Posted on 08/02/2006 3:46:10 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Darwin won.
Moderate Kansas State Board of Education candidates pulled off a victory Tuesday, gathering enough might to topple the board’s 6-4 conservative majority.
A victory by incumbent Janet Waugh, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Lawrence, and wins by Republican moderates in two districts previously represented by conservatives left the tables turned heading into the Nov. 7 general election.
“If we change the board around, we’ll be able to make decisions that we think are right for our students,” Lawrence school board member Craig Grant said.
Grant had worked to defeat the conservatives who attracted international attention and ridicule for the state after adopting science standards critical of evolution.
Waugh held onto her seat in District 1, rebuffing a challenge from conservative Jesse Hall who, according to the last campaign finance report, had raised about three times more money. But Waugh collected 63 percent of the vote.
“Obviously money can’t buy elections,” she said. “I think the people of Kansas are tired of being the laughingstock not only of the nation but the world.”
Not all the conservatives were defeated.
Conservative incumbent John Bacon held his seat in District 3, which includes parts of Johnson County. Bacon won by a slim margin, with 49 percent. Challengers Harry McDonald, Olathe, the former president of Kansas Citizens for Science, and David Oliphant, also of Olathe, split the remaining vote.
Bacon faces Democrat Don Weiss in the general election.
In the District 5 race to represent a large part of western Kansas, conservative incumbent Connie Morris trailed moderate challenger Sally Cauble who at midnight had 54 percent of the vote with 556 of 609 precincts reporting.
Conservative Ken Willard held his seat in District 7 by a wide margin. He faces Democrat Jack Wempe in November.
And with few votes still to be counted at midnight, moderate Jana Shaver appeared to be the favorite for the District 9 seat. Shaver ran against Brad Patzer, son-in-law of outgoing conservative board member Iris Van Meter. At press time, Shaver had 58 percent of the vote. The winner faces Democrat Kent Runyan in the general election.The five races have attracted national attention as both sides battled for control of the board.Many wanted a shake-up after the 6-4 conservative majority altered the state’s science standards, rewriting the definition of science and adding criticism of evolution.
Proponents of Kansas’ latest standards say they encourage open discussion.
“Students need to have an accurate assessment of the state of the facts in regard to Darwin’s theory,” said John West, a vice president for the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based, anti-evolution Discovery Institute.
The conservative board majority changed the rules on sex education, requiring parental permission before students participate in classes, though districts including Lawrence opted not to change their ways.
And the conservative majority pressed the issue further, considering an “abstinence-until-marriage” approach to sex education.
It also filled the state’s top education administrative seat with Bob Corkins — a conservative activist with no educational background who lobbied against increased school funding.
Opening song:
"Take my love, take my land, take me where I cannot stand. I don't care I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me. Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me......There's no place I can be since I found Serenity, you can't take the sky from me."
How about those creationists that remain lose in the general election to their evolutionist competition? This was only the primary after all, the real election is yet to come.
I have attended numerous Republican caucuses and conventions, sometimes as a delegate, and sometimes as staff. What really bothers me about the conservative/moderate label is that the majority of the "religious right" are not conservative at all. They are anti-abortion democrats.
If the democrats were to change their position on abortion (which is *not* happening), the "religious right" would abandon the Republican Party in droves. I have seen numerous instances where the "religious right" has supported a democrat over a Republican because the D was pro-life, and the R was pro-choice, even in a race where the office holder would not be in a position to have any effect on the issue. They are not Republican, and they are not conservative.
LMAO
More specifically, anti-abortion populists, in the Huey Long mode. About one-fourth of a generation away from Jim Crow. Anti free trade. Theocrats.
The tent bulges and the mind boggles.
William Jennings Brian pro-income tax, anti-middleman, anti-banking, anti-big business democrat-progressives. Yes, populists too. And one-time Dixiecrats. Not Republicans at all. They came our way after LBJ, but they're a fickle bunch. Nice to have their votes (Franklin Roosevelt certainly felt that way) but no one has ever valued their intellectual contributions.
They do have positive virtues. They're pro-2nd Amendment and pro-military. Very nice. And they're very patriotic, which is also very nice. Not bad people, but in general they have a very odd bundle of ideas. It really shows up in these science threads.
As I say, it's a big tent, but evolution is not abortion or national defense, and when the anti-evolutionists start causing actual conservatives to lose elections, it's time to reconsider.
[PH]It really shows up in these science threads.
Pretty much nails it. I got into it with a few otherwise agreeable folks on free trade and tariffs, and it lasted three days or so. They couldn't understand the concept that tariffs on trade are taxes, paid by the consumer. Just like they can't understand that science isn't based on religion. Everything is based on religion. Why wouldn't science be, too? Try to explain it, and it's "persecution by communist followers of nazism". (and they don't understand what's wrong with that statement, either).
Sigh. I wont stop trying, but...
One of the problems that we are seeing right now is that the religious right made a big push (back in the Robertson for President days) to get elected to the school boards. If they really wanted to change public education, the way to do it was at the grass roots. Republicans voted for them (myself included), because they seemed to be on our side, and were dedicated to making a positive difference.
Then, as they began attaining majorities on the school boards, their focus changed from trying to stamp out liberalism in the schools to trying to stamp out anything that didn't agree with their particular interpretation of the Bible. Instead of stamping out liberalism in education, they are trying to stamp out education, period.
Now they are referred to as "the conservative majority" on the school boards, and people are getting to the point where they wont vote for anybody with the "conservative" label anymore.
It reminds me of when the Republican Party gained control of both houses of the Washington State Legislature. One of the first things that they did was to put a sales tax on food. An entire generation of Washington voters had to grow old and die before the Republicans got control of the Legislature again. When they did, it was liberal Republicans, not conservatives.
The "religious right" agrees with us on some things, but their votes aren't worth the damage that they are doing to the Republican Party in general, or conservatism in particular. They are to the Republican Party what the eco-nuts are to the Democrats. More trouble than they're worth.
That's our PatRICK.
Terrific material. I hope you used archival-quality pixels.
I can never understand how self-proclaimed conservatives can't see this. Protectionism by any trading block is simply a tax on its own consumers. How could that be any easier to see?
As this thread nears its end, it's appropriate that the Discovery Institute has just posted its spin on things:
What Did Happen In Kansas?
Interesting that in their spin on things, they included a link to the "current science standards". It was a link not to the "current science standards", but to their talking points about the "current science standards". The current science standards were not present at the link at all.
And they wonder why they are constantly being called [frequent misrepresenters of known facts].
As I've posted in other threads, most of the creationists I know personally are black and regularly vote Dhimm. (actually, a couple of them couldn't stand Kerry, thought he was fake.) I'd say the're a bit to the right of the DNC, but well to the left of a typical FReeper.
The Discovery Institute keeps saying ID, nor the motives behind it, is not religious in nature. But did you notice the link at the bottom of DI senior fellow and supposed scientist, David Klinghoffer's piece? Pimping his latest book..."Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History "
And what in the world is an orthodox Darwinist?? lmao
Have you noticed how they take credit for every conservative victory? I remember the unjustly-banned FReeper Right Wing Professor making some of Wyatt Earp's points about their fickleness.
Right Wing Professor got banned? WHAT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.