The Left Company

Recent days have seen the internet and newspapers flooded with lists declaring the top ten [insert item here] of the decade. While there have been lists about movies, music, moments, people, and events; the most interesting list for Kansas voters should be conservative interest group Judicial Watch’s list of Washington’s Ten Most Corrupt Politicians.

Being a conservative interest group that has famously championed the issues of transparency and accountability for government officials, it should come as no surprise that the list is a who’s who of the liberal elite. Members of the Obama administration (including the commander-in-chief himself) and prominent Democratic congressional leaders fill the list from top to bottom. If you read in depth however, you will see that there are a few less prominent Republicans included in the list.

Of interest to Kansas voters, is the fact that Todd Tiahrt is included in the list with John Murtha and the PMA Seven.

For readers that are unfamiliar with Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement with the PMA scandal, it essentially involves Mr. Tiahrt and other members of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense steering earmarks towards clients of the lobbying firm PMA in exchange for political contributions. Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in this scandal should be troubling to Kansas voters because it exemplifies Mr. Tiahrt’s dishonest behavior and desire to be a Washington insider.

Furthermore, Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in these alleged events are so corrupt, that they earned him a place on a list of Washington’s most corrupt politicians. Even more disheartening is that this list was published by an organization that clearly has a bias in favor of conservative candidates. If conservative-biased Washington organizations take issues with Mr. Tiahrt’s actions, shouldn’t the people of Kansas expect more from a man that is running for a senate seat?

Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in this scandal not only demonstrates Mr. Tiahrt’s dishonesty, but it once again puts him in the company of the liberal East Coast elite that clearly does not share the interests of the people of Kansas. Mr. Tiahrt should think twice before becoming embroiled in corrupt activities, and he should remember that he is in Washington as a representative of the people of Kansas.

I think Kansas deserve better.

Honestly Yours,

Publius

JT J.D.

One of the great things about blogging is becoming a part of the community of bloggers and sharing information with each other. I’m only one person, and it’s difficult for me to do all the research that is necessary to keep Kansans informed. Because of this, and in the spirit of the Christmas season, I would like to share my gratitude for the Kansas Kid Conservative who brought to light another controversial Tweet from Vicki Tiahrt.


He transcribed her tweet by writing, ‘“Jessica [The Tiahrt's daughter] passed the bar exam, she passed, she passed, she passed!”’


While the Kid Conservative believes he is using sarcasm in describing this Tweet as controversial, I believe that it is far from sarcastic given the fact that Mr. Tiahrt has previously spoken negatively about lawyers. It makes no sense to me that the Tiahrts would be pleased with their daughter becoming a lawyer given Mr. Tiahrt’s previous criticisms of lawyers.


Don’t get me wrong, it IS a big deal that their daughter passed the bar. My father is a lawyer and has told me countless times how difficult the test is; I have nothing but the utmost respect for lawyers and their profession, and likewise Jessica Tiahrt.


My problem is that less than a month ago Mr. Tiahrt was criticizing a profession that his own daughter is about to enter. What kind of parent does that?


I believe that Mr. Tiahrt’s comments about lawyers (coupled with his daughter's career) demonstrated that he is a person that will say anything in order to gain a political advantage. He didn’t hesitate to criticize his daughter’s profession [who knows if he actually meant what he said] when it could potentially hurt his opponent, and I am scared what else he will say or do in order to get elected.


This incident is just more evidence that Todd Tiahrt is a man who will do anything for a political gain, and a man that cannot be trusted by regular Kansans like the rest of us.


Litigiously yours,


Publius

What Does He Really Believe About Illegal Immigration?

In a perplexing turn of events last weekend, Representative Tiahrt chastised the Congressmen and Senators who he claims have voted to provide illegal immigrants with health insurance. His claims stem from the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that was passed in February (legislation that Mr. Tiahrt opposed).


Tiahrt states that his vote was to oppose a bill that makes it “easier for non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to obtain benefits.” However, like most things Mr. Tiahrt claims, there is much more to the story. If you look more carefully at the legislation, you will see that his statements regarding SCHIP benefits for illegal aliens are decidedly false, and that his motivations are suspect


In actuality, under no circumstances does SCHIP allow illegal immigrants to enroll or participate in its benefits. The bill specifically prohibits the inclusion of illegal immigrants, and only allows the possibility for legal immigrants to apply. This legislation, therefore, actually closes the loophole in the current law that does not have citizenship requirements.


Furthermore, current Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, supports the SCHIP program. His stalwart opposition to illegal immigration doesn’t conflict with his SCHIP vote (as Tiahrt would have us believe) because he took the care to actually understand the legislation before making a decision on it. Unlike Tiahrt, Roberts realized that the current law was promoting illegal immigration, thus he supported the necessary changes.


If Mr. Tiahrt’s motivation for opposing the SCHIP is because of his supposedly stern stance against illegal immigration, he should have done a better job of determining the impact that this legislation would have on immigrants (both legal and illegal). If the principles behind his decision were in line with his rhetoric, then his vote appears to be one of negligence and haste.


I believe, however, that Mr. Tiahrt is actually all talk. He knew what he was voting for, and he knew that his vote would support and promote illegal immigration. While he might talk like a true conservative that is ideologically opposed to illegal immigration, I believe that Mr. Tiahrt is actually sympathetic towards liberal and Democratic positions of illegal immigration, and his votes back me up.


In 2007, Mr. Tiahrt was a co-sponsor of the 2007 DREAM Act (the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act). This piece of legislation was, among other things, an attempt to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. While Tiahrt’s efforts to get this legislation through Congress ultimately proved to be futile, it has recently been reintroduced for debate.


Again, Mr. Tiahrt didn’t just vote for this legislation that used our tax dollars to provide incentives to those that fail to follow U.S. law, but he was actually the co-sponsor of this liberal legislation. Are these the actions of a true conservative?


On the issue of illegal immigration, Mr. Tiahrt has again proven to Kansans that he is NOT the true conservative he claims to be. He has been given a D- grade for opposing amnesty and illegal immigration, and it comes as no surprise that he failed to win the endorsement of former U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo, the leading opponent to illegal immigration in the United States.


What is most troubling about this issue, however, is that Todd Tiahrt continues to manipulate Kansans with his rhetorical claims about being a true conservative. He says he is opposed to illegal immigration, but then goes out of his way to support multiple pieces of legislation that promote it. I believe that Tiahrt should answer for these disparities. If he really is opposed to illegal immigration, he should vote like it; and if he wants to lend support for unlawful residents, then he should be honest about it.


Either way, when it comes to Tiahrt’s positions on illegal immigration, Kansans are decidedly not getting the representation they elected nor the representation they deserve.


Legally yours,

Publius

Republicans Second?

In her recent interview with the Abilene Reflector-Chronicle Vicki Tiahrt makes an often used argument in proclaiming that she and her husband are, “conservatives first, and Republicans second.” It’s tough to argue with her use of this rhetorical device as many politicians have used countless sound bites that attempt to align themselves with causes over parties.

My question for the Tiahrts, however, is if this decision is one that was made by their own disposition, or if it is one that was made out of political necessity.

Last week, Tiahrt received a foursome of endorsements from conservative leaders: Kay James, the President of some random DC interest group; Colin Hanna, the President of another random DC interest group; Mathew Staver, the founder and Chairman of yet another random DC interest group; and Morton Blackwell, some activist from Virginia.

While I offer my congratulations to Mr. Tiahrt for receiving the endorsements of these conservative leaders, I fail to see why the people of Kansas should care about what these people think. Not only do none of these people live or work in Kansas, but they seemingly have no connection to our great state. Who are these people, and why should we care what they think?

I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his wife are positioning themselves as “conservatives first, and Republicans second” because these are the type of endorsements that are flocking to the Tiahrt campaign. Sure, they are probably great people and upstanding citizens (I won’t pretend to have any idea who they are), but they have no reasonable connections to the Republican party in Kansas (or even the US Senate).

If the Tiahrt campaign really wanted to represent Kansas, they would position themselves as conservatives AND Republicans first, because these two things are NOT mutually exclusive. However, the Tiahrt campaign is having difficulties referring to their candidate as a true Republican because they have failed to receive a significant number of endorsements from current Republican officeholders and party leaders.

While the Tiahrts continue to call themselves conservatives first as they wait for more Republican endorsements, I’ll keep watching as they try to make their case for the primary . . . the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.

Republicanly yours,

Publius

Through the Years They All Will Be Together

Unlike most members of the blogosphere, I prefer not to write extensively about rumors and speculation. Not only can this type of journalism (and make no mistake, blogging is the future of journalism) be unsavory and libelous, but I believe that it leads people to diminish the relevance and stature of my work. With that said; I keep hearing the same rumor from a variety of sources in Washington and Kansas, and I feel that it is time to address its importance and significance.


Todd and Vicki Tiahrt recently attended a White House Christmas Party.


The rumor actually makes sense to me. President Obama seems like a cool guy, so I’m sure it would be fun to sing Christmas carols, drink Egg Nog, and discuss Tiger Woods’s marital problems with him. If I had the opportunity to go to a White House Christmas party, I’d even offer to bring the nutmeg. The problem is that I’m just a regular American who is not trying to run for United States Senate.


Todd Tiahrt IS running for Senate, and when you are an elected official representing a constituency (and seeking to represent a larger constituency) these parties have a significance greater than Winter Lager and Frank Sinatra songs. The Tiahrts' wining and dining with liberal elites in the White House seriously undermines his ability to properly represent the best interests of regular Kansans like you and me.



Furthermore, this ‘Candy Cane Summit’ as I like to call it brings to question the honesty and effectiveness of Mr. Tiahrt’s criticisms of Obama as the “most liberal President ever.” If Obama’s the most liberal president ever, then why would a Congressmen and Senatorial candidate who describes himself as a “true conservative” want to share cocoa and Christmas cookies with him?


I believe that the Candy Cane Summit gives more credence to my belief that Todd and Vicki Tiahrt are more interested in participating in the DC lifestyle than they are in representing the opinions of true conservatives across Kansas, as well as the rest of the heartland.


If the Tiahrts want to stand under the mistletoe with the Obamas, that’s fine with me. I just don’t want them to do it while representing the state of Kansas, or pretending that they are true conservative Republicans which they are not.


Dreaming of a White Christmas,


Publius

Tweetahrt’s Trouble

Politics is a pretty dirty business, and as a personal rule I usually like to keep the spouses, children, and other family members out of my critical attacks. It’s difficult enough when these people have to see their husbands, wives, parents, and children take heat for trying to serve their country in a way they see best, but to attack spouses and children is classless.


But I’m going to make an exception today.


Mr. Tiahrt’s wife, Vicki, has recently been put on the national stage by The Hill for a virtual rampage of Republican bad-mouthing on her Twitter account. Calling her a “loose cannon,” The Hill compiles many of Mrs. Tiahrt’s Twitter posts including attacks on U.S. Senators McCain, Coburn, Thune, and DeMint; U.S. Congressional candidate and current Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp; and the largest interest group for fiscal restraint, The Club for Growth.


The list is practically a who’s who of people that haven’t endorsed Tiahrt for his Senate bid, so let’s break down Mrs. Tiahrt’s attacks one-by-one (using more than the paltry 140 character limit).


1. It’s hard to imagine a scenario that’s beneficial for the Tiahrts to attack sitting Republican US. Senators. Assuming their plan is to win this senate race, wouldn’t attacking future colleagues not only breed hostility, but also decrease Mr. Tiahrt’s clout and effectiveness should he win? These tweets show an utter lack of statesmanship from the Tiahrts, and would make the meetings of the Senate Spouses club very awkward for Mrs. Tiahrt (seeing how much she loves the D.C. lifestyle).


2. Assuming Mr. Tiahrt wins the primary (which is not at all a given, seeing as he is currently behind in the polls) these criticisms would highly reduce the chance that he gets the fundraising support of these GOP heavyweights for the general election (as well as any future campaigns for any office).


3. It’s highly amusing that she would attack State Senator Tim Huelskamp for being endorsed by a highly regarded conservative PAC considering that Huelskamp is seen by many Kansans as the most conservative candidate in the 1st District race. Are the Tiahrt’s trying to align themselves with the conservative wing of Congress, or are they trying to attack that wing?


4. Why would she bemoan the Club for Growth? Attacking the conservative PAC makes little sense for a candidate that is trying to position himself as the most conservative option. I assume she just wanted to take away legitimacy from the organization that recently rated her husband as a measly 29% against earmarks. If the Tiahrt’s really think they have a conservative argument against the Club for Growth, maybe they should make that argument using a medium where you don’t have to use numbers such as 2 and 4 in place of actual English words.


While I do hate to criticize spouses, Mrs. Tiahrt is continuing to throw herself into the conversation, meaning stories like these will most likely continue in the future.


Twittingly yours,


Publius

Not a Pro at Prose

Before I leave Mr. Tiahrt’s Op-Ed piece from the Washington Times to die the horrible death that happens to seldom viewed internet pages, I must conclude my discussion of the piece by writing about the parts of it that are so obvious they often are overlooked. While you might be expecting me to now offer more places of hypocrisy or irony, I am going to keep this post to sheer idiocy.


And by idiocy, I mean the prose with which Mr. Tiahrt expresses his off-the-mark opinions.


Now don’t get me wrong, I’m well aware that Kansans didn’t elect Mr. Tiahrt for his beautifully articulate writing, but the format and scope of his Op-Ed is incredibly incoherent. While he starts by criticizing Senator McCain for advising and supporting like-minded political candidates, he magically and mysteriously uses a string of buzz words like “spins out of control,” “bailout, “tea party,” and “fair tax” to bring his argument around to a place where he nonsensically criticizes McCain for running the ‘wrong’ type of Presidential campaign.


While there is hardly any internal logic to the structure of his piece, the format makes it painfully difficult to read.


As a blogger, I’m accustomed to reading and writing one sentence paragraphs. Stylistically they work great to emphasize certain points and break up the monotony of essays, stories, and opinion pieces. However, any middle school student could tell you that one sentence paragraphs are incapable of conveying an argument. Short paragraphs might introduce an idea, but they end before the writer even has enough space to scratch the surface of the idea, and there is no way that a writer can make a convincing argument without supporting their ideas.


This is exactly what Tiahrt attempts in his Op-Ed.


Through a series of one sentence paragraphs, Mr. Tiahrt introduces his (or probably somebody elses) ideas that are a mere collection of buzz words. Before he even gets a chance to discuss these ideas—to discuss how a different position by McCain might have changed the presidential election or why these issues are critical to current affairs—he moves on to yet another buzz word. This should be troublesome to Kansans because the entire Op-Ed piece is a veneer that Tiahrt is painting over what appears to be the crux of his entire piece: that he is bitter because he did not receive the endorsement of Senator McCain.


He writes:


“But I am troubled by reports in recent weeks that Mr. McCain has been, as Politico put it, ‘working behind-the-scenes to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image’ and has ‘emerged as a political godfather’ to moderate candidates including my opponent in the race for the Republican Senate nomination in Kansas.”


Mr. Tiahrt’s is troubled by the fact that Senator McCain endorsed his opponent, so he believes the best way to improve the situation would be to slander the Republican stalwart with a mish-mash of buzz words and a pop culture reference or two thrown in for good measure. The secondary headline of the piece reads, “McCain moderation is politics of convenience,” but isn’t it Mr. Tiahrt that is practicing the politics of convenience by turning against John McCain?


I think if Tiahrt really wants our support, he should take the gracious route and accept that Senator McCain doesn’t feel comfortable supporting his campaign. He shouldn’t attack McCain with bogus arguments or call out McCain for things that the elder senator actually should be doing. If Todd Tiahrt wants to be a United States Senator from the state of Kansas he should exhibit a little more classiness and restraint in future editorials.


He should support all of the buzz words with facts and leave the one sentence paragraphs to us in the blogosphere.


Editorially yours,


Publius

Let’s Talk About 'True Conservatism'

Allow me, if you will, to delve a little bit further into the hypocrisy of Mr. Tiahrt’s recent criticism of US Senator John McCain. You see, while I previously talked about the lunacy behind Mr. Tiahrt’s claims that McCain should have ran a more conservative campaign last fall; I failed to mention the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of Mr. Tiahrt’s proclamations of real conservatism.


That hypocrisy lies in the fact that Mr. Tiahrt himself does not practice the true conservative principles that he idealizes.


True conservatism means decreasing the size of government. True conservatism means cutting back on wasteful spending. True conservatism means a complete refusal of earmark legislation and pork-barrel politics. Todd Tiahrt’s congressional record does not back up his oh-so-often-proclaimed ‘true conservative’ ideals.


According to the 2009 Club for Growth RePork Card, which compiled the voting record for 68 anti-Pork amendments this year, Mr. Tiahrt has voted in favor of anti-Pork amendments an upsettingly low 29% of the time. This means that our ‘True Conservative’ Congressman has voted in favor of wasteful spending more the twice as often as he has voted against it.


Even more shocking, is how these pork projects might not just be any old excess. According to a Washington Post story from earlier this fall, Tiahrt is one of seven congressional lawmakers (mostly liberal Democrats by the way) on the House Appropriations committee that worked to steer over $200 million in earmarks towards the increasingly shady PMA Group.


Not only are these actions decidedly NOT those of a fiscal conservative, but they are potentially illegal.


All these things would be troubling in and of themselves, but when they are considered in light of last week’s critical Op-Ed, we see a far more hypocritical Tiahrt that is more of snake than a GOP elephant. You see, John McCain has spent much of his illustrious Senatorial career championing legislation against pork-barrel earmarks. McCain has consistently been rated above 85% by the Citizens Against Government Waste, and had a 94% rating from the Club for Growth in 2007.


Furthermore, McCain authored the Line-Item Veto law that would work to prevent wasteful spending, and has championed the cause of taking wasteful spending out of government.


This is the opinion of a true conservative, and these are the actions of a true conservative. Mr. Tiahrt should take notice.


Conservatively Yours,


Publius

Really?

Earlier this week, Mr. Tiahrt authored an Op-Ed piece in The Washington Times which he opens by writing, “Like most Americans I am grateful for Sen. John McCain’s heroic service as a fighter pilot, a prisoner of war and, for nearly a generation, a member of the House and the Senate.”


No writer, politician, Republican, Kansan, or even American should feel a need to write a sentence as blatantly and disingenuously foreboding as this one is, because no true Republican (or American) should ever voluntarily write what followed it. What followed was a shallow and vain attempt to attack Senator McCain for continuing to lead the Republican Party in the direction that McCain believes it should be taken.


I don’t know if Mr. Tiahrt understands the American political system, but this piece is seemingly attacking the Senator from Arizona because he is now supporting candidates that share similar views to his own. Isn’t this what Americans are supposed to do? Isn’t this the essence of American politics?


Mr. Tiahrt continues his mockery of an Op-Ed by attacking McCain for not running a conservative enough campaign and claiming that, “Mr. McCain’s passive campaign of halfway steps and compromise measures allowed the most liberal, least-experienced presidential candidate ever to post a decisive victory”.


This begs the question of what would have happened had McCain run the right-wing campaign that Tiahrt would have wanted. Clearly none of the Obama voters would have shifted to McCain had the later run a MORE conservative campaign, and more than likely any moderate McCain voters would have shifted to Obama and given the ‘most liberal, least-experienced’ candidate an even MORE decisive victory.


Tiahrt’s electoral math just does not add up.


This editorial not only proves that Mr. Tiahrt is out-of-touch with the majority of Republicans that actually agree with McCain’s center-right principles, but it also lends the impression that Mr. Tiahrt is an unintelligent politician that apparently does not even understand the American political system.


It is the majority of Republicans that nominated McCain for the presidency roughly sixteen months ago, and it is this majority of Republicans that will continue to fight for constructive solutions to the economic crisis as opposed to giving vague rhetoric that isn’t backed up by facts of opinions.


Mr. Tiahrt should be ashamed of his ungrounded attacks on Senator McCain. Tiahrt claims that he is grateful for McCain’s service to America, but he sure has a funny way of expressing his gratitude. McCain is not only a true American hero, but a true Republican that will continue to do what he believes is in the best interest of the Grand Old Party and America alike, and it would not be in the best interests of ANY Republican to attack him in such an inflammatory way.


Sensibly yours,


Publius

Outspending Himself

Todd Tiahrt claims that he is a true conservative "committed to fiscal restraint", but how could he possibly be committed to a responsible fiscal policy when his own Senate campaign is not fiscally responsible?


It's no secret that Mr. Tiahrt has a penchant for spending in Washington D.C. (his latest Club for Growth rating is lowest amongst the Kansas Republican delegation). Recently, however, Kansans have learned the true extent of Mr. Tiahrt’s free-spending ways when his campaign reported their finances to the Federal Election Committee.


In the 3rd Quarter of 2009, Mr. Tiahrt took in $341,000 and spent $353,500. Ironically, most of this money was actually used by the campaign to pay the firms that they have hired to raise money for them (talk about wasteful spending).


I would like to lead my fellow Kansans in urging Mr. Tiahrt to run a fiscally responsible campaign, not only to back up his claims of true fiscal conservatism, but also so that his credit score remains reasonable.


Unrestrainedly yours,


Publius

Conservative Values?

"This campaign's not about me, but about standing tall for conservative values, your values." - Todd Tiahrt

You, my fellow Kansans, can watch Mr. Tiahrt say this for yourself at his website, www.toddtiahrt.com. You can also see him recite the word values so often that it seems the only thing he actually values is the word ‘values’.

While the hypnotic repetition of the video can certainly put fellow Kansans into a coma, the hypocrisy of it all is more than evident given the recent news regarding Tiahrt for Senate employee, Field Coordinator Jase Stanton.

On November 18th, Mike Mahoney from KMBC News broke the story that Stanton was recently charged with aggravated sodomy and aggravated assault surrounding an event that took place in July 2008. Stanton has a plea hearing December 9th, but has preliminarily pled not guilty. Stanton did not reveal the charges to the Tiahrt campaign when hired.

I find this report troubling for several reasons.

1. There appears to be minimal if any due diligence on Tiahrt's part in hiring Stanton. Wouldn't a quick criminal records search be the first task an employer/candidate does when hiring staff?

2. These are serious charges by any standard.

3. It all comes back to values.

Sexual Assault and Aggravated Sodomy are not "conservative values" or "our values". If Todd Tiahrt believes that his values are one and the same with those of Kansans, then he must explain this apparent discrepancy. I might not agree with every position of my representatives, but if these truly are the values that Mr. Tiahrt endorses than I believe he should be honest and forthright with Kansans about these beliefs.

I want honesty when talking about what people value, and I believe that all Kansans should expect the same.

Your Valued Writer,

Publius

Welcome

Welcome to Tiahrt's Troubles, the blog dedicated to following the missteps, mistakes, and mischief of Todd Tiahrt, Congressman from the 4th District of Kansas and current candidate for the United States Senate.

I'm here to keep you, fellow Kansans, informed about the campaign of this mad man as well as his increasingly unsettling votes and activities. While I am confident that Tiahrt's free-wheeling, inside-the-beltway personality will not lead him to a Senate seat, I hope to help bring his ideas back to main street (because we all know how rare it is to see Todd in-state).

Stay tuned for future updates, and keep reading.

Yours on the Range,

Publius