Just days after her re-election as governor, and Johnson County Sun chairman Steve Rose is already pondering what might come next for Kathleen Sebelius, who has yet to lose an election. He writes:
“Kansas has not elected a Democratic U.S. senator since the Great Depression, the longest streak in the nation. But a match-up between Kathleen Sebelius and Sam Brownback in 2010, when she completes her term as governor and Brownback is up for re-election, would offer an opportunity Gov. Sebelius could not refuse, despite the apparent long odds. And if the mood in the state and the country in four years is anything like today, look out, Sam.”
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
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
44 Comments
Duh, I already suggested that. Brownback is going to make a run for President, that will make his senate position vunerable. Hence, Sebelius can make a run for his seat.
Brownback will have to run against McCain who the media will portray as a moderate although he buddied up with the Bush administration to garner their support. Brownback won’t win the primary so he won’t drop out of the senate as Dole did after he won the primary. However, Sebelius is the best contended since Brownback can be made to appear as a far right extremist cult member which isn’t far from the truth.
Rhonda, your liberal crap is getting old! I’m sick of hearing you drool all over Sebelius. She is not the second coming of Christ!
One problem here, Rhonda “I love Pelosi” Holman…Sebelius has to complete a full term before she could challenge Brownback, and by then, the state will be tired of the liberal agenda she will push. When she rams through massive tax hikes, massive expansions of abortion rights, massive affirmative action programs, and massive rights for illegal ailens, this state will want to send her into permanent retirement. She can always go back to Ohio, of course, given how far to the left they’ve tilted in electing a radical socilaist like Sherrod Brown.
Oh Steinle you are so funny! And yes I do mean that in the ha-ha oh what a hoot type way.
David Steinie, ah did you not get the memo last Tuesday? Extremist, right wing, ideology, load of crap, hate them because they are Democrats, non-speak failed! The country sent a message that they were tired of the mean less, back biting that was the focus of the Neo-con instead of the country and its problems.
Take a breath and take a look at what you have said and since this is a second term and not a first. None of what you said pans out, no really it is baseless and clueless. It is self hatred of the Republican party to continue to say such things after it is proven to be false. I am not a fortune teller, to me there is still as much chance that this country will at best be a shell of its self as there is we will come back. But Sebelius is a done deal, two term Democratic Governor of a Red state! She has shown that she is not too far left and maybe has the right stuff to win a seat in the Senate, the Congress or V.P. nod.
Can I frighten you? Considering the luck that both the Republican and Democrats have with putting up Governors as Presidential candidates….. OK Ok grab a paper bag and breath deeply, the hyperventilating will stop shortly! Sorry….
Four years is a political eternity and no one knows this better than the Governor. She knows that her second term must be devoted to rebuilding our colleges, improving access to quality health care, and helping the Kansas economy flourish. With a more moderate Kansas Legislature, perhaps we can all pull together for the common good. The Governor knows that she still has much to do here at home. Talk of what race she will next focus on is foolish.
Brownback cannot win again in Kansas. He is another proven kook. The guy obsesses about gays and abortion. He is the real deal in his world, but in the real world, he is a royal pain in the ass.
Sen. Brownback said when he was elected that he wouldn’t seek re-election in ‘10. Will he keep his word or be the usual christian conservative hypocrit?
Brownback isn’t up for four more years.
Kansas does have a senator up for re-election in two: Pat Roberts.
Why on earth would Sebelius want to wait four years when she could take a stab in two? If she loses in two, she runs in 2010- ala McCaskil in Missouri.
Sebelius and Roberts will be the headliner race in two years. Take it to the bank.
Sebelius running for Senate is on the mark. She should be able to take on either Roberts or Brownback and send one of them packing to K Street.
The question is, does she think she can create a legacy as governor? If so, she should wait until ‘10. If she sees limited horizons here, she might as well move up to the Beltway in ‘08.
Another “what if?’ thread. This one is only interesting cause it dragged bitter kook David Steinle out from under his rock.
Here Dave here boy! Come do your little tantrum dance. Here, I’ll light the fuse.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi!!
Estate tax is coming back!
Ok David go boom for us!
Sebelius would NEVER run against Roberts. Roberts, who has not resided in this state since the 1960s, was Rep. Keith Sebelius’ protege (or more precisely, “Dauphin”). When the elder Sebelius retired from the “Big First,” Roberts took out a post office box in Dodge City and “carpetbagged” his way back to Washington as its representative.
Considering the family connection, Sebelius would NEVER challenge Roberts. Besides, Roberts would be harder to knock off. He has always maintained a low-profile, lurking around the Capitol doing the bidding of big business but steering clear of most controversy.
I think Sebelius could eventually run for president and would not mind seeing that happen. The senate could be a stepping-stone for her.
Interesting that election to the senate is considered a ‘move up’ by many people.
A good friend/fraternity brother of mine was speaker of the house for 4 years in another state and was termed out. He has considered a run for governor of that state, but refuses to consider national office for one reason: the corruption and dishonesty in DC.
My friend is a decent, caring person who entered politics to actually do something FOR the people, not TO them. I wish we had more politicians like that.
Rhonda is not a liberal. She is a Ken Melman repuke just like you mr david
you lost … get over it
You people make me want to puke. Quit drooling over Sebelius…she is not the Virgin Mary! She is nothing more than a left-wing liberal who wants to take Kansas down a road of Massachusetts-style liberalism.
When we are paying the highest taxes in the country and seeing more abortions than the other 49 states combined, we will all want to send Sebelius packing back to Ohio! Sebelius makes me SICK!
WriterDog, since Sebelius does not have to run for re-election as governor, don’t you think that she will push through the ultra-liberal agenda she has dreamed of pushing? She only was a liberal dressed as a “moderate” to appease the voters! She’s slicker than Slick Willy!
WAH! WAH! WAH!
Too bad Hater – you got thumped last week!
hahahahaha!!!!!
Remember when people like Tiller and Hank and Steinle and Heckler used to sign off every post with “and that’s why you libs are never going to win another election!”
Remember that?
When all the lies that Pat Roberts has buried come to light as the Sentate Intelligence Committee chair, winning his Senate seat will be the least of his worries . . .
Sebelius is a liberal? You coulda fooled me. She is not near liberal enough for my liking.
Hey “Tillerhater”? I understand how you feel.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
How’d that vote to make abortion illegal in South Dakota work out for you, Tillerhater?
Not so good, eh?
Hey, “GET OVER IT.”
Sound familiar?
Jeff, you sure pegged Roberts. I have not heard a description of him yet that was as acurate as yours.
Wow David Steinle is really sore about being in the minority. Ultra-liberal? She’s not a shill and is for real and you just hate that don’t you?
Lets play our finger fiddles for him.
Not really tiller, if she does have any aspirations for a Federal level office she must stay more moderate.If this last election show us anything it is that politics is more a symbolic relationship. The Democrats could not have taken both houses if not for some Republicans and independents crossing over. Those that claim to be independents from what I have heard them say tend to be more conservative and lean toward the Republican party I.E. Joe Williams, etc.
The fact that she ran again shows she is a political animal and the fact that her name keeps being brought up in talk of a federal office means that the national parties are liking what they see. She will stay the course ( Havn’t we all gotten tired of that one) so in two years she can either run for Robert’s seat or even get the nod for a V.P. slot on the Presidential ticket. At the very less 2010 and Brownback’s seat.
Roberts is weak, unlike tiahrt who has made a point of telling over and over how he helped Kansas. Roberts is mired in the intelligence report on the Iraq war and what lead up to it. That will be the number one issue in a re-election bid for him. He will still have Bush fresh in the mind of the voters and more then likely Iraq will still be front page.
She needs to show some leadership and successes – particular areas I would like to see are energy and water.
…and notice that kelly, governor leadership’s biggest fan, said NOTHING about water or water policy.
Why?
Because it isnt important to anyone east of Salina?
Or because less than chatty kathy has a HORRIBLE record on water policy and water board appointments?
Coming soon to your community, water shortages and water quality problems.
Deal with them now… or deal with them later. The choice is ours.
ksfg – what do you hear about attitudes toward wind farms out there? Seems they should a great revenue source for landowners.
ksfg has reiterated a major policy issue which, to the best of my knowledge, has been ignored by many governors and legislatures; water policy. I do not know what, if anything, the current governor or the newly elected legislature will do in this area; but I know ignoring it will be at all Kansan’s peril.
While our state officials “fiddle”, I would urge various municipalities to examine their police powers, with a view towards conservation, by use of zoning, etc., by proscribing the planting of bluegrass lawns, e.g., in new developments. I can rail for a long time about this, but will spare all therefrom!
Wind farms benefit the power companies most of all. For a little money, the farmers lose most of the use of their land.
It is the ethanol plants and the associated corn growing and water wasting that cause the most damage out here.
But I see Morrison is already shiling for the ethanol industry. A net energy USER and a destroyer of the water supply.
Oh and dont fall for the economic development “jobs are created” bullshit. Ethanol plants create very few jobs in relation to the cost of wasting water and big irrigators and corn growers pushing out the small farmers.
And wind farms create even fewer jobs.
And if you look, most of the power generated by wind farms goes out of state. Doesnt really benefit Kansas consumers.
I think wind farms are a good thing. They are not THE good thing though for western Kansas.
And ethanol plants will be the END of water in western kansas.
ksfg points out yet another concern of mine; ethanol production from corn, which is an energy negative as well as a water pollution issue. Sawgrass is mentioned as a source of raw material for Ethanol production, IIRC; but it doesn’t resolve the water pollution issue, although it might help the water used for irrigation issue. I don’t have any “magic bullets” in my bandolero; but I am sure Ethanol production from corn is not an answer.
Adding fuel to the fire is the siting of large feedlots in Western Kansas; again, water pollution issues from runoff, etc.
Here’s the dilemma: how to quantify the costs of pollution, once we have identified the issue. This has been a topic for academics since (at least) 1968, when I took an Intro to Economics course my Freshman year in college. Assuming such costs may accurately be quantified, I am of the opinion that this would cause the Ethanol rage to come to a screeching halt.
The farmers are paid rent for the land that is used for wind turbines, much as they are paid rent for billboards on their property. It doesn’t hurt them financially, especially when cattle ranchers are concerned. A good solution would to use government land that way the government can make more revenue off the turbines.
kfg – it is my understanding that the landowner still farms/ranches the land under the turbines; the actual footprint is small. Lease payments should be able to be negotiated in a reasonable fashion.
The footprint of turbines is small, but no, they are not allowed to farm or graze animals under or some distance around the turbines. I am sure not all leases are the same.
Yes, the leases can be negotiated, but a single farmer hasnt much of a chance. The lease prices are usually firm unless the landowners band together. That doesnt happen much out here, and the surrounding communities will raise holy hell.
There is a lot of mythology about turbines, where they MUST be located, and how much econmic benefit they bring to a region.
Communities have been sold a bill of goods about the economic benefits and job creation, but they still believe in Santa Claus out here. Imagine the community pressure if landowners resist the turbines?
No the farmers are not HURT significantly, unless the land is taken by emminent domain.
But they really arent helped much by the turbine leases either. Not much money for the lost production.
Again, ethanol and irrigated corn are MUCH bigger problems. And it isnt just water pollution. I’m talking about water QUANTITY, not just quality.
If there isnt ANY water left out here, pollution isnt much of a problem. Well, I guess that is one way to solve the pollution problem.
Heheh. Just drain the aquifer and the surface water away. No pollution, no problem.
heheheheheheh
“It doesn’t hurt them financially, especially when cattle ranchers are concerned.”
That’s not what I hear around Montezuma. Maybe you have different sources of information?
The cattle biz is what has kept most farmers around here still in business during the last few years. I think it hurts cattle farmers the most, but I’m not sure enough to argue about it.
Look, I am all in favor of wind power. It just isnt the economic boon to farmers or rural communities that people think it is.
And NONE of it matters if governor leadership continues to appoint bit irrigators, water pigs and campaign donors like Steve Irsik to head up the water board.
Since when do DEMOCRATS appoint foxes to guard the henhouse?
ksfg, thanks for the clarification. In my thinking, I was lumping the increased water use with polluted water left over together, without thinking about the reduction in water available for other purposes caused by Ethanol production.
Pictures I have seen have shown both cattle and crops right up to the turbine base. As an advocate of wind power I would like to see communities work thgether for a number of reasons. Get enough land under contract to allow the establishment of a large enough wind farm to be economically viable; at the same time make sure the lease payments are enough to fully compensate.
You are correct, they won’t bring much in the way of direct jobs. However, if the landowner has money he presumably will spend it.
I, too, have problems with ethanol – for the reasons you have discussed.
Wind turbines need specific geographic things in order to work well. They cant be located just anywhere. Yes, we have lots of wind out here, but they need more than that. Accelerator ridges, transmission lines, etc.
If government land fits the bill, I see no problem. But not ALL land is suitable for wind power production. Or transmission.
Land EAST of here is actually better suited, both for transmission lines and wind characteristics. Not all wind is created equal.
And I notice the folks in the Flint Hills werent too keen on the idea of being the wind power capital of Kansas. As a state, we spend millions to promote tourism, both eco and historical, and then we destroy the vistas with turbines?
Whatever. We promote our state also as a place of “big ideas” and then we show our bigoted asses too. Why should I be surprised when expediency trumps our stated economic development goals?
hmmmm, I’d like to see those pictures. I bet they were staged or taken from a special position. What do the farmers say who have these turbines on their land? Any quotes or citations? Any figures on the money they receive vs. lost production? I dont have them, maybe you do.
” Get enough land under contract to allow the establishment of a large enough wind farm to be economically viable”
The last I heard, Florida Power and Light required THIRTY THOUSAND contiguous acres in order to locate a wind farm. That’s a hell of a lot of land, and landowners, to negotiate. That is also one reason they are located way southeast, as they have more acres/landowner in addition to having the “right kind” of wind. And access to transmission lines.
Dont forget, transmission lines are expensive as hell to build. Who foots THAT bill? Not saying it shouldnt be done, it just isnt as easy as people generally think. Bill of goods again.
“You are correct, they won’t bring much in the way of direct jobs. However, if the landowner has money he presumably will spend it.”
Remember, landowner does not equal land farmer. MANY landowners here live out of state. So yeah, they’ll spend their money. Just not in the little towns that lose another farmer/customer/taxpayer.
And windfarm land loses overall value, which reduces the tax base for some of these poorer, less populated counties. Loss of people, loss of taxbase, and the money paid to landowners could mostly go out of state.
Good for power consumers, but not good for the rural residents of western kansas. Just be clear about exactly who beneifits from wind power.
Not us!
Oh, and one more thing…
When land goes out of production, even if an absentee landowner or retired person gets some supplemental income, it means less money spent on seed, fertilizer, equipment, farm labor, vehicles, etc.
Idle land does not sustain communities. Absentee landowners do not sustain communities. PEOPLE sustain communities. Wind power, with it’s lack of associated jobs, does not support LOCAL people.
I guess if you want to drain the water and locate wind farms, people are in the way, so maybe strangling these little towns and counties by running off the few remaining people will indeed accomplish that goal.
Yes, ksfg, we shouldn’t confuse the landowner with the land farmer (something I am guilty of, from time to time). As to your argument about tax base, I need to think it through. I know the appraised value of farm land is based upon its “use value”, that is, the agricultural productivity or agricultural income generated by the land; and that the assessed valuation is 30% of the appraised valuation. Public utility property is assessed at 33% of its appraised value.
To determine the effect on the tax base would require a computation of the value of the land removed from agricultural production compared with the value of the property (including the personal property, e.g., transmission lines, etc.) dedicated to public utility use. You may well be correct that this would result in a net decrease of tax base; I just am not willing to concede that at present.
However, one thing I will concede; it is my recollection, without research, that property taxes from public utility property goes directly to the State, and is then “returned” to the counties on some formula, which could result in less coming back than is paid in.
kfg – the property value should include a capitalization of lease payments. So, revenues to the County should go up, not down.
I have to acknowledge that the pictures I saw might be biased; they were taken by local Sierra Club members who toured the Montezuma facility.
Transmission lines are the big issue out west. However, according to the maps I saw, that is where the best wind is.
kfg – the property value should include a capitalization of lease payments. So, revenues to the County should go up, not down.
I have to acknowledge that the pictures I saw might be biased; they were taken by local Sierra Club members who toured the Montezuma facility.
Transmission lines are the big issue out west. However, according to the maps I saw, that is where the best wind is.
If you can prove that county tax revenues go up, do so. I havent seen it yet. The use value is less with turbines than without. Even with capitalization of the lease payments. If… as you say, they are similar to billboard leases. Which dont amount to a hill of beans in terms of production values. And I havent seen any facts to dispute that more land goes out of production than just a little plot directly under the turbine.
Lots of mythology about the local “benefits” of wind farms. I dont disagree that wind power is a good thing. It just isnt the goose that laid the golden egg for the counties that actually HOUSE the damn things.
And the revenue that was supposed to come back to the counties was KEPT by, guess….? That’s right, governor leadership, early in her first term. My understanding is it has NEVER been given back to the counties under any formula. That was the same year as the “one time early” tax payments were collected.
The state under governor leadership has a habit of pushing its revenue problems down onto the counties and cities. I.e. the business taxes that less than chatty kathy wanted to cut and did. They were paid locally, but the state decided businesses really didnt need to pay them at all. To anyone.
It sure is easy for governor leadership to spend money that is the counties’ not the state’s….
…and might I direct you to the front page of the Salina Journal today? I dont normally shill for them since they think meadowpoop is a real writer.
But they have a veeeeery interesting article today on how the Kansas Water Office overestimated how much water could be released from Kanopolis before it goes “dry”. (actually in their world, dry means “dead pool” and vice versa.)
You should be very afraid that these morons, er, political operatives, are in charge of water in this state.