Writer Jesse Zerger Nathan argues why Gov. Kathleen Sebelius would be a good vice presidential nominee in BeyondChron.org, a San Francisco online alternative publication, suggesting "rumors of her potential place on the 2008 Democratic Presidential ticket as a Vice Presidential nominee are flying like bats." The supporting evidence presented include Sebelius’ waste cutting and education advocacy, and her recent vetoes of gun and workers’ comp bills. Mostly, though, it’s her uncanny ability to get elected as a Democrat in a Republican state. Of the pro-choice Catholic, Nathan writes: "She has managed to get elected without hiding any of this, here in the same state that houses right-wing nutcase Fred Phelps. Moreover, with the Hillary train gathering steam (something of a Casey Jones suicide run to many party strategists), a Sebelius presence on the Democratic ticket could divert voters eager for a woman to get elected (a worthy cause, no doubt) into a more winnable proposition."
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
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
40 Comments
I’m not all that “up” on Kansas politics, so what’s wrong with her running for president?
Did she vote against guns” That’s a no, no.
I think it would depend a lot on who the top standard-bearer is. If the Pres nominee is conservative look for a more-liberal running mate. If the nominee is a Gov look for a Senator or House member for VP.
“Mostly, though, it’s her uncanny ability to get elected as a Democrat in a Republican state.”
Gosh, is she that good or are the republicans who oppose her just that bad? Are ya listening susan?
I say we should all be PROMOTING her for veep. The best way to get rid of her is to push her upstairs. Let the rest of the country see her for what she is.
Heheh. The repukes here just cant field a decent candidate for governor to save their souls!
Ben makes a lot of sense..it really depends on who the nominee is. For example, if it is Hillary, would the dems want to run a two woman ticket?
Not sure why gender is such a big deal in politics, but it is. Eventually this country will get past that hang up, hopefully.
I suspect the country in large part already has (after all, a woman got elected, as a Democrat, in red-state Kansas). The issue with women in politics has little to do with sex, and much to do with politics.
Hillary’s problem is not her gender, it’s her politics. Condi is attractive to some for the same reason (though those boots might have something to do with it ;-)!!)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51640-2005Feb24.html
Why on earth would the demorats put this pro-beaner, anti-gun fool on the ticket? The best thing she can do for the state and the country is to hop on her broomstick and ride into the sunset, permanently!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
GMC is right but I would have said “Condi’s problem is not her gender, it’s her politics.” I would go further and say that Condi’s and Powell’s problem is not raec but politics (notably the war)
Seibelius won’t get the nod because they’ll want a VP who can at least carry her own state.
Kansans will never push D button for president, even given the current administration.
I disagree. I think it’a ALL about issues like race and gender. I read something reciently that said when a conservative candidate is black, 25% of the base stays home. And I’ve heard a lot of really nasty sexist things about Hillary at work and on the street.
It’s all well and good to be politically correct in public, but when you’re in the voting booth, nobody but you knows how you vote.
I like Hillary and if she was the nominee, I’d vote for her. But I’d do so knowing full well it would mean another 8 years of republican control of the Whitehouse. The only chance she’d have is if she ran against Rice, and I think Rice is too smart to run. Just the Clinton name would turn every single republican in the country out to vote.
If Democrats put any woman on the ticket, they’re taking a long chance. That would include Seibelius. It may be the right thing to do, but it won’t get Democrats into the whitehouse.
XXX, you are SO right. The country hasn’t evolved enough to elect a woman prez. The dems have to come up with someone who is electable, otherwise the repubs will be there for another 8 yrs. If Kerry couldn’t get elected, Hilary doesn’t have a snowball’s chance. That’s why she has so many repubs who want her to run.
Damoon, that’s sooo wrong! What the hell is wrong with this country? I think Hillary would make a great president. She’s smart and she’s tough, traits I admire in women. But having her run for peresident would galvanize the republicans far more than gay hate and flag burning ever did.
I’ll be very interested to see what the Democrats field for a presidential candidate. After the Kerry fiasco, I hope Democrats learned something. Democrats shouldn’t have to hold their nose to vote for their party’s candidate (I held my nose to vote for Kerry).
We need a moderate Democrat who can win the election, not some far left fringe lunatic that 51% of voters won’t vote for. At this point, it’s not so much about ideology as it is winning. We can’t afford another 8 years of republican rule.
Hillary? Seibelius? God, I hope Democrats don’t figure out a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again.
There is no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic. You can be pro-choice, or Catholic. Not both.
Go away Joe Blogfart and seek nomination for president for the GOP.
I think Hillary is bright and caring and very competent.
I also think she is baggage and dynasty cursed. Bush, Clinton, bush, Clinton just does not look good.
I don’t know about Kathy Sebelius. She is from Kansas and so is just not relevant.
Like Bob Dole was not relevant.
I’d like to see Gore run again.
Joe Blow you are exactly right. The governor does try to down play her pro-choice position. She sometimes shows up to a catholic church if the cameras are around and she will tell you that she would not have an abortion but she does not want to tell others they cannot. She feels the woman should have a choice. That is not the view of the Catholic Church at all. You are either pro-life or you are not and if you do not want to be pro-life than you can leave the Catholic Church. The pro-life issue is not something new for the church and they do not have a cafeteria plan where you can pick and choose what part of the church teachings you want to believe in and follow.
If the governor does not want to be pro-life there is nobody holding her in the church is there? At least she should be honest to herself and the people of Kansas.
JR,
I respect you and your views on immigration seem to mirror mine. As such, why would you want Gore? He has said that we should have wide open borders and that we should give amnesty to all of the lawbreakers.
You have recently stated here that “America is finished” and Gore would surely pound the nails into the coffin.
V.L.R.B!!
You really cant be pro-choice and catholic. Come on, that’s as ridiculous as trying to sell tanning spray to a black guy! You either accept the totality of what is in the Catechism or you are a heretic.
Plain and simple.
Ruby?
Party flack?
Honestly I am rooting for you. But you earn yourself no credibility when you embrace Joe Blow. That the scourge of the blogs CrusaderX embraces your take margializes you further.
Now if you are joining these folks because of a PRO LIFE quest say so.
Ian,
I did not know that about Gore. I will look into it. He is of course as any politician playing the immigration issue.
Scourge of the blogs! There’s another feather in my cap.
Really XCrusader blogfart. Let’s not do this again.
You made your rep here. Please don’t help me further define you.
Dear JR,
I would sincerely like to tell you that what you think of me is of absolutely no consequence to myself. So you can take your austere little comments and shove them right up your bum. =)
Ever Flippin You the Byrd,CrusaderX =)
Once again, crusaderx shows us he has no class.
Scourge of the blogs! JR, you make my heart go pitter-pat! Muah!
I hate this, but I have to agree with blogfart1 concerning Catholics.
They do belong to a religion that has set rules. One of those rules is pro-life. Abortion, to that religion, is a mortal sin. People who belong to the Catholic church violate church rules if they get an abortion and are subject to excommunication.
In other words, if you are a practising Catholic you abide by their rules, or you are not a Catholic.
You also can’t use bith control, except for the rhythm method, if you’r a Catholic. Why is it I only see the Hispanics with 8,9,10 kids and other catholics with 1 or 2?
Why is it that local parishes, with a wink, actually prefer smaller families because it causes them less financial hardship. Fewer children means more money available for the collection plate, it means charging the family full fare for the one or 2 children in Catholic school. When there are 4,5, or 6 in school at the same time, the parish usually lets a few, if not most, attend for greatly reduced amounts..This leads to fiscal problems, like paying staff and teachers, keeping the building up, etc.
Conscience is paramount. On this particular issue, the Church has adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. It has effectively done so with pro-choice Catholics too, as it should.
Ruby forgets that her pet term, pro life, could just as easily be “pro forced birth”. Just like pro choice can be bastardized into pro abortion.
Words are important. Here is one for ya “hack”. Oh and another good phrase “sour grapes”. Or how about “four more years”.
Ruby, rather than debating if kathleen is a “real” catholic, you should be looking for republican candidates who are “real” enough to beat sebelius. No matter what her personal religious practices may or may not be.
Seems to be lots of christians there using that word “real” like a weapon. And notice they set themselves up as one woman judge and jury to decide who is a “real” catholic or a “real” christian.
Too bad no one worries what “real” conservatives would do. Like balance the budget and follow the kansas constitution. But I guess “real” is in the eye of the beholder.
So ruby, what would a “real” christian catholic candidate look like? susan “I make my money on bingo parlors but I hate gambling” wagle? I mean, since you are an expert on judging people and all, please enlighten us further.
Kansas is so deep in the shit hole we need scuba gear to breathe, and all ruby worries about is if sebelius is a “real” catholic.
I guess that oh so pius worry about kathleen’s soul is easier than the republicans in the ks legislature actually doing their jobs.
I would love to post “NO INCUMBENTS” here if you republicans could actually field a ticket without the wingnuts owning them.
But…. you cant, so… I wont.
I am hard pressed to think a ticket with susan wiggle wagle is the best you ruby repubs can do. And I see how well the Jennison and Canfield campaigns are going in the fund raising dept.
That’s the best fundraising you repubs can do in the face of a sitting democrat governor? Makes you wonder if that famous ks republican machine is just a paper tiger.
Or without the gays to hate, the repuks are nothing? Wont get your base to the polls without an evil straw man threat on the social issues? You cant run candidates on fiscal issues?
Instead of just taking shots at governor leadership, you could be running a viable candidate ruby.
So which course do we see ruby and her merry band of republicans taking here? The shots not viable candidates. They cant field a respectable candidate for governor without the wingnut seal of approval. Or legislative candidates that can do something besides whine about the gov.
So ruby, how did that work for ya in 2002? Looks like the same outcome for 2006. Kathleen is gonna humiliate you AGAIN!!!
Sebelius is beatable, but you taliban republicans would have to actually be able to FIND your ass with both hands when it comes to beating her.
I see you are still searching.
Come on, don’t we all want to know what Rhonda was REALLY reading on this “alternative” SF publication? Heh, heh.
A San Fransico ‘alternative’ publication? Is that an oxymoron? As a Conservative, I voted for Sebelius, but now that this ‘publication’ has come out in support of Sebelius, I’m definately not supporting her anymore.
joe
“There is no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic. You can be pro-choice, or Catholic. Not both.”
That is about as wrong as one can get, I personally know two very devout, church going Catholics that are pro-choice.A word of advice, “don’t judge others by yourself”
ID–
Did you REALLY vote for Sebelius?
Something just doesn’t ring true about that, particularly when you claim you’ll change your vote just because a San Francisco periodical endorsed her.
Would you be for her again if the Weekly Standard endorsed her?
I think you’ve been voting straight-ticket R all along.
Funny that KSfarmgirl would choose this week to bring up the subject of fundraising.
Just like a TrueBlue elitist to think they have it all figured out.
Remember who Sebelius was running against? I didn’t have a lot of choice, or are you writing from the Socialist Society of San Fransisco?
I vote for the best candidate. Not party line. Only the TrueBlues vote party line and chide the neo-cons for doing the same.
So, you’re saying that you vote for the best candidate UNLESS that candidate gets an unsolicited endorsement from somebody in San Francisco.
Wow, way to think for yourself . . .
Now, if we could just get them to endorse BUSH.
The unsolicited endorsement was not from ‘anybody’ TB, but a neo-lib blog from the Socialist Republic of San Francisco. You might consider them right-wing, so I can understand your confusion. I question anyone who is left of John F. Kennedy, which is most Democrats today.
Actually I live with the author of this column (in BeyondChron). Jesse Zerger Nathan is not a San Franisco socialist, he grew up most of his life around McPherson, KS and now resides in Lawrence.
He’s home grown. You’re politics don’t own this state.
Moundridge, KS, to be precise. Jesse and I spent most of our lives in that Kansas small town. We grew up with a code of ethics and a respect for farmers and the blue collars that make this country work. We both attended a Kansas college, and he works out of Lawrence, which is where I will probably go after I finish school.
He’s not the big scary hippie-New Age-limpwrist-commie boogeyman you’re looking for, ID. Take the panic alert down a couple notches.
And they say there is no queer hating in kansas….
Just an endorsement from kansas via San Franciso is enough to switch votes.
Is “leftest” San Francisco codespeak here?
Kansas… as bigoted as you think.
“You’re politics don’t own this state.”
Uh unfortunately Andy, they do.
By at least 70%