The editorial is bogus

In his August 8, 2007, column entitled "The enemy is us," Steve Rose, chairman of Sun Publications, attacks the Kansas Republican Assembly, the Kansas GOP, and the formation of the latter's loyalty committee.

According to Rose, "Under the just amended Republican Party constitution, there will now be a loyalty committee formed, which will demand that all elected Republican leaders, all the way down to the precinct level, take a loyalty oath."

If Rose had actually read news accounts concerning the loyalty committee, he would have known that there is no such oath.

He continues: "That threat translates into the Kansas Republican Assembly recruiting, training and funding right-wing candidates to knock the disloyal moderates out of office in the Republican Party primaries."

First, there have been at least as many conservatives complaining about the loyalty pledge as moderates. Some of these conservatives who are party officials want the option of endorsing a pro-life Democrat in a general election. Second, the loyalty issue would not even be a factor in a Republican primary since all candidates would be Republicans.

"After all, in 1994," Rose contines, "then-Mayor Giuliani endorsed Democrat Mario Cuomo for governor of New York, over Republican George Pataki. Under the Kansas loyalty edict, Giuliani would have been purged from the party."

That would be quite a trick since Giuliani is not an official in the Kansas GOP. In any case, Kansas GOP officials who endorse a Democrat would not be purged from the party. The most that could happen is they would lose their positions as officials with the Kansas GOP.

"But tolerance apparently cannot be accepted in Kansas by Republicans, because there is a panic. "

If expecting loyalty from party officials is tantamount to intolerance, aren't the Democrats also guilty of intolerance? For example, last August, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and other heavyweights in the Democrat Party endorsed Sen. Joe Lieberman in his reelection bid because they thought he was the best person for the job. After Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman, they all shifted their support to Lamont. If Lieberman was the best person for the job before the primary election, why wasn't he the best person for the job after the primary election? Clearly, the Democrats placed loyalty to their party above loyalty to the most qualified person for the job.

"In the last election, there were tens of thousands of Republicans who crossed over to vote Democrat, and there were long lists of Republican leaders, including many precinct committeemen and women who publicly signed off as Republicans for Kathleen Sebelius for governor; Republicans for Paul Morrison for attorney general; Republicans for Nancy Boyda for Congress in the 2nd District; and Republicans for Dennis Moore for Congress."

How many Republicans would crossover if those in the media, such as Steve Rose, the Journal-World's Scott Rothschild, and other activists posing as journalists reported the truth about these Democrats? For example, why do they refer to Dennis Moore as a conservative to moderate Democrats when he has a lifetime rating of 85% from Americans for Democratic Action (40-60% is the moderate range. 100%, which Moore received in 1999, earns a lawmaker the title of "Liberal Hero")?

"This stampede away from Republican candidates does not suggest a loyalty problem. Rather, it suggests a philosophical chasm. The Kansas Republican Party has moved too far to the right."

This statement implies that the Kansas Democrats have not moved too far to the left. As noted above, Dennis Moore has a lifetime ADA rating of 85%. Rep. Nancy Boyda is likely to have a rating in the same neighborhood after her first year in Washington. Democrat Jim Slattery represented the Kansas 2nd from 1983 to 1995. His lifetime LQ was 56, which was within ADA’s “moderate” range. Democrat Dan Glickman represented the Kansas 4th from 1977 to 1995. His lifetime LQ was 64, just four points above ADA’s “moderate” range. Yet we never see articles decrying the Democrats leftward shift during recent years.

"Furthermore, the Kansas Republican Assembly, which calls the tunes, has an inflexible agenda. They demand that all candidates sign on to their agenda and not waver from it one iota. Moderates have become lepers."

The KRA is a political group just as the Mainstream Coalition is a political group. KRA disagrees with positions taken with some moderates such as the Mainstream Coalition disagrees with positions taken by conservatives. If you want to see a political group treat another group as lepers, check out what the Mainstream Coalition has said about conservatives.

"Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative, tough on national defense, and a charismatic cheerleader for America and its greatness. But Ronald Reagan was not a social right-winger. He appointed moderates to the Supreme Court; he never pushed a pro-life agenda; he didn't consort with the Christian Right; and, had he lived, he surely would have favored stem-cell research, as has his wife, Nancy."

This is complete nonsense. Reagan was definitively a social conservative. The "moderates" he appointed to the Supreme Court include Antonin Scalia. Reagan also elevated "moderate" William Rehnquist to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

As far as never pushing a pro-life agenda, Reagan published Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation while he was president. Usually, presidents who do not push a pro-life agenda refrain from writing books in which they push a pro-life agenda.

Reagan did not consort with the Christian Right? Perhaps Rose is unaware of the fact that Reagan's famous "Evil Empire" speech was delivered in 1983 before the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Reagan, like George W. Bush, certainly would have supported some stem cell research. However, given his consistent pro-life views, it is unlikely that Reagan would have supported EMBRYONIC stem cell research. In any case, Rose, who, out of either ignorance and/or dishonesty, has distorted Reagan's record on abortion and other issues, should not be considered an authority on Reagan's views concerning stem cell research.

"Reagan, had he been running for Kansas governor with his own agenda, would never have received the blessing of the KRA and, thus, would have been crushed in the Republican primary."

More nonsense. The KRA promotes "the solid conservative economic and social principles championed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush." Rose suggests that Reagan embraced only conservative economic principles and eschewed conservative social principles. Therefore, the KRA would have rejected his candidacy. If this were the case, social conservatives certainly would have rejected Reagan's candidacy for president. However, we know that social and religious conservatives actively worked to get Reagan elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, one of the principal bugaboos of Rev. Robert Meneilly and the Mainstream Collection, reflected on his excitement concerning Reagan's 1980 campagin in a column after Reagan died in 2004. In addition, after Reagan died, one of the leading social conservatives in Kansas asked me to place an ad in one of my publications to honor the former president.

Clearly, social conservatives in Kansas accepted Reagan as one of their own. It is ridiculous of Rose to suggest they would have rejected him as their candidate for governor.

"If the Kansas Republican Party wants to return to power in Kansas, it needs to embrace the Reagan approach, not just mouth it and then do the opposite."

Return to power? The GOP has lost some elections, but it remains the dominant party in Kansas. In fact, the Kansas GOP remains far more powerful in 2007 than it was just 15 years ago. See "Rothschild's castrated sheep."

"The Kansas Republican Party and the Kansas Republican Assembly need to look in the mirror for the answer as to why they are losing everywhere in Kansas, and why Republicans are being driven into the welcoming arms of Democrats."

The reelection of Sebelius, Boyda's victory over Jim Ryun (who replaced a Democrat), and Morrison's switch to the GOP and subsequent victory over Phill Kline does not constitute losing "everywhere." Sebelius cannot run in 2010 and the GOP has a deeper bench of potential gubernatorial candidates, Boyda is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the U.S. House, and Morrison's victory was more of a propaganda victory than a philosophical one. If those in the Kansas media, including the dishonest Steve Rose, had told the truth about Phill Kline's actions as attorney general, it is likely Morrison would still be in Johnson County today.

Rose's mischaractizations concerning Reagan and the Kansas GOP can be proven false by anyone with an Internet connection and a few minutes. Are he and his fellow liberals in the media so arrogant that they believe they can publish lies and no one will question those lies?