Gov. Brownback Wins Kansas GOP Primary


#1

Gov. Brownback Wins Kansas GOP Primary

Wednesday, August 6
(Undated) – Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is heading to victory in a Republican primary election. It appears he’ll easily fend off the challenge from Wichita business owner Jennifer Winn. Brownback could face a stiff challenge from Democrat Paul Davis in November’s general election.

Sam Brownback is Kansas’ incumbent Governor, its former Senator, and an outspoken advocate for life (pro-life) and a Catholic convert. He ran briefly for President in 2008 and 2012, exiting early when he was not among the frontrunners.

I wonder if he still has national ambitions? Being a Governor of a fairly large state shows executive experience … and very few candidates have been both a Governor and a Senator. He was briefly a Congressman in Kansas, and the state’s Secretary of Agriculture. When Kansas Senator Bob Dole retired to run his GOP candidacy for President, Brownback beat Dole’s appointed successor Sheila Frahm in the 1996 GOP primary.

In 2012 Brownback supported fellow Catholic Rick Santorum for GOP nominee after he himself had opted out. Santorum returned that favor in the days before yesterday’s primary by giving Brownback his endorsement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback < a Brownback bio.


#2

Hope he wins. Too bad California doesn’t have a race like that one. I think I’ll be voting third party this election.


#3

This seat looks good for the GOP.


#4

I would urge reconsideration. I would vote for a candidate who has a chance to win, but who will also do the least damage.


#5

Yeah well so far both candidates for Governor in California are not what I’m looking for. I might vote for the Republican because he actually wants to create jobs. But he is also pro choice. :shrug:


#6

Which shows how “left” Cali actually is. Seriously - it’s almost as if having a pro-life position in Cali is an automatic DQ if one wants to run for state-wide office. The questions in Cali around life questions aren’t “Should abortions be legal?”, they’re “Should women be legally allowed to commit infanticide after the child is born?” or “Should we allow people who aren’t doctors to perform abortions?”

Even Arnold was “pro-choice”, IIRC.

Oh, and btw, all candidates say they want to create jobs. It would be political suicide to say, “Oh, I want to kill as many jobs as possible!”


#7

I know I was being broad on “create jobs”, but ever since Gov. Brown has been governor jobs are getting harder to find, so having someone new in with better ideas than building a pointless expensive train transit sounds a lot better.


#8

I voted for Sam in this months primary, in fact I voted for him every time he ran. I believe he would make an excellent president that could put this country back on track. The only problem I can see is that he would have a hard time winning in a country that is becoming increasingly anti-God. Even some estimated 53% of so called Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion, anti-religion, and anti-Catholic president in our nations history. As sad as it is, I don’t see much hope for a God-fearing candidate to win anything in America in the near future.


#9

I need to go back and document this but … as a quick commentary … most of the pundits predicting a close race in store for Brownback in Kansas cite the tax cutting and conservative money practices (that have not yet worked … they say) as what is hurting him … rather than his socially conservative stands (on life, same sex marriage etc.).

He took on the state’s public school system as well to some extent.

:popcorn: - but hoping Sam (and his programs) are successful to the benefit of the people of Kansas.


#10

That’s generally the problem. People love tax cuts, but the required spending cuts that are done to offset tax cuts are only favored in theory (as generalized “spending cuts”). In reality, people only favor spending cuts that affect other people - not themselves. So, in reality, the only things that can be significantly cut are programs that affect very few people.

As an aside, I’m an educator in the public schools in New Mexico. Education has become the most politicized profession in the country, and educators are often caught between using what are considered the occupation’s best practices and what is required to be done to meet the agenda of a given governor’s political party. Teacher tenure is severely misunderstood. The purpose of teacher tenure is to not let GOOD teachers be fired, but it’s thought of as an obstacle in getting rid of BAD teachers. Quite honestly, most bad teachers weed themselves out before they are tenure eligible.

Tenure was put into place to make sure good teachers would not be fired due to personality conflicts or due to not being in the right circle of friends (and, honestly, this is important, especially in areas run by the “good ole boys” networks). And teachers with tenure, contrary to belief, can still be fired. The only difference is that tenure rights require the teacher’s supervisor to show due cause in the firing of the teacher. In other words, the supervisor has to (1) show that the teacher is not meeting expectations, (2) prove that he/she has given the teacher support over a given length of time to meet such expectations, and (3) show that, after giving such support, the teacher still failed to meet expectations. Of course, all this requires a paper trail and time - which school supervisors often don’t care for.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.