I usually like to write some sort of deeper analysis than just a one-sentence joke with a link, but there’s really not much more I can write at this point other than to say that these poll numbers are definitely trouble for Todd.
http://www.kctv5.com/politics/24070470/detail.html
Troublingly Yours,
Publius
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Left Behind by the KRA
Today in Topeka, the Kansas Republican Assembly (KRA) announced its endorsements for the upcoming elections and shockingly Mr. Tiahrt was not on their list of true conservatives to vote for. For those unfamiliar with the KRA and its organization, this is basically the most conservative organization in the state. People that really want to fight for conservative values join the KRA, and the KRA helps its membership determine which traditional conservatives they should vote for.
In order to be endorsed by the KRA, a candidate for office must receive two-thirds of the vote during a meeting of their general membership. This practice is instituted to ensure that the organization only puts its support behind the most conservative candidates that it can find, and in practice it is a good way to determine whether or not a candidate in any Kansas election is really seen as a traditional conservative amongst the most right-wing members of our state.
While Mr. Tiahrt has spent much of the past year trying to portray himself as the true conservative in his Senate race, it is truly shocking that he was not endorsed by the KRA. It appears that the traditional conservatives of the KRA either do not believe Mr. Tiahrt is conservative enough, do not trust that he is honest enough, or believe that his seemingly more moderate opponent in the election is actually the more traditional conservative. After all of his hard work trying to portray himself as a true conservative, Todd Tiahrt has failed to get the endorsement of the truest conservatives in the state.
This is an incredibly troubling turn of events for the Tiahrt campaign, and one that could be very difficult to come back from. If Mr. Tiahrt’s entire strategy in this race was to portray himself as more conservative than his opponent, this is a critical endorsement to lose from one of the most conservative organizations in the state. It will be interesting to see how the Tiahrt campaign explains this colossal failure, and if they are able to competently convince voters that the KRA is wrong and that Tiahrt should be elected because of his conservative values.
In order to be endorsed by the KRA, a candidate for office must receive two-thirds of the vote during a meeting of their general membership. This practice is instituted to ensure that the organization only puts its support behind the most conservative candidates that it can find, and in practice it is a good way to determine whether or not a candidate in any Kansas election is really seen as a traditional conservative amongst the most right-wing members of our state.
While Mr. Tiahrt has spent much of the past year trying to portray himself as the true conservative in his Senate race, it is truly shocking that he was not endorsed by the KRA. It appears that the traditional conservatives of the KRA either do not believe Mr. Tiahrt is conservative enough, do not trust that he is honest enough, or believe that his seemingly more moderate opponent in the election is actually the more traditional conservative. After all of his hard work trying to portray himself as a true conservative, Todd Tiahrt has failed to get the endorsement of the truest conservatives in the state.
This is an incredibly troubling turn of events for the Tiahrt campaign, and one that could be very difficult to come back from. If Mr. Tiahrt’s entire strategy in this race was to portray himself as more conservative than his opponent, this is a critical endorsement to lose from one of the most conservative organizations in the state. It will be interesting to see how the Tiahrt campaign explains this colossal failure, and if they are able to competently convince voters that the KRA is wrong and that Tiahrt should be elected because of his conservative values.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Desperate Times. . .
As the old saying goes, desperate times call for desperate measures, and it looks like Todd Tiahrt has finally reached his breaking point. Television ads from the Tiahrt campaign are suggesting that the candidate is quickly losing ground to his opponent while his website has busted out all of the stops with their “Moran Mythbusters” series that looks like something that would fit better on a cable television show than it does as a part of a political campaign. Let’s take a look at these developments:
In a recent television ad, the Tiahrt campaign claimed that Mr. Moran isn’t actually the fiscal conservative that he has been claiming, and they cite six votes to prove it. Of those six votes, five of them actually predated Mr. Moran’s time in Congress, and are actually from the early 1990s when he was a state legislator. This ploy by the Tiahrt campaign shows that they are desperately turning to whatever means they can to try to perform some sort of high stakes magic trick.
Their incredibly tenuous claims that these votes represent a troubling pattern of behavior, and that they show how Moran is willing to betray Republicans, are completely ridiculous and unfounded. Votes from the state legislature are about very different issues than votes in Congress, just as votes from 20 years ago were made under completely different circumstances than those that would be cast in the next two or three years. For the Tiahrt campaign to claim a link between these votes and Moran’s future congressional actions is far more than a reach.
This pattern of reaching deep into Moran’s record to make far-reaching claims is continued on the “Moran Mythbusters” pages of the Tiahrt website. Much of their supposed “evidence” on these pages goes back several decades, and even the descriptions of recent evidence is laced with confusing double-speak and even double negatives that make it nearly impossible to understand the truth behind what they are selling.
I’m not even going to get into all the double-speak and irony within their earmark pages, as I have well-documented Tiahrt’s addiction to earmarks. What I really want to know about this Mythbuster series is if the Tiahrt campaign got permission from the Discovery Channel program to ostensibly use their trademarked symbol and graphic as a part of their political campaign. While I don’t really know much about the Mythbusters show, I feel like the Discovery Channel would certainly want to stay out of the political fray of this mess.
I am wondering if Mr. Tiahrt’s campaign is actually illegally utilizing the Mythbusters symbol on their website. He better hope somebody out there can find some answers to these questions before Tiahrt digs himself too deep of a whole with this Mythbuster charade.
Mythically yours,
Publius
In a recent television ad, the Tiahrt campaign claimed that Mr. Moran isn’t actually the fiscal conservative that he has been claiming, and they cite six votes to prove it. Of those six votes, five of them actually predated Mr. Moran’s time in Congress, and are actually from the early 1990s when he was a state legislator. This ploy by the Tiahrt campaign shows that they are desperately turning to whatever means they can to try to perform some sort of high stakes magic trick.
Their incredibly tenuous claims that these votes represent a troubling pattern of behavior, and that they show how Moran is willing to betray Republicans, are completely ridiculous and unfounded. Votes from the state legislature are about very different issues than votes in Congress, just as votes from 20 years ago were made under completely different circumstances than those that would be cast in the next two or three years. For the Tiahrt campaign to claim a link between these votes and Moran’s future congressional actions is far more than a reach.
This pattern of reaching deep into Moran’s record to make far-reaching claims is continued on the “Moran Mythbusters” pages of the Tiahrt website. Much of their supposed “evidence” on these pages goes back several decades, and even the descriptions of recent evidence is laced with confusing double-speak and even double negatives that make it nearly impossible to understand the truth behind what they are selling.
I’m not even going to get into all the double-speak and irony within their earmark pages, as I have well-documented Tiahrt’s addiction to earmarks. What I really want to know about this Mythbuster series is if the Tiahrt campaign got permission from the Discovery Channel program to ostensibly use their trademarked symbol and graphic as a part of their political campaign. While I don’t really know much about the Mythbusters show, I feel like the Discovery Channel would certainly want to stay out of the political fray of this mess.
I am wondering if Mr. Tiahrt’s campaign is actually illegally utilizing the Mythbusters symbol on their website. He better hope somebody out there can find some answers to these questions before Tiahrt digs himself too deep of a whole with this Mythbuster charade.
Mythically yours,
Publius
Friday, May 28, 2010
Empire State of Mind
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
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
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
Monday, April 19, 2010
What’s the Truth About Taxes?
Last week Mr. Tiahrt sent out a letter to his supporters that said, “I have never voted for a tax increase. Never, not a single time. And you have my word that I will continue to oppose tax increases and support tax cuts in the U.S. Senate.” He continued to criticize his opponent (Rep. Jerry Moran) for continuously voting to increase taxes and for failing to vote for the Bush tax cuts.
On a policy note, this letter makes me wonder what Mr. Tiahrt’s plans are for paying for the massive size of our federal government. One of the most troubling issues that America faces today is the growing national debt, and a budget that is nowhere close to being balanced. If Mr. Tiahrt isn’t willing to raise taxes, what specific government programs does he want to end? Is he willing to end his massive and irresponsible pork projects in an effort to balance the budget?
While the policy implications of Mr. Tiahrt’s letter are certainly questionable, the real problem with this letter is that much of what he writes is completely false. As the Dodge City Globe pointed out, Mr. Tiahrt has actually voted in favor of tax increases as recently as last month (on a measure that Mr. Moran actually voted against). Furthermore, Mr. Tiahrt’s claim that Moran voted against the Bush tax cuts is clearly false. Mr. Moran actually voted FOR the Bush tax cuts.
It’s still relatively early in this campaign, but it has become obvious that there is no lie that Mr. Tiahrt won’t tell in order to get ahead. If Mr. Tiahrt is willing to obviously LIE to his supporters about his and Mr. Moran’s records, what else is he willing to do? If we can’t trust Mr. Tiahrt to be truthful with the people that are already supporting him, how can we trust him to be a truthful representative for all of Kansas?
The truth is that we can’t trust him.
Publius
On a policy note, this letter makes me wonder what Mr. Tiahrt’s plans are for paying for the massive size of our federal government. One of the most troubling issues that America faces today is the growing national debt, and a budget that is nowhere close to being balanced. If Mr. Tiahrt isn’t willing to raise taxes, what specific government programs does he want to end? Is he willing to end his massive and irresponsible pork projects in an effort to balance the budget?
While the policy implications of Mr. Tiahrt’s letter are certainly questionable, the real problem with this letter is that much of what he writes is completely false. As the Dodge City Globe pointed out, Mr. Tiahrt has actually voted in favor of tax increases as recently as last month (on a measure that Mr. Moran actually voted against). Furthermore, Mr. Tiahrt’s claim that Moran voted against the Bush tax cuts is clearly false. Mr. Moran actually voted FOR the Bush tax cuts.
It’s still relatively early in this campaign, but it has become obvious that there is no lie that Mr. Tiahrt won’t tell in order to get ahead. If Mr. Tiahrt is willing to obviously LIE to his supporters about his and Mr. Moran’s records, what else is he willing to do? If we can’t trust Mr. Tiahrt to be truthful with the people that are already supporting him, how can we trust him to be a truthful representative for all of Kansas?
The truth is that we can’t trust him.
Publius
Friday, April 16, 2010
Who Says Pigs Can’t Fly?
Earlier this week Citizens Against Government Waste (a conservative think tank whose objective is to create a more fiscally responsible government) released its Pig Book “Oinkers” of 2010 awards that, “Recognize Dogged Perseverance in the Mad Pursuit of Pork.” The organization presents these awards to the Congressmen that most represent the grand tradition of extraordinarily wasteful Washington spending.
Coming as no surprise to this blogger is Mr. Tiahrt’s appearance on the list (along with Senators Roberts and Brownback) under the “Plane Waste Award”. The three representatives are criticized by CAGW for $3,500,000 in federal funds that were used to build the National Institute for Aviation Research. This spending was particularly criticized because its clients are all major aerospace companies that could (and SHOULD) pay for this program on their own.
Yet again we are witnessing Mr. Tiahrt’s actions not match up to his words. Time and time again he makes claims about being a true conservative, but time and time again we hear about congressional watchdog groups giving him poor ratings for his excessive and wasteful spending in Washington. How can we believe this rhetoric?
What makes matters worse is that the announcement of the “Oinker” award came one day before Mr. Tiahrt was actually endorsed by the Tea Party Express. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the entire point of the Tea Party movement to encourage smaller government with less waste? How does Mr. Tiahrt and his pork barrel politics represent the values of the Tea Party movement?
All together, the endorsement and the oinker give me a very troubling view of the Tea Party Express’s means for vetting candidates it should endorse, as well as the problem with rhetoric in our country. Tea Party Express seems to be endorsing Mr. Tiahrt NOT for his conservative principles (which truly don’t exist) but for some sort of nebulously rhetorical reason that I can’t quite understand.
In any event, if Kansans (especially members of the Kansas Tea Party movement) want a true conservative to represent this state in the Senate, it seems impossible at this point to believe that Mr. Tiahrt is the man for the job.
Oinking All the Way,
Publius
Coming as no surprise to this blogger is Mr. Tiahrt’s appearance on the list (along with Senators Roberts and Brownback) under the “Plane Waste Award”. The three representatives are criticized by CAGW for $3,500,000 in federal funds that were used to build the National Institute for Aviation Research. This spending was particularly criticized because its clients are all major aerospace companies that could (and SHOULD) pay for this program on their own.
Yet again we are witnessing Mr. Tiahrt’s actions not match up to his words. Time and time again he makes claims about being a true conservative, but time and time again we hear about congressional watchdog groups giving him poor ratings for his excessive and wasteful spending in Washington. How can we believe this rhetoric?
What makes matters worse is that the announcement of the “Oinker” award came one day before Mr. Tiahrt was actually endorsed by the Tea Party Express. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the entire point of the Tea Party movement to encourage smaller government with less waste? How does Mr. Tiahrt and his pork barrel politics represent the values of the Tea Party movement?
All together, the endorsement and the oinker give me a very troubling view of the Tea Party Express’s means for vetting candidates it should endorse, as well as the problem with rhetoric in our country. Tea Party Express seems to be endorsing Mr. Tiahrt NOT for his conservative principles (which truly don’t exist) but for some sort of nebulously rhetorical reason that I can’t quite understand.
In any event, if Kansans (especially members of the Kansas Tea Party movement) want a true conservative to represent this state in the Senate, it seems impossible at this point to believe that Mr. Tiahrt is the man for the job.
Oinking All the Way,
Publius
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A Flimsy Excuse
Yesterday it was discussed in various publications (here, here, here, here, and here) how Mr. Tiahrt’s offices increased their spending by 11% in 2009. These are, by the way, his taxpayer-funded congressional offices (not to be confused with his campaign offices, although does Tiahrt really know the difference?). These increases, it was reported, included a 22% raise in payroll that brought Tiahrt’s government office payroll above $1 million.
Coupled with last week’s report that Mr. Tiahrt spent $107,000 of taxpayer money last year on franking mail, and we get a troubling picture of a Congressman that sure talks a lot about reducing federal spending, but makes sure to do his part to spend as much taxpayer money as possible. If Mr. Tiahrt was actually serious about lowering the amount of money spent by the federal government, it would be nice to see him start with the only part of the budget that he individually has direct control over.
It might be a small part of the budget, but it’s the little things that make a big impression on voters.
The problem for Mr. Tiahrt, when it comes to these little things, is that he feels an incessant need to make excuses for shortcomings such as these; excuses that bring about further questions regarding how his operations are run and if he is actually the true conservative that he has spent so much time touting himself as.
The Obama Excuse
Responding to the questions surrounding Tiahrt’s increase in office spending, Tiahrt spokesman Sam Sackett claimed that the increase in expenditures was a result of the election of President Obama and the increase in phone calls to the offices that came with it. According to Sackett, Tiahrt’s office averaged 50-60 calls a day during the Bush administration, and has averaged more than 200 calls a day since Obama’s election. “We had to employ a number of people to answer phone calls,” Sackett said, in his attempt to deflect the criticism.
The problem with this excuse is that it fails to acknowledge how congressional offices actually operate because the phones in most congressional offices are answered by UNPAID INTERNS. When I worked as an intern in a congressional district office several summers ago, my primary job was to answer phones and record constituent opinions. Nobody in that office that was actually on the payroll answered the phones unless all of the unpaid interns were already speaking with constituents.
If Tiahrt’s office was really getting so many more calls because of Obama’s election, they would have just hired more unpaid interns to pick up the phone (and believe me, you can ALWAYS find high school and college students to work internships). Obama complaints are never actually going to translate into casework (the stuff that the paid employees at district offices do) or more legislative research (the stuff that the paid employees in DC do); unpaid interns can very easily be trained to answer the phones and log the complaints about Obama into their Congressional database.
The Obama Excuse also makes little sense because Mr. Moran is not making a similar excuse. If Tiahrt needed to hire more people to deal with an increase in complaints regarding President Obama, wouldn’t Mr. Moran also need to hire more people to deal with these same complaints from his constituents? Moran ostensibly represents an even MORE Conservative district, and should get even more complaints (or is there another reason why the frontrunner to replace Mr. Tiahrt right now is actually a Democrat).
It’s impossible to fully believe The Obama Excuse because Mr. Moran’s payroll actually decreased in 2009. I think it’s fair to assume that both offices would get a reasonably similar increase in phone calls and complaints, and for this reason it makes no sense that Mr. Tiahrt would need to increase payroll, while Mr. Moran decreases it.
Clearly, something out of the ordinary is happening here.
The Blame Game
The most troubling thing to me about The Obama Excuse is that it disingenuously sends the blame about the increase in payroll towards the President. It looks to me as if Mr. Tiahrt’s people are trying to blame Obama for the fact that their office had to spend more money. You can think whatever you do about Obama, but their attempts to spin the issue this way reek of attempts to make it a partisan issue.
I feel like Tiahrt’s people are trying to harness voter discontent for the Obama administration to somehow spin it into making people think that Mr. Tiahrt was forced by the President to spend more money on his payroll. While I don’t believe their Obama Excuse, I also see it as a flimsy ploy to gain support from people that are upset with Obama.
Do they really need to stoop this low?
The Tiahrt Five
Another reason why The Obama Excuse is so baseless is the fact that more than half of the increase in spending went to five people that are not only also paid by Mr. Tiahrt’s Senate campaign, but include four recently named members of the campaign leadership team. Even if the increase in spending was about the Obama calls, Mr. Tiahrt wouldn’t really be having his leadership team be fielding these calls, would he?
The fact that so much of the spending increase went to people that also work on his campaign makes me wonder if the increase in spending is tacitly connected to Mr. Tiahrt’s campaign activities. While his spokesperson makes clear that most congressmen have dual-staff employees being paid by both the federal government and the campaign, it is striking to me that Tiahrt’s people would even come close to flirting this line considering their recent scare with the Congressional Ethics committee.
As I’ve written on numerous occasions, there is a fine line between the activities of a campaign and those of the federal government, and this large increase in spending on staff payroll gives me the impression that Tiahrt’s office and campaign might have been crossing that line.
How To Operate a Payroll
At a recent town hall meeting Mr. Tiahrt spoke about how his experience as a former businessman has taught him how to meet a monthly payroll. While I’ll let you decide if his experience at Boeing actually helped to teach him about meeting a payroll like a small businessperson, I think his recent payrolls clearly show that he does not know how to manage one.
Everybody knows that the economy has been rough, and we all have heard as much about how the federal government has been spending too much money. Mr. Tiahrt has been telling us these things for the better part of the past year, but he has apparently not been listening. Most families know what it takes to cut back on their household spending in times like these, but Mr. Tiahrt is proving to us that he does not know how to cut back.
Once again Mr. Tiahrt has proved to me that he is not a true fiscally conservative deficit hawk. While Mr. Tiahrt consistently claims that he cares about lowering the deficit, he consistently acts in ways that are contrary to his supposed beliefs. If we can’t trust Mr. Tiahrt to lower his own staff’s expenditures, and we can’t trust him to be honest about why he is spending more money (as I don’t believe The Obama Excuse), how can we possibly trust him to honestly work to lower the budget deficit?
Without Excuses,
Publius
Coupled with last week’s report that Mr. Tiahrt spent $107,000 of taxpayer money last year on franking mail, and we get a troubling picture of a Congressman that sure talks a lot about reducing federal spending, but makes sure to do his part to spend as much taxpayer money as possible. If Mr. Tiahrt was actually serious about lowering the amount of money spent by the federal government, it would be nice to see him start with the only part of the budget that he individually has direct control over.
It might be a small part of the budget, but it’s the little things that make a big impression on voters.
The problem for Mr. Tiahrt, when it comes to these little things, is that he feels an incessant need to make excuses for shortcomings such as these; excuses that bring about further questions regarding how his operations are run and if he is actually the true conservative that he has spent so much time touting himself as.
The Obama Excuse
Responding to the questions surrounding Tiahrt’s increase in office spending, Tiahrt spokesman Sam Sackett claimed that the increase in expenditures was a result of the election of President Obama and the increase in phone calls to the offices that came with it. According to Sackett, Tiahrt’s office averaged 50-60 calls a day during the Bush administration, and has averaged more than 200 calls a day since Obama’s election. “We had to employ a number of people to answer phone calls,” Sackett said, in his attempt to deflect the criticism.
The problem with this excuse is that it fails to acknowledge how congressional offices actually operate because the phones in most congressional offices are answered by UNPAID INTERNS. When I worked as an intern in a congressional district office several summers ago, my primary job was to answer phones and record constituent opinions. Nobody in that office that was actually on the payroll answered the phones unless all of the unpaid interns were already speaking with constituents.
If Tiahrt’s office was really getting so many more calls because of Obama’s election, they would have just hired more unpaid interns to pick up the phone (and believe me, you can ALWAYS find high school and college students to work internships). Obama complaints are never actually going to translate into casework (the stuff that the paid employees at district offices do) or more legislative research (the stuff that the paid employees in DC do); unpaid interns can very easily be trained to answer the phones and log the complaints about Obama into their Congressional database.
The Obama Excuse also makes little sense because Mr. Moran is not making a similar excuse. If Tiahrt needed to hire more people to deal with an increase in complaints regarding President Obama, wouldn’t Mr. Moran also need to hire more people to deal with these same complaints from his constituents? Moran ostensibly represents an even MORE Conservative district, and should get even more complaints (or is there another reason why the frontrunner to replace Mr. Tiahrt right now is actually a Democrat).
It’s impossible to fully believe The Obama Excuse because Mr. Moran’s payroll actually decreased in 2009. I think it’s fair to assume that both offices would get a reasonably similar increase in phone calls and complaints, and for this reason it makes no sense that Mr. Tiahrt would need to increase payroll, while Mr. Moran decreases it.
Clearly, something out of the ordinary is happening here.
The Blame Game
The most troubling thing to me about The Obama Excuse is that it disingenuously sends the blame about the increase in payroll towards the President. It looks to me as if Mr. Tiahrt’s people are trying to blame Obama for the fact that their office had to spend more money. You can think whatever you do about Obama, but their attempts to spin the issue this way reek of attempts to make it a partisan issue.
I feel like Tiahrt’s people are trying to harness voter discontent for the Obama administration to somehow spin it into making people think that Mr. Tiahrt was forced by the President to spend more money on his payroll. While I don’t believe their Obama Excuse, I also see it as a flimsy ploy to gain support from people that are upset with Obama.
Do they really need to stoop this low?
The Tiahrt Five
Another reason why The Obama Excuse is so baseless is the fact that more than half of the increase in spending went to five people that are not only also paid by Mr. Tiahrt’s Senate campaign, but include four recently named members of the campaign leadership team. Even if the increase in spending was about the Obama calls, Mr. Tiahrt wouldn’t really be having his leadership team be fielding these calls, would he?
The fact that so much of the spending increase went to people that also work on his campaign makes me wonder if the increase in spending is tacitly connected to Mr. Tiahrt’s campaign activities. While his spokesperson makes clear that most congressmen have dual-staff employees being paid by both the federal government and the campaign, it is striking to me that Tiahrt’s people would even come close to flirting this line considering their recent scare with the Congressional Ethics committee.
As I’ve written on numerous occasions, there is a fine line between the activities of a campaign and those of the federal government, and this large increase in spending on staff payroll gives me the impression that Tiahrt’s office and campaign might have been crossing that line.
How To Operate a Payroll
At a recent town hall meeting Mr. Tiahrt spoke about how his experience as a former businessman has taught him how to meet a monthly payroll. While I’ll let you decide if his experience at Boeing actually helped to teach him about meeting a payroll like a small businessperson, I think his recent payrolls clearly show that he does not know how to manage one.
Everybody knows that the economy has been rough, and we all have heard as much about how the federal government has been spending too much money. Mr. Tiahrt has been telling us these things for the better part of the past year, but he has apparently not been listening. Most families know what it takes to cut back on their household spending in times like these, but Mr. Tiahrt is proving to us that he does not know how to cut back.
Once again Mr. Tiahrt has proved to me that he is not a true fiscally conservative deficit hawk. While Mr. Tiahrt consistently claims that he cares about lowering the deficit, he consistently acts in ways that are contrary to his supposed beliefs. If we can’t trust Mr. Tiahrt to lower his own staff’s expenditures, and we can’t trust him to be honest about why he is spending more money (as I don’t believe The Obama Excuse), how can we possibly trust him to honestly work to lower the budget deficit?
Without Excuses,
Publius
Monday, March 29, 2010
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
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
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
Thursday, March 25, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
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
“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
Sunday, March 21, 2010
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
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
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
Friday, March 19, 2010
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
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
Thursday, March 18, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
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
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
Thursday, March 4, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)