Ron Freeman, executive director of the Kansas GOP, recently outlined what Republicans learned from the November election.
He did it in a post on the Kansas GOP website.
We'll make it easy for you. Here's what he wrote:
1. Even in a good year for Democrats, the three top vote getters in Kansas were Republicans. (See Sandy Praeger, Lynn Jenkins and Ron Thornburgh).
2. Democrats have to run on Republican principles to win. (See M&E tax cut, Jessica's Law, and "balance the budget without a tax increase").
3. Thirteen million dollars (approximate amount spent by Democrats) can't buy a majority in the legislature.
What do you think?
Posted by Steve Kraske
I think he is just blowing smoke. Let's return to the days of Carlson, Dole, Graves and other reasonable Republicans.
Posted by: | December 18, 2006 at 03:40 PM
Lessons learned for Kansas GOP: none.
As usual.
Posted by: aka | December 18, 2006 at 04:19 PM
Lessons Learned: I wish we had thought of this earlier to drive all of the liberals back to the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Jim Atchison | December 18, 2006 at 05:02 PM
Of course, he got the job courtesy of his son snubbing Nebraska for K-State. Real classy, dad.
Posted by: | December 18, 2006 at 05:09 PM
The Republicans need to quit talking about policies that destroy our constitution. We do not need to punish anyone for Free Speech. They are hiding behind national security. It is a sham and they are operating under the radar. The Democrats need to be pressured now to tear into their legislation passed through in recent years and repeal much of it if not all. Free speech and Privacy is guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. It is plain to see that the corporations are in charge of the government. They don't want their secrets out any more than the politicians they control do.
Posted by: John Evans | December 18, 2006 at 05:24 PM
Ron Freeman's silly trick at a zoo to try and defame Paul Morrison is what's wrong with the Republican Party.
Kline was the incumbent, but you ran his campaign like he was the challenger. The Republicans should fire you and get someone qualified.
Posted by: Rick | December 18, 2006 at 05:25 PM
If I remember correctly, the last time Ron Freeman ran for office, it was in Missouri.
I guess "Tigers" don't really change their stripes. Could Freeman be a Missouri Democrat "mole" on a secret mission to destroy the Kansas Republican Party? Or does it only look that way?
Posted by: jmart | December 18, 2006 at 08:31 PM
This same Ron Freeman who couldn't win with his ideas in Missouri. In 1994 when the rest of the Republicans were winning with the "Contract for America" he was soundly defeated by Karen McCarthy. He was run out of Missouri but found a hero in Phil Kline. Sounds like he is making excuses again for Mr. Kline. Stay in Kansas Ron. Your ideas won't play any better there either.
Posted by: oldyeller | December 18, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Wasn't that a contract ON America???
Posted by: somewhere in the middle | December 18, 2006 at 11:57 PM
There's one lesson they certainly didn't learn: Don't come back and use your party power to put someone who has been overwhelmingly defeated for one office into another office of the same kind. Somehow how or another, people don't like that.
Posted by: Joe Barone | December 19, 2006 at 09:11 AM
Messages to electorate from the Kansas Republican Party:
1) A "true believer" never changes, reagardless of the outcome.
2) For Kansas Republicans, ideology is far more important than facts.
3) Direct message to the electorate is, "Screw you. We will do whatever we want."
BTW: Want to know how many of the ten items in the "Contract with America" the Republican majority ever debated? Zero. Number of promises in the "Contract With America" the Republican majority ever brought to a vote? Zero.
Final message from the Republicans to the U.S. electorate?
4) We will lie at every opportunity in order to get power. Our promises to you mean nothing (see "Contract with America").
Posted by: jack | December 19, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Blue Tide Rising offered commentary on the 9 lessons last week. Check it out.
http://bluetiderising.blogspot.com/2006/12/responding-to-kansas-gops-9-lessons.html
Posted by: KU Blue | December 19, 2006 at 11:02 AM
I must say I agree with the point that states that Democrats won by running on conservative values. This election wasn't a triumph of liberalism.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 19, 2006 at 12:50 PM
plattecohighschooler: it must be nice to live in fantasy land, cocksmoker.
Posted by: ddub | December 19, 2006 at 02:08 PM
Whatever, look at the facts. No democrat won by saying, "Hey everyone, vote for me because I'm for drug legalization, gun control, tax increases, and censoring of the media!!! Whoooooppppppeeeee!"
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 19, 2006 at 03:39 PM
Just as no Republican won by saying "Hey everyone, vote for me because I am for forced Christian prayer in schools, tax cuts for big-oil, constitutional discrimination against gays, and a return to the good old days of back-alley abortions."
Posted by: wellpaidscientist | December 19, 2006 at 03:48 PM
Also, legalization of drugs makes too much sense to be a plank of either majority party platform. The Libertarians are the party that promotes that agenda.
Posted by: wellpaidscientist | December 19, 2006 at 03:51 PM
Most Republican voters aren't for those things.
Instead of saying no prayer in schools, let the players on the football team pray how ever they want to, or not at all. Instead of taxing and regulating the hell out of the oil industry, set up tax deductions that reward clean companies and award those who are ethical with government contracts. Instead of letting gay marriage go unequal in all 50 states, lets come to a consensus as a country as to what we all should do. Instead of women killing the unborn, women could say no in the bedroom and have respect for themselves and their children.
That's what were for.
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 19, 2006 at 04:01 PM
"Instead of letting gay marriage go unequal in all 50 states, lets come to a consensus as a country as to what we all should do."
It's refreshing to see a "big government is bad" Republican admit that it's really OK to take away states-rights when that's the only way to force your your religious idealogy on the entire country. Thanks for the candor.
Also, the last time I checked, women aren't the only ones in the bedroom when babies are made, unless your Mary Cheney!
Whoops, sorry, I think I just slipped a joke in there, my sincerest apologies for anyone whom I may have offended.
Posted by: wellpaidscientist | December 19, 2006 at 04:10 PM
"Instead of letting gay marriage go unequal in all 50 states, lets come to a consensus as a country as to what we all should do."
That called states rights, it's in the constitution.
"Instead of women killing the unborn, women could say no in the bedroom and have respect for themselves and their children."
What about rape, incest, saving the life of the mother? Geez, if it was only as easy as saying no, boy you must be really in high school.
"let the players on the football team pray how ever they want to, or not at all."
Are you okay with someone of Islamic nature, praying to Mecca daily, during the school day?
Posted by: | December 19, 2006 at 04:14 PM
I'll start with the prayer.
Of course I'm okay with an Islamic student praying 5 times a day towards Mecca. Who am I to say "No, you can't". I wouldn't be happy if someone limited my right to pray. I'm not going to do it to someone else. For being so concerned about the Constitution (State's rights), you forget that we may worship whoever we want, however we want, without the government sticking it's fat ass in our privacy.
As for the gay marriage and state's rights, I doubt that you would be bringing up state's rights if I was for national acceptance of gay marriage.
As for abortion, I never said that we should ban abortion for rape and incest. However, I have a story for you about saving the life of the mother.
When my grandmother was giving birth to a child, something went horribly wrong. The doctors told her that either she would die or the child would die. She stated that she was willing to give up her life for the baby. The baby was born alive, but died later. My grandmother lived on and died in 2004. But knowing this story will make no difference to you, I will not say the point.
Do you like the Kool- Aid?
Posted by: plattecohighschooler | December 19, 2006 at 04:29 PM
"the point that states that Democrats won by running on conservative values"
Jim Ryun lost because Boyda was more conservative than him? Really?
Posted by: aka | December 19, 2006 at 04:37 PM
platte, I'm probably the only one who doesn't believe you are in high school, but that is another issue.
I respect your right to your opinion, whether I agree with it or not. As you should respect mine.
I do not believe in prayer in school. And I don't care what form of prayer you choose to express. Kids are in school for, what, 6-7 hours a day, 5 days a week. Isn't there sufficient time outside of school for prayer. Can't a child pray silently at his desk--no one stops that, do they? School is school. Period.
Gay marriage is a state's right issue. The fact that Mass. has allowed it for a year or so now has absolutely no effect on my life here in Missouri. None. I don't agree with these constitutional amendments saying marriage is between a man and a woman--absolute waste of time and money.
Abortion is a state's right issue. Roe v Wade made it national. If Roe was overturned, the issue goes back to the states. Some states will outlaw it, some won't. Abortion will not be illegal nationwide. My issue with people who say it is murder (of which I do not agree),also say they will make exceptions in the case of rape and incest. Well if it is murder, it is murder regardless of the circumstances of conception--so why make the exception. SD tried that route and it failed.
And, I don't get your "censoring of the media" comment. Whatever.
Posted by: jenniferm | December 20, 2006 at 10:33 AM
"Free speech and Privacy is guaranteed in our Bill of Rights."
This is great news! Since I have a right to privacy I no longer have to expose my financial condition to the IRS every year. Oh wait, the liberals took that right away. I guess they consider it a right only if it is killing an unborn child or surfing porn at the library.
Posted by: exiled kansan | December 20, 2006 at 10:59 AM
Really, I only tell the IRS my income and some of my expenses each year. Not my financial condition. What forms do you fill out that show your financial condition?
Or were you trying to make a point about something.....
Posted by: jenniferm | December 20, 2006 at 11:05 AM