in two of those districts - the first and the 3rd, the Republican incumbent is running unopposed.

In how many other House districts is that true?

Let's do a survey. Check in and tell me if it is true in your state.

Of course, one sad fact is that for Democrats to win in the 1st is a near impossibility. In 2010, the Democratic candidate only got 23% of the vote. But still that is 44,000 people who did NOT want to vote for the Republican. They should have that option again this year. In 2008, our candidate only got 13.2% of the vote, but still, again, that was 34,771 people.

Further, in the Kansas State Senate, in 7 of the 40 districts, Republicans have no Democratic opponents. They are districts 15, 16, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 37. In most districts there are two Republicans running in the primary, and that will be the real contest that decides the future of Kansas. If the Republican moderates lose the primaries, then we are even more toast than we have been. There will be nothing to stop the far right project of the tunnel to the 8th century.

The same is true in the Kansas house, lots of Republican primaries. In some districts there are three Republicans running (hopefully two of them are conservatives), but often no Democratic opposition. In 41 of 125 House seats, one party is running unopposed, including 6 where the Democrat is running unopposed. The Republican only districts are (I know most people don't need this information, but perhaps the KDP can use it) - 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 26, 27, 45, 48, 61, 64, 68, 70, 74, 77, 78, 81, 82. 94, 99, 101, 104, 107, 108, 109, 113, 118, 120, 122, 123, 124, and 125. The Democrat only districts are - 32, 34, 35, 37, 46, and 103.

The hope that Brownback would face a backlash over the ultra-conservative crap that he pushed through in this session seems unlikely to come to pass. He's already got a lock on 1/3 of the House, unless moderates show up in droves in the primaries. Maybe I should hope that the moderates lose the primaries and those voters come running to elect Demorats. But otherwise it is looking to shape up as Kansas electoral massacre part II.

anyone who roots for Lebron James is clearly a troll.

Opposing deficit spending is just silly, and as any tradfitional economist would tell you counter-cyclical. In the last 150 years, the Federal Government has probably run deficits in 140 of them, and we have done just fine. In WWII, the debt was greater than the GDP and the country did just fine. In fact, we prospered.

One of the troubles with supposed trolls, is that we, as Americans are swimming in a sea of excrement, crap that fills the airwaves and newspapers and books and the internet. False ideas and lies and distortions and propaganda - excrement. Our public discourse is so full of excrement that everybody who swims in it is bound to get some in their mouth, or in their head, and then spew it out like its not some crap that was catapaulted into their mind.

Some people, true trolls, embrace the crap, believe enough of it that they have gone over to the dark side.

Yet others, sincerely believe themselves to be on the side of the angels, are faithful followers of brother Dee Morris, and belong to the Antioch Wiccan church* and yet, because they, like all of us, are swimming in a sea of excrement, have accidentally swallowed some bad ideas - like the Balanced Budget Amendment.

All too quickly, we, the pure liberals, suspect the latter of being one of the former.

My position is, that even if they are right in their suspicions, we should still treat both the same. We should try to win them over to our side, by offering the hand of friendship as well as a relentless barrage of facts and logic. We should try to persuade and educate those who disagree with us, even though we are likely to find that NOBODY, not even US, ever wants to admit that they are wrong, and efforts to persuade will often be met by stubborn resistance following Newton's Second Law of Arguments.** But still I think it is better to try, and to have malice towards none, to try to win people to our side rather than driving them away with contempt and aspersions as not being sufficiently pure or enlightened.

And finally, who is that trip-trapping on my bridge?

*(inside joke - this is a parody of Charlie Daniels' "Uneasy rider" where the redneck, after being accused of having voted for George McGovern, defends himself saying "I am a faithful follower of Brother John Birch, I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church ..."

** Newton's Second Law of Arguments is a parody of Newton's Second Law of Motion - "for every argument there is an equal but opposite counter argument (at least in the mind of the person making it)'

except it leaves out the part about Democratic complicity.

Democrats keep using their bully pulpit to say "Republicans are right"

Will tax increases, even on the rich, hurt the economy? Republicans think so.

Major Democrats say - Republicans are right.

Do we have a serious budget deficit problem which requires spending cuts and entitlement "reform". Republicans think so.

Major Democrats say - Republicans are right.

Will tax cuts create jobs? Republicans think so (or claim they do).

Major Democrats say - Republicans are right.


The other insane part is that Republicans are offering economic policies which have clearly failed, but that Democrats are NOT offering a clear alternative. Instead Democrats concede most of the terms of the argument. They agree with Republicans that we have a problem and they agree with most of the proposed solutions. The Democratic alternative to the Ryan budget seems to be Simpson-Bowles.

Well, I guess that offers a clear choice. Republicans want to break my left arm and Democrats want to break my right arm.

Hmm, tough choice. Left or righ? Right or left? Which arm do I want broken?


Fortunately for Democrats, I am left handed, but still ...



My response as a voter to BOTH of them is "How about I break BOTH of your arms instead?"

It's about which side you are on, Bill. It's about who your friends are.

You don't want to see Romney attacked for being an investing member of the .1%, because you yourself, and some of your bestest buddies are investing members of the .1%

"The key locution in this fandango: "And you and I have friends here who invest in companies.""

and boo hoo hoo, they should not be attacked, even though, as you yourself said,

"you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them."

So, even if Romney, and some of your "friends here" fired and looted and stole the pensions of some workers, well we don't want to attack them for it.

It's too bad that you cannot talk to some member of the media and say "you and I have friends here who have been fired and had their pensions stolen."

But no, Bill, once again, no matter how much a slick politician might talk about how he feels the pain of ordinary people, the real truth is, in the words of Bender "you don't know any of my friends, you don't look at any of my friends, and you certainly would not condescend to speak to any of my friends."

Well, if somebody fires you, and steals your pension, or that of one of your friends, it might be a very logical thing to hate such a person, but it doesn't have to be a hateful thing to want to see a thief held accountable, if not in the courts, at least in the voting booth.