

What's your answer?

By the way, if it turned out that Romney had broken the laws regarding taxes, and taken advantage of a tax amnesty program, that may be a little more relevant than whether he cheated on his wife. Adultery isn't illegal, at least not yet.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

I honestly don't know the answer. If a man breaks his vows to his wife can he be trusted to keep his promises to the people? Actually, I think he can but the question is should people have full disclosure to make their own choice.

Perhaps the answer is to report it and let the public form their own opinion if it is a private transgression but not to use it politically. Of course we know that wont happen

I guess we need people like you and me to speak out against it when it happens.

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

But Fred, don't you at all find it ironic that people who shake their fists at Democrats for allowing Clinton to show his face in public are the same people who had no problem voting for John McCain, someone we know who had affairs while married to his first wife? I just feel it is all politicized, both parties have members who are guilty of cheating on their spouses, and the idea that one is better than the other is nonsense. (It may not have been how you intended your earlier comment about Democrats, but it came across that way.)

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

In his place of employment, privately.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

beatrice you asked if I found ironic that the people going after Clinton had no problem voting for McCain. I think the better choice of word is hypocritical. I never was a traditional republican but I left because I feel like just being a Republican condones what they do and I can't condone it.

Both parties stink and both have double standards. Wrong is wrong. The democrats did try to make an issue out of McCains affair and they probably defended Clinton.

Both sides have selective memories and standards.

tomatogrower 5 years, 6 months ago

Oh please. He didn't force that woman to have sex with him. She liked older men too. She had an affair with a professor in college. Not to excuse his behavior, he was stupid, but it wasn't harassment.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

Here is a definition of workplace harassment.

Harassment comes in many forms.

It can be done orally through degrading words, spoken put downs, jokes or other unwanted comments. It can be through actions like physical contact of any kind, put down gestures or other unwanted acts. If any employee who asks, demand or shows any attempt to get sexual attention from another it is already considered sexual harassment in the workplace.

The standard is much higher when the person is in a position of power.

Regardless of whether you agree that it was harassment you at least agree it was wrong don't you?

beatrice 5 years, 6 months ago

Wrong does not equal harassment. It was wrong because he broke his vows with his wife, and then he lied. Yes, that was very bad, but it wasn't about his affairs of office (so to speak). What he lied about was his private life. His wife chose to forgive him, and since it was a private matter it really doesn't matter what we think of him.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

I just left the GOP officially and joined the Libertarian party. Yes, they have little political clout but they align with my political principles. I just couldn't take being part of the GOP with their social agenda and war mongering.

Paul R Getto 5 years, 6 months ago

Killing themselves softly, the Repubicans are.

msezdsit 5 years, 6 months ago

Or maybe even loudly with a really big stick

Richard Heckler 5 years, 6 months ago

Like it or not the GOP is dead due in large part to fraud by the radical right wing anti american party. This group began seriously misrepresenting the GOP when Reagan/Bush/Gingrich came on board. Yes Newt is still being a fraud.

Old school repubs should purge the GOP name into extinction.

All voters should demand the Sam Brownback/Koch/Walton/Bush radical right wing anti american party go through the ballot process to become a legitimate organization instead of being 100% fraudulent. Stop posing as the GOP.

There is nothing wrong with making the Green Party and Democrat Party our two party system if the country is still stuck on two party thinking. It is quite simple. Stop voting GOP. We don't need permission. WE accomplish this no mean feat with our votes.

Also the private corporation set up by democrats and the bogus GOP that regulates presidential debates etc etc etc needs to go bye bye.

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

In five years, people in their mid-20s will not receive a tax refund because they'd rather have a nice car or a boat or the latest techno-gizmo instead of insurance. That isn't going to make democrats, it's going to run them off. I'd rather see them go libertarian, but too many are too greedy or messed up with superstitions and so most will become republicans.

You on the left have done America no favor as all you have done is invite a kneejerk rightwing reaction that none of us need.

gudpoynt 5 years, 6 months ago

So now the "kneejerk rightwing reaction" is the fault of "you on the left"?

Isn't it the knee's responsibility not to be a jerk?

DougCoSpring 5 years, 6 months ago

For a "dead party" the GOP seems to be creating quite a stir in the Dem stronghold of Kansas!

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

Larry you sum it up nicely. The only thing I would add is that the religious should be first in line to protest religion in government If you allow religion in government then the question is which religion? Christianity? Okay, what denomination and beliefs? What no dancing and alcohol cause they are sinful? What no medical treatment? Or maybe the majority rules in which case maybe Islam will be calling the shots one day. The way to protect religious freedom is to keep it out of government. Seriously didn't we learn anything from why this country was founded?

jonas_opines 5 years, 6 months ago

"Seriously didn't we learn anything from why this country was founded?"

The only lesson to be learned from history is that we don't learn lessons from history.

In_God_we_trust 5 years, 6 months ago

This country was founded on Godly principles. The Constitution was based on the bible. Having respect towards God is step one. Involving do's and don'ts from religion is not needed if everyone upholds God's commandments. You shall love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and might. and secondly, you should love one another as He gave commandment.

dinglesmith 5 years, 6 months ago

Surely you're joking. The Constitution mentions religion precisely three times. The anti-establishment clause, the freedom of religion clause, and the explicit prohibition of a religious litmus test to hold office. It never mentions God or Christianity even once. The founders knew what they were doing. The European monarchies used the Catholic Church to justify their supremacy and oppression - they were chosen and guided by God. By prohibiting the state from adopting or establishing a Church and prohibiting the state from interfering in the Church, the founders were clearly trying to avoid the mess of a divine monarchy. Anyone implying that the founders were building a Christian nation is completely uninformed and has clearly never read the Constitution. That we are largely a nation of Christians is the result of individual choice - exactly what the founders intended.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

I am a church going person but tying everything to religion is one of the main reasons I could no longer be a registered Republican. And their religious platform also ties into another reason - I believe in limited government. The GOP preaches limited government but when it sticks its nose into our bedrooms it isn't practicing what it preaches. Oh and I could go on, but I leave it with just Two words, Patriot Act. .

annoyingtheleft 5 years, 6 months ago

Oh Fred, nobody wants to stick their nose in your bedroom. We do want people to keep their bedrooms their business and stop making them everyone else's business.

avarom 5 years, 6 months ago

The point is the affair was on company time...Clinton was to cheap to go to a Hotel! Shows a lot about his judgement and Monica was a willing partner, she kept the dress as a souviner...along with the Cigar!

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago


Then I would conclude that you're in favor of equal rights for gay and lesbian folks, including the right to marry whomever they love, with all of the attendant legal rights and privileges.

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

“I have a strong respect for the Republican Party platform. It is congruent with my faith.”

The GOP needs less god.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 6 months ago

Yes, inasmuch as that statement applies to everything.

Shelley Bock 5 years, 6 months ago

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing on something with LIberty275.

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

If we always agreed, it wouldn't be as much fun. ;-)

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

Dionysus would be offended, but he's already drunk and huddled in the corner with 40 women. He can't be bothered that the Romans called him Bacchus and the Christians call him Jesus.

Odin needs more wine and women.

DougCoSpring 5 years, 6 months ago

I will answer it.

Arabic " الله " is "Allah". Hebrew " יהוה" or "God" from Tanakh (Bible) is pronounced "YHVH" in Hebrew, "Yahveh" or simply "Hashem" (The Name). To clear the confusion this statement would be more correct, "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" But reading the respective scriptures, (Torah and Quran) one will ascertain that Allah and YHVH are not the same. So while Muhammad may be the messenger of Allah, he is not the messenger of God.

In_God_we_trust 5 years, 6 months ago

God is the only thing holding this country together right now.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years, 6 months ago

Believing in unfounded and utterly refutable belief is unbelievable.

annoyingtheleft 5 years, 6 months ago

So Liberty, you're Godless faith is okay? But my faith isn't? Thanks for keeping perspective here.

Clara Westphal 5 years, 6 months ago

Dropping out of a party is not always the best idea.Stay inyour party and try to change it from within.

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

Why? Why would you remain in a party that you don't agree with and try to make the others change when you can instead join a party you don't have to change?

Is party all you care about? I'm sure it isn't, but it sounds a little like it is.

annoyingtheleft 5 years, 6 months ago

Exactly! If the GOP isn't a good fit for all you moderates and freedom FROM religion folks, register as a Dem. You don't have to pretend any longer. Besides we're on to you lol! Just ask Tim Owens

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 6 months ago

That's the great thing about religious belief. It can be molded to fit whatever one actually believes. It can be used to justify both good and evil deeds, depending on the believer.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

I think we'd all be better off if we followed the Constitution and followed these rules. Treat others as you'd like to be treated. If your actions infringes upon someone else's rights then your actions are wrong. If someone else's actions don't infringe upon your rights then mind your own business.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

What if somebody else's actions infringe on somebody else's rights?

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

jafs I don't understand you lately. You're usually on top of things. I answered your question in my post. If somebody's actions infringe upon someone's rights then those actions are wrong. It is right there above.

Granted I put yours but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out it extends to somebody else too

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

No you didn't, not at all.

You said if somebody else's actions don't infringe on your rights, then mind your own business.

This is akin to a libertarian "hands off" foreign policy, it seems to me, one in which we don't get involved in situations that don't directly affect us.

If you actually believe that it's "my business" if somebody else's rights are being infringed on, then you should say it a little differently.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

jafs I think you're nitpicking just to pick a fight. Not really the best way to have a conversation. It is a friggin post not a paper. You can't expect me to go into great detail about a topic on a post especially when I am posting from a smart phone.

My point was in reference to issues like same sex marriages. If two people want to get married and even if they are the same sex it doesn't affect you so you should mind your own business.

For the record anytime someone's rights are being denied in this country it is our business. The infringements of rights affect all of us.

But thanks for telling me how I should post.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

Not interested in a "fight", so if that's what you want, I'll stop responding here.

Glad to hear you're not "isolationist".

Have a good Thanksgiving weekend.

Brock Masters 5 years, 6 months ago

Oh I didn't respond to the international issue so don't assume I am not an isolationist - LOl

I don't believe the US should be waging war when it is not necessary and we should not be meddling in other country's internal affairs when they can work it out for themselves.

Viet Nam, Iraq, Egypt, and Libya have all been great waste of human life and money. Money that could have been used to help people not kill them.

And in rereading your original post I may have read too much into it. Sorry for the snarky response.

jafs 5 years, 6 months ago

I meant in a more limited sense than internationally.

One of my problems with libertarian philosophy is the idea that we should just not intervene ever - I think that there are times when people are being hurt and abused, and that we should intervene in those cases. Granted it's hard to sort out when that is, and not to get too ideological and political about it, but still.

Agreed that we should have many fewer wars, and that money would be better used to help than kill.

And, apology accepted.

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

Liberty One is a paleo-libertarian, and they are more isolationist. I'm not, as I believe you stand by your allies even if you aren't in danger and sometimes that means you fight even when you are not in direct danger.

You two are agreeing, and fighting over it. That's sort of weird.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 years, 6 months ago

Wow, I was going to jump in here, but it is mighty crowded! With all these folks in agreement with the letter writer, just how the hell did these facists get elected governer and secretary of state??

I fell out with the republicans many years ago when they chose to hijack the church in their political dirvel. Guys like Brownback and Perry make me sick. All religion is fraud. It was invented by men who had no other explanations for their questions which have no answer. And yet, people who seem to know no better, seem to be flummoxed by these islamic style candidates who loudly proclaim some sort of kinship with some totally fabricated and unknown power of universal law.

I completely avoid any associations with such frauds. There is nothing wrong with believing in some sort of religious humbug, it is a free country (unless you are a Democrat) and you may embrace any sort of "faith" you want, regardless of how inconceivable it may be. But when you try to pull the islamic thing of imposing your religious fantisies on other people, I draw the line and vote for the other candidate.

DougCoSpring 5 years, 6 months ago

I guess if guys like Brownback make you sick, reading the Founding Fathers would make you mortally ill. The Declaration of Independence refers to The Diety several times.

Thomas Jefferson, held up by many to be a Deist, and a favorite of modern lefties said, "Can the liberties of a nation be secure, when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” And again, “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Or perhaps this excerpt from Harvard University's "Rules and Precepts" adopted in 1646, "Every student shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life."

Or maybe even the great Abraham Lincoln, first Republican President of the United States, in referring to the Bible, "All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated through this Book; but for the Book we could not know right from wrong. All the things desirable to man are contained in it."

There are more, but I'll spare you the discomfort of historical "radical Republican" propaganda that was spouted by those great visionaries. Shall I call 911 for you?

Kathleen Ammel 5 years, 6 months ago

Wow! There's such huge leaps of logic in this letter! How do you go from -- “I think she (Praeger) is on the wrong side of the issue,” Rea said. (Nov 17)" -- to Praeger being "rubbed out"? Does the author, Morton, know of some mafia connections or something? This is almost laughable! Furthermore, respecting a party's platform because it is congruent with your faith is not the same thing as basing a governing body on your personal beliefs. Rea didn't form any governing body; she was elected to a leadership position of a small portion of the Republican party. There may be some parts of the GOP platform that are not totally congruent with her faith. But why don't we all jump to a conclusion based on a reporter's synopsis of one interview?

Do I even need to go in to the fact that this country is not a democracy (or theocracy)?

FlintlockRifle 5 years, 6 months ago

Writer Jerry, do you live in L.L , Kansas. and write a letter with these comments, oh to shame

verity 5 years, 6 months ago

Damn, I agreed with Fred Mertz and L275 twice today (didn't read all the comments, so it could have been more). Perhaps the Mayans are right.

I haven't said this for awhile, so I'll say it again. We don't need more or less government, we need the right amount of government. That is an ever moving target and needs to constantly be reanalyzed.

We overuse words like liberal, conservative, patriotism and make them meaningless and sometimes epithets, hence our conversations become meaningless. We argue to win rather than educate ourselves or others.

I believe that sometimes we must be pragmatic rather than adhering to strict ideology. Usually there is more than one side to an issue.

And then there are the unintended consequences. The best intentions can go astray. If something doesn't work, then we need to be open to change.

Liberty275 5 years, 6 months ago

"Damn, I agreed with Fred Mertz and L275 twice today "

Come over to the dark side.

annoyingtheleft 5 years, 6 months ago

So verity, that's what all these posts are about? They are encouragement for Rea and the new GOP leadership? Would have never known this is what "open to change" looks like. Thanks for the insight.

Mark Sanders 5 years, 6 months ago

As a democrat I have always appreciated Sandy Praeger's work and integrity. It's a shame we can't find more people on both sides with her compassion for all Kansans.

DougCoSpring 5 years, 6 months ago

Everyone here needs just a wee bit of perspective. In case you didn't know it, Lawrence Kansas is a tiny raft of Blue amid a vast ocean of Red. Do you Blue Rafters really believe that you few are the smartest folks in the state?

You see, the problem with the "Blue Rafters" is that they used to have several oars, and could move the Party as a team. But over the last 20 years they allowed the radical Left to strip all but one oar away from the rest of the Party. So while the "Blue Raft" spins around in circles, and is basically irrelevant, the grassroots of the GOP have spread and grown in unity. The Little Blue Raft is now realizing some opposition as the undertow current is carrying the Kansas GOP to more conservative principles, thanks in part to folks like Ms. Rea, all over the state of Kansas.

So I would simply and humbly submit that there is a party which is in trouble. But it doesn't appear to be the GOP. Perhaps a little introspection, hmmh?

DougCoSpring 5 years, 6 months ago

Then perhaps you would like to explain my "delusion" of a conservative super-majority in Topeka. Please enlighten me how a dead party has gained this kind of status. Make up your own facts.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 6 months ago

There is an excellent new book out that gives some perspective to the current problems we are having with our economy. Kansas is basically suffering from having been taken over by some very powerful conservative groups.

The new book is titled, "Who stole the American Dream?".


“Powell thought American industry was literally in mortal danger,” Smith told me. And as a result, Powell wrote a memorandum that urged business leaders to get politically active. “Come to Washington, lobby, form organizations, develop a long-term plan, pool your resources, stop fighting among yourselves, identify your enemies, go after them vigorously, punish them,” Smith recounts.

Powell’s call to arms found fertile ground. The number of companies with Washington offices increased from 175 in 1971 to 2,445 a decade later. Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute were established and leading CEOs formed the Business Roundtable. Today, more than 50,000 people are employed by business trade groups.

I have felt for a long time that what we are seeing today is the result of some very smart people who have worked a long time to develop a political network of influence that basically promotes the interest of a wealthy elite and results in the gradual liquidation of the middle class.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.