Some pundits are getting cold feet when it comes to predicting the winners of Thursday night’s Iowa caucuses. Not the Kansas City Star’s Steve Kraske. He sees the Democrats punching Hillary Clinton’s ticket, while Republicans rally around Mike Huckabee. His 2008 forecast also has Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Lenexa, winning a sixth term, and former Rep. Jim Ryun, R-Topeka, reclaiming the job that Rep. Nancy Boyda, R-Topeka, took away from him in 2006.
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
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- KSGolfnut on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
51 Comments
Probably good predictions – including Ryun unfortunately.
Probably good predictions – including Ryun unfortunately.
Probably good predictions – including Ryun unfortunately.
Probably good predictions – including Ryun unfortunately.
Why doesn’t Ryun go away and run a small and judgemental church?
Oh yeah, he wants to turn America into that.
Good morning Ben. I see I’m not the only one TypeKey is acting screwy for.
I’m no fan of Boyda, but Ryun returning.
Ick. Just, Ick!!!!
Come up with someone better, Republicans.
“Come up with someone better, Republicans”
Well Bush will be out of a job in about a year!
The Republicans DO have someone better than Jim Ryun running for 2nd District. They have Lynn Jenkins. As of her October finance report, she’d already raised well over $300,000.
If I were a Republican living in 2nd District, I’d vote for her.
I’ve posted this before. I voted for Nancy because Jim and the other republicans let me down. I listened to her on her campaign trail in my town.
She was highly critical of congress’ failure to pass the 2007 appropriations acts. She was highly critical of all the “pork”
now called earmarks (mentioned the bridge to nowhere in Alaska).
She also said the huge national debt would destroy our country.
Well guess what? Boyda, for the same reasons I threw out that rascal Ryun – I’m throwing you out. Apparently ANY candidate has the potential to do better than either of these two.
Tom most of Lynns money is her own.
Timeforchange,
That’s basically a right-wing lie that gains traction through repetition.
Lynn Jenkins loaned $100,000 to her campaign. The other $300,000+ has been _raised,_ which is what I said upthread.
See the FEC disclosure report:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00433730/307358/
I doubt Jenkins can survive the Republic Party primary against Ryun as long as the Taliban wing of the party dominates intramural politics.
Moderate Republic Party voters won’t support a return to Ryun and generally approve of Boyda’s conservative record.
Moderate Republic Party voters won’t support a return to Ryun and generally approve of Boyda’s conservative record.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk
Gee, I must be the exception. I do NOT support Boyda’s record (more of same). I might consider Ryun – heck, maybe he has learned WHY he didn’t get reelected!
Let’s see, Ryan served when the Republicans nearly doubled the national debt and Congress was rife with corruption (more so than usual). If his district wants a return to that then he does have a chance.
Uhm Doug,
Have you bothered looking at what the national debt is today? Democrats did quite a number on it. Just passed a reduction of the AMT without an increase in revenue from another source. Here comes a quick 50 billion dollars more to the deficit.
And don’t forget, Bill Clinton himself added a few trillion to our national debt.
No party has exclusive rights to over spending. They are both equally squandering.
“They are both equally squandering.”
Not true AmWay. The Republics win that race hands down. I’m not saying the Democrats are perfect – far from it. But they cannot hold a candle to the GOP when it comes to running up debt.
Clinton managed to get a balanced operating budget in his first year. By the end of his terms he had a large enough operating surplus to cover the interest in the debt he inherited from the Republics.
Let’s see, Ryan served when the Republicans nearly doubled the national debt and Congress was rife with corruption (more so than usual). If his district wants a return to that then he does have a chance.
Posted by: Doug
That does not make sense, Doug.
Why would his district give him another chance if they voted him out in the first place?
Raise the taxes on the rich and increase the spending on the poor.
Check your guns at the door
cause we can’t have them anymore.
And give me my free healthcare
and we won’t have to work no more!
Hillary!
Hillary!
Hillary!
The Demacrats will give us everything we need!
Amway, Bush increased the debt more than his dad and Reagan combined. If you don’t recall Clinton balanced the budget and produced a surplus. I’m surprised this is news. The Democrats only have a majority in the House and can’t balance the budget because the Republicans block everything so they only get things passed if they continue to pay for Bush’s expensive occupation of Iraq.
Bush invaded Iraq and passed his huge tax cuts for the rich when the Republicans controlled Congress. I’m sorry to break old news to you. No, I’m sorry I had to waste my time in doing so.
Wiseman,
Americans have a short memory. Keep in mind a lot of people think Reagan was a great President, and Republicans re-elected the huge failure known as George W. Bush. Yeah, they may just re-elect Ryun.
It’s time for change, I’m tellin ya.
Time for a change.
We can change da world!
I’m gonna change me a world!
Give breaks to the rich and spend zillions on the war.
A gun in every pot cause we fired all the cops.
And send me to Iraq so I won’t have to live no more!
Bush!
Bush!
Bush!
The Repukes will take from us everything they want!
I’ll Make Me a World!
It’s time for change, I’m tellin ya.
Time for a change.
We can change da world!
I’m gonna change me a world!
“They are both equally squandering.”
Not true AmWay. The Republics win that race hands down. I’m not saying the Democrats are perfect – far from it. But they cannot hold a candle to the GOP when it comes to running up debt.
Clinton managed to get a balanced operating budget in his first year. By the end of his terms he had a large enough operating surplus to cover the interest in the debt he inherited from the Republics.
There was no balanced budget under Clinton or Bush. It was smoke and mirrors. The supposed balanced budget did not occur in his first year anyway.
The “balanced budget” was created by counting Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Service Retirement funds in the equation.
Since Repubs did not control Congress, how did they create the huge debts by themselves? Repubs have not had control of Congress in a long time since control involves 60+ Senators, and the Repubs did not have that during the Clinton/Bush years.
As to spending, you are quick to forget how fast the deficits were growing under the Democs before the Repubs gained more seats. The projected deficits if the Democs had kept control made the current deficits mild in comparison.
Democs claimed they would address the deficit issues during the last elections, another promise conveniently forgotten last January.
The Democs could have stopped the porking during the Repubs “control” had they chosen to do so, but no they jumped on the porking with a passion. The same could be said for the Repubs last year, they could have stopped the excessive spending, but they chose to get their “share”
Congress, the President, and SCOTUS need to review the Constitution for what fed money can and cannot be used on. The answer will shock most people.
You know, two years is not enough time to even get settle in Washington, much less develop a track record. And during that two years, you have to grovel for political contributions, organize and run a relection campaign, and try to be conversant on issues.
Are longer terms for representatives needed?
Doug –
I don’t really think Americans have short memories but I do think Americans were handed the short end of the stick when it came to choices of presidential candidates presented in the last election.
Are longer terms for representatives needed?
Posted by: outlander
Are you mad? Senators get six, nuff said.
Most of the Democs have been in Congress longer than two years *decades for some, only a handful are total newbies.
We need an Albert Gallatin, but I suspect he would die in an “accident” if we got one.
I’m feeling even safer about my picks, knowing Kraske has made different ones.
If you look up “pack journalist” in the dictionary, I’m sure you’ll find Steve Kraske’s picture.
Remember Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” and the Republic Party “revolution” of 1994, when people like Todd Tiahrt *promised* they’d serve only two terms?
Neither do they.
Wiseman
Americans do have short memories. If they didnt, neither party would still be in power. Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle know they could screw us over, and within a few months, the vast majority of voters will have forgotten about it, or accepted the lame excuses used to explain it away.
“I don’t really think Americans have short memories but I do think Americans were handed the short end of the stick when it came to choices of presidential candidates presented in the last election.”
True, the media decided they didn’t like Dean because of his anti-monopoly views towards the media so they lambasted him constantly and promoted Kerry. If anyone thinks the media doesn’t work to select candidates then they need to look no further than Ron Paul being kept off the Fox News Presidential debate.
Perhaps I shouldn’t say Americans just have a lousy memory, they are rather ignorant as well. Back then they said Dean was crazy for thinking the illegal occupation of Iraq was a bad idea. Oh well, we’ll see if stupidity reigns again if Ryun is re-elected.
“The supposed balanced budget did not occur in his first year anyway.”
lightless – I specifically referred to OPERATING budget which WAS balanced first year. That is BEFORE counting interest accrual on the inherited debt.
It’s like a workout specialist taking over a bankrupt company. If he can get it into the black OPERATIONALLY then he can subsequently turn to dealing with the pre-existing debt.
1993-2001 Clinton President
National debt:
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Debt before democrat Congress took over:
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
Today: 9.1 (count them) dollars!
Democrats AND republicans are guilty as charged.
lightless – I specifically referred to OPERATING budget which WAS balanced first year. That is BEFORE counting interest accrual on the inherited debt.
It’s like a workout specialist taking over a bankrupt company. If he can get it into the black OPERATIONALLY then he can subsequently turn to dealing with the pre-existing debt.
Posted by: Repuke
It still did not happen. I am not counting the total debt, I am talking about the total budget. There was not a surplus. Stealing from Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Service Retirement to create a “surplus” is not a surplus. If a private company tried this tactic they would face criminal charges.
If there was a true “surplus” why did the national debt increase during those years? If there was a “surplus” the debt should have decreased, but it did not. When I talk debt, I am not referring to %age of GDP because it doesnt mean anything, even though some claim otherwise.
According to govt projections, interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will eat up most, 2/3, of the fed budget within 50 years or less, and count for a fairly heft chunk of the GDP.
50% of the budget is currently used on military spending. If Social Security and other social programs take up more of the budget I’d be a happy camper.
Amway, there are only 48 Democrats in the Senate. That’s not a majority.
Doug,
It’s 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, with two independents (Lieberman and Sanders) who caucus with the Democrats.
If and when Lieberman jumps ship and caucuses with the Republicans, the Senate will be effectively split, and Cheney will once again break ties, including votes for committee chair assignments.
Oops, my bad, I was off by one. I think Lieberman forces the Democrats hand by claiming he’ll bolt to the Republicans if Harry Reid doesn’t keep on bringing Republican bills up for a vote. Senator Dodd had to work like heck to keep the Republican bill to allow phone companies to illegally wiretap calls.
It’s no wonder the people in Lieberman’s own party don’t like him.
“Are longer terms for representatives needed?”
Yes. We disagree on much outlander, but that is an excellent idea. Personally, I would like to see representatives serve four year terms and be elected on the non-presidential election years.
Won’t happen, but it would be a very good idea.
And Tom, I agree about Lynn Jenkins. And in the Second District, she may have a chance. And if she were to lose a bitter primary to someone like Ryun, that would hurt Ryun’s chances in the general election.
Doug,
Lieberman is in a party of one. He quit the Democratic Party in 06 after he got his hind end kicked in the Connecticut primary. He now calls himself a “Democratic-Independent” or some such hyphenated name, and yeah, he threatens the caucus with jumping to the Republicans if they don’t keep funding the murdering in Iraq. By this time in 09, he won’t have this much influence, though, because the Democratic Party will increase its Senate margin enough to make him irrelevant.
No seriously, the people who run his Ct. for Lieberman party thinks he should resign. In order to beat his Democratic opponent he made a lot of pretty speeches about being a progressive but all that changed once he won.
I don’t think he’ll win re-election. Even if he switched to being a Republican he’d still lose in his state. He’s trying to be McCain’s VP candidate.
In order to beat his Democratic opponent he made a lot of pretty speeches about being a progressive but all that changed once he won.
Posted by: Doug | January 02, 2008 at 01:43 PM
And people BOUGHT that? From HIM?
HAH!
Too bad he’s not up for reelection until 2012, though. That’s a long, long time in politics.
Nobody said voters were very smart. They believed Bush when he said he’d bring honor and integrity to the White House along with a budget surplus.
Bush did bring honor and integrity to the White House. I don’t believe any impeachment action took place, correct?
I don’t believe he got caught with his pants down having oral sex in our nations White House, correct?
I don’t believe he lied to the American people, and became a household name for school children, when he said, “I did NOT have sex with that woman”, and under OATH lied about sex with other partners.
I don’t believe he left a lasting and memorial phrase like Clinton did with American children which will last forever: “A Blowjob is not sex.”
God Bless our American President!
Hey Amway, where do you pick up those horse blinders in this day and age? At the buggy whip store?
impeachment – that only proves that the extremely partisan Republics preferred to waste their time on it. Nothing more.
What is abuggy whip store? Is that something associated with outhouses?
We got that thar indoor plumbing nowdays dontcha no.
Dennis – I think Rush sells them on his radio show – along with the mind-numbing drugs!
Amway, if you live in Michigan, you get a dime for each of those beer cans.