Leubsdorf lies again

In my November 29 item, I noted that Carl Leubsdorf of the Dallas Daily News claimed that prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "Republicans were using opposition to civil rights to woo the South from its century-long Democratic home." I responded that, contrary to Leubsdorf's claim, it was the GOP that overwhelmingly supported civil rights acts while a large percentage of Democrats opposed those acts.

Today, in a tribute to his "regular correspondents" (if one e-mail makes one a "regular correspondent," Mr. Leubsdorf must not receive much correspondence), Leubsdorf writes, "[Groenhagen] was correct that Republican support was essential in passing those bills. But my basic point about Southern Republicans also was correct, since in 1964, such prominent Republicans as Barry Goldwater and Texas Senate candidate George H.W. Bush attracted Southern votes by denouncing that bill."

Notice the switch there? In his original column, Leubsdorf did use the words "Southern" and "Republicans," but he did not use the words together, i.e., "Southern Republicans." His original "basic point" smeared the GOP in general.

In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrat senators voted against the act. The act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.

In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among House Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Mr. Leubsdorf's most recent column only adds further evidence to my contention that he is a dishonest man.

Carl Leubsdorf rewrites civil rights history

In today's Lawrence Journal-World, Carl Leubsdorf of the Dallas Daily News claims that prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "Republicans were using opposition to civil rights to woo the South from its century-long Democratic home." In doing so, Leubsdorf suggests that it was the Democrat Party that helped Lyndon Johnson pass that bill, while the GOP opposed the bill. That was not the case.

In the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrat senators voted against the act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), and Al Gore, Sr. (which exposes the lie that southern Democrats switched to the GOP after the passage of the Civil Rights Act). The act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.

In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among House Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Republicans also showed a high level of support for LBJ's nomination of Thurgood Marshall as the first black Supreme Court justice in 1967. A large percentage of Senate Democrats either voted against the nomination of Marshall or did not vote at all.

Leubsdorf either deliberately lied in his column or he is woefully ignorant of the facts. In either case, the column should not have been published.

World Company creates "void" in Eudora

During the 1990s, I worked for TeleGraphics, Inc., which published the Baldwin Ledger and the Lawrence Business Ledger. In 1995, we moved the main office for the company from Baldwin City, Kan., to Lawrence. However, we maintained an office in Baldwin City for the Baldwin Ledger.

During the latter part of the decade, The World Company, the parent company of the Lawrence Journal-World, began buying weekly newspapers in the area. They approached the owners of the Baldwin Ledger about buying that newspaper during the summer of 1998. Since the owners had already committed to selling the newspaper to their general manager, they declined The World Company's offer. Undeterred, The World Company started the Baldwin City Signal in March 1999. According to a Jeff Myrick article in the Lawrence Journal-World, "Baldwin City once again has a newspaper that the community can call its own." Of course, that statement ignored the fact that the Baldwin Ledger had been the community's newspaper since 1883.

Dan Simons of The World Company also suggested that there was no other newspaper in Baldwin City. In the first issue of the Baldwin Signal, Simons was quoted as saying the Signal would fill the void that was created when the Ledger left town. Of course, the Ledger never left town. As noted above, the Ledger had an office in Baldwin, reporters continued to cover politics and sports in Baldwin, and I continued to sell advertising in Baldwin.

Given that Simons apparently believed that a void was created in Baldwin after TeleGraphics moved its main office to Lawrence, The World Company's latest move in Eudora a bit puzzling. According to the web site of the Eudora News, a World Company newspaper, "The Eudora News will be closing its Eudora office Nov. 14 and moving its newsroom operations to The World Company’s news center in Lawrence."

Has The World Company created a void in Eudora? Does the company plan to create similar voids in Baldwin City, Tonganoxie, and other communities in the future?

No Room for Ronnie?

Next Thursday is the fourth anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's death. I recently discovered that the Newseum web site includes an archive containing the front pages of many daily newspapers. The site's archive list includes historical dates during the past few years. One of those dates was Reagan's death on June 6, 2004. Interestingly, the vast majority of daily newspapers in the country devoted most or all of their front pages to that story the day after Reagan died. In our area, both the Wichita Eagle and the Kansas City Star were amongst the newspapers to honor Reagan with their entire front pages. The Lawrence Journal-World, however, included just a thumbnail photo of Reagan and about three column inches of copy on its front page.

The Journal-World also included a story on Roy Creek, a local resident who had parachuted into Normandy on D-Day, which occurred 60 years earlier on June 6. This story certainly warranted front-page placement. However, it seems that the huge AP file photo, the AP story on drought "menacing western half of Kansas" (Lawrence is in the eastern half of Kansas), and the article on a visit to France could have been moved to the inside pages to allow more coverage of Reagan on the front page.

Of course, if you're a liberal editor working for a liberal newspaper, not giving Reagan, the man who ended the Cold War, adequate coverage on the front page might be the natural thing to do.

The Capital-Journal pulls a "Journal-World"

As noted earlier on this blog, the Lawrence Journal-World has no problem with publishing letters to the editor from liberals who make claims that cannot be substantiated. Now the Topeka Capital-Journal has pulled a Journal-World.

In its April 25 issue, the Capital-Journal published a letter from Warren Allen of Topeka. According to Allen, "And Bush's clone, McCain, said he wants to continue the killing in Iraq for 100 years. Why would a presidential candidate say such a ridiculous thing?"

Allen has repeated the same lie that Barack Obama has repeated time after time, even after being reprimanded by a few in the media, including Zachary Roth with the liberal Columbia Journalism Review.

Here is what McCain actually said:

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day

The purpose of letters to the editor is to allow readers an opportunity to express their opinions. However, those opinions should be based on facts, not falsehoods that can be exposed with a quick search on the Internet.

Dishonest letters to the editors find forum at Journal-World

Back when the Journal-World used to publish my letters to the editor (Ralph Gage threw a hissy fit over my scrutiny of his newspaper's reporting, so the J-W no longer accepts my letters), I was often asked to provide sources. However, during the last few months I have noticed letters that are published (from liberals, of course) for which there are no sources or no credible sources. A case in point is a letter today by Julie Matchett.

Matchett's first claim is that President George W. Bush said, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper.” According to Matchett, "These remarks were leaked to the press by three GOP politicos in attendance, who didn’t want to be identified."

The only source for the Bush quote is a December 5, 2005 article written by Doug Thompson on a web site called Capitol Hill Blue. Wonkette characterizes Capitol Hill Blue as "the political rag that also functions as a tin foil hat." Another Thompson story seems to confirm that characterization. FactCheck.org goes even further in casting doubt on Thompson's article.

Matchett also claimed the following: "Barbara Bush, on 'Good Morning America,' March 18, 2003, while defending her son’s administration’s censorship of images of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, said, 'Why should we hear about body bags and death … or, I mean, it’s not relevant, so why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?'"

Of course, on March 18, 2003, there were no flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq since the invasion of Iraq had not yet started. Matchett implies that Barbara Bush was reacting to past events when instead she was being asked to speculate about possible future events. Snopes.com, which analyzes urban legends, put Bush's comment into proper perspective nearly three years ago. Nevertheless, the J-W decided this letter was fit to print.

Lying Lenny

In the January 24 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World, Leonard Pitts Jr. writes the following: "It is, however, true that blacks tended to vote Republican for much of the last century, the simple reason being that the GOP was 'the party of Lincoln.' But as Lincoln receded in history, the GOP stranglehold on the black vote was broken by Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and by the GOP’s stubborn silence on civil rights."

This is a blatant lie.

The effort to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the U.S. Senate was led by Everett Dirksen, a Republican (and my fellow Frisian) from Illinois. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that just 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). Democrats, including Gore, Heflin, Byrd (a former Klansman), and Hollings, led a filibuster against the act.

In the House, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act. Among the GOP, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Eighty-two percent of House Republicans backed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the Senate, 94 percent of the Republicans backed it. Seventeen southern Democrats in the Senate voted against the act, including William Fulbright, Bill Clinton's mentor.

A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in the Senate also voted to confirm Thurgood Marshall's (who died 14 years ago today) nomination to the Supreme Court. Thirty-five Democrats voted for confirmation, while 32 Republicans voted for confirmation. Ten Democrats voted against confirmation, while Strom Thurmond was the lone Republican to vote against confirmation. There were 64 Democrats in the Senate at the time and just 36 Republicans. In other words, nearly half of the Democrats did not vote for Marshall's confirmation (a large number did not vote at all).

As you can see, the GOP was not silent on civil rights. In fact, without them, LBJ would not have had a Civil Rights Act to sign into law or the first African-American Supreme Court justice.

If Pitts had any integrity, he would apologize to his readers.

Never Heard of Code Pink?

Been writing a book the last few months, so I haven't had time to post.

There were many items that could have been posted here since September, but I didn't make note of them. However, one did stay in my memory.

Last September, Journal-World Editorial Page Editor Ann Gardner visited Washington, D.C., and had the opportunity to visit Capitol Hill when Gen. Petraeus testified. In a column she wrote after the visit, Gardner noted, "At the head of the line were women from 'Code Pink,' an anti-war group that was new to me but not to the Washington press corps."

Actually, anyone who has followed the news closely during the past few years would know about Code Pink. In fact, anyone who has read the Journal-World op-ed pages should know about Code Pink. Just a few months prior to Gardner's visit to Washington, Cal Thomas wrote about the group in his column.

Shouldn't an editorial page editor read her own newspaper's op-ed pages?

"New Yorker" misrepresents New Yorkers

Less than a week after the sixth anniverary of 9/11, the Lawrence Journal-World allowed Elizabeth Black to express her views on the six years that have passed since that tragic day.

Black's piece, entitled "Many hearts still bear painful memories of 9/11," started out with her experience as a "New Yorker" on 9/11. It quickly degenerated into an anti-George W. Bush screed devoid of facts or reason. Unfortunately, this type of opinion piece has become increasingly common in the Journal-World.

Black, who was born in southwest Kansas, apparently believes her one summer in New York City makes her a New Yorker. And, as a "New Yorker," Black feels free to attack us yokels in Kansas and the rest of the Midwest, which Black labels a "Sea of Stupidity."

"The pain of that day is never more than a nanosecond away from every New Yorker," Black writes. "The rest of the country doesn’t really understand it. I’m sorry to say that, but it’s true. If the rest of the country understood how New Yorkers, and to a lesser extent Washingtonians, felt, they would never have allowed six years of nonsense to pass. They would never have re-elected a president who, when he couldn’t find Osama, lost interest and turned to go after someone easier to hit."

Black continued:

"For the most part, New York has given up on Middle America. As well they should. When the 2004 election results were tallied, a sea of solid red covered the vast middle of the country. The vote was a resounding affirmation for the Texas team that brought us the trillion-dollar invasion of Iraq, even after the facts were known — no WMD, no al-Qaida connection."

According to Black's interpretation of the 2004 presidential election, we voters in the Midwest were too unintelligent to recognize the nonsense peddled by Bush and Cheney. If we had, we, like New Yorkers, would have voted for John Kerry and the nation would have been spared four additional years of the corrupt team from Texas.

It's a nice narrative for the liberals at the Journal-World and their far-left readers. However, Black's opinion is contradicted by the facts.

In 2000, before 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush received 35 perccent of the vote in the state of New York, while Al Gore received 60 percent and Ralph Nader received 4 percent. If Black is correct about New Yorkers, then Bush's percentage of the vote in New York should have dropped in the 2004 election. However, Bush received 40 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 58.4 percent of the vote. In other words, Bush picked up 5 percentage points in New York, while votes for the liberal candidate dropped by more than 5 percentage points.

Of course, Ms. Black might respond that she was referring to New York City and not the entire state of New York. According to the New York Sun, Bush received roughly 400,000 votes in New York City in 2000. However, in 2004, Bush received 543,000 votes in New York City, an increase of 35 percent. John Kerry received 9,000 fewer votes in New York City in 2004 than Al Gore received in 2000. Bush also won the New York City borough of Staten Island 57 percent to Kerry's 42 percent. Bush was the first GOP presidential candidate to win Staten Island since his father did so in 1992.

In Brooklyn, Bush's vote total grew from 96,000 in 2000 to 156,000 in 2004, an increase of 63 percent.

Now, let's look at Kansas. In 2000, Bush received 622,332 votes. In 2004, he received 736,456. This is an increase of just over 18 percent. That's an impressive improvement, but barely half the improvement Bush experienced in New York City. Using Black's ridiculous argument, it would be more accurate to say Kansas should have given up on New York City since so many more New Yorkers voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000.

(Another fact that Black apparently missed: A check of the votes of blue states in 2000 vs. 2004 shows that Vermont was the only blue state in which a higher percentage of voters voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 over 2000. )

Black also noted that we should have made changes after 9/11. "We should have refused to burn the bloody oil our enemies sell us," she wrote.

By "we," Black apparently meant you and me. In a May 14, 2007, column in the Journal-World, Black noted that she decided to relocate in Lawrence after receiving a parking ticket. Turns out the ticket was placed on her car's windshield. I'm pretty certain that car needs oil to get from place to place.

Perhaps some time in the future, Black will take on New Yorkers for sending Hillary Clinton back to the U.S. Senate in 2006. After all, Hillary voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In addition, her husband's administration:

- Left office in January 2001 claiming Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the U.S.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
- Said Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating, especially on weapons production.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
- Had eight years to get bin Laden and failed. In fact, after Clinton launched missiles at empty tents in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan in August 1998, he launched a preemptive strike on Saddam in December 1998 and an illegal war of choice (if, as liberals claim, wars without the UN's imprimatur are illegal) in Kosovo during the spring of 1999.
- And, if we are to believe bin Laden (and I believe we should, just as we should have taken Hitler seriously when he wrote Mein Kampf), it was the Clinton administration's policies vis-a-vis Iraq that ultimately gave us 9/11 and other "messages with no words."
http://web.archive.org/web/19990203201222/http://cnn.com/CNN/Programs/impact/9705/09/feature/transcript.ladin.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/04/embassy.bombings.02/

Which do you think is more likely? Black writing an opinion piece attacking New Yorkers for reelecting Hillary in 2006? Or Black voting for Hillary in 2008?

Rose peddled Reagan lie before

As noted in the previous item, Steve Rose, chairman of Sun Publiucations, micharacterized Ronald Reagan's record as a social conservative in a August 8 column.

Rose has done this before, this time in a February 22, 2007 column.

"[KRA leaders] claim they are 'Reagan Republicans,' who, in their delusional minds, was one of them."

As shown in the previous item, Reagan considered himself a social conservative and social conservatives in 1980 and 1984 campaigned hard for Reagan because he was one of them.

"Well, tens of millions of us were Reagan Republicans," Rose continued. "We voted for him both times he ran. And it was not because he was a right-wing ideologue. It was because he was a true conservative, but he also was flexible and tolerant. His Supreme Court appointments say it all. He picked Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, two moderates. A third appointment, William Rehnquist, was a mild conservative. Only Antonin Scalia was a true-blue social conservative. The KRA would have a coronary if those appointments were made today."

First, Rehnquist was appointed by President Richard Nixon, not Reagan. Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice. Second, Rose's claim that Rehnquist was merely a "mild conservative" is laughable. Check out the articles after Rehnquist died and try to find one in which he was described as a "mild conservative." Third, Rose has apparently forgotten that the conservative Robert Bork, and not Anthony Kennedy, was Reagan's first choice, after Associate Justice Lewis Powell retired. In fact, Kennedy was Reagan's third choice in a highly partisan atmosphere. O'Connor was a mixed bag. She took some moderate positions. However, upon her retirement, the Christian Science Monitor noted, "On the conservative side, her vote has been critical to the conservative wing's federalism revival."

More from Rose:

"Ronald Reagan talked a good game about social values, but his real priorities were lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union. That’s why moderates could embrace him, and that’s why Ronald Reagan unified not only his party, but brought millions of Democrats into the fold."

What Rose fails to understand is that "lowering taxes, shrinking government, and bringing down the Soviet Union" were (and are) priorities that had (and have) moral components. For example, the Soviet Empire had to be bring down because Reagan believed it was an "Evil Empire." Rose also fails to understand that evangelical Democrats embraced Reagan in 1980 and 1984 because they believed Carter let them down on, among other things, the abortion issue.

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?

Scott Rothschild: A Reporter in Conflict?

“Journalists cannot drop professional affiliation when it is convenient for them or for their cause. People who wish to work on behalf of a particular cause should work in public relations or advocacy groups, not for the news media. Journalists should confine their public voices to their own professional arena.” - Deni Elliott, executive director of the Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College, FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 1, no. 6 (September 1989)

After several years of reading articles written by Scott Rothschild, the Statehouse reporter for the Lawrence Journal-World, it appeared to me that he often approached stories with a liberal bias.

For example, consider this from a December 12, 2005 Rothschild article with the headline “Kansas leaning further to right”:

“Kansas is currently on a right-wing joyride.

“Name an idea that carries the right-wing label, and it’s getting serious play in Kansas.

“Constitutional ban on gay marriage — done.

“Science standards critical of evolution — done.

“Investigating abortion clinics — done.

“Obstacles to sex education — in the works.

“Politically untouchable ultra-conservative congressmen — ongoing.”

Keep in mind that Rothschild is not quoting anyone here. These are his words. By “ultra-conservative congressmen,” Rothschild was apparently referring to Republican Reps. Jim Ryun and Todd Tiahrt. However, look how Rothschild described Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in August 2006: “He is viewed as a moderate to conservative Democrat.”

Each year the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), “America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization,” ranks members of Congress and assigns each member a Liberal Quotient (LQ). ADA considers scores from 40-60 as “moderate” ratings. ADA has never assigned Moore a rating within that range.

Moore has been in the House since 1999. During that year, ADA declared Moore a “Liberal Hero” after the organization assigned him a perfect LQ of 100. Meanwhile, the overall average LQ for Democratic House members that year was 88.

During his eight years in the House, Moore has earned an average LQ of 85.0 percent. The average LQ for all House Democrats during the same eight years is 85.4 percent. Rounded to the nearest percentage point, there’s no difference between Moore and the average Democrat.

ADA’s ratings for Moore are in line with ratings he has received from other interest groups. According to Project Vote Smart, he received a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood in 1999, 2001 and 2006, a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2003, 2004 and 2005, an F from the National Rifle Association in 2000, 2002 and 2004, and a 100 percent from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2005. For ratings from other groups, please see Project Vote Smart.

In Rothschild’s world, mainstream conservative Jim Ryun is an “ultra-conservative,” while Dennis Moore, clearly a liberal, is a “moderate to conservative Democrat.”

Another example of Rothschild’s liberal bias can be found in an August 12, 2006 article with the headline “Opponent questions Ryun’s energy mailing.”

According to the article, Nancy Boyda, the Democrat challenger to Rep. Jim Ryun, took issue with Ryun sending a “mass mailout at taxpayer expense.” The mailout concerned energy issues.

“It’s just wrong that he uses taxpayer money for a political campaign,” said Boyda “It’s just a political piece.”

“The card also was sent right before the deadline that prohibits the use of franking for mailouts in the 90 days before an election,” noted reporter Scott Rothschild.

Rothschild made no mention of Rep. Dennis Moore, the Democrat representing the Kansas 3rd (which includes more of Lawrence than the Kansas 2nd), doing a similar mailout “right before the deadline.” That mailout also concerned energy issues. The Kansas Meadowlark has posted Moore's postcard at http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/ (see August 6 item.)

Boyda can be expected to criticize Ryun's franking while conveniently ignoring Moore's franking. However, an objective newspaper reporter would have taken the effort to look into the franking privileges of both incumbents. Rothschild did not.

I mentioned Rothschild’s bias to another media watcher a few months ago, and he replied, “Well, you know he was president of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka (UUFT). That should tell you something about his politics.”

At the suggestion of the other media watcher, I used the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org and found that Rothschild had indeed served as president of UUFT during 2005-2006.

According to the Unitarian Universalist Association’s (UUA) Web site, UUA represents “over 1,000 liberal congregations in North America.” UUFT’s Web site notes that it is “A spiritual home and a beacon of liberal religious expression”

According to the Wikipedia entry on the Unitarian Universalism, “Historically, Unitarian Universalists have often been active in political causes, notably the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the social justice movement, and the feminist movement.”

In fact, given that Unitarian Universalism lacks a formal creed, one could say that it is at least as much of a political organization as it is a religious one. According to UUA’s Web site, “Unitarian Universalists believe personal experience, conscience and reason should be how a person determines his or her religion, not in any book, person or institution.”

In a 2001 survey, Unitarian Universalists in the United States were asked which provided term or set of terms best describe their beliefs. Many respondents chose more than one term to describe these beliefs. The top choices were:

Humanist - 54%
Agnostic - 33%
Earth-centered - 31%
Atheist - 18%
Buddhist - 16.5%
Christian - 13.1%
Pagan - 13.1%

Since Unitarian Universalists do not share a religion, this report is not intended to attack Rothschild’s religious affiliation. My objective is to show that his leadership position in a liberal organization that promotes certain political issues creates conflicts of interest when Rothschild reports on those very same issues.

Below I have outlined political issues for which the Unitarian Univeralists have been advocates. I then have provided links to Rothschild’s articles on those very same issues. I shared this report with Rothschild and Dennis Anderson, managing editor of the Journal-World, and asked them to let me know if there is anything in the report that is not accurate. Neither Rothschild nor Anderson responded.

Same-Sex Marriage

UUFT’s Web site notes that it is a “Welcoming Congregation.” Here's what the UUA says about the Welcoming Congregation Process:

“The Welcoming Congregation Program is a completely volunteer program for congregations that see a need to become more inclusive towards bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender people.”

According to the UUA’s Web site. “At the 1996 UUA General Assembly, delegates voted overwhelmingly to call for the legalization of same-sex marriage.”

The question regarding whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates same-sex marriage report on that issue?”

Below I have listed just a few of the many articles Rothschild has written on same-sex marriage:

“Legislator wants to stop domestic registry plan in Lawrence”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb/02/legislator_wants_stop_domestic_registry_plan_lawre/

“Kline says marriage ban will not be misconstrued”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/30/kline_says_marriage/

“Same-sex marriage foes set broader agenda”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/07/samesex_marriage_foes/

“Religion mixes with politics in marriage vote”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/apr/03/religion_mixes_with/

“Topeka vote enthuses gay rights groups”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/mar/03/topeka_vote_enthuses/

Abortion

UUA has gone to supporting abortion under four circumstances in 1963 to becoming unambiguously pro-abortion three decades later. In 1993, UUA called for the following:

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Unitarian Universalists in the United States be urged to promote passage of federal legislation to:
guarantee the fundamental right of individual choice in reproductive matters;
require that counseling agencies receiving federal funds provide information about pregnancy options, including abortions;
provide federal funds to make abortion available to women of low income and to women in the armed services;
ensure the provision of abortion services for all women within a national health program;
protect medical personnel who supply abortion services, and their families, from harassment and intimidation; and
guarantee unrestricted access to counseling and abortion services, regardless of age, class, race, or situation, without curtailing peaceful protest.”http://www.uua.org/programs/justice/sjsb/ab.pdf

Again, the question regarding whether or not abortion should be allowed is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates a pro-abortion position report on abortion?”

Below I have listed just a few of the many articles Rothschild has written that concerned abortion:

“Morrison will fire special prosecutor in abortion case”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/08/morrison_will_fire_special_prosecutor_abortion_cas/

“Sebelius criticizes Kline's actions in abortion probe”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/28/sebelius_criticizes_klines_actions_abortion_probe/

“Change of heart?”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec/07/change_heart/

“Ads refer to abortion without saying it”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/10/ads_refer_abortion_without_saying_it/

“Kline: Abortion clinics 'inquisition' based on allegations of crimes”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/mar/03/kline_abortion_clinics/

Iraq War

UUA’s Web site on February 11, 2007 noted that “hundreds of Unitarian Universalists converged on the U.S. capitol on January 27 for an anti-war rally and march organized by United for Peace and Justice[1] and supported by the Win Without War[2] coalition. UU participants joined an estimated five hundred thousand others, united in their opposition to the war in Iraq and their support for bringing our troops home.”

UUA has made it clear that it has opposed the Iraq War from the start. (See http://www.uua.org/news/iraq/).

Again, the question regarding whether or not the Iraq War should be supporting is for another forum. The question here is, “Should someone who has served as the president of an organization that advocates an anti-Iraq War position report on issues concerning the Iraq War?”

Below I have listed just a few of many the articles Rothschild has written concerning the Iraq War:

“Boyda criticized for vote on military funding”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb/10/boyda_criticized_vote_military_funding/

“Lawmakers disagree with troop increase”[3]
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/27/lawmakers_disagree_troop_increase/

“Stances on war in Iraq separate candidates”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/15/stances_war_iraq_separate_candidates/

“Jim Ryun in first Iraq visit sticks to commitment”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jul/04/jim_ryun_first_iraq_visit_sticks_commitment/

“Bush defends war in Iraq, eavesdropping”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/23/bush_defends_war_iraq_eavesdropping/

Death Penalty

UUA is opposed to the death penalty. http://www.uua.org/ga/ga00/231.html.

In the February 2006 issue of UUFT Beacon, UUFT’s newsletter, it was reported that UUFT’s Social Justice Committee would submit a resolution to the Fellowship that would declare its support for the abolition of the death penalty in the State of Kansas.

Here are a few Rothschild articles on the death penalty:

“Former inmate advocates against death penalty”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/31/former_inmate_advocates_against_death_penalty/

“Death penalty opponents offer bill to repeal Kansas law”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/30/death_penalty_opponents_offer_bill_repeal_kansas_l/

“Kline: Alito likely to be key in death penalty case”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/02/kline_alito_likely_be_key_death_penalty_case/

“Kansas Supreme Court strikes down death penalty”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/dec/17/kansas_supreme_court/

Living Wage

In 2002, Kaw Valley Living Wage Alliance (KVLWA)[4] received $3,500 from the Unitarian Universalist Association's Fund For A Just Society to push for a living-wage ordinance in Lawrence.
http://www.uua.org/uufp/annual_reports/2002fjs.html

On August 19, 2003, the Lawrence Journal-World published a pro-living wage “Take a Stand” column on the same day the living-wage ordinance was scheduled to be discussed during the City Commission meeting. The column was written by Graham Kreicker, past chair of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Lawrence.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/aug/19/living_wage_is/
http://www.uufl.net/LUF%20Contact%20Us.htm

On October 25, 2003, a statewide living-wage conference was held in Wichita. The conference featured Jen Kern, director of ACORN's Living Wage Resource Center in Boston. Kern has made at least three previous trips to Kansas to promote the living wage.
http://www.ksworkbeat.org/Action/living_wage/body_living_wage.htm

ACORN and UUA both belong to the Let Justice Roll living-wage campaign.
http://www.letjusticeroll.org/member.html

Rothschild, of course, has reported on living-wage proposes in Kansas, even though the Unitarian Universalists support the living wage nationally and advocated the support of the living wage locally.

“Ban proposed on living wage ordinances”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/feb/15/ban_proposed_on/

“Living-wage plan gets state scorn”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/jul/10/livingwage_plan_gets/

Education

Several years ago, Vicky Hendley, an education writer for the Vero Beach (FL) Press-Journal was fired after sending letters of protest to 160 Florida legislators. Hendley was protesting the Supreme Court's ruling in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.

Richard Wagner, managing editor of the Vero Beach Press-Journal, said Hendley stepped over the line of permissible activity when she became a news source. “It's very difficult to separate your profession from your political life when you grant interviews to other news organizations,” he said.
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/gallery/Ethics/freepol.html

In 2002 UUFT decided to make a political statement when the 128-member fellowship wrote a check to the local Topeka School Fund for $1,323, the amount it would have paid had its building been on the tax rolls.

The Topeka Capital-Journal published an article on the UUFT check and also an editorial in which the paper stated, “Members felt the payment in lieu of taxes was a way they could make a stand for education.”
http://cjonline.com/stories/090802/com_church.shtml
http://cjonline.com/stories/091602/opi_taxes.shtml

However, the Jan/Feb 2003 issue of UU World: The Magazine of the Unitarian Universalist Association had more information concerning how UUFT decided to make this stand:

“The decision wasn't a slam dunk, said member Scott Rothschild, who suggested the idea. ‘The social justice committee had a pretty thorough discussion about it. There was a lot of concern about separation of church and state and why we should help the schools when it was really up to the politicians. But in the end, people thought this was one year the funding situation was really bad so we should help out.’”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4071/is_200301/ai_n9180255

Did Rothschild cross the line when he allowed himself to be interviewed by another news organization? Did he cross the line when he went from reporting on what politicians do to making a statement concerning what he believes politicians should do? Wasn’t tying their contribution to the amount they would paid in taxes UUFT’s way of making a political statement? After all, a contribution of, say, $1,000 or $1,500 could have been made along with a statement that UUFT merely wanted to help schools. I don’t think anyone would have had a problem with that.

Naturally, Rothschild has done much reporting on public school funding in Kansas. Here are just a few articles:

“Education funding measures advance”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/24/education_funding_measures_advance/

“Moderates take aim at remaining conservatives on state education board”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug/18/moderates_take_aim_remaining_conservatives_state_e/

“Legislature approves school finance plan”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/10/legislature_approves_school_finance_plan/

“Sebelius wants $400 million for schools”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/sep/10/sebelius_wants_400/


The title of this report is “Scott Rothschild: A Reporter in Conflict?” I have concluded that Rothschild’s leadership position with UUFT has created far too many conflicts of interest concerning his concurrent position as a news reporter. The Unitarian Universalists have expressed their opinions on a wide range of issues, and that, of course, is their right. However, when a reporter who served as president of a Unitarian Universalist congregation reports on those very same issues, it is unlikely that conflicts of interest can be avoided.

These conflicts present at least two serious problems. First, readers of the Journal-World are not getting the objective reporting that the Journal-World promises to share with them. Second, when Rothschild openly participates in political activism and suffers no consequences, other Journal-World reporters have no disincentive from engaging in political activism themselves. If Rothschild can make a political statement concerning the state funding of education, why can’t another reporter participate in a pro-abortion rally? Why can’t a staff photographer sign a petition calling on U.S. troops to be removed from Iraq?[5]

This writer believes the Journal-World should reassign Rothschild to a position in which he can express his viewpoints in a legitimate way. Or, better yet, Rothschild might follow the example of Diane Silver. Silver, like Rothschild, was a statehouse reporter for the Wichita Eagle. She left that newspaper, became a political activist who has worked on gay rights, served as a press secretary for a Democratic candidate for governor, and now writes for a liberal blog. I have seen no evidence that she was engaging in political activism while she was a reporter. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about Rothschild.

[1] See www.unitedforpeace.org. Member organizations of this group include American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Code Pink, Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, International Socialist Organization, MoveOn, and Socialist Party USA.
[2] See www.winwithoutwarus.org. UUA is a member organization of Win Without War. See http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/coalition.html#members.
[3] Note: The headline of this article says “Lawmakers.” Just one lawmaker in the story, State Sen. Donald Betts, D-Wichita, said he opposes the troop increase.
[4] KVLWA is made up of several radical organizations, including the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW): The preamble to the IWW constitution states, “Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work,’ we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wage system.’ It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism.” If you support IWW's message, you can visit its online store and buy a T-shirt for $15.00, a bumper sticker for $1.50, or a bundle of five "Time for a 4-Hour Day, 4-Day Week with No Cut in Pay!" buttons for just $5.00.
[5] The February 2007 issue of The Lawrencian, "The independent monthly voice of Lawrence, Kansas," included a full-page ad from the Lawrence Coalition for Peace & Justice. The ad includes the statement, "We, the undersigned, call for the withdrawal of American armed forces from Iraq, to begin now and to be completed no later than July 1, 2007." The signatures included the name “Mike Yoder.” There is a Mike Yoder who works as a Journal-World staff photographer. E-mails to the Mike Yoder at the Journal-World asking if he signed the petition were unanswered.

Progress at the Lawrence Journal-World?

In a the second of two editorials in today's Journal-World, Rep. Dennis Moore is actually characterized as a "moderate or liberal." This is much more accurate than past articles that labelled Moore a "conservative."

There was a slight problem, though. According to editorial, "If there was any overriding message from the November elections, it was that voters wanted to see government run in a different, more cooperative, less contentious manner."

The editorial was about Kansas politics, and there really wasn't much a change in Topeka with last November's election.

There was a major change in Washington and, if the message of the November elections was want the Journal-World says it was, then the editorial would be better directed to Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate, who are currently being less than cooperative with President Bush.

Donald Betts is more than one lawmaker?

Liberal activist/Lawrence Journal-World reporter Scott Rothschild has a story in the January 27, 2007 issue of the J-W with this headline:

"Lawmakers disagree with troop increase"

The story is about Donald Betts, an ultraliberal state senator from Wichita, filing a resolution that would "put Kansas lawmakers on record as being opposed to Bush's call for 21,500 more troops to be sent to Iraq."

In addition to Betts, the article mentions just one other lawmaker, State Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence. However, Schmidt did not say that he disagrees with the troop increase.

Given this, the headline should have been "Lawmaker disagrees with troop increase."

UPDATE: Rothschild served as president of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Topeka as recently as 2005. He continues to be a leader with UUFT. The Unitarian Univeralist Association president, Rev. William Sinkford, on January 11 published an open letter in which he opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 more troops to Iraq. He also accused the president of betraying patriotic Americans.

This is yet another case in which Rothschild has reported on an issue that his organization has openly taken a stand on. Kansas Media Watch is currently compiling additional examples and will present a report to legislators in Topeka next month.

Rothschild's reporting presents a huge conflict of interest that calls the Journal-World's credibility into question.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

The Lawrence Journal-World on January 1 published an AP article with the headline "Going Green." The article was primarily about environmentalist Laurie David telling us how to save the world by, among other things, using compact fluorescent bulbs and pulling the plug on electronics and chargers.

David, the wife of Seinfeld's Larry David, has been known as a hypocrite on the environmental issue for at least two years now. Even the ultraliberal Eric Alterman dicussed this hypocrisy in a September 2004 Atlantic Monthly piece called "Gulfstream Liberals." It seems that Mrs. David dislikes flying on commercial airlines and prefers private jets. As the New York Times noted in August 2004, "Compared with the average Gulfstream jet, a Hummer H2 can seem downright fuel efficient."

David also has a Tudor mansion home in the Pacific Palisades. As someone with a carbon footprint larger than King Kong's footprint, David's advice to the rest of us is laughable. The Journal-World should have known better than to share this woman's hypocrisy with its readers.

Miracle of demagoguery

In a December 10 editorial entitled "Miracle of democracy," the Lawrence Journal-World praises actor Richard Dreyfuss, who, in a "recent appearance on HBO’s 'Real Time with Bill Maher'" (he actually appeared on the program on November 17, suggesting the author didn't actually watch the program), "decried what he called 'our partisan-addicted society.'”

According to the Journal-World, "Skills like reason, logic, clarity, dissent, civility and debate are essential tools of democracy, he said, and 'without them you can kiss this thing (democracy) goodbye.'”

Dreyfuss had a few others things to say on "Real Time," but those statements didn't find their way into the editorial. Here are just a few of them:

"And it’s one thing to say that Bush is a villain for getting us into a war, and it’s another thing when we realize that he couldn’t do anything without our eventual consent."

"And lying to the Congress about the reasons for war. And once the Republicans are placed in the position of having to endorse torture, you’ve got a bad problem on your hands."

"Even if we lose – if you lose an impeachment hearing, whoever 'we' are, then at least you have a body that says, 'We stand against these things.' And unless you do that, then you’re for them."

So Dreyfuss characterizes President Bush as a "villain," calls him a "liar," and calls on the Democrat-led Congress to begin the process of impeaching Bush, yet the Journal-World praises Dreyfuss for calling for civility and decrying our "partisan-addicted society."

Dreyfuss's message about teaching civics in our schools is a good one, but Dreyfuss is an extremely bad messenger. And it would be difficult to think of a more inappropriate forum than Bill Maher's.

Oldie: Conservatives slam door on moderate

While preparing my post on the Lawrence Journal-World's latest editorial on the Republican Rift, I was reminded of 1998 editorial that failed to report the facts accurately and thoroughly.

After the elections for the Douglas County GOP leadership that year, a Journal-World editorial reported the following:

"Tuesday's meeting at the Lawrence Holidome apparently was a disheartening display. The tone was set before the official meeting when favored conservative party members gathered in a separate meeting room and shut the door in the face of a moderate Republican who was seeking to chair the county party."

An earlier Tim Carpenter article reported the following:

"Prior to the reorganization meeting, conservative precinct representatives assembled in a Holidome meeting room for snacks and soft drinks. Watkins prevented [Craig] Templeton from entering the room."

A Carpenter article from the previous day quoted a moderate Republican who placed blame on the conservative leadership of the county GOP for Democrat Dennis Moore's victory over Republican Vince Snowbarger earlier that month. ""These people have not led," Johnston said. "You can't lose your congressman. The county chairman ... was sitting on his hands."

If you buy the Journal-World's version of events, the conservatives sat on their hands and allowed Vince Snowbarger to be defeated. They then displayed intolerance by not even allowing a moderate seeking the chairmanship of the party to enter a room.

Not surprisingly, the facts behind this story are quite different. Nowhere in the Carpenter articles or the editorial was it mentioned that Craig Templeton was elected to the board of directors of the newly-formed MAINstream Coaltion of Douglas County in May 1998. This is not a minor detail since the MAINstream Coalition's PAC, MAIN*PAC, mailed 67,000 postcards in OPPOSITION TO THE RE-ELECTION OF SNOWBARGER. In other words, Templeton, who had hopes of leading the Douglas County GOP, belonged to a group that worked to defeat the Republican congressman who represented the county.

Interestingly, former state Sen. Wint Winter Jr. was part of the moderate faction promoting Templeton's candidacy. Winter's brother, Dan, was on the MAINstream Coalition's board of directors. According to the Statement of Organization filed with the Federal Elections
Commission by the MAINstream Political Action Committee (PAC) on June 17, 1998,
the PAC’s bank was the Johnson County Bank of Overland Park, Kan. Coincidentally, Dan Winter was the president and CEO of Johnson County Bank.

Now, back to the door being shut in Templeton's face. Earlier that day yours truly informed the conservative faction of Templeton's membership in the MAINstream Coalition. At the time Templeton attempted to enter the room, the conservative precinct representatives were discussing Templeton's situation. It was, as John Watkins stated, a "private party."

The Journal-World reported on Templeton's membership in the MAINstream Coalition six months prior to the the reorganization election. Either they forgot about it or deliberately hid that fact in their November 1998 articles and editorial. In either case, the omission of that fact does not reflect well on the newspaper's reporting.

Journal-World's nonsensical spin on GOP rift

The Lawrence Journal-World's December 5 editorial had so many nonsensical comments in it that I have added extended commentary in red.

Republican rift
It’s unfortunate Republicans in the Kansas House passed over
Rep. Kenny Wilk for the speaker’s job.

"Monday’s leadership elections in the Kansas House seem to point to a continuation of the rift between conservative and moderate Republicans in the Legislature."

The editorial does not explain how electing a moderate Speaker would have pointed away from a continuation of the rift between conservative and moderate Republicans in the Legislature. For years now, the Journal-World has reported on the rift between conservatives and moderates. The Journal-World has reported on that rift regardless of whether conservatives were in charge or moderates were in charge. In August 1999, Journal-World reporter Chris Koger wrote that a meeting of Douglas County Republicans "apparently only increased tensions between conservatives and moderates."

At the time of that meeting, Mark Parkinson, who was in attendance, was the moderate chairman of the Kansas GOP. Parkinson switched parties this year and ran as Gov. Sebelius' running mate. The House speaker at the time was Republican Robin Jennison, another moderate.

"On the first ballot, Neufeld received 29 votes to Wilk’s 25 and O’Neal’s 24. After O’Neal was eliminated, most of his votes went to Neufeld, resulting in a 47-31 victory on the second ballot.
The choice of a solid conservative, Neufeld, over a solid moderate, Wilk, is a strong indication that conservatives still will be a dominant force in the Kansas House."

Republicans lost just five seats in the House in November. Does the Journal-World really believe that a handful of losses would make the conservatives less than a dominant force?

"It seems Wilk would have been in a much better position than Neufeld to work with moderate Republicans and Democrats in the House. That will be even more important this session given that Democrats gained five House seats in the recent elections."

The role of Speaker of the House should not be to "work with moderate Republicans and Democrats in the House." The goal should be to work to pass good legislation and to stop bad legislation. The Democrats did gain five seats, but, as noted in an earlier post, they still remain far weaker than they were just 14 years ago, when they actually had a majority in the Kansas House.

"Unfortunately, it seems the state has heard from Neufeld mostly when he was opposing some initiative or action."

And the country heard mostly from Abraham Lincoln when he was opposing slavery. Legislators should oppose poor legislation.

"He was among those who bottled up budget measures last year with a proposal to define cloning and ban state funding for it. He dug his heels in against the Kansas Supreme Court during the school finance debate. And he’s certainly no friend of higher education in the state, attacking university budgets and saying as recently as this fall that most Kansas workers don’t have a need for a college education."

The editorial failed to tell us why most workers in Kansas should have a college education. According to the Census Bureau, 28 percent of Kansas have a bachelor's degree or higher. Can the editorial writer explain why at least an additional 23 percent NEED a college education?

In any case, it appears the editorial writer misquoted Neufeld. In the September 17, 2006 issue of the Journal-World, reporter Scott Rothschild writes, "And, [Neufeld] said, changes in the workplace have in many instances placed less emphasis on a college education."

"'The economy does not have a demand that everyone have a fine arts degree. Employers care if someone has the specialized training to do the job,' Neufeld said."

There is a difference between "most" and "everyone." Saying that the "economy does not have a demand that everyone have a fine arts degree" is not tantamount to being an enemy of higher education. It's a statement of fact.

"Given that more moderate Republican leadership will remain in control of the Kansas Senate — President Steve Morris and Majority Leader Derek Schmidt — the election of Neufeld seems to ensure continued discord between the two chambers."

Apparently, it never occurred to the editorial writer that the Republicans in the Kansas Senate could choose a conservative majority leader in order to end the discord between the two chambers. After all, there are far more conservative Republicans in the House than there are moderate Republicans in the Senate. Why does the Journal-World believe the majority should capitulate to the minority?

"It also is likely to mean that moderate House Republicans will continue to look to House Democrats, rather than members of their own party, for support on key policy issues."

So if a moderate Speaker had been chosen, moderate House Republicans would have had no need to look to House Democrats for support on key policy issues? Where would they then look? There are not enough moderate Republicans in the House to pass anything on their own.

"It seems likely that if both Democrats and Republicans had voted on a House speaker, Wilk would have won. But that’s not how it works."

No, that's not how it works. Never has worked that way. So why share this hypothetical nonsense with your readers?

"Republicans hold the majority in the House and conservatives apparently still hold the majority in the Republican House delegation."

Well, of course they do. Although I should point out that Wilk’s and O’Neal’s votes totaled 49 to Neufeld's 29. On the second ballot, Neufeld picked up 18 of O'Neal's votes while Wilk picked up just six. If conservatives do not hold a majority in the Republican House delegation, then a large number of moderate Republicans thought Neufeld was the better choice to led them.

"There has been considerable talk since the November elections about the positive aspects of 'divided' government, referring to the Republican president and the newly Democratic Congress. If such divisions really do force more discussion and compromise and lead to better policy, then Kansas should be in for a banner year."

Speaking of the Democratic Congress in Washington, perhaps some day the Journal-World will editorialize on how Democrats in the U.S. House should have elected a moderate speaker over ultraliberal Nancy Pelosi even though liberals still hold a majority in the Democrat House delegation. After all, it seems a moderate would have been in a much better position than Pelosi to work with moderate Democrats and Republicans in the House.

Don't hold your breath waiting on that editorial.

Blue Dog Boyda?

In his November 24 column in the Topeka Metro News, Peter Hancock writes that "Kansas Rep.-elect Nancy Boyda hopes to join fellow Kansan Dennis Moore in the centrist-conservative caucus known as the 'Blue Dog Democrats.'"

"Boyda says there's an interview process that goes along with it," Hancock writes. "If it's fiscal conservatism they want, she might just get away with faxing over a copy of her expenditure report."

I have already dealt with the Myth of the Moderate Moore. I believe Boyda will be just as "moderate."

As far as Boyda's fiscal conservatism, as of October 18, her campaign had outstanding debts totaling $316,742.

Oh brother, Broder!

In today's Lawrence Journal-World, liberal columnist David Broder discusses Sen. Mitch McConnell and his new position as leader of the GOP senators:

"Ask Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to name his role models for his new responsibilities as the leader of Senate Republicans, and the answer is surprising. 'Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell,' he replied the other day. 'I know they’re both Democrats, but I admire the way they ran things here.'"

Broder then wrote the following:

"Mansfield allowed Everett McKinley Dirksen, his Republican counterpart, to claim most of the credit for the civil rights bills of the 1960s...."

Mansfield did not "allow" Dirksen to claim most of the credit. Dirksen rightfully earned that credit.

Mansfield was unable to prevent a 74-day filibuster led by members of his party when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was being debated. In the end, just 69 percent of Senate Democrats voted for the act. Eighty-two percent of Dirksen's Republicans voted for the act.

When the Voting Rights Act of 1965 came up for a vote, 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted for it, while 17 Democrats voted against it.

Dirksen gets most of the credit for the civil rights bills of the 1960s because his Republicans passed those bills over the opposition of a large percentage of Senate Democrats.