Previous   Next

Do you think politics in Kansas will become more moderate or remain conservative?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on August 28, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Tony Daniels

“I think it’s going to maintain its conservative nature.”

Photo of Judy Carman

“I’m hoping it will become more progressive. It’s about time. Actually, it’s way past time.”

Photo of Adam Denny

“I think it’s going to pretty much stay the same. It’s been that way for way too long to change now.”

Photo of Casey Loren

“I want to say that it will become more moderate, but I doubt it will. At least not for a long time.”

Related story


Andrew Juby 12 years, 9 months ago

This isn't really an opinion on the matter, but one should keep in mind that at the beginning of the 20th century, Kansas was known for its liberal, populist ways. The trend towards right-wing conservatism really began in the 80's and early 90's.

Richard Heckler 12 years, 9 months ago

Answer: It's hard to say. What I read is encouraging as it seems some will become very active in getting out the vote. Too many voters stay home all across the state on primary voting days...even in Lawrence.

The primary reason we have a radical right wing is because voters do not research and/or listen to the candidates. Who is backing the candidates? You can google most all political organizations in order to obtain background.

The republican party has been infiltrated by the Christian Coalition which has an agenda all of their own. They have found that too many vote party line without researching the candidate. The Christian Coalition also seems to have plenty of money and talk mainstream on the campaign trail. They have also discovered that participation in primaries is so weak which means it requires not a lot of votes to have a candidate become the name for a general election...this is their most effective tool. Voters if you want change you cannot sit home any longer.

One of these very very conservative candidates showed up in a Lawrence election last time around and won the republican primary but lost the general election even though he was receiving other than local(Washington D.C.) dollars to finance his race. This was Rich Lorenzo who ran against Tom Holland.

Rep. Tom Sloan is an example of a moderate republican. Sen. Roger Pine is a very conservative republican.

Primaries are equally as important as the general election.

All candidates need scrutiny. I like candidates who will answer questions directly which admittedly are hard to find. I don't like candidates from any party who take a "no new taxes for any reason" stand. This is not practical. A prudent approach to spending to me is more favorable.

average 12 years, 9 months ago

So, who are the up and coming BobDoles and Nancy Kassebaums? Moran has never shown himself as even slightly substantive, but he is at least less slimy than Graves or Taff turned out to be. Any others? I've met Chris Biggs several times, and am saddened to hear that he won't run against Phill "knows who's naughty and nice" Kline. If reelected to Cedar Crest, would Sebelius still consider a VP nod in 08?

sunflower_sue 12 years, 9 months ago

If yesterday's posts are any indication, (assuming most posters actually live in KS) this state is going to remain conservative.

lunacydetector 12 years, 9 months ago

since the democratic party is slowing attritting itself by its own hand nationwide, i think kansas is swinging to the right because of people's open mindedness.

just as will happen in lawrence with our local government. the looney left has convoluted arguments and most of the intelligent people will eventually see through their smoke screen of lies, bigotry towards people who are religious and general misinformation.

"republican in name only" will be a thing of the past. persons like former gov. graves, sandy praeger, and their ilk will have to own up to their dishonesty and switch to the democratic party to keep it afloat.

i must go now, so everyone have a wonderful day! :)

gccs14r 12 years, 9 months ago

As rural Kansas depopulates, the urban centers will finally be able to drag this State into the 21st century, but it probably won't happen for another two generations. Meanwhile, we'll have to put up with the religionuts who are supported by outside interests.

At some point, the lunacy of having 105 counties will need to be addressed. A 9:1 consolidation out west makes sense, if for no other reason than to greatly reduce the cost of government among people who can least afford it.

crohan1978 12 years, 9 months ago

Boy, for the conservatives supposedly being the "intolerant" ones, it sure seems to me that the far left loonies are the intolerant ones, constantly taking shots at anyone who is of christian belief, because somehow, that is the only dangerous religion. I am a Christian, and I am not a far right looney, I'm a moderate conservative. Stop stereotyping all Christians as loons, because that is not the case, just as you don't like you do'nt like us classifying all gays as dangerous to society!!

Hong_Kong_Phooey 12 years, 9 months ago

I think that Kansas will remain conservative though I think a more "middle of the road" view would be better. Why switch? As far as I can tell, the more liberal our country has become, the more messed up it has become. Divorce rates have skyrocketed since about the time of, oh, the 60's(see: hippies). In fact, most people I have talked with refer to their first marriage as "practice". I believe it was also about the 1960's when people decided that hugs and rehab were preferable over hard prison time. Guess what happened? Crime skyrocketed. The hippies said, "Don't be tough on them. They are just trying to find themselves." Now we have people who are only out for themselves and don't give a darn about anyone else. Probably the one beneficial thing that came about as a result of America's "liberal awakening" in the 60's was the civil rights movement.

On the other hand, extreme conservatism has led to some pretty awful things too. For example, bombs at abortion clinics. I could have sworn that the Bible says that thou shalt not kill. I believe it also says that God will judge somebody's sins (meaning: don't go blowin' em up. I'll send 'em to hell if they deserve it.). Most major conflicts in history are the result of organized religion.

As for the whole topic of whether or not to teach Creationism in Kansas high schools, I say go for it. School is a place to learn. As long as they are learning Creationism AND evolution then the students will have the tools to make up their own minds, and that is what an education should do - allow people to think on their own. We don't want to create little clones pre-programmed to think like everyone else. At least I don't.

Ceallach 12 years, 9 months ago

I think Kansas will remain conservative. I find the question today very interesting. The impression being that one cannot be moderate and conservative, which is not true. All conservative voters are not "radical," or as one poster put it "religionuts." These labels are coming from people who consider themselves the kinder, gentler folk who just want to get along. Labels used in a derrogatory manner are ugly no matter which side uses them. From what I've seen, both sides are equally guilty of using labels to put down people with whom they disagree.

Ceallach 12 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Liberty 12 years, 9 months ago

I think it is not a case of whether you are Republican or Democrat; it is more of a case of right or wrong instead of right or left.

beatrice 12 years, 9 months ago

(I obviously have too much time on my hands today. Just think of it as my "Manifesto Sunday." : )

In response to the question: It will continue down the conservative path we are on because, as the world appears to get smaller and we are forced to deal with people who have different views and values, the more we hate people who are not just like us. This inability to accept the differences of others is clearly evident on this board on a regular basis.

HKP: Why can't people teach Creationism at home? Are you saying that without it in schools, families are incapable of bringing it up around the dinner table? Please. Leave teaching science to the schools, and leave religion to the churches and families.

Regarding your take on history: In the pre-hippy 1950s, there was McCarthyism -- now was that good for America? No, but it sure was Conservative. In the 1960s, Nixon was president. Was he good for America? No, he instituted mistrust in our government never before known, but he sure was Conservative. In the 1930s, there was the Depression. What pulled us out were the government work programs -- Socialist programs that were good for America. And they were Liberal. You see, a liberal agenda is good for America. (But I am with you on harsh penalties for crimes, as long as it is uniformly applied across all of society. I just wish we did more preventative measures, which includes greater emphasis on educating our young.)

Ceallach: Howdy. (Apparently you and e_m haven't been playing nicely today.) Regarding your comments on the "religionuts" -- I truly don't believe all religous people are nuts, but enough are that ALL of us should be concerned. For example, Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson. Unfortunately, not enough Christians seem to be speaking out against people like this. The Christian leaders who do, such as Jesse Jackson, are dismissed as "liberal wackos."

Another concern is the idea that laws should stem from religious beliefs. For instance, the constitutional ammendments being proposed and passed in states around this country aimed against recognizing domestic partnerships and/or gay marriage. A result of these laws is that real, living and breathing people will be denied access to things like health insurance, although it is regularly available to the partner of a straight, married couple.

Now I ask you, as a level-headed Christian -- Would Jesus deny health care to someone for being gay? Would Jesus deny health care to anyone?

However, many conservatives have been against universal health care. It is called "Socialist," thus bad, and part of the "liberal" agenda. That is just one of many reasons I proudly proclaim to be a liberal -- and right about what is wrong.

beatrice 12 years, 9 months ago

Wow, that was even longer than I thought. Sorry about that everyone. b

Ceallach 12 years, 9 months ago

I have no idea why we were deleted. Other than mentioning a ljw staff person by name our posts were totally benign. We weren't even addressing that person, just commenting on an extremely inappropriate post that has now been totally removed. Now I have to start all over -- almost made it a year without being deleted :(

e_m: you are a bad influence :)

b: was the question on Jesus and health care intended to me?

enochville 12 years, 9 months ago

There are ways we can help people get health care without changing what constitutes a marriage.

beatrice 12 years, 9 months ago

Ceallach: yes, the question was aimed at you, however, other level-headed Christians are more than welcome to chime in.

And yes, e_m is a bad influence (more on the next post, because I want this one to stick around.)

beatrice 12 years, 9 months ago

I suspect you were talking about D.R. - a clear indication that in the future, we will be more and more conservative, until we resemble a "Big Brother" society circa "1984."

Remember, going off topic has been equated with the following: "Get too drunk and obnoxious, you get thrown out of a bar. Talk during a movie, you're asked to leave. Throw a punch during a cocktail party, you're tossed out on the lawn." (directly from David Ryan's post: August 17, 2005)

So, stay on topic, or your comments will be rightly censored, as you will clearly be behaving in a manner equal to a movie-talking obnoxious drunk who violently throws punches at people while at a party.

beatrice 12 years, 9 months ago

enochville: But health care is only one of many things in which gays are not allowed to partake because of being denied the right to marry. Inheritance laws are another area of concern. As are the rights involving children. All, based on religious views against homosexuals. There are some who even feel that gay people should be "corrected." (How would you like to be married to someone who had been "corrected?" No thanks.) It is kind of like correcting someone born left handed. They may learn to be a righty, but it isn't who they are.

If people are born gay (or born to grow up to be homosexual, once sexuality kicks in), then shouldn't they be accepted as they are in society. And our society is based on married couples -- two people committed and married. How does it hurt us to extend this right to all? My marriage certainly wouldn't be weakened by gays marrying, just as my marriage isn't weakened by allowing Elizabeth Taylor to marry 87 times.

But alas, don't worry. I suspect it will be a long, long time before gays are truly accepted in our society, as we continue down the very conservative path we find ourselves at present.

Ceallach 12 years, 9 months ago

b: If health care was readily available to the population, and the love of Jesus Christ toward all mankind, and His teachings, were the standard by which coverage would be determined, no one would be excluded. But health care is not readily available, and Christ and His teaching are not part of standard policy.

It is also very unlikely that those advocating a more liberal agenda for health care want to use Christ as the standard for all health care issues (particularly those of women and unborn children). Therefore, I think it is unacceptable to pick and choose which issues should be determined by His example.

I firmly believe that our representatives can and should develop a system by which all citizens of this great country would be provided with basic health care. Whether or not they will is the question. I believe the problem lies in the fact that we have too many Democrats and Republicans in Washington, DC, and not enough Americans. I am conservative in my views, that is true, but for many years I've been registered as Independent.

beatrice 12 years, 9 months ago

Ce: It isn't a matter of picking and choosing, it is noticing that if the laws against homosexual marriage are passed across this nation, which is clearly a major part of the Conservative agenda, then the result would also be to deny people health care. This would be against Jesus's teachings, the same teachings some claim back their stand against gays marrying. Thus it is the Conservatives who are the ones picking and choosing when a where Christ's standards are to be applied.

I'm really not trying to pick on you -- or anyone else for that matter. And just so you know, I would trade my right to an abortion for universal health care in an instant. And I already have good health care myself. I also agree that we could use more Americans in Washington, and fewer politicians.

Have a nice evening. b

Ceallach 12 years, 9 months ago

b: I don't think you are picking on me at all :) These issues are not easy to sort out. So many are indeed, wheels within wheels. While the issues of gay marriage and health care are not the same they are connected in the sense that one will bring about the other. I think I am understanding your post, and my guess is many conservatives would just as readily deny "dependent's" health care privileges to heterosexual couples who are not legally married. In both cases, it is "dependent" health care privileges that are being questioned, not denying health care to homosexuals period.

Ceallach 12 years, 9 months ago

I'm calling it a night (while I only have one delete to my name :)

All y'all have a good night.

You too, well, you know who you are:)

Grundoon Luna 12 years, 9 months ago

I think the worm is turning and we are going to be more moderate. People are getting fed up with those that are foisting their beliefs on the rest of the population - that their way is the only right way - who then shout "oppression!" when they are called on it. We are especially tired of those that preach about ethics and morals and whose actions are quite the contrary. For those of you, in the apparent majority, who have the audacity to think you are being "oppressed" for your religous views, I have this to say: Resistance is not equitable with oppression! As an American, I have every right to resist the infliction of your views upon me. See, we have this thing called the consistution which upholds principals like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assemby, freedom in the persuit happpiness and all kinds cool stuff. Perhaps you have heard of it?

BTW: Doc Brinkley had a really good shot at the presidency as well. His radio broadcast was heard everywhere.

Fangorn 12 years, 9 months ago

Azure_Attitude: I agree absolutely about "being fed up with those that are foisting their beliefs on the rest of the population". That is why I oppose the efforts of the believers in evolutionism to suppress any discussion of the faults and problems with their particular belief system.

Beatrice: I assert that FDR's policies actually prolonged the Depression. It was only the advent of WWII that really pulled us out of the economic slump. I would also point out that the country most resembling George Orwell's novel was the socialist Soviet Union. In the classical sense, most of us are liberals, moving away from monarchy and other totalitarian modes of governance. But modern "liberalism" always seems to move us toward more and more government involvement in our lives. There always seems to be a new government program to address any issue. This always seems to mean more taxation and less freedom for everyone. I apologize for coming so late to the conversation. My entire family is in various stages of recovery from some kind of flu. I think you and I will have future opportunities to discuss such issues. Have a peaceful evening and happy posting!

sunflower_sue 12 years, 9 months ago

Ceallach, I agree with you that this country ought to have some kind of health coverage for all.

Case in point: My brother, born with a condition through no fault of his or my parents, is completely uneligible for health insurance. He gets medicare...but we all know how well that pays. If he has to have a cavity filled it is a major ordeal. He goes to the hosp and under anesthetic to have the procedure done. Cost of all this comes out of my mothers pocket. Did I mention she is on a fixed income? Don't even get me started on the price of his prescriptions!

Why, in this country, can you waste your mind doing meth and all your bills will get paid. But if you are unfortunate enough to be born with a terrible condition...tough luck, buddy? I guess nobody said life was fair!

wichita_reader 12 years, 9 months ago

If David Ryan is whom I believe he is, he's quite liberal, a very accomplished constitutional law scholar, and definitely not a fan of a "big brother" type government. He tells a doozy of a story about "Goat Glands" Brinkley, as well.

On today's question, I see politics in Kansas remaining conservative. Kansas democrats will hold their moderate republican party line stance, while Kansas republicans will keep falsely labelling themselves moderate, in hopes of garnering independents' votes.

enochville 12 years, 9 months ago

beatrice: I don't have a lot of time to go into it all right now. I am sure that we will have another opportunity to discuss homosexuality.

Walking_Dude 12 years, 9 months ago

"Lunacydetector" writes like a serial killer.

Walking_Dude 12 years, 9 months ago

Ever notice how closet queens only ever seem to have daughters when they manage to reproduce? Look at Bush.

Walking_Dude 12 years, 9 months ago

Karl Rove is a leather queen, and he's the one who cooked up the whole "gay marriage" flap. A real Conservative wouldn't give two hoots if you married your cat, as long as the nuptials were private and behind closed doors.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.