Kansas voters overwhelmingly passed an amendment to their state constitution banning gay "marriage" and civil unions. "The marriage amendment is an unfortunate, necessary reaction to activist courts," reacted Kansas's attorney general Phill Kline. My sentiments exactly. You see, Kansas already had a law banning same-sex unions. That should be enough, but isn't. Kansas voters, recognizing the lawlessness of the courts, made their ban impenetrable to activist judges by making it part of their constitution. In essence, Kansans told the courts: we're on to you.

In his book What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, Thomas Frank ponders why Middle America votes its values instead of its pocketbook. One could turn his thesis on its head: Why do Democrats discard economics in favor of social issues? Leftists such as Frank wondering what's the matter with Kansas would be better off blaming the likes of Gavin Newsom and Margaret Marshall for the loss of traditional Democratic constituents than those constituents themselves. Nothing's the matter with Kansas.

It's a curious party that asks why conservatives are so heartless and then asks what is wrong with us that we are not more self-interested. And instead of a dialog with a people which they clearly do not understand, they offer only that question: "What's the matter with you people?"

This is why I find that Jesus understands more about human nature than contemporary political ana-lysts. Jesus was not so confused by the details that he would presume a moral flaw in people simply because they did not accept the fringes of a gradient of nihilistic philosophy which at it's base questions the authority for moral claims. Instead, when he gets near the subject, Jesus makes the claim that you absolutely are a fool to proclaim "Thou fool!" And not because nobody can know the good, but because we each are blind to it and have trespassed against it in so many ways, and that it makes us no more wise to castigate those around us as fools.

What I've gotten from variations of this theme echoing around the media is that they are very upset if the proles aren't going to act as proles, how will even the bloodless revolution come? So people must be made to feel silly for not conforming to Marxist theory which models history as economic struggle, and get with the program and be concerned more with their share. In fact, everything I've heard on this topic means that the left has found a new way to say "dupes of the power elite" and "opiate of the masses".

I'm really, really sorry that I don't buy into this whole theoretical construct. And were I a Kansan, I'm really sorry that, feeling how I feel, I could not be persuaded with an argument that is summed up "What's the matter with you?"

I agree with the comment Sea King makes about not being persuaded with an argument that poses the question, "What's the matter with you?" YET I will say I have read this book and found it interesting the facts used to show how social issues do rule the day in Kansas. The evidence used in his book to show how economic interests take a back seat to the good name of the Lord. I don't believe Democrats discard economics for social issues at all. I can't say unequivocally that Republicans discard economics for social issues in Kansas either YET the facts used in Thomas Frank's book are interesting to note how a socially conservative senator from the heartland talks about maintaining values and morals only to then throw it all away in the name of corporate donations. These same corporations that have left the state of Kansas looking for a better deal than the one they're getting. These same corporations that leave areas where the economy was once flourishing is now ravaged.

The argument can be made that you can talk a good game when it comes to faith and values YET when it comes to serving your constituents economic interests the faith and values of that person is tossed out the window in the name of dollar$. The faith of the Kansas people maybe strong BUT they're a blinded by the social issues that are so dominantly in the forefront of their state's politics therefore they have surrendered their economic interests in the name of the Holy Father.

One could ask why does Senator Brownback discard economic issues in favor of social issues?

The liberal democrats still don’t get it, do they? They truly do not understand why America is so dumb and does not get their message. Fact is, more and more, America doesn’t want what they’re selling.

John Kerry is a perfect example of a lib dem that doesn’t get it. He still thinks that it was the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” and the Swiftboat Vets that did him in. In his limited orbit of the people who support him and tell him everybody else is wrong, he still believes that he has a chance to be the President next time around.

The only shot he has it to be President of Massachusetts.

It's very obvious, to me at least, that when liberal activist judges stretch and distort constitutions to discover extratextual new rights in "emanations" and penumbras", that there will be a counter action to make those constitutions more explicit.

I think there's a perfectly simple reason why Kansans are voting with their values rather than with their wallets - they'd rather be happy than rich.

I loathe the fact that the Republican party wins by talking about smaller government and protecting values, and then expands government and passes pro-corporate BS, while never managing to win victories for conservative values. In a sense the Republican values-voters are suckers.

If that were Frank's only point then he'd be right. But in addition, Frank (and Spitfly above) assume that caring about values over economics is what makes us suckers and "blind". As Sea King says so well, it's the same old tired Marxist garbage. Marx seems to outsiders to condemn the materialism of "capitalism", but in fact he outdoes it. Same with this BS from Frank.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/opinion/22kristof.html?ex=1112932800&en=72a5f92af77670d3&ei=5070&oref=login&hp&oref=login

This article by Nicholas von Hoffman heaping praise upon Sam Brownback, who he describes as "Right of Atilla the Hun" then goes on to describe a slew of leftist programs he supports in the guise of "christian compassion" (with the taxpayers money.) That's what's really the matter with Kansas IMHO.

There's a word for the personal trait that leads a person to put moral principle ahead of their own personal financial benefit--"character." It's this trait that leftists claim distinguishes them, in a bottom-line sort of way, from conservatives. That they wonder what the hell is wrong with people who actually live it speaks volumes about their intellectual incoherence.

This can also be seen by most contemporary leftists' shocking, though inevitable, admission that it is primarily conservatives who argue from principles rather than circumstances. The impossibility of moral outrage--which is the foundation of liberal politics and its "just-do-something" ethic--in a world devoid of actual moral principles to which one can appeal, is finally beginning to weigh heavily on the left's position. Kansans might not state the problem this way, but it seems inexorable to me.

We don't hate America. We hate pond scum exactly like you. Have a nice day with Geezus and George, and find sombody with oil that you can bomb.
RT