Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(Kansas) Candidates explain why they switched (to Dem)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 10:05 AM
Original message
(Kansas) Candidates explain why they switched (to Dem)
Ending lifelong allegiances to the Republican Party in Kansas was no simple matter.

“I didn’t sleep well that night,” said Kent Goyen of Pratt, who’s running for the 114th District seat.

But each of the party jumpers had a common tonic — visits with Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, either in person or by telephone.

(snip)

Steve Lukert, Sabetha
Age: 58
Occupation: Farmer, retired government teacher

Running for: 62nd District House seat

Switched parties because: Two reasons. He ran for the state Senate two years ago in the GOP primary and lost, but said he was disillusioned by the tactics used to defeat him. “I was put off by the meanness of the campaign within the Republican Party and the intentional misrepresentations,” Lukert said.

more…
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/14991794.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
queenbdem87 Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. I suppose this represents some progress....
Whether or not any of these ex-republicans will uphold many Democratic values remains to be seen....because it seems, at least in the case of Sabetha, that the only qualm with the republicans was that they are dirty campaigners. NOT any of their values (or lack thereof). And if its the case that he is basically a Joe Leiberman or Zell Miller type, then I (and I'm sure many of you) don't want him in the party anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
President Kerry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. If he's being sincere, it's a good sign.
However, does he espouse Democratic values (civil rights, worker rights, support of certain public programs, building international alliances, etc) or is it just the "meanness" of his primary GOP opponent that got to him (in that case, i'm afraid he's more of a crybaby than a real democrat). That remains to be seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UDenver20 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. 50-STATE-STRATEGY
POOR THAT MONEY INTO KANSAS!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Governor Dean's Using My Money Well
Kansas sure looks like a wonderful place to invest my Democracy Bonds!

http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. I've always thought the revolution
would begin in the heartland.
viva Democratic Party and Victory in November
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Congratulations to Kansas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. What a load of crap.
These are just Republicans who are doing nothing more than slapping the label "Democrat" on their foreheads.

From the Article:

Steve Lukert, Sabetha
Running for: 62nd District House seat

Switched parties because: “I was put off by the meanness of the campaign within the Republican Party and the intentional misrepresentations,” Lukert said.

For example, he says he was portrayed as a baby killer even though he considers himself anti-abortion and would bar abortions except when the mother’s health is at risk.

“I see the Democrats as more willing to compromise on issues in order to come up with more sensible solutions. I think about half of the Democratic Party is very conservative.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kent Goyen, Pratt
Running for: 114th District House seat

Switched parties because: “The Republican Party has gotten a little far away from where it ought to be. It’s probably just a little too far right. Philosophically, they’re trying to control too many things in people’s lives that they shouldn’t be controlling.”

Goyen also was advised that winning the primary would be tougher than winning the general election. A late decider, Goyen said his switch was based partly on practicalities. As a busy farmer, running in the GOP primary just wasn’t feasible. He needed more time to mount his campaign.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only one that seems credible is this one:


Cindy Neighbor, Shawnee
Running for: 18th District House seat

Switched parties because: “Several things in the (Republican) platform were not what I thought I could agree with. They’re supporting (school) vouchers and tax credits and the teaching of creationism over evolution.

“All of that just went against what I really had grown up with, I think, as being a moderate Republican. I said I thought the Republican Party left me. I didn’t leave it.”

Any regrets? “It was actually a feeling of relief. (The reaction) has been very positive. I haven’t had any negative comments.

“When I talk to them (Democrats), they don’t say if you disagree with us you don’t count.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Both parties are coalitions NOT
Rural America is NOT going to have the same ideas than inner-city America. Rural Northern America is going to be pro-gun, pro strict controls on Abortion and oppose gay marriage. Any candidate, even a Democrat, who WANT TO WIN in these areas have to represent these areas. To have these areas vote Democratic, the Democrats MUST show we will consider want they want. If they think the Democrats will NOT help them they will continue to vote Republican.

Now how can we get these rural Voters? First they want improved Education, They want improved Roads (NOT interstates, local roads, including bridges), they want environmental protection (most are hunters and see what environmental damage can do to wild animals), they want to be able to afford they homes (and inflation and gasoline prices are hurting this). I can go on, but these are important allies we needed to get control of Congress as while the the Presidency. They are NOT going to be as liberal as people on this board, but most Americans are not AND TO GET ANY LIBERAL ACTIVITY OUT OF THIS CONGRESS the Democrats need these allies to get control. That is why the Democratic NEED these people, to get control. To get control we have to PROVIDE these people SOMETHING. We have to address they needs. Thus they are NOT liberal Democrats, they will provide a Democratic Majority and with that many of the things we want will become law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I like the way you're thinking.
Thanks for pointing all of that out. You're right, we need to be thinking about what people in rural areas want, and it isn't always what people in other parts of the country want. I have a hard time, though, with any politician who would ban abortion but for the health of the mother. I have to draw the line somewhere on how much I'm willing to negotiate my values. I think that abortions must stay legal and safe in the first trimester, after that I'm willing to negotiate where we draw the line. But even for rural states, I cannot accept a ban on abortions that does not at least also exempt rape and incest. I live in the midwest, and if eventually my choices boil down to a Republican who would ban all abortions or a Democrat who would ban all abortions I would not be able to vote. I can't vote FOR someone who would force women to carry a pregnancy to full term. I just can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I can, I tell you why
If the Democrat wins, he will vote to put a Democrat in Charge of whatever legislative body he or she is a member of. If the Democrats win control of the legislative body they control the agenda of that body. You thus have a greater chance of getting a pro-abortion law to a VOTE than if the GOP controls the body. Some Suburban Republicans will vote for such a law, even as rural Conservative Democrats votes against the law. As such it passes. If the GOP retains control the proposed law never sees the light of day even if the majority of the members of that legislative body would vote for it.

Thus it is better to vote for a Democrat who oppose abortion than to vote for a Republicans that supports abortion for the key is WHO CONTROLS THE AGENDA and that is the majority party in that Legislative body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Schweitzer didn't
Schweitzer is pro-choice and I'm pretty sure that's straight down the line. He doesn't support gay marriage or civil unions, but also opposes federal amendments, leaving it to state law. And while he was careful not to dust up the gun issue, most rural people understand the need for reasonable gun laws and support them. In fact, most rural people in the west are MYOB types and wouldn't care about civil unions either.

Rural people vote against the Dem label - treehuggers, gun grabbers, god haters, welfare socialists, elite hypocrits. Break through that bull, and converting them to Democrats is easy because the only ones who have anything in common with Republicans are a handful of religious extremists and less than 5% of the population that makes over $150,000 a year. That's what I think these 3 candidates figured out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. So how are they Democrats?
Frankly, I don't want to take peoples guns. But if you're anti-gay and anti-choice, what are you? Pro labor? Well, rural folks are often pretty anti-union too. And most will want their candidate to be pro-war.

So what's the point?

WE. WILL. NEVER. GET. THEIR. BASE. We should run on the values of our party-- at least SOME OF THEM-- and if we lose, then we lose. We will never win as republican lite. Country people also see through bullshit. You'd have a better time running a straight-shooter progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Many rural people are Pro-Union
Yes, in th South you have a lot of anti-Union Rural people but that tends to disappear as you head North (For example most Coal mining areas are rural and pro-union, through this is less true in the Rocky mountain part of the American West and the American South).

As to the Religious Rural Dwellers, they biggest hero of the 20th Century was Bryan NOT Falwell and transferred that support from Bryan to FDR to Truman and then to Kennedy and Johnson and finally to Carter. It was a deliberate policy of Nixon, Falwell, et al to convert these Fundamentalist from Democrats to Republicans using Race, The Vietnam War, Radical Interpretation of the ERA amendment, Radical interpretation of Environmental Laws, Radical interpretation of occupations Safety and health Administration (OSHA) Laws, etc (And the Democrats after 1968 leaving this group go without a fight afraid of appearing to be to pro-Christian). The Classic case is when under Nixon he had OSHA require Stainless steel guards along meat inspection lines and then had the Department of Agriculture require them to be removed as a health hazard (It was an attempt to make BOTH look bad, when Carter became President he did a lot of Reform of these regulatory agency to make them work effectively and stop such stupid conflicts, but under Reagan he started it up all over again and has increased under Bush jr).

Rural America likes effective Environmental Regulations and know you can NOT have it without effective Government. The GOP has been spending all types of money on propaganda in rural America about what will happen if the Democrats gets in Charge, using every horror story of bad government regulations they can dream up (and often create). DON'T be taken in the the Rights use of such fear tactics, the Rural populations may have problems getting good information but they will find it and follow it. Out Job is to get THAT INFORMATION TO THEM. That is one of the purpose of this site, to have a place people who have NO OTHER PLACE TO GET ACCURATE INFORMATION can get that information without felling like they are being attacked.

If you wish to change someone the first thing DON'T do is attack them, insult them or otherwise put them on the defensive. Rural Northern America does NOT care for Gay rights for example, they will NOT oppose it, but they will NOT support it either (But if it is force on them they will fight it). Thus to bring it up to them is a waste of time. On the other hand solving the problem of the Drop in Income for the majority of people since 1980, solving the drop in Environmental protection, solving the problem of the homeless (There are as many homeless people in Rural America as in Urban America) and the problem high price of Medical Insurance, are things Rural American wants addressed AND THE GOP CAN NOT ADDRESS. With these issue the Democrats can win power and as part of addressing them can also address Gay rights, Abortion Rights etc BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN POWER.

Remember given the GOP straggledhold on the Media, they tendency to cheat to stay in power etc, the Democrats can NOT win with just 50% of the population, the Democrats will need closer to 60% just to win a bare majority in the House and Senate. That is what every election since 1994 has shown, the Democrats can NOT win unless they win big. To win Big we need as many votes as we can get, and to get those votes we MUST present a package that the Democrats will do more for Rural, as while as Urban Americans than will the Republicans.

One last comment. In the US you have roughly three groups of "Rural" Populations. The American South, The Rocky Mountain West and the Rural North West (Which goes from the the Mountians of New York and Pennsylvania through Ohio and the rest of the Mid-West and includes most of the Great Plains, it tends to become the Rocky Mountain West as you get deep into the Mountains of the West. It is this Rural NORTH that is the key. The Rural South is still in its Segregation Mode (Through it has had its liberal stages in the first half of the 20 th Century after Segregation became the law of the land and before Desegregation kicked in). The Rural South, in many ways, still fighting the Civil Rights battles, the rural blacks today vote Democratic, but the Rural Whites vote GOP. It will be hard to convince these Rural Southerns to vote Democratic UNLESS you show them it is in their economic best interest. AS the economy goes bad that is becoming easier and easier but a still a tough road to follow.

The Rural Rocky Mountain West is a different Animal, it is a descendant from the Rural North, but tied in with an economy where the Government owes most of the land (and the land is to dry for conventional farming). Thus they are more dependent on the Federal Government than anyone else in the Country. These people actually believe they are paying more in Taxes then they are receiving (This claim also goes for the American South but NOT the American North) when both the South and West are Receiving more then they are paying in Taxes. The Rural West complain of how the Government interferes with their lifestyle whenever the Government imposes restrictions on GOVERNMENT LAND in their area, and then objects the the Federal Government is NOT doing enough to get water into their Desert Area.

Both the Rural South and Rural West are going to be tough nuts for the Democrats to crack. Both have been brought off by the GOP (and brought off cheaply). The real issue is the Rural North (Which reaches into the South and the West including into North West). This area believes Government should do things AND ARE WILLING TO PAY TAXES TO GET THOSE THINGS DONE. They want better Education, better access to medical Care, a better country. These are the people the Democrats MUST Recruit. These have been Republicans since the Civil War, but Rockefeller (i.e. Liberal) Republicans. They are religious, but more mainline Protestant not Fundamentalist. They do support welfare and acknowledge the need to help the poor in their area. This is the population the Democrats need to get. They will month the GOP lines for their access to news is limited. They rarely have local newspapers (and if they do most buy it for local farm report and then a copy of the nearest big city newspaper). In my area of West Central Pennsylvania you see not only the local papers but the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (Which you see all over the Western 1/2 of Pennsylvania). Toward the Middle of the State you start to see the Harrisburg Newspaper instead of the Post-Gazette. They is some overlap, for example Johnstown tends to be as far west as the Harrisburg Newspaper gets, while the Post Gazette can be obtain evening Lewistown as you near Harrisburg.

My point here is the RURAL NORTH IS ABOUT TO SWITCH. Its basic economic beliefs follow the Democratic party and has so for at least 20 years. The GOP Fears this so have run a Guns, Gays and Blacks Campaign for almost as long. It is wearing thin, and as things economical goes from bad to worse economic issues are coming to the head and the Guns, Gays and Blacks issues is just NOT working as while as it has in the past (Thus the push to add immigration to the mix).

Now many rural areas have been Republican Controls for Decades and fear change and will fight Change, but once change kicks in I suspect it will be like Pittsburgh in the 1920s and 1930s. Prior to 1920 Pittsburgh, like most Cities, was a solid Republican City, unlike Philadelphia (Which was surrounded by a Republican part of the State), Pittsburgh was surrounded by a Solidly Democratic Region of Pennsylvania and thus when the stresses of the 1920s and 1930s hit the Country, Pittsburgh went Democratic overwhelming, to the extend we have NOT had a Republican City Councilman since 1934 (The last GOP Mayor was voted out in 1928 long after the Democrats had obtain a majority on City Council). During this transformation many former GOP ward leaders switch parties (I remember reading about them in the 1970s as the young ones in the 1920s died of old age in the 1970s). The old dishonest ones never made the switch, but the young (20-30 years old) honest ones did. In many ways Mellon never forgive the City for going Democratic (But Accepted it by the 1950s when Mayor Lawrence talked Mellon to help the city do its Renaissance).

This is what I see happening in the Rural North (such as Ohio), the younger and older Honest Ward Leaders switching to the Democrats as the corruption of the GOP becomes to much for them or the people to stomach. A slow change (But within a ten year time period) as the GOP is found to be to corrupt for people to vote for and the honest Rural politic ans switch from the GOP to the Democrats to follow the people. I just do not see the GOP reforming itself, it is to tied in with big money to do so. People are getting sick of it and sooner or later the people will accept the fact that the problem is the GOP itself not just the individuals within the party. When that happens (tied in with serious Economic Problems) you will see a rapid switch, like how the old Soviet Union Collapsed.

The democratic Party has to be prepared to accept these new Democrats AND ADDRESS THEIR POLITICAL NEEDS. By doing so you will make them good Democrats for the next 40 years, which is enough time to get the reforms economic (and maybe even the Social) reforms this country needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SensibleAmerican Donating Member (460 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Rural northern America is NOT pro-life
The pro-life constituency is in the Southeast and in Utah and Idaho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. "intentional misrepresentations"



in other words ---- they lied like sonsabitches (the usual RW strategery).



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-08-06 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. The path from left to right
begins with a single step.

You just watch these people. Once the armor is cracked, it doesn't take long sometimes before they're right there with us on the big issues. Truth and light are addictive. That's why the Puggies work so hard to keep truth & light from their supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-09-06 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
15. It shows how far out of the mainstream the republican party has
become, in my opinion. That's why I left the republican party during the Reagan era. They no longer represented my values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC