As many of you have undoubtedly read, Mr. Tiahrt’s campaign recently released a campaign ad that criticized his opponent for raising taxes. Putting aside the dubious and unjustified claims about the differences between Tiahrt and Moran’s respective votes related to raising and lowering taxes, the most interesting thing about this commercial is the fact that it featured several shots of tax forms from the state of New York.
Sure this is just a minor detail from yet another attack ad, but the problem I have with this is that it shows how aloof Mr. Tiahrt is from the people of Kansas. While I doubt that Mr. Tiahrt personally oversaw every shot of this commercial, I also doubt that any reasonable Kansan would inexplicably use the New York tax forms when creating the advertisement. The appearance of these forms in the commercial is symbolic of Mr. Tiahrt’s inside-the-beltway preferences, and the likelihood that the ad was created by some east coast political operative.
Mr. Tiahrt might make claims about how great of a state Kansas is, and he might make claims about all of the work that he does to bring jobs to the state; but when push comes to shove it seems completely evident that his campaign must be paying people outside of Kansas to run his campaign and to make his commercials. Why wouldn’t Mr. Tiahrt use his campaign funds to keep jobs and money within the state?
Todd Tiahrt is a long-time politician that doesn’t live in Kansas and only really seems to care about Kansans because they have propped up his east coast lifestyle for far too long. I believe it is time to allow Mr. Tiahrt to leave behind Kansas for good and do whatever he is going to do after his political career is over [Publius Prediction: Mr. Tiahrt gets a job with some really shady lobbying firm.]
Yours on the range,
Publius
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Ready, Set, Go Get Negative
While I know that the best place to go for impartial unbiased information about the state of this race is not the Moran campaign; I think we need to take a quick look at the polling numbers that were released the other day. [Note: This isn’t to say that the Tiahrt campaign would are wouldn’t give better polling numbers than the Moran camp, just to say that when these numbers are released by any campaign we should proceed with caution]
First, a quick run-down of the information released:
1. Moran: 67% favorable—7% unfavorable
2. Tiahrt: 50% favorable—12%unfavorable
3. Moran holds a 2:1 advantage on the Republican Ballot test
4. Moran leads 51%-33% among Tea Partiers
5. Republican Primary voters believe that Tiahrt is running a more negative campaign (although there aren’t numerical statistics about this)
That last item is the most troubling one out off all of them for Mr. Tiahrt. In fact, when I first heard about the first couple statistics, my initial reaction was to make my write-up about how Tiahrt’s only option would be to go negative with his campaign. Apparently the voters already believe that Tiahrt has gone negative with his campaign. What is he going to do now? Get more negative??
I think that Kansans should want a candidate that doesn’t have to stoop down low to highly negative and controversial advertising in order to win an election. In fact, I make an effort to vote against candidates that go negative just out of principles. Why would we want a person representing us that is unable to run a nice and clean campaign? We should be voting for our senators for the things that they bring to the table, and not the things they claim their opponent has done in the past or will do in the future.
Negative campaigning is almost always based in truth, but twisted to the point where it is a lie. It isn’t a way to convince the voters to vote for somebody, but a way to manipulate the voters into believing something that isn’t true. If Mr. Tiahrt makes this campaign a negative mudfest, I can only hope that Kansas voters see through it and make a more classy choice.
Positively Yours,
Publius
First, a quick run-down of the information released:
1. Moran: 67% favorable—7% unfavorable
2. Tiahrt: 50% favorable—12%unfavorable
3. Moran holds a 2:1 advantage on the Republican Ballot test
4. Moran leads 51%-33% among Tea Partiers
5. Republican Primary voters believe that Tiahrt is running a more negative campaign (although there aren’t numerical statistics about this)
That last item is the most troubling one out off all of them for Mr. Tiahrt. In fact, when I first heard about the first couple statistics, my initial reaction was to make my write-up about how Tiahrt’s only option would be to go negative with his campaign. Apparently the voters already believe that Tiahrt has gone negative with his campaign. What is he going to do now? Get more negative??
I think that Kansans should want a candidate that doesn’t have to stoop down low to highly negative and controversial advertising in order to win an election. In fact, I make an effort to vote against candidates that go negative just out of principles. Why would we want a person representing us that is unable to run a nice and clean campaign? We should be voting for our senators for the things that they bring to the table, and not the things they claim their opponent has done in the past or will do in the future.
Negative campaigning is almost always based in truth, but twisted to the point where it is a lie. It isn’t a way to convince the voters to vote for somebody, but a way to manipulate the voters into believing something that isn’t true. If Mr. Tiahrt makes this campaign a negative mudfest, I can only hope that Kansas voters see through it and make a more classy choice.
Positively Yours,
Publius
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Who’s on Campus?
In a close race where every endorsement matters, last week Mr. Tiahrt received a big one from the Kansas Federation of College Republicans (meanwhile, his opponent, Jerry Moran, was endorsed by the important Kansas Farm Bureau). While touting his new endorsement, Mr. Tiahrt claimed that it was important and meaningful because it was the first time that the Federation had endorsed a candidate in a primary fight.
This is great news for Mr. Tiahrt, and he should be really happy with the endorsement and tout it all he wants. This endorsement will undoubtedly help him gain some support among younger voters which will be great for his campaign. My problem with Mr. Tiahrt’s actions is that soon after he was endorsed by the College Republicans, he then began to twist and turn things and be untruthful and ingenious with voters in public.
Last Saturday, Mr. Tiahrt wrote an editorial in the Morning Sun in which he was ostensibly talking about the importance of debates, while criticizing Mr. Moran for turning down the opportunity to debate him at an event that was sponsored by the Kansas Federation of College Republicans. Now, I might be reading too carefully; but it seems to me like there is conflict of interest here.
If the Kansas Federation of College Republicans wants to start endorsing candidates, that is fine with me. I didn’t go to college in the state of Kansas and am not a part of the organization. I really don’t care who they endorse. The problem with such an organization endorsing a candidate; however, is that they shouldn’t then expect the other candidate to come to events that they organize. If the College Republicans really wanted to have a fair and honest series of debates, it surely would have been in their best interests to withhold their endorsement until after the debate series.
Because of this, how can we blame Mr. Moran for not wanted to attend a debate that is sponsored by an organization that wants his opponent to win? How can the debate possibly be fair and unbiased if its organizers publicly say they are in favor of one candidate.
Furthermore, I believe that Mr. Tiahrt should refrain from criticizing Mr. Moran for turning down the chance to appear at an event that was organized by a group that recently endorsed Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Moran should have the right to a fair and unbiased debate, and we should afford him the opportunity to turn down debates that will ostensibly be unfair. Mr. Tiahrt disingenuously attacks Mr. Moran for not agreeing to the debate, because the whole idea of this debate is flawed from the outset. By painting the issue in broad strokes about debates and geography, Mr. Tiahrt missed the more important issue that this debate couldn’t possibly be fair.
It’s just another reason why I don’t trust Mr. Tiahrt to be honest.
Endorselessly yours,
Publius
This is great news for Mr. Tiahrt, and he should be really happy with the endorsement and tout it all he wants. This endorsement will undoubtedly help him gain some support among younger voters which will be great for his campaign. My problem with Mr. Tiahrt’s actions is that soon after he was endorsed by the College Republicans, he then began to twist and turn things and be untruthful and ingenious with voters in public.
Last Saturday, Mr. Tiahrt wrote an editorial in the Morning Sun in which he was ostensibly talking about the importance of debates, while criticizing Mr. Moran for turning down the opportunity to debate him at an event that was sponsored by the Kansas Federation of College Republicans. Now, I might be reading too carefully; but it seems to me like there is conflict of interest here.
If the Kansas Federation of College Republicans wants to start endorsing candidates, that is fine with me. I didn’t go to college in the state of Kansas and am not a part of the organization. I really don’t care who they endorse. The problem with such an organization endorsing a candidate; however, is that they shouldn’t then expect the other candidate to come to events that they organize. If the College Republicans really wanted to have a fair and honest series of debates, it surely would have been in their best interests to withhold their endorsement until after the debate series.
Because of this, how can we blame Mr. Moran for not wanted to attend a debate that is sponsored by an organization that wants his opponent to win? How can the debate possibly be fair and unbiased if its organizers publicly say they are in favor of one candidate.
Furthermore, I believe that Mr. Tiahrt should refrain from criticizing Mr. Moran for turning down the chance to appear at an event that was organized by a group that recently endorsed Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Moran should have the right to a fair and unbiased debate, and we should afford him the opportunity to turn down debates that will ostensibly be unfair. Mr. Tiahrt disingenuously attacks Mr. Moran for not agreeing to the debate, because the whole idea of this debate is flawed from the outset. By painting the issue in broad strokes about debates and geography, Mr. Tiahrt missed the more important issue that this debate couldn’t possibly be fair.
It’s just another reason why I don’t trust Mr. Tiahrt to be honest.
Endorselessly yours,
Publius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)