Kaw and Border: Huelskamp's our guy

You can find a very well written piece about the first district congressional race at the blog Kaw and Border. In Win in '10: Wanting a big bat from the big first, they detail the first district race and why Tim Huelskamp should be the pick for any experienced, principled conservative.

First they take a look at Jim Barnett and see right through that conservative costume he's been wearing since his election announcement.

When he decided he wanted to run for Governor, his record and rhetoric took a sharp right turn and he started to sound and vote like a conservative. He also picked well-known conservative Susan Wagle as his running mate.

...he had a chance to pick a side in the Senate leadership elections when his former running mate, Susan Wagle, was running for Senate President against the liberal Steve Morris. Though the final vote was 18-13, his vote was critical in terms of conservatives getting to the magical 16 number. Barnett chose Morris and with it, threw away any remaining loyalty he had built with the conservatives who put their sweat and tears on the line for him in 2006.

And they detailed what everyone's been thinking about Rob Wasinger.

So, essentially, Rob Wasinger has been in Washington D.C. for the past 15 years, until now, when he has decided to run for Congress. While his resume is indeed impressive and might provide a great deal of insight into the workings of Congress and inside-baseball politics, we have a lack of real knowledge of how Wasinger would approach the job as a Congressman, individual issues, constituent work, and even subjects such as basic representation. How much time will he really spend in the district? How much of a fighter will he really be for the conservative cause? Is he just wanting to be a Congressman now because he's used to Washington and wants to stay there and wants a nice politically career?

And finally we get to the Kaw and Border pick, Tim Huelskamp. I'll share just a bit of what they had to say.

Senator Tim Huelskamp is one of the leading conservative voices in Kansas. For the last 13 years, he has been one of a few lonely reasoned voices in a body -- the Kansas Senate -- lacking in them. He's fought not just on one or two pet issues, but has consistently fought the good fight on a myriad of issue battlefields, from the sanctity of life to fiscal responsibility to low taxes to the size of government. The list goes on and on.

You can read the entire post here.

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good night!

The queen is gone! What a great day for Kansas and a dark future for America.

Now the question becomes just how left has Mark Parkinson gone since he switched parties in '06. I don't think his stance on any issue of importance has changed at all. I think he's the same liberal he was before and will continue to be til 2010 rolls around. He'll just be a little more cushy with Steve Morris and John Vratil. But then again, the only difference Morris had with Sebelius was the coal plants, so what's changed? Nothing!

The positions haven't changed, just the strength of the person behind them. Parkinson isn't seen as strong as Sebelius, so basically Republicans are happy about him being in charge because they think they can peel off enough Democrats to override any veto he might hand down. Certainly possible when it comes to pro-life legislation, but I doubt any coal plants will be built anytime soon.

How much damage did Brownback cause to himself? That may not be known until November next year, but I still believe his chances of winning are pretty good. Kaw and Border has posted a defense of Brownback. It's worth a read.

All in all things are looking quite bleak for Democrats in Kansas. Their savior has bolted for their other savior and now there's no one to save them from the mean, nasty Republicans. Either Tiahrt or Moran are a shoo in for Senate, their best candidate for governor they've decided to attack themselves (Steineger) and they only have appointed officials as Treasurer and AG who now have to fund raise on their own with out the help of Queen Kathleen.

Such a refreshing morning!

Capitalism vs Socialism or Capitalism vs Free Markets?

I try to make it a point to not live by the almighty poll. When it comes to some political topics, I just really don't care what other people think. (It's called principles!)

However, sometimes it's necessary to look deeper into a poll to prevent perceptions or generalizations materializing out of evidence that simply isn't there, or that is perhaps taken out of context.

I've seen a couple posts (here and here) about the new Rasmussen Survey where only 53% of Americans polled said they prefer capitalism versus socialism, which is exactly the kind of poll I think can be misleading unless all the evidence is examined.

As it turns out, Americans aren't so much in favor of socialism over capitalism as they are in calling capitalism "free markets."

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.

This is further supported by comparing the most recent poll with the December 29 poll about "free markets." Only 15% in the December poll supported a government run economy and that number remains unchanged in the most recent poll. Have fundamental attitudes toward government changed or has the poll verbiage changed?

It's also interesting to note that more people (27%) are unsure of which they prefer than those who know in their heart socialism is better (20%.) Is it because they really don't like capitalism or because they prefer to think of America as a free market society versus capitalistic?

Here's what I took from this survey: conservatives, and Republicans in particular, have been slow to define the other side as "socialists" versus the all encompassing "liberal" label. This poll should be a wake up call to our side to think about how we define issues and to not repeat the mistakes of the past. McCain in particular was slow to clearly define the ideological differences between a free market society and Obama's vision of a socialist America.

It's no longer conservatives versus liberals, it's conservatives versus socialists, and we'd be smart to define the debate in such terms.