WTF?

The Kansas Republican Assembly has officially lost their marbles.

Kansas Republican Assembly lectures on party unification

The folks over at the KRA have decided to share some wisdom with the Kansas Democratic Party on how best to unify a big tent party.

The complaint sent to Bartoshevich from the Wisconsin DP stated that she had violated Party rules by endorsing the opposing party’s candidate and that she failed to honor a pledge of intent to vote for the party’s presidential ticket in the fall. The resolution was passed by the state’s party at their convention to cheers from state delegates.

How very interesting that the Wisconsin DP is performing the exact same functions the KRP did when trying to rid itself of leadership that would rather see Sebelius reelected than the Republican.

Nothing from the KDP blog yet on what they think of the situation and I’m sure there won’t be any comment from any Kansas Democrat. Democrats like to call themselves the ‘big tent’ party but when it comes right down to it, they’ll throw you under a bus if it means getting a few extra votes. Just ask Joe Lieberman. Just ask Lee Jones. You’d better do what the socialist wing of the party says to do…or else.

They’re big tent as long as you’re a part of the circus, but don’t plan on spending the night with the clowns if you don’t feel like walking the tight rope they’ve set before you.

For those of you who are new to Kansas Politics, the KRA's very existence is the result of inter-party squabbling. They are the Right-Wing splinter group of the Kansas Republican Party (though not as far right as the splinter group from the splinter group, the Kansas Republican ACTION Assembly)

Kansans for a Traditional Republican Majority, the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party, is KRA's sworn enemy, so it's pretty rich for them to be lecturing the KDP about the importance of unifying a party.

Offensive rhetoric from the KS GOP

Christian Morgan and the KS GOP have reached a new low.

In a recent blog post, Morgan and his cronies parrot a National Review story criticizing Sen. Barack Obama for supporting giving constitutional rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay (the scoundrel!)

As if it wasn't bad enough that McCain called the decision“one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” Ya, right up there with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Or Roe v. Wade if you are so inclined.

Worse than that though, Morgan and the National Review call Obama the "September 10 candidate." This is nothing more than cheap, underhanded fear politics and Christian should be ashamed of himself.

People on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on one thing, the thousands that died on Sept. 11, 2001 did not die so that people could use their deaths to score cheap political points and to do so trivializes the tragedy that was 9/11.

Not only that, but it's insulting and outlandish to insinuate that any candidate, Republican or Democrat, would ever do anything they felt would make an attack like the one of that fateful Tuesday more likely.

Supporters of Obama and McCain can debate the legal merits of extending the writ of habeas corpus to those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, but neither side should resort to accusing the other of promoting further terrorist attacks or being on the side of the terrorists.

Whatever your political leanings may be, we think we can all agree that this sort of political hackery is unconscionable. If you agree, call Christian Morgan and tell him the best way to honor those who were killed on 9/11 and those who have died fighting to protect those rights is to refrain from using their deaths to score cheap political points. The number is (785) 228-0353.

The KSGOP: They really are that desperate

In their most recent blog post, the KS GOP chastises the State of Kansas for not allowing the website flightwatch.com to post its flight itineraries for the Governor's plane. Never mind the fact that this decision was probably made without the knowledge or instruction of the Governor's office by her security detail, the assertion that this is somehow "secretive" is ludicrous.

While I don't know the tail number of Air Force One, I have a sneaky suspicion its itineraries aren't loaded into this web site. It's called security. For a party that supports George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, two of the most secretive politicians in American history, such a preposterous accusation is just laughable.

Larry Powell: environmentalist

Rep. Larry Powell (R-Garden City) is in the news again.

For those of you who recognize that name, he's the one that said the tens of thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide emitted from coal plants was good for corn crops.

“One of the really good things about CO2 is that plants perform better under stress (drought, etc.) with increased levels of CO2,” Rep. Larry Powell, R-Garden City, said in a letter disseminated to the media.

Powell said a recent study shows that over the next 50 years, “atmospheric CO2 enrichment will boost world agricultural output by about 50 percent.”

For those of you who didn't finish the 4th grade, that statement is what we call "stupid."

Well, Rep. Powell has apparently decided he'd like to take his stupidity to the next level. In a recent story published by the Hutchinson News, Powell describes why he decided to change his occupation listed in the official state director from "rancher" to "environmentalist."

"I think I'm a true environmentalist, not someone who thinks everything is going to destroy the environment," he said.

If that makes your mind hurt, you just wait, Powell is just getting warmed up.

Powell also said his work has brought him much closer to nature than many urbanites who've embraced the environmentalist label.

"I've seen rattlesnakes make love, which probably isn't a pretty sight," Powell said.

For the love of all things holy, Rep. Powell, what the hell are you talking about!?

(Wait. If you've seen it, wouldn't you know whether it was a pretty sight or not? Is snake porn illegal?)

If this is the kind of venom (no pun intended) we can expect from Republicans as they attempt to use the Holcomb plant to their political advantage come November, I don't think there are many Democrats waking up in cold sweats.

Conservatives obsession with gay marriage

At first I thought the conservative love affair with the issue of gay marriage was just a wedge issue played for political gain. Then, after the California Supreme Court decided that everyone should be treated equally under the law (those scallywags!) the "heterosexists" (sarcasm) came out of the woodwork.

Most especially, a piece by Dennis Praeger.

Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

Where to begin...

First, this is how the judicial system works. It's not activist judges, its juidicial review. Since Mr. Praeger isn't railing on about the fallacy of Marbury v. Madison, I'll assume this is just sour grapes because he doesn't like the decision. If it were 4-3 the other way, would his outrage be the same?

Second, whether or not same-sex marriage has been recognized by any religion at any point in time is completely and totally irrelevant, assuming it were even true. The court is only ruling on the definition of marriage in so far as state law is concerned. Whether an individual religion wishes to recognize same-sex unions is completely and entirely up to that religion. Whether states treat couples the same in terms of taxes and property inheritance and the likes is all this ruling affects.

If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will
eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from
imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.

The above paragraphs are so ludicrous it's almost sad. The idea that by somehow saying to a same-sex couple that the law recognizes them in the same way it does a man and a woman will somehow make little girls grow up to dream of their princess in shining armor is proposterous fear-mongering. This ruling in no way makes it a social faux-paus to engage in heterosexual sex or enter into a heterosexual relationship. Something tells me that girls will still find a way to have sex with boys and somehow, someway the human race will reproduce enough to survive.

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

This just makes my mind hurt. Is hate speech illegal now? The existance Fred Phelps, recent court rulings aside, makes me question the validity of this statement. The KKK still exist post...I don't know, the Civil War...so something tells me even if this cockamamie anaology were accurate, Mr. Praeger and those of like minds would not need lawyers.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

And this is bad because.......

The mere fact that Mr. Praeger and the rest of the radical right has a social or religious objection to this lifestyle is not justification for any kind of different treatment under the law. Once again, this is not the court trying to enforce a moral standard, quite the opposite. If anyone is guilty of presumptiously claiming the moral high ground on this issue, it is the right.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

W....T....F!?

Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

Really? And all this time I thought all those "activist" wanted was equal treatment under the law. Silly me.

Anticipating reactions to this column -- as to all defenses of man-woman marriage -- that it or its author are "homophobic," i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God's image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life's unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person -- and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.

That's comforting. You're not a homophobe, you just play one in the newspaper. But, what praytell, is the goal of the justice system if not to obtain, you know, justice? The rule of law exists to preserve order and justice, not piety. It is not a tool to protect morality, nor should it be.

That is why Californians must amend their state's Constitution.

Ya, because amending the Constitution to define what the citizens can't do worked SO well the last time.

Obstructionist Todd Tiahrt

A hilarious story came out in the Washington Post the other day highlightin Todd Tiahrt's leadership in the obstruction of important legislation to help Americans (including 23,000 Kansans) in danger of losing their homes.

The Republicans decided to rush a resolution honoring America's mothers. Obviously, this resolution passed unanimously. Who votes against mothers? The problem was, it didn't waste enough time, which was the point to begin with. Enter Obstructionist Todd.



After Tiahrt's temper tantrum, an open vote was cast (lasting 28 more precious minutes) and 178 Republicans (0 Democrats) voted no. Were they voting against mothers? Probably not, as Tiahrt's staff explained afterwards. It was a vote on whether to table the resolution.

Now, we don't hear such a motion in the above video, but we also don't care. Obviously, no one thinks Todd Tiahrt or any other member of Congress is anti-mother. The problem is the games they're playing.

Instead of getting meaningful work done, Todd Tiahrt and his pals are more concerned petty maneuvers to block Democratic bills out of spite rather than a legitimate policy dispute.

Todd sure was a bulldog in his fight to get that open vote. Too bad he couldn't have fought that hard to keep the tanker contract in the US. Guess you have to have priorities.

Email Congressman Tiahrt and ask him why he fought harder to obstruct debate on the housing crisis than he did for Kansas jobs. When you're done, donate to Sen. Donald Betts so we don't have to deal with Obstructionist Todd any longer.

Melvin Neufeld is a sore loser

Having been soundly defeated in his attempt to override Governor Kathleen Sebelius' veto of the Holcomb coal power plant bill last week, Melivn Neufeld and his cronies in the House have threatened to file a (frivoulus?) lawsuit against Governor Kathleen Sebelius for...well...we're not really sure. Disagreeing with them?

"[Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson] came out and said regardless of what we do we don't have any grounds to do
what we're going to do," Merrick said. "It's us saying there is a separation of
power issue, and we're going to take care of our interest and protect our
members because we are an equal body."

Uh, we're no political science majors or anything (oh wait, yes we are!), but this seems more to us like a case where the separation of powers has been markedly successful.

Merrick and Neufeld had a chance to override the Governor's veto (her check on the powers of the legislative branch) and failed. The fact that Neufeld and Merrick couldn't muster the votes to override the veto just means they were on the wrong side of the issue. The mere opportunity to do so is the separation of powers in action.

Nowhere in the Constitution, state or federal, does it say that the outcome of such maneuvering has to be to the liking of the majority.

The Wichita Eagle's Phillip Brownlee hit the nail on the head in his blog today.

The Kansas Supreme Court will decide whether Bremby followed the rule of law. It would be a waste of taxpayer money for the Legislature to go to court over the same issues.

What are they suing her for again? My head hurts.

Crazy out, crazy in

Kansas lost the very best State Representative/blogger yesterday. Yes, Rep. Ben Hodge resigned, effective at the end of the wrap-up session. Some of you more astute readers may be saying, "WTF, his term is over at the end of the wrap-up session, why not just announce you aren't seeking re-election?"

The answer? With Ben Hodge, who knows. Under this scenario, Scott Schwab (who inside sources have informed us is actually Undead) will likely be appointed his successor by the Republican Central Committee in Johnson County (of which Schwab is the chair), but he would still have to run for "re-election" in November. Schwab has already held this seat once, ceding to Hodge to launch a quixotic yet unsuccessful run at being slaughtered by Dennis Moore (he couldn't get past the primary), so it's not like he would benefit too much from the "incumbency."

Personally, I think it was just because Hodge is too lazy to go to committee meetings over the summer.

Unfortunately, we likely haven't seen the last of this God of Hacks. According to the KC Star, he'll be reaking havoc on a different part of Johnson County, most likely challenging Barbara Allen in the 8th Senate District. Apparently she is too normal for Ben's tastes.

Republicans: The Party of Moral Values

Recently, the Vatican announced additions to the list of mortal sins. They are as follows.

1. ``Bioethical' violations such as birth control

2. ``Morally dubious'' experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive Wealth

7. Creating poverty (LBK: See #5)

Then there's of course the originals.

1. Pride

2. Envy

3. Gluttony

4. Lust (LBK: see also Lust)

5. Anger

6. Greed

7. Sloth (LBK: Just because he kind of looks like one)