Inspired by the tweeting sensation Vicki Tiahrt, I've created an accompanying twitter account to supplement this site. You can access it at:
https://twitter.com/TiahrtsTroubles
I plan to update it daily to highlight the antics of Mr. Tiahrt. With his campaign solidifying itself as the challenger campaign of desperation, I'm sure there will be no lack of material to discuss.
Yours in Tweeting,
Publius
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Money Talks
I hate being righteous, but yesterday's predictions came to fruition today. Todd Tiahrt's campaign released their 4th Quarter numbers, and they were far more damaging that expected.
Mr. Tiahrt's campaign raised a measly $195K and spent $271K.
Yes that is correct fellow Kansans. Mr. Tiahrt, the denizen of fiscal conservatism outspent himself once again, dwindling his Cash-On-Hand to a paltry $1.32 Million. Mr. Tiahrt's opponent raised $404K and has over $3.7 Million Cash-On-Hand.
These embarrassing numbers, coupled with the new poll showing Mr. Tiahrt 7 points behind lays the groundwork for a possible exit from this race, and retirement to the Tiahrt home in Virginia.
In the next couple of days, I will provide full analysis of the finance report. Suffice to say, there appears to be a reason Mr. Tiahrt has elevated the petty rhetoric of his campaign.
Cents-ibly Yours,
Publius
Mr. Tiahrt's campaign raised a measly $195K and spent $271K.
Yes that is correct fellow Kansans. Mr. Tiahrt, the denizen of fiscal conservatism outspent himself once again, dwindling his Cash-On-Hand to a paltry $1.32 Million. Mr. Tiahrt's opponent raised $404K and has over $3.7 Million Cash-On-Hand.
These embarrassing numbers, coupled with the new poll showing Mr. Tiahrt 7 points behind lays the groundwork for a possible exit from this race, and retirement to the Tiahrt home in Virginia.
In the next couple of days, I will provide full analysis of the finance report. Suffice to say, there appears to be a reason Mr. Tiahrt has elevated the petty rhetoric of his campaign.
Cents-ibly Yours,
Publius
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Where's the G's?
February 2nd, and still no sign of Todd Tiahrt's campaign finance reports...
Both his Republican and Democrat opponents have released their financial statistics, but Mr. Tiahrt seems unwilling or unable to produce the Year-End report for the Federal Election Commission. The deadline for reporting was yesterday, however, Mr. Tiahrt apparently took advantage of the loophole that stipulates finance reports must be postmarked by February 1st.
This action is likely indicative of several troubling items for the Tiahrt campaign.
First, poor fundraising numbers are likely. It is improbable Mr. Tiahrt managed to raise the $400k+ that his Republican opponent secured. But then again, Mr. Tiahrt claims time and time again grassroots is how he'll win the election. I find it ironic that Mr. Tiahrt was unable to run away with a decisive victory at the Kansas Republican convention, a meeting of the most dedicated grassroots activists in our great state.
Second, it is almost certain he was unable to keep pace with his Republican opponent in building the Cash on Hand statistic. As I previously wrote, Mr. Tiahrt spends his campaign cash quicker than Martha Coakley can throw a foot in her mouth.
Finally, the biggest question, "What is Mr. Tiahrt hiding?" Why is this routine process taking so painstakingly long? Wouldn't a fiscal conservative have the most basic synopsis of the financial health of his campaign ready within quick order; Mr. Tiahrt has now wasted over a month putting this report together, and now is delaying the damage a few more days.
Mr. Tiahrt, it's best to admit bad news up front. Ask John Edwards.
Disclosingly Yours,
Publius
Both his Republican and Democrat opponents have released their financial statistics, but Mr. Tiahrt seems unwilling or unable to produce the Year-End report for the Federal Election Commission. The deadline for reporting was yesterday, however, Mr. Tiahrt apparently took advantage of the loophole that stipulates finance reports must be postmarked by February 1st.
This action is likely indicative of several troubling items for the Tiahrt campaign.
First, poor fundraising numbers are likely. It is improbable Mr. Tiahrt managed to raise the $400k+ that his Republican opponent secured. But then again, Mr. Tiahrt claims time and time again grassroots is how he'll win the election. I find it ironic that Mr. Tiahrt was unable to run away with a decisive victory at the Kansas Republican convention, a meeting of the most dedicated grassroots activists in our great state.
Second, it is almost certain he was unable to keep pace with his Republican opponent in building the Cash on Hand statistic. As I previously wrote, Mr. Tiahrt spends his campaign cash quicker than Martha Coakley can throw a foot in her mouth.
Finally, the biggest question, "What is Mr. Tiahrt hiding?" Why is this routine process taking so painstakingly long? Wouldn't a fiscal conservative have the most basic synopsis of the financial health of his campaign ready within quick order; Mr. Tiahrt has now wasted over a month putting this report together, and now is delaying the damage a few more days.
Mr. Tiahrt, it's best to admit bad news up front. Ask John Edwards.
Disclosingly Yours,
Publius
Monday, February 1, 2010
Home is Where?
At the Kansas Republican convention last week, Mr. Tiahrt spoke out against apparent criticisms against his family by declaring, “I just think going after the families is out of bounds.” While I certainly agree that unwarranted criticisms against families are something that should be kept out of this dirty political process, I disagree with Mr. Tiahrt’s complaints as he was responding to criticisms that were decidedly NOT about his family.
Tiahrt was responding to his opponent’s (US Representative Jerry Moran) claims that Mr. Tiahrt moved his family out of Kansas to Washington. Mr. Moran’s main criticism of Mr. Tiahrt is that Tiahrt moved his family out of Kansas (while Moran continues to live in Kansas) and is therefore out of touch with Kansas voters. Setting aside Moran’s assumption that Tiahrt must be out of touch with Kansas voters because he no longer lives there, I want to look at the response from Mr. Tiahrt.
Instead of actually responding to the legitimate concern (that Mr. Tiahrt is more of a Washington insider than he is a Kansan), Mr, Tiahrt attempted to de-legitimize these comments by making false claims about how his family had been criticized. Not only was his family never criticized, but this response seems to be intentionally withholding important information from the voters that Mr. Tiahrt is asking to elect him to the Senate.
Mr. Moran’s criticism was not addressed towards the Tiahrt family because it addressed actions that Mr. Tiahrt himself took. Would the Tiahrt’s live in Northern Virginia now if Todd was not a US Representative? NO. Do we even know if Mr. Tiahrt's children wanted to move to Virginia before their father was elected? We have no idea. I don’t personally know the opinion’s of Mr. Tiahrt’s family (except, of course, what I can glean from his wife’s Twitter account), but I fail to understand how it is a criticism of them that they moved to Northern Virginia because of their father.
The larger problem with Mr. Tiahrt’s comments, however, is the snide way in which he attempts to brush off a legitimate criticism (that he is out of touch with Kansans) by making an illegitimate one (that the original comment was insulting of his family). I think we need Mr. Tiahrt to explain to Kansans how he is fully able to understand the needs and concerns of Kansas voters, if he doesn’t even consider the state his primary residence.
Deep down, the core of this issue is that Mr. Tiahrt has become more of a Washington insider than he is a representative Kansan. He doesn’t honestly answer a criticism when asked, but he dodges by making an even worse criticism of his opponent in the process. This is not the type of behavior that Kansans should expect from somebody that is claiming to represent them (even if he is no longer one of them), it is the type of behavior we should expect from somebody that is deeply entrenched in the Washington establishment—somebody that is accused of ethics violations, attends White House Christmas parties, and writes earmarks like it is his job.
I think Mr. Tiahrt needs to answer this criticism about why he no longer lives in Kansas, and how he can properly represent Kansans while he lives in Virginia; and I think he needs to answer this criticism without making further baseless remarks.
Critically yours,
Publius
Tiahrt was responding to his opponent’s (US Representative Jerry Moran) claims that Mr. Tiahrt moved his family out of Kansas to Washington. Mr. Moran’s main criticism of Mr. Tiahrt is that Tiahrt moved his family out of Kansas (while Moran continues to live in Kansas) and is therefore out of touch with Kansas voters. Setting aside Moran’s assumption that Tiahrt must be out of touch with Kansas voters because he no longer lives there, I want to look at the response from Mr. Tiahrt.
Instead of actually responding to the legitimate concern (that Mr. Tiahrt is more of a Washington insider than he is a Kansan), Mr, Tiahrt attempted to de-legitimize these comments by making false claims about how his family had been criticized. Not only was his family never criticized, but this response seems to be intentionally withholding important information from the voters that Mr. Tiahrt is asking to elect him to the Senate.
Mr. Moran’s criticism was not addressed towards the Tiahrt family because it addressed actions that Mr. Tiahrt himself took. Would the Tiahrt’s live in Northern Virginia now if Todd was not a US Representative? NO. Do we even know if Mr. Tiahrt's children wanted to move to Virginia before their father was elected? We have no idea. I don’t personally know the opinion’s of Mr. Tiahrt’s family (except, of course, what I can glean from his wife’s Twitter account), but I fail to understand how it is a criticism of them that they moved to Northern Virginia because of their father.
The larger problem with Mr. Tiahrt’s comments, however, is the snide way in which he attempts to brush off a legitimate criticism (that he is out of touch with Kansans) by making an illegitimate one (that the original comment was insulting of his family). I think we need Mr. Tiahrt to explain to Kansans how he is fully able to understand the needs and concerns of Kansas voters, if he doesn’t even consider the state his primary residence.
Deep down, the core of this issue is that Mr. Tiahrt has become more of a Washington insider than he is a representative Kansan. He doesn’t honestly answer a criticism when asked, but he dodges by making an even worse criticism of his opponent in the process. This is not the type of behavior that Kansans should expect from somebody that is claiming to represent them (even if he is no longer one of them), it is the type of behavior we should expect from somebody that is deeply entrenched in the Washington establishment—somebody that is accused of ethics violations, attends White House Christmas parties, and writes earmarks like it is his job.
I think Mr. Tiahrt needs to answer this criticism about why he no longer lives in Kansas, and how he can properly represent Kansans while he lives in Virginia; and I think he needs to answer this criticism without making further baseless remarks.
Critically yours,
Publius
Thursday, January 21, 2010
45 Days . . . and counting
Earlier this week news officially broke that Mr. Tiahrt is now under investigation by the House Committee on Standards for his involvement in the widely publicized PMA scandal that has been reported by many news outlets and discussed previously on this blog. Not only is Mr. Tiahrt under further investigation, but he is the only Republican of the PMA Seven to be further investigated by the House Committee on Standards. The basics of the case are that Mr. Tiahrt allegedly put earmarks into bills that gave contracts to clients of now-defunct lobbying firm PMA in exchange for political endorsements.
While Mr. Tiahrt claims that he is happy these investigations are going public, and hopeful that he will be soon exonerated of the charges; I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his staff are probably shaking in their pants.
Time and again Kansas voters have been told by Mr. Tiahrt that he is the conservative choice for the Senate and that he will fight wasteful spending in Washington, but everybody knows that the most wasteful form of spending in Washington is the earmark process that only help a small group of the elite and powerful. If Mr. Tiahrt has been involved with creating these earmarks—that alone would be cause for Kansans to vote against him in this summer’s election, but if he was helping to write these earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions, I believe that would necessitate his resignation from Congress as well as removing himself from the current Senate campaign.
Luckily, there is now a time frame.
Kansas voters will not be forced to make a decision simply based on the rhetoric that politicians have been throwing around, but they will have definitive knowledge of Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in the situation when they make their decision this summer. Either Mr. Tiahrt’s claims of innocence will be backed up, or he will be revealed as a lying Washington insider that should have no place representing the people of Kansas.
I can’t wait to see the results.
Patiently yours,
Publius
While Mr. Tiahrt claims that he is happy these investigations are going public, and hopeful that he will be soon exonerated of the charges; I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his staff are probably shaking in their pants.
Time and again Kansas voters have been told by Mr. Tiahrt that he is the conservative choice for the Senate and that he will fight wasteful spending in Washington, but everybody knows that the most wasteful form of spending in Washington is the earmark process that only help a small group of the elite and powerful. If Mr. Tiahrt has been involved with creating these earmarks—that alone would be cause for Kansans to vote against him in this summer’s election, but if he was helping to write these earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions, I believe that would necessitate his resignation from Congress as well as removing himself from the current Senate campaign.
Luckily, there is now a time frame.
Kansas voters will not be forced to make a decision simply based on the rhetoric that politicians have been throwing around, but they will have definitive knowledge of Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in the situation when they make their decision this summer. Either Mr. Tiahrt’s claims of innocence will be backed up, or he will be revealed as a lying Washington insider that should have no place representing the people of Kansas.
I can’t wait to see the results.
Patiently yours,
Publius
Friday, January 15, 2010
In Whose Town Hall?
Recently, Mr. Tiahrt staged a controversial event that is being described by some as a town hall meeting, and by others as a campaign rally. Mr. Tiahrt appeared at the event in the City-County Building in Salina (a building that is strictly prohibited from hosting political rallies), and used the event to answer voters questions and to ‘outline the differences between himself and his Senate opponent’.
While Tiahrt (as well as the Saline County Commission Chairman) are claiming that the event was not a political event, I believe that the facts of this event show that it was clearly a political rally. First: the event was announced by Tiahrt for Senate. Second: materials advertising the event were paid for by Kansans for Tiahrt. Third (and most importantly): the event was held in a city outside of Tiahrt’s home district.
I believe that any event held outside a congressman’s district (when that congressman is running for Senate) should be considered a campaign event. Never mind the fact that this event was clearly promoted as a campaign event, or that Tiahrt used his time at the event, the simple fact is that this event would not have happened if Todd Tiahrt was not currently running for the US Senate.
Voters should find this troublesome because the campaign is showing a clear recklessness towards keeping the business of the campaign separate from the official business of Tiahrt’s congressional office. I understand that sometimes these things will be intermixed, but they can’t possibly try to pretend that this event in Salina wasn’t part of Tiahrt’s campaign.
When viewed in a vacuum, this event is a pretty trivial part of understanding Todd Tiahrt; but when viewed alongside his other blunders, this event helps to show that Mr. Tiahrt clearly has a knack for skirting the rules and doing whatever is best for Todd Tiahrt.
Should Kansans expect better?
Town Hallingly Yours,
Publius
While Tiahrt (as well as the Saline County Commission Chairman) are claiming that the event was not a political event, I believe that the facts of this event show that it was clearly a political rally. First: the event was announced by Tiahrt for Senate. Second: materials advertising the event were paid for by Kansans for Tiahrt. Third (and most importantly): the event was held in a city outside of Tiahrt’s home district.
I believe that any event held outside a congressman’s district (when that congressman is running for Senate) should be considered a campaign event. Never mind the fact that this event was clearly promoted as a campaign event, or that Tiahrt used his time at the event, the simple fact is that this event would not have happened if Todd Tiahrt was not currently running for the US Senate.
Voters should find this troublesome because the campaign is showing a clear recklessness towards keeping the business of the campaign separate from the official business of Tiahrt’s congressional office. I understand that sometimes these things will be intermixed, but they can’t possibly try to pretend that this event in Salina wasn’t part of Tiahrt’s campaign.
When viewed in a vacuum, this event is a pretty trivial part of understanding Todd Tiahrt; but when viewed alongside his other blunders, this event helps to show that Mr. Tiahrt clearly has a knack for skirting the rules and doing whatever is best for Todd Tiahrt.
Should Kansans expect better?
Town Hallingly Yours,
Publius
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Hang Up the Phone Todd
Recently, Todd Tiahrt was involved in a ‘conference call’ for the Maryland Independent Party (you can listen to it here, but I warn you it is painfully long to listen to). During the ‘conference call’ the group describes themselves as “Recovering Republicans” who are working to support candidates from other political parties that match their agenda.
While they claim to have a broader agenda, it appears that this is simply an ultra-right-wing fringe, lifer birther group.
The group starts their discussion with Congressman Tiahrt by pressing him on the issue of whether or not Obama meets the citizenship qualifications of the Presidency. They press Tiahrt about why he didn’t speak up when the Electoral College votes were counted. The conference call then moves forward dissecting their opinions of how Naturalized citizenship works. To his credit, Tiahrt largely stays out of this ridiculous discussion.
The moderators of the call then move the discussion toward their main issue, which is the pro-life movement and Congressman Tiahrt’s support of the Stupak Amendment. It is here in the discussion that Tiahrt must fend off the groups advances as they senselessly attack him for not being 100% behind the pro-life movement and for supporting the Stupak Amendment (even though no Republican voted against the Amendment).
I believe that Tiahrt was correct in supporting the Stupak Amendment, and justifications he gives for his actions are also sound and logical. The problem for Mr. Tiahrt, however, was that he wasn’t dealing with sound and logical people in this conference call. And further, he becomes incredibly defensive, angry, and at times belligerent during the call. While their objectives might be worthy, this group does not have a rational method for obtaining them.
Not only are the group’s methods questionable, but they speak like a bunch of angry schoolchildren. After Tiahrt finally leaves the call, the in-fighting amongst the contributors sounds like to a brother and sister fighting over the last Christmas cookie. These people make the partisan bickering of a show like the ill-fated Crossfire look like a pleasant discussion. None of the contributors seems knowledgeable, respectable, nor classy.
My question for Mr. Tiahrt would be: Why did he and his aides choose to put him on this conference call? Is he so desperate for endorsements that he felt he needed to take part in this craziness? Is he trying to prove to Kansas voters that he really is a hard right conservative who’s views are not in line with the majority of Americans?
I think somebody in Tiahrt’s campaign screwed up with the vetting process of this organization, and that Tiahrt never should have been allowed. His appearance on the call, through no fault of his own, helps to align his views and opinions with those of a disorganized and disingenuous organization that is seemingly separated from the realities of Washington politics and the real world.
If Todd Tiahrt wants to prove that he can represent all of Kansas, he needs to stop palling around with groups that make him look like an idiot and start appearing with grown-ups.
Yours in the mainstream,
Publius
While they claim to have a broader agenda, it appears that this is simply an ultra-right-wing fringe, lifer birther group.
The group starts their discussion with Congressman Tiahrt by pressing him on the issue of whether or not Obama meets the citizenship qualifications of the Presidency. They press Tiahrt about why he didn’t speak up when the Electoral College votes were counted. The conference call then moves forward dissecting their opinions of how Naturalized citizenship works. To his credit, Tiahrt largely stays out of this ridiculous discussion.
The moderators of the call then move the discussion toward their main issue, which is the pro-life movement and Congressman Tiahrt’s support of the Stupak Amendment. It is here in the discussion that Tiahrt must fend off the groups advances as they senselessly attack him for not being 100% behind the pro-life movement and for supporting the Stupak Amendment (even though no Republican voted against the Amendment).
I believe that Tiahrt was correct in supporting the Stupak Amendment, and justifications he gives for his actions are also sound and logical. The problem for Mr. Tiahrt, however, was that he wasn’t dealing with sound and logical people in this conference call. And further, he becomes incredibly defensive, angry, and at times belligerent during the call. While their objectives might be worthy, this group does not have a rational method for obtaining them.
Not only are the group’s methods questionable, but they speak like a bunch of angry schoolchildren. After Tiahrt finally leaves the call, the in-fighting amongst the contributors sounds like to a brother and sister fighting over the last Christmas cookie. These people make the partisan bickering of a show like the ill-fated Crossfire look like a pleasant discussion. None of the contributors seems knowledgeable, respectable, nor classy.
My question for Mr. Tiahrt would be: Why did he and his aides choose to put him on this conference call? Is he so desperate for endorsements that he felt he needed to take part in this craziness? Is he trying to prove to Kansas voters that he really is a hard right conservative who’s views are not in line with the majority of Americans?
I think somebody in Tiahrt’s campaign screwed up with the vetting process of this organization, and that Tiahrt never should have been allowed. His appearance on the call, through no fault of his own, helps to align his views and opinions with those of a disorganized and disingenuous organization that is seemingly separated from the realities of Washington politics and the real world.
If Todd Tiahrt wants to prove that he can represent all of Kansas, he needs to stop palling around with groups that make him look like an idiot and start appearing with grown-ups.
Yours in the mainstream,
Publius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)