A November SurveyUSA poll co-sponsored by KWCH-TV, Channel 12 in Wichita, suggested there were some circumstances under which Kansans would prefer a Democrat for president in 2008. If so, that would be news, as 1964 was the last time the Democratic nominee won Kansas. This month reliably red Kansans had a change of heart, however, telling the pollster that they would prefer Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or John McCain to Democrats Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. A McCain-Clinton face-off would be the most lopsided, 58 to 35 percent; the closest would be Romney-Obama, 44 to 43 percent.
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
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- JWink on Will GOP contenders be nice to Obama?
39 Comments
McCain? Only in Kansas. What happened to the Huckabee religious right masses? Too much Michael Vick?
Opinion polls are meaningless at this state, especially with a crowded field, on both sides.
Many will claim that they “might” vote for the “other party” if THEIR choice, in the primary, does not win.
People do try to manipulate the polls.
Red Kansans don’t like Obama’s mother “Stanley” and her parents in this state or they don’t know exactly about it. He was raised by his mother and her parents.
I wasn’t paying attention to Obama’s past life, his current life is more interesting, but it’s worth a read and look at pictures.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-life-storygallery,0,6974953.storygallery?coll=chi_news_politics_obama_promo
What’s the matter with Kansas in some districts, it’s called Farm Bill politics.
When politicians can say they will uphold values of Ronald Reagan in their office as coded words and get votes.
Trickle here to there, what was it? Trickle down to nowhere.
Reagan was shot, all politics afterward had to be suspect. Was he a puppet? What rational was it Donald Rumsfeld was sent to shake Saddam’s hand?
The military domination on government spending began and hasn’t let up since.
Funneling arms to Iran, so the hostages could be released, he did that early in his Presidency!
What was a Reagan value other than he brought the party to power since President Ford. The shame of Nixon was over.
Shame of White House hijinks weren’t over though! They went global.
Afghanistan was armed to stop the Soviets invading…remember Russians were called Soviets…another war between tribes in Afghanistan that the Taliban won.
We know what the Taliban eventually did with Osama Bin Laden and their views on life.
Reagan introduced America to Iraq, made a enemy of Iran didn’t do government business with them and still aren’t, because of past hostages, armed tribes in Afghanistan which lead to its ruin.
Values of Ronald Reagan has cost this country Billions nearing Trillions of dollars spending in the Middle East.
As long as the Farm Bill is afforded and the World hates the process because it stifles trade, Red Kansans will vote Republican, though that risks this Country globally.
Romney says Ronald Reagan quite often shows he’s fake and presidential face only political figure.
McCain is too old and he has problems in his politics.
Giuliani, has had too many wives and issues in New York.
Huckabee is making statements about women, abortion and Christ that are bizarre. Women should submit, he will criminalize abortion doctors and everything he does is for Christ.
He can keep his type of God and Jesus to himself and out of potential White House policies.
None of the candidates on either side can run the White House alone. We have a “Decider” and look how Bush has failed living up to that title.
The next President will be shaped better by their Vice President choice.
Remember how Dan Quayle was forced on George H. Bush to be his Vice President!
The next VP has to fix the office, Cheney has ruined.
What’s really funny about this is McCain–believe it or not–is having a hard time holding on to Arizona.
That’s really too bad. The older generation needs to pull their heads out and stop holding onto those old world views.
More proof that Kansans are mouth-breathing doorlers. What happened the last time you based your votes on religious qualifications or tough guy posturings? What happened then? Sheesh.
Kansans are too dumb to learn from the past.
Mrage,”Remember how Dan Quayle was forced on George H. Bush to be his Vice President!”
You’re missing the point here- In both Bush admins, Vice-presidents were chosen as insurance against assassination and impeachment. However much you hate the president, the alternative is worse!
“Trickle here to there, what was it? Trickle down to nowhere.”
I don’t know what trickled down on you, but for us in the lower income brackets, it may have been golden, but it wasn’t spendable!
doorking
What is a “doorler”???
“More proof that Kansans are mouth-breathing doorlers. What happened the last time you based your votes on religious qualifications or tough guy posturings? What happened then? Sheesh.
Posted by: Door King | December 31, 2007 at 02:54 PM
Again, if you say, “doorking” fast it sounds like part of a whale’s anatomy, turned into a verb, of course.
Sorry, could not resist. It is rare for me to act as secretary or editor, but — well, you just called other people “stupid” and I though it was funny, the way you did it.
JedThen GET OUT OF THE LOWER BRACKET!
The only person in your way is YOU!
Yeah Jed
Be the pisser not the pissee …..
After a Category 5 tornado virtually wiped out the city of Arkadelphia, AK when Mike Huckabee was governor, the state legislature passed a law that prevented insurance companies from canceling coverage to people whose losses were the result of “…an act God.”
Huckabee refused to sign the law that had been passed unanimously because he didn’t like God being blamed for the devestation.
That, friends, is the thought-process of a religious nut.
I’ve found it interesting to speak with young people about politics. I have four grandsons 16 – 20 and get to spend time with them and their friends. They tell me they’re more interested in politics because of the war, the national debt, their general disappointment in the “mess” they are inheriting. They seem determined to not let decisions be made for them and vow to vote. Wouldn’t it be the best gift if they aren’t as apathetic as today’s adults!? And who will get their votes? I am excited about their involvement.
The hopeful thing about Kansas perhaps becoming ‘purple’ is that we have elected Democrats to statewide offices and 2 out of 4 Congressional seats. Were it not for the perceived advantages of seniority and the Wichita Eagle’s slavish worship perhaps Todd Tiahrt might have been unseated. I suspect that in 2008 he will be vulnerable.
Where are all those tanker jobs anyway?
Kansas already is purple. It’s always been purple. Republicans don’t win national elections in Kansas with 100% of the vote. They never have. Republican voters just happen to outnumber Democrats in this state by about 2 to 1, because of historical, ethnic, and religious reasons. Politics is about compromise, not winner take all. I am a registered Democrat in Kansas, and I expect to be represented by all elected officials in this state and nation including the Republicans. Just because a candidate from one party wins doesn’t mean they only have to represent the citizens from their own party.
Not only is Ron Paul the long shot, he’s the only shot for change.
With the rest on either side, it’s same old, same old.
That’s why the polls are so wobbly.
What is a “doorler”???
doorlers are Door King’s acolytes, asscavity.
This is marginally good news but not terribly spirit lifting.
Kansas aint known for wisdom.
I’ve found it interesting to speak with young people about politics. I have four grandsons 16 – 20 and get to spend time with them and their friends. They tell me they’re more interested in politics because of the war, the national debt, their general disappointment in the “mess” they are inheriting. They seem determined to not let decisions be made for them and vow to vote. Wouldn’t it be the best gift if they aren’t as apathetic as today’s adults!? And who will get their votes? I am excited about their involvement.
Posted by: lindainks55
Lindainks55, I think that is the most amazing thing about the whole Ron Paul candidacy. It is that it is so infused with the younger people. I know as someone older and more into the whole Constitution and principles of this nation why I support him. But he is far from flamboyant and speaks plain enough there is no doubt what he means for this country. The very things that the established new guard of the Republican party hate about him. The younger generation love about him! Paul’s opinion of the welfare state, of entitlements and the like are hardly the prevailing thoughts of the “give me” type of people. The only thing I see they might whole-heartily agree with is Iraq. But there too his words are plain enough that it is clear his reasons are not that there was no need. It is that it was a unconstitutional war. Only the Congress can declare war, argue all you want about them giving Bush “authorization of the use of military force”.
That was not a declared war and simply a way to side step the responsibly of the action. But even when pointed out, the young seem to respond they know that and still believe in his message.
But yes the young getting involved and wanting to use the system is encouraging to me.
The future liability of current entitlement programs, that are already on the books, is far more of a problem than any debt that we currently owe.
Economic growth is the ONLY policy goal that can realistically get us to the point that we can achieve any other of our many goals, as a country.
JedThen GET OUT OF THE LOWER BRACKET!
The only person in your way is YOU!
Posted by: econ101 | December 31, 2007 at 06:12 PM
Yeah Jed!
Ask ol’ paulie what he had to do to get himself outta his way.
And judge for yourself the sort of person that was left.
Were it not for the perceived advantages of seniority
Perceived? They are real, and range from which office you get in Congress (c. 100 million/election yr spent rearranging which Congressperson gets what office, with seniority the only determining factor), to how gets to be on what committee and be committee chair, and numerous other goodies that go with seniority. A quick check of Congressional goodies for seniority over the last 40+ years reveals how it doesnt matter who controls Congress for them to benefit, but how long they have been in their office.
Also, look at how much a new Congressperson loses in seniority, again regardless of party control of Congress. A new Democrat elected next year will have less effect on Congress than a 20+ year Republican veteran. The same holds true for a new Rep vs a 20+ Dem
A longtermer can get a lot more money for their state than a newbie. Again, there are plenty of examples. Any state (red blue or purple) mourns when they lose a longtermer since the state will take a big hit on fed gravy.
The seniority nonsense is another example of how Congress has ignored the Constitution where all Senators were to be equal with each other and all Representatives were to be equal with each other.
Actually, Kansas is known for a rather muddled politics.
The Kansas Nebraska act helped spark the Civil War.
“Whats the matter with Kansas” was the title of an editorial from William Allen White, who was opposed to the “praire populist” movement, in Kansas.
Dwight Eisenhower called Kansas home. Eisenhower certainly did a brilliant job as Supreme Allied Commander in WW2. Later, Eisenhower beat back Taft and the Conservatives, of his time, to become the Republican nominee. Eisenhower also brought Nixon into natioal prominence. Eisenhower also was responsible for the “Warren Court” — which became one of his major regrets.
Bob Dole, later, became an establishment Republican fending off Reagan conservatism, for most of his career.
Nancy Kassebaum (Baker now) was one of the first in a string of Republican women to serve in the Senate. Again, she was a moderate to liberal Republican.
I admire both Eisenhower and Dole, but Kansas has never been known for nationally successful conservative leaders. I hope to see that change, in my lifetime.
We have been known for some great leaders, however.
Those who say otherwise are the people who are lacking in wisdom.
We have a rich, proud history.
The future liability of current entitlement programs, that are already on the books, is far more of a problem than any debt that we currently owe.
Economic growth is the ONLY policy goal that can realistically get us to the point that we can achieve any other of our many goals, as a country.
Posted by: econ101
Couldnt disagree more. The increasing debt increases the amount of money spent paying interest on the debt. Yes, the growing fiscal disasters of Medicare and Social Security create their own problems, but even if they are solved (unlikely anytime soon), the growing amount of money spent on paying interest will continue to eat more and more of the fed budget. I have seen references to GDP and it is not relevant to these types of discussions.
It is estimated Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will consume most of the federal budget within 30 years and the interest on the debt will consume much of the rest.
Actually, the seniority system makes a great deal of sense.What wisdom would there be in allowing a freshman to craft major legislation, and chair a committee, only to see that person tossed out in 2 years?
We elect “one termers” all the time, in this country. Nobody, in either party, wants such people to head major committees (or any committee, for that matter).
You’re missing the point here- In both Bush admins, Vice-presidents were chosen as insurance against assassination and impeachment. However much you hate the president, the alternative is worse!
I doubt it, and a good reason is TR. TR was chosen as VP because his party was afraid he would become Pres., and they felt the VP slot would prevent it from happening. I dont remember the exact quote, but the partys leadership was extremely upset when the Pres. got killed and their worst nightmare was realized.
Growth is the key.Only growth can increase tax revenues, over the long term.Only growth can keep unemployment down.Only growth can keep wages up.
Actually, the seniority system makes a great deal of sense.What wisdom would there be in allowing a freshman to craft major legislation, and chair a committee, only to see that person tossed out in 2 years?
We elect “one termers” all the time, in this country. Nobody, in either party, wants such people to head major committees (or any committee, for that matter).
Posted by: econ101
So, you trust a longtermer to be a better fit? I dont, and history has shown my point. Look at all the graft and corruption in both parties with longtermers. Our Founding Fathers considered term limits, and rejected them because they were men who could not conceive what todays polis have become.
Committee chairs have too much power, regardless of how long they have been in. These individuals can prevent legislation from being introduced just because they want to, even if the legislation should be brought to a floor vote.
Kansas has not elected a Democrat to the United States Senate in more than 80 years.
You cons are having an “Allright!” moment when I post that.
Well, you shouldn’t.
The Democratic party IS lately seeing Kansas as worthy of interest and investment. Ever hopeful those Dems.
The Republican party sees Kansas as a given and treats Kansas accordingly.
Now, what would make the most sense when voting? Vote for the party that asks for the chance to work for you? Or, keep voting for Republicans who keep giving you the same song and dance while life pretty much stays the same or gets worse?
I made my decision in favor of the Dems more than 20 years ago. Good to see that more Kansans are starting to think more critically.
Growth is the key.Only growth can increase tax revenues, over the long term.Only growth can keep unemployment down.Only growth can keep wages up.
Posted by: econ101
These increases wont address or cure the economic problems we face, only delay them and this is where economists fail the mark.
Growth is the key.Only growth can increase tax revenues, over the long term.Only growth can keep unemployment down.Only growth can keep wages up.
Posted by: econ101 | December 31, 2007 at 09:27 PM
The man makes his living in trading securities.
That’s a biz where your job is to make money for people who already HAVE money.
Now in America these days, ANYTHING is up for sacrifice to get to that goal.
American workers? TOO expensive. Outsource the work!
American regulations? TOO restrictive. Let less restricitive countries do the supply! (Hello poison dog food and dangerous toys, but hey we got the quarterlies up!)
Now in America these days, ANYTHING is up for sacrifice to get to that goal.****
Its been that way for a long time, much longer than the current admin. It has been going on since before the turn of the Last Century. Business could be done cheaper in the South, business moved from New England to Alabama. Alabama becomes too expensive or too restrictive, business moves to New Mexico. NM becomes too expensive/ restrictive, move to Mexico.
Yes but this is the first or arguably the second that actually encouraged the anti American march for the holy dollar.
Teddy Roosevelt was in favor of the estate tax and anti trust actions.
FDR New deal Nuff said.
Eisenhower in favor of sensible limits on Mexican immigration.
Jouhnson The Great Society. A certain level of sustenance government welfare prevents business from doing same and on its own determination of what sustenance is.
Carter favored addressing growing American dependence of foreign oil through conservation and innovation.
Reagan
Amnesty for illegal immigrants, anti union activity at the Executive level.
Clinton Nafta which was MEANT to help the poor and underdeveloped nations. Good idea, failure on part of other governments to hold up their end.
george bush
de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants, most favored trading nation status granted to China, cuts in restrictions as to business regulations, medicare prescription drug “benefit” written to favor pharmaceutical companies, veto of SCHIP to favor private insurance companies, etc etc.
Growth is only one part of it, compared to the cost/benefits of that growth. Such is a good point of the effect of job less in the U.S.. The company has a growth in profits by moving manufacturing overseas. But in doing so cuts it customer base and the buying power there of. The growth of the customer base overseas is at the reduction of the customer base at home. There is not net increase in the customer base, only a re-alignment of the customer base.
Though the new customer base buying power increases, that is also countered by the reduction of the buying power of the original customer base. Till finally the new customer base suffer a loss of income because of the overall down turn of the company’s profit because of the losses in the old customer base.
The balance of a medium wage is finally met, but it is far less then the original customer base. But this condition then demands a cut in overhead cost otherwise it is taken out of the profit to offset the loss of buying power in the customer base. BUT since this condition was what made the company move manufacturing overseas in the first place. And by this time the entire planet has matched the medium income. The company and its owner has no choice but to take the lost in profit or fail. Thus the long term cost/benefit of such a move is that all concern lose. Though this situation is well suited to a Communist state, it is hardly a viable solution for a Capitalist country.
An economy is like the human body, it take more then one fueling to exert its ability. Though today you may eat a meal fit for a King, once that meal is done and digested you will end up starving to death by the end of the month. A growth is only as healthy as the underlying fuel source.
“most favored trading nation status granted to China”
JR: Here is the definition of MFN. You might want do a quick search on China’s long history with this “Normal trade relations” status.
Most favoured nation (MFN), also called Normal trade relations in the United States, is a status awarded by one nation to another in international trade. Somewhat contradictorily, it does not confer particular advantages on the receiving nation, but means that the receiving nation will be granted all trade advantages, such as low tariffs that any third nation also receives. In effect, having MFN status means that one’s nation will not be treated worse than anyone else’s nation, as reflected by the American term.
Speaking of trade i.e. “Globalization” here is a twist, it has been claimed that in some respects it was Globalization that aided the growth of the Islamic Extremist movement. It seems that a major export of the West is its culture. With increased trade comes our music, food and some customs all of which is offensive to the Moslem beliefs. Suddenly the young along with the general population of these country are exposed to the Western influences. Much of which is then adopted into their own culture, this effect has given rise to the backlash of the fundamentals within the these countries. Some feeling frustrated by they inability to stop it have decided to attack the source.
“Just because a candidate from one party wins doesn’t mean they only have to represent the citizens from their own party.”
Try telling THEM that. A note I sent to a senator was answered with a “Well, I don’t really care what you think, it’s what I think that counts.” (Obviously not verbatim, but that was the gist of it.) I’ve only bothered twice since then to voice my concerns, and each time received a “form” letter, explaining why he was right and I was wrong.
Good luck.
There is no democrat I would like to see for president!
I will vote for any Democrat because any Democrat is better than any Republican by far but I would think Obama would be the best choice in Kansas simply because he is a “native son” in a way.