Tuesday was not a good day for Republican social conservatives in Kansas. Two of the stars of that wing of the party were defeated in the primary election.
The defeat that hurt the most was that of Phill Kline, the district attorney of Johnson County, who lost his second election in a row. In 2006, Kline, completing his controversial first term as Kansas attorney general, was beaten in the general election by Paul Morrison, a moderate Republican who had switched parties to challenge him. Republican leaders in Johnson County named Kline to complete Morrison’s term as district attorney.
Kline’s two years in Johnson County were just as controversial as his time in Topeka. Starting his run for a full term, his race was cut short in Tuesday’s primary by moderate Steve Howe, who had served as an assistant DA under Morrison and was one of the staffers Kline fired in a purge shortly after taking office.
Revenge must be sweet.
Also suffering a second defeat was former Rep. Jim Ryun, who was trying to get back to Congress after having been beaten two years ago by Democrat Nancy Boyda. For Ryun, Kansas sports hero and Bible literalist, it may have been galling to be beaten once again by a woman — this time, State Treasurer Lynn Jenkins, who will now face Boyda in November.
The best news for the conservatives was in the races for the Kansas Board of Education. Republican social conservatives won three of their five races in the primary. There is no chance to regain control of the 10-person board this year, but if all three win against their Democratic opponents in November, the board will be returned to the 5-5 deadlock that kept it frozen before the 2006 election.
Do the losses of Kline and Ryun signal a shift in power in the Republican Party in Kansas? It is much too soon to tell. What is clear is that the party’s moderates have lost their shyness about forcefully challenging conservatives in the primaries. In Jenkins’ case, the challenge took the form of portraying herself as more conservative than she has ever been in her previous political career.
What will happen to Kline and Ryun now?
Kline is more likely to try for another comeback. Johnson County Republicans may have rejected him, but he is still something of a figurehead in the anti-abortion movement. He likes the national attention that adulation has brought him and will probably look for a way to keep it.
Ryun may have less political ego than Kline. He has been rejected twice — once by his district and once by the voters of his own party — and may be ready to leave political life for quieter pursuits.
Although neither man’s political future is clear, Democrats won’t have Phill Kline and Jim Ryun to kick around — at least this year.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as Teresa Walters loses, who cares...
Posted by under_score (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand this comment "For Ryun, Kansas sports hero and Bible literalist, it may have been galling to be beaten once again by a woman". Does this mean that Ryun is a sexist simply because he is a Bible literalist or because he is a sports hero or both? Either way it is a very IGNORANT comment and once again emphasizes your liberal bias.
Mr. Kelley, as far as I'm concerned you are as big a piece of crap as can be found in Emporia, and that is saying something.
Since we are now in the business of name calling I expect this post to remain posted.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Has The Gazette no shame? Aren't newspapers supposed to be unbiased, independent disseminators of information? Instead, The Gazette continually insists on publishing the opinions and personal liberal agendas of it's owners and employees instead of reporting fair and balanced facts which allow readers to form their own opinions. All the readers get is a steady dose of liberal left-wing democratic party crapola which ignores facts and reality in favor of biased political partisanship and dangerous unpatriotic left-wing socialist nonsense. Anyone who actually pays money to receive this biased rag is either an Obama-supporting liberal wacko or a hopeless spendthrift.
Posted by rbmorgan (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez, it is unfortunate that "underscore" amd "bjnemp" have to resort to names calling rather than have a rational discussion of the issues. While I am a democrat and now an Obama supporter, I do not find it necesssary to call other people name simply because I disagree with them. However, I am not an unpatriotic leftwing socialist nor am I a "spendthrift". Democrates have been accused of being spenders by republicans for many years when in fact the republicans have ran up the largest debts in US history, George W being the last one to do so. It is this kind of self rightous nonsense that is wrong with rightwingers like these two.
Posted by kansasgirl (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
to rbmorgan AMEN SISTER !!!!!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have posted several times about how we view those who share our opinions as "good" people and those who don't as "bad" people. It is disheartening to see that in the paper's editor. I don't know either Phill Kline or Jim Ryun, but to suggest that they are unworthy people simply because they disagree with Pat Kelley is not only unfair, but reflects poorly on Mr. Kelley and his employer. Interestingly enough, he disproved his own theme when he correctly pointed out that Mrs. Jenkins ran as a conservative - proof that she regarded the district's Republican voters to be conservative. I disagree with virtually all of Mr. Kelley's editorials, but it is his opinion and if the ownership of the Gazette is o.k. with it, then so be it. However, a little evidence in support of his positions and a little less vitriol are not really too much to ask, at least if he wishes to be persuasive.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A bad day for the conservatives is a great day for Kansas!!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, Mr. Kelley, upon what evidence do you suggest that a "Bible literalist" would be "galled" by losing to a woman? Spewing forth such rubbish only points out your own ignorance of the subject. Good grief. No wonder less discerning readers dislike conservatives.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Pat Kelley is being very clever in his approach. He doesn't use a frontal assault, but lets readers assume the worst about Ryun. I know nothing of Ryun's politics. About all I know about him is that he was a world class miler in his younger days.
But Pat Kelley uses the term "biblical literalist" to draw readers into the inference that, as a biblical literalist (if Ryun is indeed one), he holds the view that women are inferior and should stay at home to pursue more "Godly" things, like staying barefoot and pregnant.
I find this odd, because I read a short blurb on the Topeka Capital Journal website indicating that Ryun was going to endorse Lynn Jenkins (http://www.cjonline.com/stories/080708/s...)
I've met Pat Kelley a few times. He seems like an alright guy to me, although he's not on my short list for a dinner invitation.
I think he may have an axe to grind with the conservative movement here in Kansas and is just expressing it editorially.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It certainly is interesting to me that some of the conservative champions of Kansas have been women. Amazing to me that Mr. Kelley would be unaware of this fact.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a Republican, neither will be missed. I hope Kline moves to the Left Coast.
Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Aren't newspapers supposed to be unbiased ...?"
Only in the news coverage. In the editorial columns, it's expected that a newspaper will take a side. That's what the editorials are for.
On the "bible literalist beaten by a woman" comment: yes, i thought that was a little out of line. Some literalists would be embarrassed by it, others wouldn't. With Ryun, there's no way to know.
The overall tenor of the piece seems reasonable, though. Put simply, it says that moderate Republicans may be gaining strength, but that the conservatives aren't out of the game yet. That's a little different in Kansas, but it's hardly "The Communist Manifesto."
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a stretch to call Ryun a Bible literalist, but there is no doubt he is an ultra conservative, a group that has aligned with such organizations as Promise Keepers. PK has long held that the man is the spiritual leader of the house. It is not too much of a stretch to see why ultra conservatives don't like losing -- especially to a woman.
As for Mr. Kelley, if our opinions determine our content, then we are all "full of crap" at one time or another.
Posted by Bigbuddha2448 (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geee... where do I start. Mr Kelley your comments are right up there with Wal-Mart "mentioning" or to me suggesting, that the higher ups need to vote repulican so the employees have a harder chance of unionizing. THANKS FOR THE LAUGH.
To me it is not a matter of left wing or right wing. Hell you need both to fly. I look at it like this...L.O.T.E. Lesser Of Two Evils. plain and simple. Because wether or not anyone wants to admit it, we all are going to to get screwed one way or another.It is just a matter of which one offers a smoke and lube after they are done.
Posted by gazette_reader (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bjnemp, while the paper should be unbiased, this is the editorial page, and traditionally, the op/ed page takes a stand one way or another. Even the op/eds written by staffers.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Patrick, when are you going to write an article about the all-time low approval rating (9%) that the Democratic-controlled congress has? Now it's less than 1/3 of President Bush's approval rating......
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just another op-ed piece from the Lyon County Fellow Traveler. Nas Vredanza, my nekulturny Comrade
Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on August 7, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the greatest story I have read in almost a decade!!!! It's the Religious Right that has made Kansas the laughing stock of the United States lately. Welcome to the 21st century. It's time to move forward, not backward!
SCIENCE!!!!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to see the evidence to back up your claim, billclinton, that Kansas is the "laughing stock of the United States lately." I doubt that is true, but in any case why would you, or anyone else, care what others think of us? Is that somehow our measure? Should we just do what others want us to do? Most of us got over that kind of stuff shortly after the 7th Grade.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kansas has been a national laughing stock mostly because of the Board of Ed. views on evolution and intelligent design. It was joked about on several national talk shows and a hillarious cration story parody on "Family Guy" where they played the theme song to "I Dream of Genie" and she head bobbed everything into being. So as much as I hate to say it the religious right fanatics have made most Kansans look backward and ignorant.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
should be creation story above; not cration.
During that parody they did mention, by name, that it was the way the appearence of man was taught in Kansas.
Posted by Summer_Breeze (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that it is widely accepted that much of the rest of the nation was aghast, if not amused, at the 2005 Kansas Board of Education's decision to "question" evolution. I'm a Kansan, and it embarrassed the heck out of me, because I saw it as a confusion of a narrowly construed religious viewpoint with a broadly accepted scientific premise. In my opinion, it made Kansas--and its citizens--seem to be ignorant zealots.
Mr. Kelley is doing his job by giving his opinions on the op/ed page of the newspaper. Reporting news is supposed to be unbiased, but editorials are specifically for the expression of opinions.
I happen to agree with Mr. Kelley's comments, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't call him names or ridicule his ideas. I'd simply express my own viewpoints, civilly, which is what I think adults do.
I have spoken with people who know Jim Ryun personally and politically, and I think Mr. Kelley's statement that it was probably galling to Ryun to lose to a woman is right on target.
I'm delighted that Phill Kline and Jim Ryun were told publicly, FOR THE SECOND TIME, that they don't speak for a majority of Kansans. I hope they got the message this time!
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After being the butt of jokes on almost all the talk shows and a few sit coms, it will take awhile before Kansas outlives the image of Puritan backwardness thrust upon us by those who insisted on keeping the lessons of evolution out of the science classrooms. People have this middle-of-nowhere-tornado-alley view that everyone here is a cowboy or a farmer with a constant eye on the skies. To illustrate, my daughter is an executive in a Chicago-based nationally known company, and still, she gets ribbed about the evolution issue. On top of that, people never seem to fail to ask her,"Where are your red shoes?"
Where am I coming from with this idea? I'm originally from Hawaii. People still ask me how I like living "in the states." Images like surfing, hula girls, sharks, and Waikiki color their views.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, I ask: Why should we care what others think of us? We are not in the 7th Grade anymore. New York, Montana, Nebraska, California and Alabama run their affairs, and I bet that they don't care one whit what we think of them. It is immature to think that we should conduct our affairs to please some other state. Public policy should be judged on its merit, not what another state or a talk show host will think or say about us.
Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker,
Merit? Banning science is does not reflect well on the merit of Kansas. I am proud to say I am from Kansas, but it is EMBARRASSING when our policy makers continue to send Kansas backwards with poor political decisions.
The jokes and judgment passed upon Kansas are a direct result of its policy making.
Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry for the typo above... 'Banning science DOES NOT...'
Posted by under_score (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alow me to shed some light on the reason some on here are ashamed/embarrased to be from Kansas.
Believe me, I know where a lot of people are coming from on here. During and right after graduating from college I was a brainwashed (braindead) liberal (as far as god was concerned at least). I was so much more enlightened and intelligent than the idiot close-minded bible thumpers that I felt the need to help enlighten them and mock them at every opportunity. In doing so I became close minded myself.
As I grew up and had children my perspective began to change and I became more open-minded. Science, I began to reason cannot explain everything in this universe. The big bang theory certainly seems like a huge stretch to me. How can something come from nothing? I realized that we do not have all the answers. I don't think it is ignorant to keep an open mind in regards to Intelligent Design. However, separation of Church and State does arguably prohibit it to some degree.
There is as much hard evidence supporting evolution as there is Intelligent Design. Which is little to nothing.
The reason some are embarrased is because they are afraid that the other close minded liberals in this country will group everyone in Kansas together who don't share the same views as them and think they are as ignorant as the people on the board or education who believe that we don't have all of the answers and that Science alone cannot/does not explain everything.
It's very complicated to explain but just think of them as hypocrites and you'll get the picture.
Posted by RobertMcCall (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Under_Score, you certainly don't have to be a brainwashed liberal to be embarrassed by that open-minded pillar of conservative religion Fred Phelps of Kansas.
Posted by proverbs18_21 (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Robert McCall...now there's an oxymoron ...'open-minded' and 'Fred Phelps' in the same sentence? Surely, you jest!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
billclinton: I did not say that that particular issue had merit or didn't have merit. My point was that merit should be the focus of the debate, not what others think of us.
TheWatcher: Fred Phelps is so far off the screen that he fits no category. It is not even close to call him a conservative, any more than it would be to call him liberal. He is neither.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
billclinton: The jokes about Kansas predate, by probably a century, any Kansas controversy about evolution. Remember "The Wizard of Oz" which came out in the 1930's?
Posted by RobertMcCall (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very good Jayhawker...I am so proud of you...I must assume from you efforts to disassociate yourself and hard core conservatives from Reverend Phelps that you are indicating that you do not agree with the Phelps attacks on same sex marriages? That is the major message that the Phelps group has.
Robert McCall
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You should all be aware that the purpose of editorial comments in newspapers is to be evocitive, to cause public conversation. To attack the editorial writer is akin to attacking the sports reportor for reporting good things about the team you dislike.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jayhawker- I think we should care at least some about the other 49 states' opinion of Kansas. All of the businesses and industries that we try to draw to Kansas to create jobs are based in other states (usually). They are not going to move here if we give them an impression of ignorance. I know this is a stretch of an argument at best, but my personal experience tells me, at least, that it is possible.
I had a pen pal as a school assignment in high school. This was only 17 years ago mind you. She, a Californian, expressed to me how terribly afraid she was for me because I had to deal with the constant threat of Indian attack and uprising. I could have seriously injured myself laughing. For years I couldn't decide if it was poor education on current events in California or if that was the impression some people actually held of Kansas.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with lycomu.
Wheter you agree or disagree with, like or dislike what Mr. Kelley is saying, he certainly is doing his job.
Opinions and editorials are designed to evoke thoughts and create dialogue. Everytime he writes a piece like this one there is a ton of comments on the forums. I can only imagine what they say in the coffee meccas of Emporia.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad that someone figured out what Fred Phelps' major message is. As far as I can tell, when he celebrates a soldier's death his message, though foggy, appears to be that he is anti-American inasmuch as it is not a precondition for his protests that the deceased soldiers be in same sex marriages, practice homosexuality, etc., only that they be American Soldiers who died in the war.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ: Good points. However, I submit that any investor that is considering Kansas will base his decision on whether he can, or can't, make money. His only consideration about our culture will be whether we have a good work ethic.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fred Phelps is nothing more than a zealot on his best day. I heard on the Topeka news someone tried to burn down his church or garage. His daughter the attorney wanted it investigated as a hate crime. Kind of a live by the sword, die by the sword if you ask me. You preach hate, hate is what you will get.
In relation to the article I think the reason Phill Kline lost is that he really isn't a very good attorney (my heart of hearts says it is because he spells Phill with two "L"s; I think its kinda pompus, LOL). That is why he lost the state position according the various news sources around the election and of course according to Paul Morrison. Morrison may have been a better attorney, but an immoral person. Kinda makes we wonder if you can every really win as a politician.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker--
You are right on there!! In my worry over whether or not the country is laughing at us, I completely forgot that money is the goal of 99% of human existence in today's world. I bet if we were as backward as perceived in some places, and had a strong work ethic (which I hold is very strong in Kansas) we would never have to worry about unemployment again. I just bet hard working dullards make CEOs and fat cats drool.
Posted by RobertMcCall (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In no way is Fred Phelps representative of the people of Kansas be they democrat, republican, independent or whatever. In this time of failing economies, inadequate health care, energy shortage, environmental threats, runaway gasoline costs, etc, it is time for us to forget our political labels and join together to cope with these issues. Time to disavow special interest groups and work together to attack our problems head on.
RobertMcCall
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What really embarrasses me is the misuse of scientific terminology such as theory and research data. Both sides of the argument misuse them and seem to have little understanding of the scientific method of investigation. Science is not here to answer all of your questions, it is here to help ask intelligent questions and find direction for research efforts, etc. Science is not omniscient nor omnipotent and does not claim to know all of the answers.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lycomu and OutsiderJ: You both make good points about Mr. Kelley's editorials. However, I have always assumed that the editor's purpose, in addition to stimulating debate, is to be persuasive. He is, in effect, a paid blogger (wouldn't that be nice) except that we expect a bit more professionalism. Heck, Fred Phelps stimulates debate. Pat is a very good writer, as was Ray Call before him. I wish that I had half their talents. The problem with Pat is that he gets too emotional and therefore unreliant upon evidence, which detracts from his power to persuade. For example, saying that Jim Ruan is a "Bible literalist" and thereby was "galled" at losing to a woman. There is no evidence to support that statement. Clearly, Pat doesn't like "Bible literalists" and applied stereotypes to them. Result: his piece was unpersuasive. Another example: His thesis was that the conservatives lost ground this election, and his sub-thesis was "good riddance" (the "Bible literalists" comment). However, he stated in the same article that Mrs. Jenkins ran as a conservative, too. That is proof only that the district's voters picked between two conservatives. Another example of Pat's emotionalism was from an editorial he wrote a few weeks ago upon the death of Jesse Helms in which Pat attacked Helms even before his body was buried. As I said in a post above, these are his opinions and if the Gazette is accepting of them, that is the way it is. However, between lack of evidence and emotionalism, Pat's editorials are sometimes lacking.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The poster above made the point that special interests groups are part of our national problem. She is correct. However, all sides have them. The Democrats have the KNEA, the pro-choicers, the anti-warriors, the environmentalists, and the list goes on. The Republicans have the pro-lifers, the strong military supporters, etc. As much as we dislike them, and their "hired guns" (lobbyists), they are a fact of life. I agree with the poster that we need to look around them to find solutions, but unfortunately, it's not going to happen. Excellent point, however.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obviously, Kansas voters are not fans of Phill Kline. However, that is not justification to take cheap shots at him. The Cheap Shot is one of the arrows in Mr. Kelley's quiver that he reaches for regularly. For example, Kelley stated in the article that Kline "likes the national attention that adulation has brought him and will probably look for a way to keep it." Come on, Pat. Upon what evidence, other than you don't like the guy, did you rely upon for that statement? Phill Kline and Jim Ruan are finished in Kansas politics. They have been relegated to trivia questions for us "political junkies" in 20 years from now. There is no point in cheap shooting either one. As Pat said at the end of his editorial, Democrats won't have either to kick around anymore. Nor will that have Jesse Helms. Mr. Kelley apparently feels unrestrained by those facts.
Posted by RobertMcCall (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker might want to check her spelling...I believe it's spelled "Ryun" not "Ruan." ;) LOL
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you. You're right. Spelling has always been difficult for me. I appreciate your pointing out the correct spelling.
Posted by RobertMcCall (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't worry. You aren't alone. Mr. Kline has trouble correctly spelling Phil. LOL
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if Pat Kelley will write an editorial regarding the political demise of John Edwards of the left. If so, I doubt that it will have the same gleeful tone that the passage of Kline and Ryun did, and it shouldn't, anymore than this one should have. I don't know if there were two Americas as Edwards was fond of saying, but clearly there were two John Edwards. Hypocrisy is sad, no matter its source.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OutsiderJ - the Indain attacks story is hilarious. I've dealt with the same kind of ignorance, as well.
But you need to step back and look at it from the other angle - instead of feeling like we are the backwards laughingstocks, think for a minute. Today (or even 17 years ago) - who could possibly be dumb and uneducated enough to actually think something like that? Who's the real backwards,uneducated person in that story? We Kansans, or the Californian that actually thinks that people in the midwest actually have to live in daily fear of Indian attacks? Come on, people, which is the more educated and intelligent of these two groups?????????
Yeah. Right. Now you know why I have to roll my eyes everytime I hear urban folk talking down to/about rural folk. Alot of my experiences have proven it to be quite the opposite.... I honestly don't know of a single, no matter how uneducated or backwards they may seem, small-town or rural person who does not have more common sense and less gullibility than the California person described....
On to the next thread, Kelley says that Kline "likes the national attention that adulation has brought him and will probably look for a way to keep it." Well, here's a DIRECT quote from Edwards about his affair: "In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic."
But we all know who Kelley will and won't write editorials about.....
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes. People joke about Kansas. And people joke about people going to family reunions to meet potential mates in Arkansas. And people joke about Florida being a state of people all over 65. And people joke about Texans all wearing hats big than they are. And people joke that in Montana, the men are men, and the sheep are nervous. And people joke about Nebraskans all being "corn-fed". I don't really care what ignorant people think. I used to joke about San Francisco's idiot mayor alot who openly defies federal immigration laws. Except its not so funny any more, now that someone he was constantly shielding has murdered 3 innocent people. Now there's a REAL idiot for you. I'm not nearly as embarrassed about anyone elected by Kansans as I would be if I had elected HIM mayor. Not to mention Pelosi. Now, you want to talk about someone who's let it all go to her head..... wow... what an ego...... well, if I had a 9% approval rating, I guess it would go to my head too, and I'd constantly bash someone who's approval rating was 3 times higher than mine, too.... LOL
Posted by RobertMcCall (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open eyes, Let me say that I am no fan of Nancy Pelosi. And the approval rating of Congress has hit a new low. But let's be fair, the public approval rating of Republicans if much lower than their approval rating of Democrats (In one pool 52 to 33% rate). Below is the article on the subject:
U.S. congressional approval rate hit new lows in the recent polls, said a news website on Tuesday.
The latest Rasmussen poll conducted on July 1 showed that percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings fell to only single digits for the first time in the survey body's history, at 9 percent, while about 52 percent said Congress was doing a poor job, said the report by Politico website.
However, the approval rate of Democrats, who have a majority of seats in Congress, still led that of Republicans by 12 percentage points, it showed.
The lead was much wider in a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted in mid-June, which found Democratic party beat Republican by 52 percent to 33 percent in supporting rate, Politico said.
The gap of 19 points was the largest recorded for either party since the question was first asked in 1994, it added.
It also said the poll results came as the nation suffered from a high gas prices and a sagging economy, in which public's perception of Congress was hurt.
The U.S. is gearing for the Nov. 4 when they will vote for a new president and also all House Representatives and one-thirds Senators.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes, you are my hero. I wish that I could have said it that well.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 8, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The poll cited is called a "generic poll" since it does not poll any particular person but rather a body or a party. Democrats are doing well in the generic poll. However, when actual candidates or people are polled, the results narrow considerably. For example, I saw one that had Nancy Pelosi at about 15% and Harry Reid at about 17%. John McCain is essentially tied with Barack Obama. The website electoral-vote.com has the Democrats only picking up 5 Senate seats (one of those being Ted Stevens' seat) and somewhere around 4 House seats, even in what is predicted to be a strong Democratic year. Someone suggested that special interests are part of the problem, and I agree. The Democrats are hurting because the party will not get behind drilling where ever oil can be found. The reason - one of their core groups (a special interest) is the environmentalists, who oppose any new drilling, coal (even clean coal) and nuclear, putting them on the wrong side of a major issue.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on August 9, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, y'all were busy last night while I was relaxing. You've jump from 44 comments when I went home Friday to 53 now.
We'll move this to the news forums:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...
Gwen Larson