It has to do with the Kansas Democratic Party. There is this mistaken perception that they remain the small minority because there is a shortage of good candidates.
I’m here to tell you this simply isn’t true. I should know, I was a candidate two years ago and I met or observed the majority of every person running for state office in Johnson County (okay, I'll accept that Kevin Yoder went unopposed two years ago, even after his nude escapade in the Sea of Galilee...but not this year; check out Kelly Kultala).
Tell you what. I will simply use, as examples, a handful of legislative races that were just within driving distance of my house and do some comparative analyses. By the time we finish, it is my hope that this myth can be put to rest so that we may focus on blaming the real party responsible for Kansas’ sorry national reputation: Republican voters in this state who repeatedly refuse to vote in the primaries and who simply don’t appear to care about a single factor other than the letter next to a candidate’s name.
I had a saying after the election: Jeffrey Dahmer would have triumphed in most Kansas districts as long as he had an “R” next to his name. Those of you who are yelling at the computer “hell yes” need to contact a therapist. Seriously, you’d vote for a serial killer over someone who has perceived differing political beliefs? No wonder the Kansas House was filled with members who passed a bill that has left us the laughing stock of the country.
Who exactly were some of these “weak” Democratic candidates from the 2012 election?
In Leawood’s 28th District, Kelly Jackson was part of a strong Democratic female contingency that chose to run for office out of concern over continued cuts to education. Kelly, the (then) 51 year old wife of a cardiologist and mother of three, has an undergrad degree from Georgetown University and a Law Degree from The University of Iowa. She is a practicing attorney and mediator and had earned her way through college by serving in the United States Army as the commanding officer of a bomb squad. Kelly also happens to be extremely articulate and engaging, with bright blue eyes and a beautiful smile. And yes, charisma is part of being a strong candidate. Look at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Kelly’s opponent was Jerry Lunn. During the time they ran against each other and even as of this writing there is nowhere online where this interested voter has been able to find out if Jerry even graduated high school. No education background is listed, anywhere. In addition, his website pads a vague resume as founder of Brush Creek Partners, ”a management consulting firm primarily involved in economic/community development”. Check out the company website and all you’ll find is a list of internet links because the site isn't active. His Representative Facebook page has a whopping 53 “likes”, even after almost two full sessions in office. There hasn’t been a single entry posted that details house bills since he was sworn in. The rest of his postings are fluff (I've included the link - see for yourself).
Representative Lunn voted “yes” on Kansas HB 2453, now affectionately known to some as the Kansas Jim Crow law for gays. He’s yet to make a public statement on the vote, but did attach his name with others (including the bill’s sponsor) to the following statement in the official house record: “Mr. Speaker: One of the founding principles of our country, inscribed in the First Amendment, is the right of the people to be led by their conscience and follow their own deeply held religious convictions without fear of penalty or reprisal. Because of that, I vote YES on HB 2453. “
Democrat Pete Henderson gave up retirement to run for State Representative in the 39th District also out of concern for public education funding (there was a theme among the Democrats who ran two years ago; they care deeply about educating our children). Pete has a Bachelor’s Degree in Education and a Masters in guidance counseling. Pete taught American History, was a school guidance counselor and then finished out his career in the private sector as an insurance salesman.
His opponent, Willie Dove, had run for the District 1 Board of Education in 2010. During that campaign, Mr. Dove was quoted as saying he supports teaching alternatives to evolution, but didn’t clarify if he supports teaching alternatives like creationism as part of the science curriculum. “It’s a very hot potato right now, and for me to have a real definite answer, I would have to go back and look at some information” he said during an interview.
Dove lost that race, but, not to be deterred, he set his sights on the Kansas Legislature where he was promptly elected in 2012. Willie apparently graduated from high school in North Carolina and served in the Army at some point, according to a candidate report from 2010, but that is the extent of information available with regard to his educational and professional history. His campaign website lists his qualifications as being an independent insurance salesman and volunteering at his Baptist Church.
I mention Mr. Dove because he was an ardent defender of HB 2453. According to the Kansas City Star, “Willie Dove, R-Bonner Springs, said religious freedom was in ‘jeopardy’ and compared the situation to racial discrimination.” In case you weren’t paying attention, read that last sentence again.
In addition, Mr. Dove made headlines this week as the number one proponent of HB 2621, which seeks to nullify large portions of the state’s Common Core education standards. When asked his stance on the bill, he responded “I haven't seen the actual content of the Common Core. However, I do not believe it is within the scope of our federal government to put something together when it comes to education.”
Read that again please. Maybe three times so you get the full impact. Representative Dove is the primary opponent of a set of standards that he has never even read. Folks across the state have expressed concern over many aspects of Common Core; others support the standards. I’m not sure if Representative Dove didn’t read the standards before speaking out against them publicly because he is illiterate, lazy, or simply doing what he’s been told.
My own campaign for the Kansas House of Representatives 39th District, I will freely admit, was an unequivocal blowout. I had been told to expect this based upon voting demographics in the district (one of the most conservative in the county), but knowing this didn’t lesson the sting. There were many frustrations, one of the greatest being that the local Chamber of Commerce typically hosts candidate debates. When I asked them why they hadn’t contacted me with a date I was told they had decided not to waste the time or money because my opponent had already made it clear he wouldn’t publicly debate.
I didn't consider myself a weak candidate, even though I had quit working full time six years prior to running because my husband was travelling and the kids were very little. I earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Kansas and spent over 15 years working in Johnson County as a juvenile probation officer. This meant I had worked with Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, educators, social service agencies, employers and community service providers. I also worked closely with the Johnson County Library and was a Girls on the Run coach. The largest paper in the area, the Kansas City Star, published an article highlighting local candidates and the writer described my background in five short words as “a stay at home mom.”
Mr. Macheers has a law degree from the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law. He describes himself as a small business owner. The business is a single attorney law firm, single being Mr. Macheers himself. He specializes in estate planning. Mr. Macheers’ campaign website calls him a "patriot".
Representative Macheers introduced and sponsored HB 2453, the bill which will now forever be paired with the headline “What’s Really the Matter With Kansas?” A quiet and easily forgettable individual (my impression), Mr. Macheers made himself an overnight sensation by sponsoring such a blatantly unconstitutional bill. I wonder if his professors are proud. In the spirit of his peer, Representative Dove, Macheers now says he didn’t really read the bill and simply took it from Representative Lance Kinzer, Lenexa. Kinzer has distanced himself from the legislation, go figure.
I was going to link Representative Macheers' Facebook page to show evidence of the outpouring of public anger over the bill but, alas, it is no longer available. Fortunately, having learned the hard way during our race, I took multiple screen shots of the comments, many of which expressed outrage that he was deleting their comments.
The above races are child's play compared to the following, which was clearly the most imbalanced race I witnessed in 2012. The contest occurred in the district right next to mine, the 17th.
One term incumbent Brett Hildabrand was challenged by retired ex-Mayor of Lake Quivira Larry Meeker. Meeker had a rough start; the Office of Secretary of State Kris Kobach (of the anti-immigration/anti-voter history, you remember him) had somehow lost his registration papers, meaning Meeker had to run as an Independent instead of a Democrat. There were debates over whether or not this would be beneficial, but in the long run most of us figured that Larry’s gifted knowledge and credentials would mean the party affiliation wouldn’t matter. In the end, we discovered even Einstein couldn’t have beat Moe and Curly if he didn’t have an “R” next to his name. The comparison isn’t far off.
Meeker was one of the strongest and most qualified candidates on any ticket, Democratic or Republican. His education background includes a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, an MBA, and a Doctorate in Business Administration from the University of Kansas. Not impressed with degrees? How about the fact that he is a retired Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, a facilitator and adjunct professor at the New Mexico Economic Development Course (one of 19 such courses in the U.S. sanctioned by the International Economic Development Council), and the former Mayor of Lake Quivira, KS. He’s also an avid supporter of the arts. And charismatic. Apparently, a PhD in economics just makes you an elitist and not bright enough to handle the Kansas House of Representatives. After all, the last two sessions have taught us nothing if not that the state budget is simply an after thought to abortion, guns, gays, religion and teachers.
Candidate Meeker was defeated by Representative Hildabrand by roughly ten percentage points. Larry shared a story with me shortly after the election, one that I hope he will still be comfortable with me repeating. It explains a great deal when looking at the incompetence and weakness of many of the elected representatives in Topeka. He had been canvassing and came to the home of a fellow businessman. After talking, the man said he acknowledged Meeker’s unquestionable intelligence and qualifications; he also understood that Hildabrand was an extremely weak candidate and a party dominionist. The man said he’d be voting for Hildabrand regardless. When Meeker, incredulous, asked “how can you vote for someone like this?” the voter responded by saying that’s exactly who he wanted; Republicans who will keep their mouths shut and vote exactly as they are told.
Hildabrand openly supported HB 2453 and his official web page reads like a Tea Party handbook, listing personal liberties, gun ownership and abortion as three of his top four most important issues. Hildabrand, who moved to his Shawnee apartment from another district in order to be able to run in the 17th District in 2012 (many folks were just a little curious as to whether or not he had any help with the move, but I digress), is single and has no children (he served in a separate district from 2010-2012; the 17th was newly created after the Kansas legislature attempted to gerrymander Kansas districts, resulting in federal intervention). He has a bachelor’s degree in Animal Science from Kansas State University and works for a freight company.
After the firestorm last week over HB 2453, Representative Hildabrand sent out a newsletter in which he continued to support the bill. ‘Gotta give him credit for doubling down on a bill that received thousands of signatures in opposition and state/national outrage from voters.
Hildabrand is similar to many of the extreme Representatives in Topeka: he believes that because he was elected the citizens of Kansas have given him carte blanche permission to insert his religious beliefs into Kansas legislation and that they have given them carte blanche to ignore the state budget while attacking every social issue known to man.
A few years ago, Representative Hildabrand wrote this: "A democracy is rule by majority, or more specifically "Tyranny by Majority." The law is whatever 50.1% of the population declares to be the law at a given moment. There is no inherent value in the rights of the individual if the individual happens to hold a minority view." Now you know why our Representatives are sponsoring the bills they are presenting. In one very short, concise, statement.
I’ve just listed four Democratic candidates with strong resumes. Their opponents were weak and short on substance. This was just four races, off the top of my head, within driving distance of my home.
Think the Kansas Democratic Party doesn’t have strong and qualified candidates? Think again and next time read the bios. Even better, read the bios, the issue stances and then call each candidate.
Call Representative Dove and ask him to explain Common Core…or share his thoughts on science and evolution (yes, THAT again).
Call Representative Lunn and ask him to explain his business…or his educational background.
Call Representative Macheers and ask him how, in God’s name, he passed a single constitutional law class while attending the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law. While you are at it, maybe ask him if he's planning on making his facebook page or twitter account accessible to constituents at any time in the near future.
Call Representative Hildabrand and ask him to continue defending HB 2453. While you are at it, ask him why he believes he doesn't have to represent any minority opinions in his district.
Then share the experiences with the rest of your friends and neighbors. And maybe with John Stewart. He'd have a ball with this crew.
As for the rest of the country, please don’t assume that Kansas Democrats aren’t working like hell to bring a little pragmatism and common sense back to our Statehouse. Many of us have stepped up, sacrificed, and paid the price in our efforts to reach out to uninterested local voters. It’s time for Kansas citizens across the board to put in a little more effort during this next election and, at a minimum, take a few moments to look past the letter next to a name and at least find out if what you think you fear is reality.
Speaking of reality...it's been thrown in your faces since this session began. Just don't forget that we all have choices, regardless of what we've been told. Larry Meeker, among others, proved that.
So, I guess the choice is an "anti-gay" bill or the "anti-religion" status quo. I opposed this bill because the language wasn't sufficiently precise for me. The problem is that we have a First Amendment in which the first item mentioned is the two clause statement about religion. There should be no state established religion and equally there shall be no law which impedes one's free exercise of his religion.
ReplyDeleteSo, we have conflicting rights. One is the right of everyone to be served by public facilities and the other is the legal protection from action of the state which stops me from worshipping as I see fit or compels me to do something at odds with the principles of my faith.
The Federal government through its legislation and courts has seen fit to enact and uphold legislation which compels persons to violate their religion. I hold that religion has a slightly superior order because it is mentioned in the Constitution very specifically. The only other places personal characteristics are mentioned is in the XV and XIX amendments. In the 19th where sex is mentioned it is only in the context of the right to vote.
My solution to this problem is NO legislation on the subject at either the Federal or State level and let anyone who feels that someone's assertion of that person's individual right has infringed on his conflicting right sue in court - let the issue be decided with the proviso as it was intended at the writing of the Constitution that such a court decision apply only to those litigants then at the bar.