What Year Does He Think This Is?

Over the past month I’ve spent so much time writing and thinking about ethics violations and earmarks that I barely want to write about politics anymore. Because of this, I want to switch gears today and talk about an actual policy position that Mr. Tiahrt holds; a position I vehemently disagree with (and one that I actually did a significant amount of research on a couple years ago for a paper—I got an A by the way).

That is, his support of the embargo of Cuba which he recently described by saying:

“I’m for free trade, just not with Cuba. They’re a state-sponsor of terrorism, they don’t pay their bills, and trade with Cuba will largely benefit the Castro regime. With expanded trade and travel we would just be funding the Castro brothers and the Cuban communist party. We should not change our policies without seeing any changes from them.”

What year does he think this is?

By any objective or subjective measure, the Cuban Embargo has been an immense failure for the US government. For fifty years this policy has failed to bring ideological change to Cuban politics (i.e. the Castros are still in charge), it has economically punished the innocent citizens of Cuba and given the regime an excuse for their failures, it has helped to foster a negative international image of the United States foreign policy, and (most importantly for Kansans) it has unnecessarily removed a viable market for exports.

To support this policy is a mistake that cannot possibly be grounded in a sound and logical analysis of the current global system. It is a policy from the past that needs to be ended, and Mr. Tiahrt seemingly fails to understand that.

I believe that we should end this embargo for several reasons. First, the travel of Americans and their technology can only help to change the ideology of the island. Anybody that has spent significant time living and working in a non-democratic country (which I have), knows that just small interactions with Americans can go a long way to changing the way people think. Americans in Cuba would help them ideologically.

Second, and more importantly for Kansans, Cuba represents a viable and lucrative export market for Kansas farmers. The island already imports goods from the rest of the world, but would certainly switch their imports to our agricultural products (which would be cheaper because the US is far closer to Cuba than any other country) bringing more money to Kansans.

Finally, the old policy has been a failure. If fifty years of failed policies isn’t enough to convince Mr. Tiahrt that we should change, then I don’t know what is.

I guess I just hope that he fails in his effort to retain them.

Hoping to one day smoke a Cuban cigar within the borders of Kansas,

Publius

Who Is Publius?

Shortly before 500 BC, Publius Valerius Publicola was one of the key founders of the Roman Republic. In his position as Roman Consul he created a series of laws that were very popular and important. These laws could almost be seen as an early list of rights in the Roman Republic. His name Publicola translates to “friend of the people.”

More famously, the legacy of Publius can be seen in the Federalist Papers of 1787-1788 which were collectively written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the Publius name. As we all know, the Federalist papers were published as individual essays that advocated the ratification of the constitution. More important to the present day is the historical usage of these papers to determine the original intent of the framers of the constitution.

I chose the name Publius in order to call back to the work the framers did. They were advocates of freedom and our republic, and I believe they wrote under the most famous political pseudonym in history. While the work I do on this site could never possibly be mentioned in the same breath as their work, I have chosen the name to honor them and the memory of their essays.

I am not going to reveal my true identity, but I would like to take a moment to write about who I am not. I am not currently working for any politician or political entity. The best way to describe my current job is to say that I am working in education for a Christian religious organization, and I have a lot of free time at the office.

It has been suggested in the comments section of this site on several occasions that I am a Law Professor from Texas by the name of John Blevins. I can assure you that this is false. For Professor Blevins sake (who I had never even heard of before reading the comments, but I’ll assume that he’s a nice and fair man), I am going to delete any future comments that explicitly name him.

Friendly yours,

Publius

Fighting for Something

Earlier this week, Mr. Tiahrt criticized his opponent for the US Senate seat (Rep. Jerry Moran), for not being present during Sunday’s critical health care debate. Mr. Tiahrt claimed that instead of being on the floor fighting against ObamaCare, Mr. Moran was taping some sort of television commercial. Expectedly, Mr. Moran’s people have fought back against the claims saying that they are completely untrue and baseless. They say that Mr. Moran didn’t film a commercial, and that he was on the floor when the House session began.

Honestly, I have no idea which side is correct in this. This writer seems to think that Mr. Tiahrt’s claims are dubious, but this is really the type of “he said, she said” situation where it is impossible to know who is telling the truth and who is just spewing rhetoric. Because of this, I was going to leave the situation alone and not even mention it.

But then I read yesterday that Mr. Tiahrt was missing votes on Tuesday so that he could—well, I actually don’t know what he was doing during these votes. Tiahrt missed the vote on H.Res. 1186, which designates April as National Distracted Driving Awareness Month. He missed the vote on H.R. 3976 which extends mortgage and foreclosure protections to SERVICE MEMBERS through December 2015; and he missed the vote on H.R. 4592 which authorizes funds to create a program that will help to train veterans for employment in energy-related positions.

Does Todd Tiahrt not care about our nation’s service members?

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Tiahrt has spent the earlier part of this week launching claims about his opponent that are incredibly dubious. Meanwhile, he was actually missing votes in the house that are important pieces of legislation. Sure, his presence at these votes would not have had any impact on the outcome, but it is just another example of Mr. Tiahrt spending his time fighting for himself instead of for the Kansans and, more importantly, the American veterans.

I don’t know who’s right in their “he said, she said” argument, but I do know what Mr. Tiahrt is fighting for: himself.

Fightingly yours,

Publius

It’s Not Always about Partisanship

Over the past month I’ve written a lot about Mr. Tiahrt’s alleged ethics violations and subsequent acquittal from the House ethics committee (and the subsequent House resolution asking to look into that acquittal), and I have read a lot of your feedback in the comments sections of this site. While I am always supportive of healthy political discourse, one recurring comment/complaint that I have seen is about the legitimacy of the Office of Congressional Ethics as a non-partisan office. Some complaints include:

“He has been targeted by Pelosi's pet committee. Why can't conservatives see through this?”

“Only CONSERVATIVES are yet to be cleared, It's not fair to your readers to leave out facts.”

“The OCE was created by Nancy Pelosi and 5 of the 8 board members are democrats.”

“The fact is OCE made this political.”

If there is one thing I hate, it’s when people use the word facts when they fail to site actual facts; and if there’s another thing I hate, it’s when people create partisanship out of issues that are decidedly non-partisan. While it is true that the OCE was formed in a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi, and it is true that the independent leader of the OCE is a registered Democrat, the FACTS just do not support claims that the OCE acts with political motivations.

Last year the OCE recommended twelve cases to the Congressional Ethics Committee for further review. Of the 12 Representatives that were recommended for further review, 10 were Democrats and only 2 were Republicans (one being Mr. Tiahrt). Given these FACTS, there is no logical way to conclude that the OCE is acting in a political and partisan manner unless you believe that it is working against the Democratic Party.

It’s not always about partisanship. Just because Nancy Pelosi worked to create the committee does not mean that it is a corrupt and evil Democratic institution out to conquer the world. The fact of the matter is that examining what the OCE has actually done reveals that any bias against Republicans (or shadowy control by Nancy Pelosi) is simply not evident in the actions of the Office, and anybody that tries to contend differently is clearly being ignorant of the facts.

Factually Yours,

Publius

Tiahrt Goes Blogging, Hypocrisy Prevails

Recently, the Pittsburg Morning Sun has given Representatives Tiahrt and Moran a forum where they can blog about issues that are important to Kansans and Americans. Like most messages coming out of Tiahrt’s campaign, this blog entry is abundant with hypocrisy and lacking on straight talk.

While much of the entry is an exercise in rhetoric and nothing else, the most glaring section of hypocrisy comes when Tiahrt (or whichever one of his staffers actually penned the entry) wrote, “For years I have been fighting for reduced spending . . .” As loyal readers to my blog would know, this is just not true. According to the 2009 Club for Growth RePork Card, Mr. Tiahrt has voted in favor of anti-Pork amendments an upsettingly low 29% of the time.

Todd Tiahrt’s voting record is synonymous with wasteful spending and it is just untruthful to try to convince the public otherwise. It is sickening how he and his campaign release writing like this with a straight face, and act like Mr. Tiahrt is a true conservative that has been fighting earmarks for all of his time in Congress. He just hasn’t been doing this, and we should know better.

Wastlessly yours,

Publius

No Show in Johnson County??

What was Mr. Tiahrt doing yesterday?

According to his advertised events and the Johnson County GOP Weekly E-mail, Mr, Tiahrt was supposed to have town hall meetings at libraries in Olathe and Shawnee, however he did not show up to these events. While supporters were waiting, Tiahrt’s staff and campaign never let anybody know that he was not going to be there to fulfill his obligation.

Furthermore, staff at the libraries had no idea that the events had been (apparently) cancelled. Librarians at the two locations were left confused and annoyed because they set up for and expected town hall meetings that the Tiahrt contingent apparently believed were unimportant.

Now I don’t know why Tiahrt refused to show up at these events. In all likelihood he had a very good and serious reason for blowing off his supporters; but regardless of why he didn’t show up, he and his staff had an obligation to not only contact the libraries, but also the Johnson Country Republican Party (that was promoting the events) and the supporters that actually showed up to the events.

By not showing up at these events, Todd Tiahrt has again demonstrated that he cannot be trusted. If Kansas voters cannot trust him to show up to events that he planned and promoted, how can he possibly be trusted to effectively represent the interests of this State as a Senator. Little things like this show us what a person or organization is made out of, and right now Mr. Tiahrt is again proving that promises and obligations mean nothing to him.

Trustworthily Yours,

Publius

The Story Never Ends. . .

As we all know, Mr. Tiahrt has recently been mired in ethics violations and accusations that he pushed through earmarks for the clients of a lobbying firm (PMA) that had donated to his campaigns. While Tiahrt and his aides were recently exonerated from wrongdoing by the Ethics Committee (despite the fact that the OCE recommended Tiahrt and Representative Peter Visclosky (D-IN) be further investigated); the situation is continuing to rear its ugly head.

Yesterday afternoon it was reported that House lawmakers had passed a resolution demanding the Ethics Committee reveal details behind its investigation into the subject. Earlier this month it was reported that the ethics committee did not subpoena or interview anybody, and they apparently did no further research than the OCE; this despite the fact that the OCE recommended Tiahrt and Visclosky be further investigated.

It now appears that members of Congress want more answers after public backlash against the process (and similarly the decision) from watchdog groups and writers from both ends of the political spectrum. Making matters worse for Mr. Tiahrt, is that this is clearly NOT a matter of partisan politics as Republican Representative Jeff Flake (AZ) is leading the charge for greater transparency and answers about the actions of the ethics committee. This isn’t one party trying to take down members of another; this is a bipartisan effort to find answers about the potentially corrupt activities of Mr. Tiahrt and his Democratic colleague (Visclosky).

What is even more troubling for the Tiahrt camp is that his staffers are continuing to pretend that nothing is wrong here, and are going out of their way to portray this never-ending ethics inquiry into a simple issue of partisan politics.

In the wake of backlash against the non-action of the Ethics Committee, Mr. Tiahrt’s Communications Director Sam Sackett wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal defending Tiahrt. While it is completely understandable that Sackett would write such a letter claiming that Tiahrt “did the right thing,” what is troubling is that the communications director attacks the editorial board of the Journal (probably the most highly respected newspaper in the country, as well right-leaning) and then attempts to link all of Tiahrt’s critics to Nancy Pelosi and partisan politics. Sackett writes:

"Nancy Pelosi’s mistakes in this Congress are too many to list. It is surprising the Journal would defend her creation of yet another government bureaucracy to oversee congressional ethics.

"Despite Rep. Pelosi’s desire to bloat House governance, along with every other part of government, when the dust settled on these inquiries, no complaint, allegation or negative finding was ever found to justify the Office of Congressional Ethics’s review of Mr. Tiahrt. It is all there in black and white."

First, nowhere in the original Journal Editorial does the newspaper actually defend the creation of the OCE. We can argue the merits of the OCE all day long, but when push comes to shove this is not about Nancy Pelosi or the merits of the OCE. This is about whether or not there was wrongdoing, and the original Journal Editorial clearly takes the position that there was.

Second, Tiahrt’s staffer’s attempt to change the story from Ethics violations to partisan disputes reeks of a staff that knows they have messed up and that they dodged a bullet with the Ethics Committee. Again, if this was a partisan issue, than why is the other Congressman that is under fire with Tiahrt from the Democratic Party? This is clearly not a partisan issue, and Sackett’s attempts to pawn it off as so are disingenuous and just another instance of Tiahrt’s slimy political rhetoric.

Third, Sackett claims that there was never anything to justify the OCE review, when the OCE itself believes that there was wrongdoing to justify this review. If we want to talk about what is in ‘black and white’ Sackett should actually read the OCE report which requests the Ethics Committee do a further review. Furthermore, this recent resolution proves that other members of Congress (from both parties nonetheless) believe that there is still more to the story. They have apparently read what is all there in black and white in the OCE report.

What does all this mean for Kansan voters?

I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his staff are continuing to be disingenuous about these issues of ethics. Even if they did nothing wrong, their attempts to turn this into a political issue reek of the same old Washington politics that voters around the country have had enough with.

Furthermore, Sackett’s letter shows that Tiahrt isn’t committed to cleaning up Congress. They dismiss inquiries into ethics violations as “wasteful government spending”. Shouldn’t taxpayers be willing to pay the cost to get a clean and ethical government? This view of ethics investigations as wasteful is highly troubling.

Finally, the congressional resolution shows me that Tiahrt and Visclosky are not even seen to be innocent by their own peers. This begs us to ask questions about whether Todd Tiahrt is actually so corrupt that other members of Congress want to bring him down.

This story just continues to get more interesting.

Ethically yours,

Publius

The Still Forgotten Fourth

Todd Tiahrt is moving on.


In a move he claims is for the good of Kansans and America, Todd Tiahrt is leaving behind his much beloved and controlled congressional seat in the 4th district for a chance at greater fame and personal glory in the United States Senate. While I have discussed this before, I must bring it up again because the Democratic Party is now attempting to capitalize on Mr. Tiahrt’s abandonment of his district.


The DCCC has recently launched a Red-to-Blue campaign that is targeting eleven congressional seats around the country to take out of Republican hands, and Mr. Tiahrt’s beloved 4th District seats is one of them. With the outlook for which party controls Congress next year tightening, is it really best for America and Kansas if Mr. Tiahrt is elected to the Senate and his party loses his former seat?


I believe that Mr. Tiahrt should work harder to ensure that his seat remains in Republican hands, and right now he simply isn’t doing enough. While Tiahrt might say that he is a conservative first and a Republican second, the ability for lawmakers to pass a conservative agenda depends on the Republican party having control of Congress and in an election season that is shaping up to be tight, EVERY SEAT COUNTS.


It’s certainly too late for Mr. Tiahrt to drop out of the Senate race and start a House campaign, and I’m not asking him to do this, all I am asking him to do is show a little more support for the conservative candidates in his former district and to try his best to actually help America instead of merely working for himself.


Selflessly yours,


Publius

Why Can’t They All Just Work Together?

A few weeks ago, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana announced that he will not be running for re-election this November; a move that has been dissected by many writers around the country as incredibly troubling for centrism in America. During his announcement, Mr. Bayh seemingly derided Senators from both sides of the aisle for an increasing amount of dysfunction and an inability the two parties have to get anything done in the upper chamber.

While you can be happy or sad that Mr. Bayh is leaving the Senate, just as you can agree or disagree with his assessment of the Senate, I think we can all agree that the Senate is looming with dysfunction right now, and we need new voices in the chamber that can work together (even across party lines) to get things done. In these times of trouble we need Senators that have a mutual respect for one another and an ability to work together on important issues.

Because of this, it is troubling to me that Mr. Tiahrt has only one sitting US Senator (Jim Inhofe) endorsing his campaign for the Kansas seat. If we need Senators that are willing to work together and support each other, how are we supposed to trust that Mr. Tiahrt can work with the Senators we have if only one is willing to endorse his campaign?

Of course Mr. Tiahrt has gotten a steady stream of endorsements from people that have (at various times in their lives) been involved with the political system, including the Senate; but most of these people are not currently members of the United States Senate.

To date Mr. Tiahrt’s campaign has been endorsed by Former Senator George Allen of Virginia (a man whose most famous political moment was a racially charged comment during a doomed Senate campaign); Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (who’s 2006 re-election defeat was by the largest margin for an incumbent in twenty-five years); and Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (who, apparently, has conservatively spent $1 million dollars in taxpayer money since he retired). While these are fine endorsements, they do not do enough to prove to Kansas voters that Mr. Tiahrt will be able to effectively work with the other members of the Senate if and when he is elected.

If Mr. Tiahrt wants to prove that he can be a part of a newer and more effective Senate, he needs to show that he has greater support of sitting Senators in his bid for election. He needs to gain more endorsements from sitting senators, and he should probably diminish the amount that he touts endorsements from men that have been voted out of the chamber. Without the support of sitting Senators, I see no way that Kansas voters can trust Mr. Tiahrt to be an effective legislator for the state, and for America.

Endorselessly yours,

Publius

The Rest of the Story

Several summers ago I worked in a congressional district office during an election season. Being an unpaid intern, my job mainly consisted of typical intern work: answering phones, taking messages, calling agencies and waiting on hold, and occasionally moving a file cabinet or two. Because I worked in the district office, almost no part of my job had any connection with the campaign.

Some people might not know this, but federal laws prohibit campaign work from happening in the official offices of congressmen. The work of a campaign and a congressional office must be strictly separate. Because of this, whenever anybody called our office that summer asking for information about the campaign, all we could do was give them the number of the campaign office, and if somebody tried to drop off a donation for the campaign, it had to be directed towards the campaign office.

Like all congressional offices, some activities manage to permeate this strict division. On several occasions, when people dropped off donations to the office I worked in, I (being the intern) was directed to take them to the campaign office. This walk would always serve as a physical representation of the required separation as I had to walk a couple blocks down the street, around a corner, and into a completely different building where the campaign offices were located.

This was a lot of separation.

I’m sharing this story because I believe the OCE report on Mr. Tiahrt’s activities begs us to ask questions about the separation between Mr. Tiahrt’s campaigns (if not this year’s, but previous years that are already documented) and his official congressional staff. Again, I would like to direct attention to the report and pages 175 and 176 where it states:

36. The Board notes that the Legislative Affairs Director of Teledyne Controls, when interviewed by the OCE, stated that Jim Richardson, Representative Tiahrt’s MLA, was present at all fundraisers he attended

AND

40. Many of the emails submitted to the OCE concerning fundraising were authored by the Jeff Kahrs, Chief of Staff.

From the looks of it, Mr. Tiahrt’s official staff (in fact, his Chief of Staff) was engaging in business that should normally be confined to the campaign. While most Americans might not see this as a huge problem, it is again an instance of Mr. Tiahrt and his associates bending and breaking the rules in order to create an advantage for the Congressman.

As much as he might want Kansans to believe otherwise, Mr. Tiahrt is fully entrenched in all of the evils of the Washington establishment. He doesn’t appear to care about honesty, or about the needs and desires of our country, rather his primary concern seems to be for himself and advancing his political career.

The story never changes: Kansans deserve better.

Separately Yours,

Publius

A Closer Look

Earlier this week I wrote about the recently released OCE report regarding Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement with the PMA scandal, and today I’d like to continue that discussion by taking a closer look at the report to find out why the OCE was unable to produce sufficient evidence against Mr. Tiahrt (even though they apparently believe he is guilty). To begin, I would like to direct attention to page 164 of the report just under the heading Introduction where it states:

Representative Tiahrt would not consent to an interview with the OCE, nor would he allow members of his staff, the Chief of Staff and Military Legislative Assistant (“MLA”), to be interviewed by the OCE.

Further, to the bottom of page 181 which states:

The Board notes that because the OCE was unable to interview Representative Tiahrt or his staff, the Board is unable to conclude whether the Member was aware or not that the donor linked the contribution to an official act.

In these two instances, the board is not only saying that Mr. Tiahrt was uncooperative, but they are saying that his cooperation in the case would have proven once and for all if he is innocent or guilty of the accusations against him. If Mr. Tiahrt actually was completely innocent of all wrongdoing, wouldn’t he embrace the opportunity to go in front of the Board and make his case? His refusal to participate or allow his staff to participate in interviews with the OCE creates the appearance that he is guilty of all the charges made against him.

Furthermore, what is even more troubling about this episode is that Mr. Tiahrt’s failure to participate in the investigation flies in the face of what he told the public. Last fall he said, “We have fully complied with the OCE request and are more than willing to discuss our process further if there are any additional questions.” If Mr. Tiahrt was ‘more than willing’ to discuss the process his staff undertakes, then why is it that the OCE felt differently in their report.

If we are to trust the OCE report (and I have no reason not to), we have to conclude that Mr. Tiahrt was lying to the media last fall. His claim that he was “more than willing” is completely contradictory to the OCE report. Last fall, Mr. Tiahrt made sure to give off the appearance that he was fully complying with the investigation when in reality he wasn’t assisting or complying with it at all.

Throughout this entire ordeal, Mr. Tiahrt has lied to voters about his compliance with the investigation, while he has refused to talk to a board that could show the public that he truly is innocent. Why would Mr. Tiahrt refuse to talk if he is innocent? Only he can answer this question, but he apparently sees no reason to address it as he recently said, “Today I received absolute vindication.”

Clearly Mr. Tiahrt believes he did nothing wrong, and he might be right, but if this truly is the truth, then why did he refuse to discuss it with the OCE and why did he lie to Kansas voters about his cooperation? Washington bureaucrats might not care about the answers to these questions, but voters should seek them out long before they grant Mr. Tiahrt higher office.



Openly yours,

Publius

If the Glove Doesn’t Fit. . .

Over the past several months, I have been very critical of Mr. Tiahrt’s alleged involvement with the PMA earmarks scandal that send defense contracts to the clients of the former lobbying firm in exchange for campaign contributions. During this time people wondered what I would say if Mr. Tiahrt was acquitted by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

Well, Mr. Tiahrt was recently acquitted of wrongdoing by the OCE and I honestly wish that I could take back the negative comments I made towards him about this situation. I wish that the world was that clear cut and that all politicians went to Washington to do what was best for America. I wish that the OCE once and for all admonished Mr. Tiahrt of all wrongdoing.

I can’t do these things, however, until we discuss (as Paul Harvey used to say), “the rest of the story.” So I’d like to direct your attention to the top of page 182 of the PMA report which reads:

Given that the documents the OCE has obtained through its investigation show potential connections between appropriations requests from former PMA clients and campaign contributions from the same clients to Representative Tiahrt, without further information that can only be obtained through witness interviews, the OCE cannot fully assess Representative Tiahrt’s role in the former clients’ intentions to make contributions based on receipt of earmarks. In the event that the OCE is unable to obtain information necessary to reach this determination, and there is probable cause to believe the allegations based on obtained evidence, the Board may refer the matter to the Standards Committee for further review. The Board finds that the evidence gathered in the OCE’s review supports a finding of probable cause.

While the OCE failed to find Mr. Tiahrt guilty in the PMA investigation, it appears that the investigators believe that he is guilty. This distinction between what the investigators were able to find and what is probably true is one of the classically murky situations that is best exemplified by former NFL running back OJ Simpson.

As we all know, Mr. Simpson was acquitted of murder in the highly publicized 1994 murder trial, but what many forget is that Simpson was later found liable for the wrongful death of his ex-wife Nicole and Ronald Goldman. The two juries in these cases might have seen the same evidence but came to wildly different conclusions because of the different standards that are applied to civil and criminal court. The jury in the criminal trial had a reasonable doubt that Simpson didn’t commit the murders, while the jury in the civil trial found that there was a preponderance of evidence to find Simpson liable.

The PMA investigation is similar because while the OCE could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Tiahrt gave defense contracts to the clients of a lobbying firm in exchange for campaign contributions, the review did support a finding of probable cause. While Tiahrt was acquitted by the ethics committee, the committee seemingly believes there is a good chance that he is guilty.

I believe that Kansas voters should treat themselves as the civil jury in this case. Looking at the findings of the OCE, Kansans should ask themselves the question: Is Todd Tiahrt probably guilty of these ethics violations? If Kansas voters believe that Todd Tiahrt is probably guilty of these violations, then they should also see him as a liability to hold their Senate seat, and should vote accordingly.

Suspiciously yours,

Publius