Gov. Kathleen Sebelius included money for a 2008 presidential primary in her budget proposal, signaling that she understands the crying need to give Kansas voters a meaningful role in that vital selection process. The past cancellations of the primaries have been out of a recognition that they would come too late, after the nominees had been crowned. Yes, the prospect of having Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback on the GOP primary ballot should raise interest in the issue. But in telling the Topeka Capital-Journal that “the Republicans are interested in it because they’ve got a native son who wants to run,” Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, overlooked how wide open and compelling the Democratic nomination contest will be. With two competitive primary races, Kansas needs to get into the 2008 game.
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
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Late-night laughs
18 Comments
Kansas does need to get into the 2008 game. Not the basketball game, but the election game. I applaud the notion of a primary vote in Kansas, regardless the cost. I want to cast my opinion, my preference. I also want to vote against Brownback as Republican nominee for president.
I agree, I want my vote to count as well.
If Sam wants to get solid early name recognition, the Kansas primary will have to be held before Super Tuesday. His opposition to federal funding of human embryo stem-cell research is gaining greater credibility from emerging findings that pluripotent cells can be harvested from amniotic fluid, placental villi and cord blood.
Iowa’s governor Tom Vilsack (D) has thrown his hat in the ring. He has sensible Midwestern family values, works effectively with Republicans, and he’s developed respectable position pieces on pressing national issues.
It is really bizarre that Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide who the nominees are (or at least winnow down the field to where most of the candidates have no hope) every time, every election. I am pretty sure no other democracy always turns to the same two small, unrepresentative jurisdictions to select its candidates. It’s not just that Kansas needs to get in on the action; so do 47 other states.
Agreed, Dave.
Iowa gave us Kerry in the last election.
The whole thing was over after Iowa and a few states.
We should all vote on the same time for the Presidential candidate to represent our party, just like in the national election.
It would give the chattering corporate media much less influence on who is selected than what we have now.
No one would give diddly what Kansas does, no matter when our primary is. Everyone knows it’s moot and Kansans will simply vote for the most anti-progressive drooling bozo available when the election rolls around.
The hidden agenda is to get more Democratic influence in the state of Kansas. By befriending high-rolling Democrats Sebelius seeks to richen her campaign coffers and those of others from the national scene.
Also, the Governor of let’s say of a Democratic Party would have a large influence on the voters of said state. This influence would carry out of the state and send a message to the rest of the nation quetioning their party alliance. Like, “Look…Kansas is swinging Democratic, perhaps we should too or …”
More media would be attracted to the state and thusly to those in power, especially the Governor’s office. Fancy that.
A good thing? Maybe, depends on whose sitting in the Kansas Catbird Seat at the moment.
Nah! Just convention is fine. We don’t need to spend the money.
Maybe we could kill brownback’s chances early on.
Heartlander: Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, is coming into the rear view mirror. So far he seems to offer some good credentials even though I am a moderate Republican.
However, regarding holding a primary election here in Kansas, I am against this. Don’t we do this by state convention of state level precinct people?
What about the Centrist Party, you don’t think they can have a say in this?
Does anyone besides me find it ironic that the Governor would like us to host a primary but locally, we aren’t allowed to vote on the casino issue? As a state we’re smart enough to choose presidential candidates, but locally we’re too “dumb” to vote on our own future? What’s up with that?
paralgl..
AAAHHHHHH…. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
Oh yea, i do find it Ironic!…
Thats great, write your local leaders, tell them…
LET US VOTE!
The only reason we cannot vote on casinos is because the politicians know it would pass overwhelmingly. There are too many politicians taking money from the Indian casinos and there are some that have their own bingo parlors and doesn’t want competition.
The problem is that there will not be a “meaningful voice in the process” for Kansas, irrespective of the date of any presidential primary. This is due to the small population base of the state, combined with the small number of delegates to either party’s national convention (again, due to population).
New Hampshire and Iowa are also small states, but their overimportance in the selection of candidates has been as the result of their history in the order of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, which have become part and parcel an important piece to the entire process. Kansas, should it be determined to hold such a primary, will be just a footnote at best in the rush to nomination.
csYou are correct! Our conservative legislative members are all for voting and participation when it suits their needs. But if there is a chance that the voters will say something they don’t like then they will never have the chance to vote.
Case in point is the new bill filed in the legislature, HB 2055, that puts a freeze on any chance of Seg. Co. getting anything more than slots at the track. If Wichita or Seg. Co. had the chance to vote on a casino, and it passed, that would change the “game” considerably.
By the way, and on topic, A Kansas primary will have no effect on the outcome of the nomination.
The old system is too entrenched and our participation is too low. Besides, the cool-aid group would never approve the money necessary to hold the election.
Kansas after all these years of Republican domination has about zero credibility with the rest of the nation. Any primary would be a forgone conclusion of the most conservative candidate in the pack.