"Out of deep and enduring respect for the will of the people, I cannot approve of Kline’s appointment as Johnson County district attorney by a small, narrow group of partisan political operatives," Gov. Kathleen Sebelius wrote in declining to sign Phill Kline’s certificate of appointment. But as Sebelius noted, her signature was purely ceremonial; party activists were free to chose whomever they wanted, regardless of what Sebelius or voters think. "I join the people of Kansas in hoping he conducts himself differently as district attorney than he did in his term as attorney general," Sebelius concluded. That, apparently, includes not using government property for campaigning purposes. The state’s Governmental Ethics Commission is now accusing Kline of improperly using state computers in his failed re-election campaign.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
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
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/8
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
57 Comments
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If Kline keeps this up there will be a spot reserved for him in the Bush administration.
Kline is such a sleaze bag.
I think he gives even lawyers a bad name!!
Assuming, of course, that is possible in the first case.
Slither on!
A cheap and pointless shot by a governor who CLAIMS to lead.
Whether she agrees with JoCo’s appointment or not is irrelevent. It was their call to make, by law; they need not seek her approval. And though her signature is merely administrative detail (not just ceremonial), her job is to execute those laws, even when the end in results are contrary to her liking.
So you’ve missed the point, Phillip. This “story” isn’t about Kline’s actions. It’s about a governor’s petty and boorish behavior.
Guv Sebelius, grow up and start acting as would befit your office. You should be ashamed of your childish, petty, move.
34% of Johnson county voted for Phill Kline, the rest support Morrison. Even at the committeperson vote little more than half supported Kline. Sebelius was only supporting the will of the voters.
“Out of deep and enduring respect for the will of the people,…”What crap! Is this the same woman who vetoed the conceal/carry bill?
“So you’ve missed the point, Phillip. This “story” isn’t about Kline’s actions. It’s about a governor’s petty and boorish behavior.”
That’s a laugh, truly. Kline was known for childish and petty behavior. Indeed, the actions of the JoCo Republican Committee can be considered petty and childish for putting Kline in the job vacated by his opponent, in a county where the opponent won by a large margin.
Sebelius’ actions were symbolic, and the pettiness is in the eyes of the Kline supporters and apologists only.
I mean, come on, let’s be honest here. Who really thinks that the reason for Kline’s appointment was really anything less than an extension of the middle finger to Morrison, who jumped party to run against Kline in a bitter campaign, and trounced him. To accuse Sebelius of being petty in light of the committee’s motivation for appointing Kline is laughable.
The hag’s shrewish behavior knows no bounds.
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
gster,”I think he gives even lawyers a bad name!!”
As far as snakes go, Kline is fairly fangless next to (disbarred) Fred Phelps. Even lawyers agreed on that!
As I remember, Phill Kline barely won the JoCo job and that is within the GOP party. So, obviously even the Republicans are not that supportive of Kline.
So what if Sebelius said what she said about Kline. And I do care if he used government property improperly. That is something for the Ethics Committtee to decide.
Free Genarlow Wilson NowGenarlow Wilson loves reading mystery novels and can’t wait for the next Harry Potter book. The 20-year-old former high school football player and honor student works in a library, the perfect job for a young bookworm. Unfortunately, that is where the good news ends and a genuine horror story of this country’s legal system begins.
The library in Georgia where Mr. Wilson works is in prison. He is two years into a sentence for engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year’s Eve party when he was 17. He won’t be eligible for parole until he has served 10 years, essentially sacrificing his remaining youth to an obvious miscarriage of justice.
As Shaila Dewan reported in The Times this week, Mr. Wilson has been convicted of aggravated child molestation even though he and the girl were both minors at the time. Even if he could win an early release, Mr. Wilson could not go home to his family. He would have to register as a sex offender and would be prohibited from living with his 8-year-old sister. It is all the more disgraceful because the Georgia Supreme Court last week refused to hear his appeal.
The sexual act took place during a party involving sex, marijuana and alcohol, all captured on a graphic videotape. But that does not make Mr. Wilson a child molester. When high school students engage in consensual sexual activity, that is not the same as an adult molesting a teenager or a teenager molesting a child.
What makes this case more absurd is that if Mr. Wilson and the young woman had sexual intercourse, he would have been guilty only of a misdemeanor and not required to register as a sex offender, thanks to a provision in the law meant to avoid just this type of draconian punishment for consensual youthful indiscretions, the “Romeo and Juliet” exception. And since Mr. Wilson’s conviction, the law has been changed to exempt oral sex as well. But the courts say that can’t help Mr. Wilson retroactively.
His lawyer is planning to file a habeas petition seeking his release. The courts need to grant it and expunge his record so that Mr. Wilson can return to his family and his once promising academic career. Legislators in other states should take notice and make sure that their own laws do not catch children in dragnets designed for predatory adults.
Where is Joe W. on this thread, he conflates the Republican committee persons with the electorate.
Kline’s appointment is the kind of “democracy” Williams supports. Maybe the same could be said for GMC70.
Kudos to the gov for standing up and stating her opinion on this extremely smelly chapter in the history of the KS GOP.
And, personally, I am glad these far right republicans are giving the finger to moderate kansas voters — shows where their loyalties lie and what they are all about.
Jed- I think Phelps also brings a certain “smell” as an added bonus!
And, personally, I am glad these far right republicans are giving the finger to moderate kansas voters — shows where their loyalties lie and what they are all about.
They ‘re not giving the finger to moderate Republicans, just moderate Republicans who become Democrats to defeat real Republicans.
Funny that Phillip Brownlee is writing about Phill Kline on something that isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans, while totally ignoring the Sandy Burger story which is far more disturbing and quite frankly more newsworthy than some stupid technical violation of campaign laws.
Of course, to write anything bad about the Clintons or one their minions is almost as unforgivable as writing anything good about Phill Kline.
Chris from Mac Town brings up Sandy Burger:
Translation:
BILL CLINTON! BILL CLINTON!
The Far Right Republicans have been screwing the GOP party for quite a few years now. Hopefully the moderates of the GOP will finally grow some and tell the Righties either to break away and form their own little cult or to shut up because they are losing elections.
The theocracy crowd has lost their favor with the voters due to their own greed and corrupted little minds. It could not have happened to nicer hypocrits.
Chris has is correct. Where is the story about Berger? Anybody who likes mysteries would like this one. What was he really trying to cover up? What was he cutting to pieces? Hiding papers under a construction trailer and coming back for them at night? Who ordered him to do this? Was the information that he was stealing so damaging that he had to commit a felony?Lib or Con, this is a good story.
Chris from Mac Town brings up Sandy Burger:
Translation:
BILL CLINTON! BILL CLINTON!
Thats right ksagnostic. BILL CLINTON! BILL CLINTON!Such you mentioned the swarmy little reprobate. But don’t ever let facts get in the way of your hatred for Bush. You are so blinded by it, nothing else matters. I pray the scales fall off your eyes someday.
Rebel it is ironic that you call anyone a hypocrit. The far left with their separate appendage known as the main stream media are acting like Sandy Burgular never did anything wrong like removing protected material from the national archives. Well I guess according to him it just fell down his underwear. I personally think Sebelius is petty and arrogant. She should handle herself in a more professional matter even if Phil Kline deserved it. Let’s have a thread on Sandy Berger. Wasn’t that the cry all through the election, only it was give us Tiahrt.
Steven- Klines election by pricinct is absolutely appropriate. That is the mechanism used to fill vacancies. Other than a special election how else would you do it?
Whether or not you are a repub or a demo, do any of you ever just go with your gut feeling about someone? I find I trust that more than whether or not they are “red” or “blue.”
Phil Kline? Didn’t have a good feeling about him from the very beginning. Ever. (just my gut reaction to him)
Iraq invasion? I was at work & didn’t know what was happening. My step-son was at the house when I got home and watching it all on TV. When I found out what was going on, I said, “OMG, we have no business going into Iraq. What are they thinking?!” (gut instinct)
His reply: “Oh we have to. they have WMD, blah, blah, blah.”
My reply: “We’ll see about that.” (gut instinct)
Sometimes I ride the fence with “hmmm, wait and see” thinking…to try and balance it out, do some research.
Last election: I didn’t like Bush, but I didn’t care for Kerry either. Voting was agonizing for me.
My point: where is it written you have to follow party lines, when you know your party’s candidate stinks.
Man…if nothing else, the politics in this state are amusing and good for a laugh…or a bewildered shake of the head. Not sure which in this case…
Beck I think you should rent that gut out. Our intelligence doesn’t seem to be as reliable.
By the way what does your gut tell you about Sandy Berger?
Good to see ya posting Beck. And why yes ksgermie I DID call for a Tiarht thread during the election. I asked several times a day for more than a month. No dice. If you get your requested thread I guess that will show where the bias of the Eagle lies…… I absolutlely LOVE this move by Sebelius! It’s one of the first courageous things she has done. heh heh For the busybodies like outie, JM, germie, and Chris it is like a firm poke in the eye! Let me reaffirm the sentiment. Kline lost. SUCK on it!
So much for bi-parisianship on the state level…lets hope the federal is different come January.
“It’s one of the first courageous things she has done.”Courageous? Over reaching a bit, aren’t we? As has been said already, it was petty and a bit silly. Nothing gained, except for you people to think she is “courageous”.
“For the busybodies like outie, JM, germie, and Chris it is like a firm poke in the eye! Let me reaffirm the sentiment.” Kline lost. SUCK on it!Posted by: J R | December 21, 2006 at 05:04 PM
Wrong again Blogladyte!
What the Republican Party does with an office it held in Johnson County is nobody’s business but their own because it is accepted practice and legal.
What Sebelius didn’t like about Kline is that he didn’t bow down to the whims of the Governor’s office and kept the Office of Attorney General as an Indepedent Investigative and Enforcement Agency.
If anyone is pointing the middle finger it is Sebelius directly interfering with a county’s politics by using extreme partisnship to make a decision.
Since individuals can apply and obtain the RICO act with its broad interpretations, perhaps someone should apply it to Sebelius using for undermining County governments. Maybe a few federal attorneys at her doorstep will make her stop playing political sandbox with the inner workings of the Kansas governament.
Personally I think it was silly of Sebelius to not sign off on it. Kline’s election was done by the book and was proper.
You can suck on it too JM!
Oh for cripe’s sake – Sebelius made a political statement – no crime there. Phill Klline has spent his entire public career making political statements.
It’s just politics – no need to get excited.
From my perspective, I am glad that Klline is far away from Sedgwick County – for now.
This thread, and several others, raises an interesting tangential and philosophical (sorta) issue:
What obligation do office holders hhave to their constituent’s wishes? Aside from basic honesty, following the law, informing their constituents, etc.
Imagine this scenario: Government official truly and believes that course A is the right policy, but his constituents clearly favor course B. Does said official have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to follow the wishes of his constituency, or not? And why?
I am certain officeholders face that circumstance on a regular basis. I have my own views here, but I’m interested in the views of the group. And please think in general terms, not whether an official is likely to be more/less supportive of YOUR position.
Thoughts?
And BTW, I don’t think there is a single “right” answer to that question.
Discuss.
That is a tough one, GMC.
On one hand, we are a representative republic and we rightfully expect our elected officials to honor our wishes as an electing body.
On the other hand, we elect our representatives for their judgment and integrity.
It’s a tough choice.
My position would be that a rep should follow their conscience and deal with the consequences at the next election.
Regardless, it’s a tough choice.
WSC, GMC – I would add that he has a responsibility to be forthright with the people as to what he is doing and why. I find that I can respect Brownback, for example, even though I might disagree with him.
Obviously ksgrm didn’t read my posting very well. My point was about the Far Right Republicans screwing up the GOP and the moderates need to take back their party. From reading your reference to me, you are obviously smoking something.
“Steven- Klines election by pricinct is absolutely appropriate. That is the mechanism used to fill vacancies. Other than a special election how else would you do it?”
Yes Ben, I was legal. Was it ethical and the right thing to do given how voters obviously felt about Kline? That is the question raised by this thread.
I think it was rm who said on a different thread maybe _Political Ethics_ by Paul F. Rossell was the world’s shortest book. That would likely be correct regardless of who wrote it.
I thought at the time when I read rm’s post that a contender for the shortest book might be George W. Bush’s _Developing and Implementing Policy_ – it would only be four monosyllabic words long: “Go with your gut.” A follow up book might contain these five words: “I answer to a different father.”
The neocons don’t care about the moderates. And as long as the moderates keep being the doormat, the neocons will continue to bulldoze their way through offices. Afterall, they know best for everyone else (which is why govt is in shambles now!).
What Sebelius did is nothing new, nor is what the neocons did. Not too long ago, a republican sheriff opening happened in a northwest county, and the republican powers that be appointed a sheriff that had previously been involved in some shady business. This made the repubs in that county unhappy, but that didn’t stop them. And Sebelius refused to sign off on it there as well. I think the republicans ended up recalling him, but I don’t know if they voted those out who appointed him in the first place.
Expecting hard core conservatives to engage in ethical decision making is probably asking a little too much. If you are solely ideologically driven that becomes your moral decision making metric. IIRC Kline said that he went down in defeat standing by his prinicples; that is the attitude I am talking about. Questions such as: is this action or that action the most likely to bring about the greatest good? – don’t even get asked by people like Kline.
This ideological purity is the issue that is fueling the KS GOP civil war. I think the party has marginalized good centrist Republicans – the kind I like to vote for and the candidates that GOP purists like to call RINOs. The KS Democrats have benefitted from this civil war. I expect that it will continue. I think the civil war is a good thing in some ways, and too bad in others.
Amazing how the democrats are joining hands with the guv in this, while the republicans are inscensed. Had it been the other way around, the parties would reverse rolls. Sad to say, nothing new.
This was a chance for bipartisan support on this, but that takes some forward thinking.
The appointment was an in-your-face gesture from the predominantlly conservative members. It sure ain’t anything else. Is that the way we want our representatives to act? If you do, than your in the right state, cause it just did.
And the guv was correct in both refusing to sign, and stating the boards decision was against the will of the people, who soundly rejected kline. There’s nothing partisan about the whole thing for the simple reason both parties do it. I personally think that shit has got to stop, and when it does happen, the guilty parties should be voted, if not expelled, from office. It’s politics at its worst
Rebel I don’t smoke – anything – but I was trying to say that the far right side had the right to do exactly what they did. I don’t support it but I can make a difference in the months to come by supporting a party plank that is more in keeping with where I think government should be going. Less government, no new taxes, stop pushing social agendas, for starters. What bothers me about the word hypocrite is that both parties are equally guilty and we set out here and sling arrows back and forth and nothing is accomplished. I will say that Brownback is consistent in what he does. He supported amnesty and I didn’t. When I wrote to him to voice my objection I actually got a very lengthy letter stating why he felt the way he did. He thinks that states like Kansas that have a large number of illegals working in our meat processing plants would suffer financially if illegals were sent home. All that aside there are very few politicians on either side I admire and we have only ourselves to blame. We feel the need to defend bad behavior in our elected leaders depending on their party. That is what I get tired of.
Brownback is consistent? Is that why he had a fit about a judge ATTENDING a friend’s gay marriage, and then did a flip flop on the issue?
I’m real glad you shared that little bit about Brownback pandering to the meat packing plants with cheap , non union labor ksgrm.
I’ve been saying that all along.
I wonder if there is not a search for hypocrisy potential here…..
If it should be necessary for the Republican governor of that state with the Democratic Senator who is ill to appoint a replacement? SURELY our friends incensed by Gov. Sebelius’s action here will INSIST that a Democrat be appointed?
And to GMC.
There is a quote somewhere. Maybe I will go find it.
Someting like…”A representative of the people owes his constituents not just his industry but his judgement” Something like that.
Well certainly a leader is appointed to lead. But he should measure that license with the will of those who gave it to him.
Kline didn’t do that. The electoral process took care of it. The fringe on the right rebelled. The governor reasserted the voice of the people.
“Thats right ksagnostic. BILL CLINTON! BILL CLINTON!Such you mentioned the swarmy little reprobate.”-Chris from Mac Town
I think your second sentence has a typo (since/such?). Evidently, you fail to understand why I mentioned Bill Clinton in the way that I did (and in fact, I am merely following the lead of other posters here who have done this). The Bill Clinton reference, in this case, is simply a way of pointing out that a deflection strategy is going on. Kline and Sebelius are the topics of discussion on this thread. This is how you introduced the topic of Berger:
“Funny that Phillip Brownlee is writing about Phill Kline on something that isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans, while totally ignoring the Sandy Burger story which is far more disturbing and quite frankly more newsworthy than some stupid technical violation of campaign laws.”.”-Chris from Mac Town (earlier post)
In other words, you’re attempting to deflect attention from Kline by drawing attention to Berger on a totally unrelated manner, except that Berger is associated with “the other guys” or the Democrats. This is argument by red herring. It’s also an attempt to go off of the defensive about Kline to going on the offensive about one of the “other side’s” guys. Of course, the problem with this approach is that someone can then point out similarly egregious behavior or presumed behavior on the behalf of Republicans, maybe going back to the Iran/Contra scandal, for instance. But that would simply be one red herring following another (leaving the original topic far, far behind). Discussions about Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton are simply red herrings on a topic about Phill Kline. And if Kline did in fact violate campaign laws, that is hardly appropriate for an Attorney General no matter how egregious Berger’s actions were. Invoking Berger’s actions as worse is hardly a defense of Kline’s actions (assuming he did in fact violate campaign laws).
“But don’t ever let facts get in the way of your hatred for Bush.”-Chris from Mac Town
Uhm, I said nothing about Bush. Your statement about my presumed hatred for Bush amounts to nothing more than projection on your part, probably because you apply a simplistic “my side verses the demo side” viewpoint to any post that contains opinions in opposition to yours. I was responding to your use of Bill Clinton (admittedly inferred by your bringing up Sandy Berger) as an attempt to deflect attention from the topic at hand. Your invoking Bush hatred also indicates that you tend to go for knee jerk standard responses (when confronted with “BILL CLINTON! BILL CLINTON!”–>respond with accusation of mindless Bush bashing) In this case, the knee jerk response was laughably off topic even from your previous post.
“You are so blinded by it, nothing else matters. I pray the scales fall off your eyes someday.”-Chris from Mac Town
More projection. You know nothing about the motivations that moved me to respond to your original post.
BTW, I find it amusing that someone who refers to Clinton as “the swarmy little reprobate” would presume to chide me about being “blinded” by my hatred for Bush. In your case, it may be that your projection concerning my motivations are a case of “like me, but opposite”.
GMC, in response to the quasi-bar exam question you posted 12/21/06 at 5:54 PM:
In the United States, the form of government which exists is a republic. Thus, although popularly elected (with the exception of the President and Vice President, who are “indirectly elected”), all office holders have an obligation to exercise his or her best judgment on what is best for the city, county, state, country or other political subdivision represented, whether or not this course of action is favored by the constituents. This obligation will, from time to time, doubtlessly place the office holder at odds with the constituency.
To be reelected, then, to the extent the office holder has voted to take one or more courses of action at odds with the position held by the constituency, he or she must be able to show them that his action was indeed in the best interests of the country, or whatever political subdivision thereof represented, notwithstanding the wishes of the constituents. If successful, the office holder is reelected; if not successful, a replacement is chosen by the voters.
Ultimately, it is the voters who decide the “correctness” of the decisions of the office holder. In a perfect world, the voters would be in possession of all information available to the office holder at the time of each controversial decision, as well as an explanation of the process used by the office holder in arriving at his/her decision, so the voters could determine why the decision was made. However, we are not in a perfect world; thus, the voters will most likely reflect the sum of their knowledge, biases, and analysis in casting votes.
This leads me to the conclusion that there is no obligation, moral or otherwise, for an office holder to hew to the opinion of the constituency in making decisions. The office holder is then at peril for being reelected should his constiuents disagree with the decisions made.
JR, WSC, Ben:
I have similar thoughts. As I said, I think it relates tangentally to this topic.
In my opinion, there’s a complicated calculus, depending on the issue, over the wishes of the electorate vs. the judgement and beliefs of the representative. Each issue must be reviewed on it’s own, but ultimately, the vote is the representatives to cast, not his constituents. He has no moral or legal duty to vote as his constituents want. He certainly should explain his vote, and if his constituents don’t like his voting, they may remove him.
But HE is responsible for the vote, and ultimately the policy that follows, not the constituency.
I guess I’m surprised I didn’t hear a strong swell of “will of the people” arguing that it is the people’s vote, not the representative’s, and that he owes his constituents to faithfully represent their views, not his own. That’s a pleasant surprise.
BTW – the gov’s actions had nothing to do with the “will of the voters.” It was just a petty slap, refusing to do a simple administrative act which the LAW (remember that?) requires. JoCo owes her nothing in their choice; it was their choice to make. She did not have to like it, or endorse it, as the administrative act required no compromise of her principles; she just had to do the administrative details of her job. And out of petty election-year hostility (AFTER the election, mind you), she threw this little tantrum.
There is no reason not to be civil to those you disagree with. She’s a small person, it appears.
VT:
You wrote more than I, but obviously, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Again.
I’m sorry if I offended your sensibilities on this one ksagnostic. I just found it offensive that on a day when there were two majors stories breaking (sorry, Donald Trump/Rosie O’Donnell doesn’t count) that Brownlee chose to write about Kline. Truthfully, is there anything to be said, good or bad, about Phill Kline that hasn’t already been said on this bloat site? Its just smacks of more media bias against conservatives while giving cover to the Clinton sleaze machine.And why is it, that an agnostic, who by definition, must see proof of something in order to believe, is more than willing to take on faith anything bad that is said about The President and conservatives?
Hey Kathy had to eventually do SOMETHING that resembled a nod to her party. This little poke in the eye of the far right is a start.
What you think both “sides” don’t do it?
Tony Snow as Press Secretary?
“A President of the United States is a President of ALLLLL the people.”?
“…..one nation UNDER GOD!!!”
Good on Kathy for hitting back!
“This little poke in the eye of the far right is a start . . . . Good on Kathy for hitting back!”
I’d add to JR (the “junior” moniker is appropriate, but I’ll pass), exactly what I wrote before.
“There is no reason not to be civil to those you disagree with. [He]’s a small person, it appears.”
True for the Gov; apparantly true for JR.
And just how civil were the 3 Right jabs I cited GMC?
What jabs are those, JR?
JR:
After some re-reading; do I take it the “jabs” to which you refer are Snow, the “all the people” line, and “under God?”
Is that them?
Well . . .
1. Ya don’t like Snow. So what. Snow’s not your standard of unbiased. So what. He’s not supposed to be “unbiased.” He’s hired to be the president’s spokesman, not to be anything else. The prez certainly doesn’t need your personal approval to hire him. He’s the PRESIDENT’S press secretary. Duh.
2. The president IS president of all the people. That does not mean that all, or even necessarily most, of the people agree with him at any given time. I know you think you should be consulted personally (as should I), but alas, we are not.
3. Gosh, JR, you do remember the words of the pledge!! Is there a point here somewhere??
And I’d point out that NONE of these perceived swipes had anything to do with Kline. Or did you have a brain fart in that regard?
Again: is there a point here anywhere?
On second thought:Perhaps this is a troll of JR. JR’s usually brighter than this. JR doesn’t usually post stuff with this level of stupidity. If so, JR, apologies.
our Governor is awesome and lives by her convictions.
wish others would