A win over Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline for Republican-turned-Democrat Paul Morrison, currently Johnson County’s district attorney? That’s what Kansas City Star political correspondent Steve Kraske predicted Sunday, as he also foresaw easy re-election for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and doom for the evolution-questioning conservatives on the State Board of Education. On Kline versus Morrison, Kraske said: “Kline’s abortion-all-the-time administration hasn’t worn well. Morrison can look legit in a Stetson and cowboy boots, which matters in western Kansas. He wins.” But don’t be quick to count out Kline, who already has the endorsement of 89 Kansas sheriffs.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- george on Open thread 11/23
- sursum on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- gster on Open thread 11/23
13 Comments
In my book, he has one obvious advantage: He’s Not Kline®.
I have a feeling that is how these next elections will be decided. “I do not know who they are, but I know they are not you!”.
This is a little off topic, but why is there not a blog entry for Sebelius’s State of the State speech?
I guess it made the leftist liberals shake with fear, because she sounded like a Republican. I was sure the WE blog would say something about it, but I guess not.
Joe, I’m not shaking with fear, I am throwing up in disgust. Since she sounds so republican, does that mean you will be voting for her?
You beatcha KSfarmgrrl. She has seen the light and knows that Business is what makes Kansas great, not government.
No tax increases, reduce taxes for government, increase in public education and higher education. Sounds good to me. :)
Actually,Sebelius’ budget is silent on the amount of money for public schools. An act in keeping with KSfarmgrrl’s complaints about Kathleen’s cowardice.
Our new person, Ksgarmgrrl, may have the Guv’s number, I am afraid to admit. We will need to rely on the beneficence of the likes of Brenda Landwehr, whom we all know cares so much about children – especially non-Catholic ones who don’t go to private schools. (excuse me I am in a foul mood, this a.m.)
correction – “ksfarmgrrl” – sorry . . .
LOL Steven, I have been called worse since I moved back to Ks.
You know, Joe, I agree with you on your view of business. It IS business, good businesses, that drives the economy and creates the wealth and jobs that underpin Americans’ standard of living.
Government cannot create the “value added” that business does. I don’t think anybody can really argue with that.
The problem arises when amoral capitalism begins cannibalising the society that nutures it by BAD business practices–offshoring jobs (encouraged by our own gov’t), driving down taxes to the point of unsustainability of infrastructure and education, illegal and monopolistic moves such as Wal-Mart’s driving local businesses out (using its massive resources) and Enron’s blatant fraud.
When businesses go bad, we need something big enough to police them–and the only entity in our society that has enough power to take on an Enron or a Wal-Mart is the United States government, a government that SHOULD BE looking out “for the common good.”
Well said, Galahad.To which I would add… the moves by Demon Cable to limit our sources of information by taking all local broadcasters off cable…and doing everything they can to limit access to local programming.But as far as the Governor’s speech is concerned, I think she did the right thing. If she proposes anything on education, it will be eviscerated by the Republicans.This way, she says, “okay, since you conservatives have all the answers, YOU come up with a plan”.Then, when they don’t–and we all know they won’t–she comes out smelling like a rose and cruises to re-election.
Joe, “reduce taxes for government”? Could you explain that? Did she produce a budget that was less than last year’s? Is this “reduce taxes” strategy one of the reasons our state debt has skyrocketed?
As a professional in economic development for over 20 years, I love how the “it will hurt business” argument changes, depending on which special interest group is using it.
In legislative hearings in 2004,when it was noted how many Fortune 500 companies provide benefits for unmarried partners, State Senator Kay O’Connor’s reply was “more companies will come here if they dont have to deal with gays”. I heard the same thing from your own Bonnie Huey in 2005. ROFLMAO. How many of those “more companies” have come to Ks on that basis since then? And…how many have left?
Has anyone done a study on why businesses dont choose Ks? Has anyone done a study on why companies leave KS? Has anyone studied why businesses do or dont start-up here? Some research has been done, but very little, and the results remain unpublished. We’ll just make assumptions and play the “it’s not good for business card.”
Truth be told, executives live in the states where their businesses locate, and most executives dont want to live in the nutcase capital of the world. And even fewer want to locate where their children will be educated by the christian taliban. Business decisions are said to be made on logic, not religious ferver.
BTW, how is that Bioscience initiative working out? Lured any scientists here based on how well their children will be educated? Where was “governor leadership” on that issue?
Joe Aistrup, head of political science at KSU says “few families will move to your town based on your football team, but they will move to your town if you have great math scores in your schools”. Given the population decline in KS, I guess the math scores must not be too high. Every year, for decades, we have had net more people leave the state than move here. Where is governor leadership on the outmigration issue?
And as for taxes, after 20 years, I have yet to talk to a company that said they wouldnt go to a particular state because the taxes were too high. They generally looked at their overall cost of operation, and the number one cost for most of them is not tax, but finding QUALIFIED and TRAINABLE workers. And that is a function of both population and education.
Companies may not locate because their overall operating expenses are too high, but that includes more than taxes. It includes things like transportation, proximity to customers and suppliers, as well as the cost of obtaining qualified workers. They are no longer looking for warm bodies, of which KS has plenty. They are looking for well educated, productive workers, and those are in short supply in most of Ks. How is “governor leadership” addressing that issue?
A noted in a previous post, if we want to claim that businesses should locate in KS because we are the low cost and not the high quality provider, we will have to out “low cost” China, India, etc.
Hell, the Ks legies even decided to approve the outsource of SRS call centers overseas. Where was the gov on that issue? So much for our ability to be the low cost provider even for ourselves. I guess $.25/hr is even too low for the slaves in western Kansas. Damn unions must be driving up the cost of labor :)
I suppose KS just cant compete with states that market themselves as having the highest quality and most productive work force, best education system, good local government, etc. We just have to hang our heads and say “well, at least we are cheap”. Yep, that will sure draw business here.
Reducing taxes for businesses. My bad! Was a mistake on my part. I didn’t read the rest of your long rant though, just the first paragraph.
Galahad. I agree with you.
Galahad said: “When businesses go bad, we need something big enough to police them–and the only entity in our society that has enough power to take on an Enron or a Wal-Mart is the United States government, a government that SHOULD BE looking out “for the common good.”
The above is not paternalism as some free-market libertarians would have you believe. To take libertarianism to its extreme, one has to rank autonomy over all other values. Most ethicists say that autonomy is an important value, but when it infringes on the rights of other autonomous actors, it is correct and just to limit it.
A polluted environment is a harm to me that I have a right to not endure. Businesses lying and stealing from me is also a harm that I should not have to endure. In my view, the government having an interest in a non-poisoned environment and expecting corporations to obey the law, is not paternalistic.