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.
Showing posts with label Conservative?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative?. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
But Where was Todd?
Last weekend, the sprawling Tea Party movement finally coalesced itself into something resembling a national organization by having the first ever National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. With key speakers such as Tom Tancredo and Sarah Palin rousing the crowds of the Convention, Kansas voters need to be asking the question: Where was Todd Tiahrt?
Time and again Mr. Tiahrt has said that he is a conservative first and a Republican second, but if this was really true then wouldn’t he want to be present and active at the first national meeting of the conservative movement that has been sweeping the nation for nearly a year? It makes no sense why this ‘true conservative’ would not be at the Tea Party Convention—unless he was worried about being labeled as too conservative.
The thing about the Tea Party is that while most real conservatives in America strongly agree with their founding and their merit, there are many moderates across America that see the movement as a national punch-line. By neglecting to go to the convention, is Mr. Tiahrt trying to gain the acceptance of this group of non-conservative Americans?
If this is the case, then Mr. Tiahrt is again showing how he will put his desire for political gain in front of what he claims to believe or what he actually believes. By not attending this important convention, Mr. Tiahrt is again proving that he has become a dishonest Washington insider like so many other politicians before him.
However, I think there is a different reason for Mr. Tiahrt’s failure to attend the convention.
Last month I questioned Mr. Tiahrt’s logic in participating in an ill-advised conference call with the Maryland Independent Party. Those that have listened to ‘the call’ know that it ends with the organization criticizing Mr. Tiahrt’s conservative credentials on abortion and then proceeding to fight amongst themselves for a really long time. I believe that Mr. Tiahrt stayed away from the Tea Party Convention because he and his advisors were worried that he would again be called out by a true conservative organization for his credentials as a true conservative.
As far as I can tell, the biggest issue for most factions of the Tea Party movement is the excessive government spending. The movement wants less government spending and they are seemingly angry at all of government: Republicans and Democrats. Because of this, I believe that Mr. Tiahrt was afraid that the Tea Party Conservatives would question him about his votes for stimulus packages when other representatives voted against all the stimulus packages last year.
I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his staff were fearful of a repeat of ‘the call’ and decided to keep him away from the meeting of true conservatives that might damage his conservative ‘reputation’. I believe this stimulus issue could be even more damaging for the Tiahrt Campaign seeing as his opponent for the Senate nomination is one of the 17 Representatives that never voted for a stimulus.
At the end of the day, I don’t know why Mr. Tiahrt did not attend the National Tea Party Convention. Maybe he was afraid of being questioned about his credentials or maybe he did not want to be associated with the movement. Either way, this is a movement that Mr. Tiahrt should associate himself with if he wants to be known as a true conservative, and for now Kansas voters are just left to ask why he wasn’t there.
Tea-Drinkingly Yours,
Publius
Time and again Mr. Tiahrt has said that he is a conservative first and a Republican second, but if this was really true then wouldn’t he want to be present and active at the first national meeting of the conservative movement that has been sweeping the nation for nearly a year? It makes no sense why this ‘true conservative’ would not be at the Tea Party Convention—unless he was worried about being labeled as too conservative.
The thing about the Tea Party is that while most real conservatives in America strongly agree with their founding and their merit, there are many moderates across America that see the movement as a national punch-line. By neglecting to go to the convention, is Mr. Tiahrt trying to gain the acceptance of this group of non-conservative Americans?
If this is the case, then Mr. Tiahrt is again showing how he will put his desire for political gain in front of what he claims to believe or what he actually believes. By not attending this important convention, Mr. Tiahrt is again proving that he has become a dishonest Washington insider like so many other politicians before him.
However, I think there is a different reason for Mr. Tiahrt’s failure to attend the convention.
Last month I questioned Mr. Tiahrt’s logic in participating in an ill-advised conference call with the Maryland Independent Party. Those that have listened to ‘the call’ know that it ends with the organization criticizing Mr. Tiahrt’s conservative credentials on abortion and then proceeding to fight amongst themselves for a really long time. I believe that Mr. Tiahrt stayed away from the Tea Party Convention because he and his advisors were worried that he would again be called out by a true conservative organization for his credentials as a true conservative.
As far as I can tell, the biggest issue for most factions of the Tea Party movement is the excessive government spending. The movement wants less government spending and they are seemingly angry at all of government: Republicans and Democrats. Because of this, I believe that Mr. Tiahrt was afraid that the Tea Party Conservatives would question him about his votes for stimulus packages when other representatives voted against all the stimulus packages last year.
I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his staff were fearful of a repeat of ‘the call’ and decided to keep him away from the meeting of true conservatives that might damage his conservative ‘reputation’. I believe this stimulus issue could be even more damaging for the Tiahrt Campaign seeing as his opponent for the Senate nomination is one of the 17 Representatives that never voted for a stimulus.
At the end of the day, I don’t know why Mr. Tiahrt did not attend the National Tea Party Convention. Maybe he was afraid of being questioned about his credentials or maybe he did not want to be associated with the movement. Either way, this is a movement that Mr. Tiahrt should associate himself with if he wants to be known as a true conservative, and for now Kansas voters are just left to ask why he wasn’t there.
Tea-Drinkingly Yours,
Publius
Sunday, February 7, 2010
What Does He REALLY Believe about Illegal Immigration: PART 2
A couple months ago I wrote about Todd Tiahrt’s unclear stance on illegal immigration. While Tiahrt had claimed that he was true conservative and that he was strong on illegal immigration, he supported the DREAM Act (a position that put him in hot water with many true conservatives).
Recently, Mr. Tiahrt has apparently changed his views on illegal immigration by introducing the Fairness For American Students Act, which would close current loopholes that allow children of illegal immigrants to gain access to in state tuition, even when students from neighboring states are not eligible to pay this tuition.
While I commend Mr. Tiahrt for changing his views on immigration, I again must question what he really believes when it comes to illegal immigration. While he is now seemingly taking a strong stance against illegal immigration, Kansans have to question the timing of his announcement as it came just days before the largest meeting of Kansas Republicans.
I believe that it is disingenuous for Mr. Tiahrt to change his positions and views all the time, and that it is even more troubling that he would change these positions so close to an important political gathering. What is obvious here is that Mr. Tiahrt wanted to bolster his ‘conservative’ credentials going into the important meeting, but what remains to be seen is whether or not he will continue to support these types of immigration laws in the future.
Consistency is important for politicians. Not only do they need to support their rhetoric with actions (such as voting for or introducing legislation), but they also need to support these actions again and again on a consistent basis. Mr. Tiahrt has proven that he is not only inconsistent with his voting record, but he is also inconsistent with his actual position on issues that impact Kansas voters.
Changing his position on the eve of Kansas Days just shows that Mr. Tiahrt is not the honest and forthright politician that Kansans should be looking for to represent them in the higher chamber of Congress. The state deserves consistency, and it deserves honesty, and Mr. Tiahrt is proving to have some trouble with both of these things.
Consistently Yours,
Publius
Recently, Mr. Tiahrt has apparently changed his views on illegal immigration by introducing the Fairness For American Students Act, which would close current loopholes that allow children of illegal immigrants to gain access to in state tuition, even when students from neighboring states are not eligible to pay this tuition.
While I commend Mr. Tiahrt for changing his views on immigration, I again must question what he really believes when it comes to illegal immigration. While he is now seemingly taking a strong stance against illegal immigration, Kansans have to question the timing of his announcement as it came just days before the largest meeting of Kansas Republicans.
I believe that it is disingenuous for Mr. Tiahrt to change his positions and views all the time, and that it is even more troubling that he would change these positions so close to an important political gathering. What is obvious here is that Mr. Tiahrt wanted to bolster his ‘conservative’ credentials going into the important meeting, but what remains to be seen is whether or not he will continue to support these types of immigration laws in the future.
Consistency is important for politicians. Not only do they need to support their rhetoric with actions (such as voting for or introducing legislation), but they also need to support these actions again and again on a consistent basis. Mr. Tiahrt has proven that he is not only inconsistent with his voting record, but he is also inconsistent with his actual position on issues that impact Kansas voters.
Changing his position on the eve of Kansas Days just shows that Mr. Tiahrt is not the honest and forthright politician that Kansans should be looking for to represent them in the higher chamber of Congress. The state deserves consistency, and it deserves honesty, and Mr. Tiahrt is proving to have some trouble with both of these things.
Consistently Yours,
Publius
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Money Talks
I hate being righteous, but yesterday's predictions came to fruition today. Todd Tiahrt's campaign released their 4th Quarter numbers, and they were far more damaging that expected.
Mr. Tiahrt's campaign raised a measly $195K and spent $271K.
Yes that is correct fellow Kansans. Mr. Tiahrt, the denizen of fiscal conservatism outspent himself once again, dwindling his Cash-On-Hand to a paltry $1.32 Million. Mr. Tiahrt's opponent raised $404K and has over $3.7 Million Cash-On-Hand.
These embarrassing numbers, coupled with the new poll showing Mr. Tiahrt 7 points behind lays the groundwork for a possible exit from this race, and retirement to the Tiahrt home in Virginia.
In the next couple of days, I will provide full analysis of the finance report. Suffice to say, there appears to be a reason Mr. Tiahrt has elevated the petty rhetoric of his campaign.
Cents-ibly Yours,
Publius
Mr. Tiahrt's campaign raised a measly $195K and spent $271K.
Yes that is correct fellow Kansans. Mr. Tiahrt, the denizen of fiscal conservatism outspent himself once again, dwindling his Cash-On-Hand to a paltry $1.32 Million. Mr. Tiahrt's opponent raised $404K and has over $3.7 Million Cash-On-Hand.
These embarrassing numbers, coupled with the new poll showing Mr. Tiahrt 7 points behind lays the groundwork for a possible exit from this race, and retirement to the Tiahrt home in Virginia.
In the next couple of days, I will provide full analysis of the finance report. Suffice to say, there appears to be a reason Mr. Tiahrt has elevated the petty rhetoric of his campaign.
Cents-ibly Yours,
Publius
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Where's the G's?
February 2nd, and still no sign of Todd Tiahrt's campaign finance reports...
Both his Republican and Democrat opponents have released their financial statistics, but Mr. Tiahrt seems unwilling or unable to produce the Year-End report for the Federal Election Commission. The deadline for reporting was yesterday, however, Mr. Tiahrt apparently took advantage of the loophole that stipulates finance reports must be postmarked by February 1st.
This action is likely indicative of several troubling items for the Tiahrt campaign.
First, poor fundraising numbers are likely. It is improbable Mr. Tiahrt managed to raise the $400k+ that his Republican opponent secured. But then again, Mr. Tiahrt claims time and time again grassroots is how he'll win the election. I find it ironic that Mr. Tiahrt was unable to run away with a decisive victory at the Kansas Republican convention, a meeting of the most dedicated grassroots activists in our great state.
Second, it is almost certain he was unable to keep pace with his Republican opponent in building the Cash on Hand statistic. As I previously wrote, Mr. Tiahrt spends his campaign cash quicker than Martha Coakley can throw a foot in her mouth.
Finally, the biggest question, "What is Mr. Tiahrt hiding?" Why is this routine process taking so painstakingly long? Wouldn't a fiscal conservative have the most basic synopsis of the financial health of his campaign ready within quick order; Mr. Tiahrt has now wasted over a month putting this report together, and now is delaying the damage a few more days.
Mr. Tiahrt, it's best to admit bad news up front. Ask John Edwards.
Disclosingly Yours,
Publius
Both his Republican and Democrat opponents have released their financial statistics, but Mr. Tiahrt seems unwilling or unable to produce the Year-End report for the Federal Election Commission. The deadline for reporting was yesterday, however, Mr. Tiahrt apparently took advantage of the loophole that stipulates finance reports must be postmarked by February 1st.
This action is likely indicative of several troubling items for the Tiahrt campaign.
First, poor fundraising numbers are likely. It is improbable Mr. Tiahrt managed to raise the $400k+ that his Republican opponent secured. But then again, Mr. Tiahrt claims time and time again grassroots is how he'll win the election. I find it ironic that Mr. Tiahrt was unable to run away with a decisive victory at the Kansas Republican convention, a meeting of the most dedicated grassroots activists in our great state.
Second, it is almost certain he was unable to keep pace with his Republican opponent in building the Cash on Hand statistic. As I previously wrote, Mr. Tiahrt spends his campaign cash quicker than Martha Coakley can throw a foot in her mouth.
Finally, the biggest question, "What is Mr. Tiahrt hiding?" Why is this routine process taking so painstakingly long? Wouldn't a fiscal conservative have the most basic synopsis of the financial health of his campaign ready within quick order; Mr. Tiahrt has now wasted over a month putting this report together, and now is delaying the damage a few more days.
Mr. Tiahrt, it's best to admit bad news up front. Ask John Edwards.
Disclosingly Yours,
Publius
Thursday, January 21, 2010
45 Days . . . and counting
Earlier this week news officially broke that Mr. Tiahrt is now under investigation by the House Committee on Standards for his involvement in the widely publicized PMA scandal that has been reported by many news outlets and discussed previously on this blog. Not only is Mr. Tiahrt under further investigation, but he is the only Republican of the PMA Seven to be further investigated by the House Committee on Standards. The basics of the case are that Mr. Tiahrt allegedly put earmarks into bills that gave contracts to clients of now-defunct lobbying firm PMA in exchange for political endorsements.
While Mr. Tiahrt claims that he is happy these investigations are going public, and hopeful that he will be soon exonerated of the charges; I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his staff are probably shaking in their pants.
Time and again Kansas voters have been told by Mr. Tiahrt that he is the conservative choice for the Senate and that he will fight wasteful spending in Washington, but everybody knows that the most wasteful form of spending in Washington is the earmark process that only help a small group of the elite and powerful. If Mr. Tiahrt has been involved with creating these earmarks—that alone would be cause for Kansans to vote against him in this summer’s election, but if he was helping to write these earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions, I believe that would necessitate his resignation from Congress as well as removing himself from the current Senate campaign.
Luckily, there is now a time frame.
Kansas voters will not be forced to make a decision simply based on the rhetoric that politicians have been throwing around, but they will have definitive knowledge of Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in the situation when they make their decision this summer. Either Mr. Tiahrt’s claims of innocence will be backed up, or he will be revealed as a lying Washington insider that should have no place representing the people of Kansas.
I can’t wait to see the results.
Patiently yours,
Publius
While Mr. Tiahrt claims that he is happy these investigations are going public, and hopeful that he will be soon exonerated of the charges; I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his staff are probably shaking in their pants.
Time and again Kansas voters have been told by Mr. Tiahrt that he is the conservative choice for the Senate and that he will fight wasteful spending in Washington, but everybody knows that the most wasteful form of spending in Washington is the earmark process that only help a small group of the elite and powerful. If Mr. Tiahrt has been involved with creating these earmarks—that alone would be cause for Kansans to vote against him in this summer’s election, but if he was helping to write these earmarks in exchange for campaign contributions, I believe that would necessitate his resignation from Congress as well as removing himself from the current Senate campaign.
Luckily, there is now a time frame.
Kansas voters will not be forced to make a decision simply based on the rhetoric that politicians have been throwing around, but they will have definitive knowledge of Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in the situation when they make their decision this summer. Either Mr. Tiahrt’s claims of innocence will be backed up, or he will be revealed as a lying Washington insider that should have no place representing the people of Kansas.
I can’t wait to see the results.
Patiently yours,
Publius
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Left Company
Recent days have seen the internet and newspapers flooded with lists declaring the top ten [insert item here] of the decade. While there have been lists about movies, music, moments, people, and events; the most interesting list for Kansas voters should be conservative interest group Judicial Watch’s list of Washington’s Ten Most Corrupt Politicians.
Being a conservative interest group that has famously championed the issues of transparency and accountability for government officials, it should come as no surprise that the list is a who’s who of the liberal elite. Members of the Obama administration (including the commander-in-chief himself) and prominent Democratic congressional leaders fill the list from top to bottom. If you read in depth however, you will see that there are a few less prominent Republicans included in the list.
Of interest to Kansas voters, is the fact that Todd Tiahrt is included in the list with John Murtha and the PMA Seven.
For readers that are unfamiliar with Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement with the PMA scandal, it essentially involves Mr. Tiahrt and other members of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense steering earmarks towards clients of the lobbying firm PMA in exchange for political contributions. Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in this scandal should be troubling to Kansas voters because it exemplifies Mr. Tiahrt’s dishonest behavior and desire to be a Washington insider.
Furthermore, Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in these alleged events are so corrupt, that they earned him a place on a list of Washington’s most corrupt politicians. Even more disheartening is that this list was published by an organization that clearly has a bias in favor of conservative candidates. If conservative-biased Washington organizations take issues with Mr. Tiahrt’s actions, shouldn’t the people of Kansas expect more from a man that is running for a senate seat?
Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in this scandal not only demonstrates Mr. Tiahrt’s dishonesty, but it once again puts him in the company of the liberal East Coast elite that clearly does not share the interests of the people of Kansas. Mr. Tiahrt should think twice before becoming embroiled in corrupt activities, and he should remember that he is in Washington as a representative of the people of Kansas.
I think Kansas deserve better.
Honestly Yours,
Publius
Being a conservative interest group that has famously championed the issues of transparency and accountability for government officials, it should come as no surprise that the list is a who’s who of the liberal elite. Members of the Obama administration (including the commander-in-chief himself) and prominent Democratic congressional leaders fill the list from top to bottom. If you read in depth however, you will see that there are a few less prominent Republicans included in the list.
Of interest to Kansas voters, is the fact that Todd Tiahrt is included in the list with John Murtha and the PMA Seven.
For readers that are unfamiliar with Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement with the PMA scandal, it essentially involves Mr. Tiahrt and other members of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense steering earmarks towards clients of the lobbying firm PMA in exchange for political contributions. Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in this scandal should be troubling to Kansas voters because it exemplifies Mr. Tiahrt’s dishonest behavior and desire to be a Washington insider.
Furthermore, Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in these alleged events are so corrupt, that they earned him a place on a list of Washington’s most corrupt politicians. Even more disheartening is that this list was published by an organization that clearly has a bias in favor of conservative candidates. If conservative-biased Washington organizations take issues with Mr. Tiahrt’s actions, shouldn’t the people of Kansas expect more from a man that is running for a senate seat?
Mr. Tiahrt’s involvement in this scandal not only demonstrates Mr. Tiahrt’s dishonesty, but it once again puts him in the company of the liberal East Coast elite that clearly does not share the interests of the people of Kansas. Mr. Tiahrt should think twice before becoming embroiled in corrupt activities, and he should remember that he is in Washington as a representative of the people of Kansas.
I think Kansas deserve better.
Honestly Yours,
Publius
Friday, December 18, 2009
What Does He Really Believe About Illegal Immigration?
In a perplexing turn of events last weekend, Representative Tiahrt chastised the Congressmen and Senators who he claims have voted to provide illegal immigrants with health insurance. His claims stem from the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that was passed in February (legislation that Mr. Tiahrt opposed).
Tiahrt states that his vote was to oppose a bill that makes it “easier for non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to obtain benefits.” However, like most things Mr. Tiahrt claims, there is much more to the story. If you look more carefully at the legislation, you will see that his statements regarding SCHIP benefits for illegal aliens are decidedly false, and that his motivations are suspect
In actuality, under no circumstances does SCHIP allow illegal immigrants to enroll or participate in its benefits. The bill specifically prohibits the inclusion of illegal immigrants, and only allows the possibility for legal immigrants to apply. This legislation, therefore, actually closes the loophole in the current law that does not have citizenship requirements.
Furthermore, current Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, supports the SCHIP program. His stalwart opposition to illegal immigration doesn’t conflict with his SCHIP vote (as Tiahrt would have us believe) because he took the care to actually understand the legislation before making a decision on it. Unlike Tiahrt, Roberts realized that the current law was promoting illegal immigration, thus he supported the necessary changes.
If Mr. Tiahrt’s motivation for opposing the SCHIP is because of his supposedly stern stance against illegal immigration, he should have done a better job of determining the impact that this legislation would have on immigrants (both legal and illegal). If the principles behind his decision were in line with his rhetoric, then his vote appears to be one of negligence and haste.
I believe, however, that Mr. Tiahrt is actually all talk. He knew what he was voting for, and he knew that his vote would support and promote illegal immigration. While he might talk like a true conservative that is ideologically opposed to illegal immigration, I believe that Mr. Tiahrt is actually sympathetic towards liberal and Democratic positions of illegal immigration, and his votes back me up.
In 2007, Mr. Tiahrt was a co-sponsor of the 2007 DREAM Act (the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act). This piece of legislation was, among other things, an attempt to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. While Tiahrt’s efforts to get this legislation through Congress ultimately proved to be futile, it has recently been reintroduced for debate.
Again, Mr. Tiahrt didn’t just vote for this legislation that used our tax dollars to provide incentives to those that fail to follow U.S. law, but he was actually the co-sponsor of this liberal legislation. Are these the actions of a true conservative?
On the issue of illegal immigration, Mr. Tiahrt has again proven to Kansans that he is NOT the true conservative he claims to be. He has been given a D- grade for opposing amnesty and illegal immigration, and it comes as no surprise that he failed to win the endorsement of former U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo, the leading opponent to illegal immigration in the United States.
What is most troubling about this issue, however, is that Todd Tiahrt continues to manipulate Kansans with his rhetorical claims about being a true conservative. He says he is opposed to illegal immigration, but then goes out of his way to support multiple pieces of legislation that promote it. I believe that Tiahrt should answer for these disparities. If he really is opposed to illegal immigration, he should vote like it; and if he wants to lend support for unlawful residents, then he should be honest about it.
Either way, when it comes to Tiahrt’s positions on illegal immigration, Kansans are decidedly not getting the representation they elected nor the representation they deserve.
Legally yours,
Publius
Tiahrt states that his vote was to oppose a bill that makes it “easier for non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to obtain benefits.” However, like most things Mr. Tiahrt claims, there is much more to the story. If you look more carefully at the legislation, you will see that his statements regarding SCHIP benefits for illegal aliens are decidedly false, and that his motivations are suspect
In actuality, under no circumstances does SCHIP allow illegal immigrants to enroll or participate in its benefits. The bill specifically prohibits the inclusion of illegal immigrants, and only allows the possibility for legal immigrants to apply. This legislation, therefore, actually closes the loophole in the current law that does not have citizenship requirements.
Furthermore, current Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, supports the SCHIP program. His stalwart opposition to illegal immigration doesn’t conflict with his SCHIP vote (as Tiahrt would have us believe) because he took the care to actually understand the legislation before making a decision on it. Unlike Tiahrt, Roberts realized that the current law was promoting illegal immigration, thus he supported the necessary changes.
If Mr. Tiahrt’s motivation for opposing the SCHIP is because of his supposedly stern stance against illegal immigration, he should have done a better job of determining the impact that this legislation would have on immigrants (both legal and illegal). If the principles behind his decision were in line with his rhetoric, then his vote appears to be one of negligence and haste.
I believe, however, that Mr. Tiahrt is actually all talk. He knew what he was voting for, and he knew that his vote would support and promote illegal immigration. While he might talk like a true conservative that is ideologically opposed to illegal immigration, I believe that Mr. Tiahrt is actually sympathetic towards liberal and Democratic positions of illegal immigration, and his votes back me up.
In 2007, Mr. Tiahrt was a co-sponsor of the 2007 DREAM Act (the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act). This piece of legislation was, among other things, an attempt to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. While Tiahrt’s efforts to get this legislation through Congress ultimately proved to be futile, it has recently been reintroduced for debate.
Again, Mr. Tiahrt didn’t just vote for this legislation that used our tax dollars to provide incentives to those that fail to follow U.S. law, but he was actually the co-sponsor of this liberal legislation. Are these the actions of a true conservative?
On the issue of illegal immigration, Mr. Tiahrt has again proven to Kansans that he is NOT the true conservative he claims to be. He has been given a D- grade for opposing amnesty and illegal immigration, and it comes as no surprise that he failed to win the endorsement of former U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo, the leading opponent to illegal immigration in the United States.
What is most troubling about this issue, however, is that Todd Tiahrt continues to manipulate Kansans with his rhetorical claims about being a true conservative. He says he is opposed to illegal immigration, but then goes out of his way to support multiple pieces of legislation that promote it. I believe that Tiahrt should answer for these disparities. If he really is opposed to illegal immigration, he should vote like it; and if he wants to lend support for unlawful residents, then he should be honest about it.
Either way, when it comes to Tiahrt’s positions on illegal immigration, Kansans are decidedly not getting the representation they elected nor the representation they deserve.
Legally yours,
Publius
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Republicans Second?
In her recent interview with the Abilene Reflector-Chronicle Vicki Tiahrt makes an often used argument in proclaiming that she and her husband are, “conservatives first, and Republicans second.” It’s tough to argue with her use of this rhetorical device as many politicians have used countless sound bites that attempt to align themselves with causes over parties.
My question for the Tiahrts, however, is if this decision is one that was made by their own disposition, or if it is one that was made out of political necessity.
Last week, Tiahrt received a foursome of endorsements from conservative leaders: Kay James, the President of some random DC interest group; Colin Hanna, the President of another random DC interest group; Mathew Staver, the founder and Chairman of yet another random DC interest group; and Morton Blackwell, some activist from Virginia.
While I offer my congratulations to Mr. Tiahrt for receiving the endorsements of these conservative leaders, I fail to see why the people of Kansas should care about what these people think. Not only do none of these people live or work in Kansas, but they seemingly have no connection to our great state. Who are these people, and why should we care what they think?
I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his wife are positioning themselves as “conservatives first, and Republicans second” because these are the type of endorsements that are flocking to the Tiahrt campaign. Sure, they are probably great people and upstanding citizens (I won’t pretend to have any idea who they are), but they have no reasonable connections to the Republican party in Kansas (or even the US Senate).
If the Tiahrt campaign really wanted to represent Kansas, they would position themselves as conservatives AND Republicans first, because these two things are NOT mutually exclusive. However, the Tiahrt campaign is having difficulties referring to their candidate as a true Republican because they have failed to receive a significant number of endorsements from current Republican officeholders and party leaders.
While the Tiahrts continue to call themselves conservatives first as they wait for more Republican endorsements, I’ll keep watching as they try to make their case for the primary . . . the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.
Republicanly yours,
Publius
My question for the Tiahrts, however, is if this decision is one that was made by their own disposition, or if it is one that was made out of political necessity.
Last week, Tiahrt received a foursome of endorsements from conservative leaders: Kay James, the President of some random DC interest group; Colin Hanna, the President of another random DC interest group; Mathew Staver, the founder and Chairman of yet another random DC interest group; and Morton Blackwell, some activist from Virginia.
While I offer my congratulations to Mr. Tiahrt for receiving the endorsements of these conservative leaders, I fail to see why the people of Kansas should care about what these people think. Not only do none of these people live or work in Kansas, but they seemingly have no connection to our great state. Who are these people, and why should we care what they think?
I believe that Mr. Tiahrt and his wife are positioning themselves as “conservatives first, and Republicans second” because these are the type of endorsements that are flocking to the Tiahrt campaign. Sure, they are probably great people and upstanding citizens (I won’t pretend to have any idea who they are), but they have no reasonable connections to the Republican party in Kansas (or even the US Senate).
If the Tiahrt campaign really wanted to represent Kansas, they would position themselves as conservatives AND Republicans first, because these two things are NOT mutually exclusive. However, the Tiahrt campaign is having difficulties referring to their candidate as a true Republican because they have failed to receive a significant number of endorsements from current Republican officeholders and party leaders.
While the Tiahrts continue to call themselves conservatives first as they wait for more Republican endorsements, I’ll keep watching as they try to make their case for the primary . . . the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.
Republicanly yours,
Publius
Monday, December 14, 2009
Through the Years They All Will Be Together
Unlike most members of the blogosphere, I prefer not to write extensively about rumors and speculation. Not only can this type of journalism (and make no mistake, blogging is the future of journalism) be unsavory and libelous, but I believe that it leads people to diminish the relevance and stature of my work. With that said; I keep hearing the same rumor from a variety of sources in Washington and Kansas, and I feel that it is time to address its importance and significance.
Todd and Vicki Tiahrt recently attended a White House Christmas Party.
The rumor actually makes sense to me. President Obama seems like a cool guy, so I’m sure it would be fun to sing Christmas carols, drink Egg Nog, and discuss Tiger Woods’s marital problems with him. If I had the opportunity to go to a White House Christmas party, I’d even offer to bring the nutmeg. The problem is that I’m just a regular American who is not trying to run for United States Senate.
Todd Tiahrt IS running for Senate, and when you are an elected official representing a constituency (and seeking to represent a larger constituency) these parties have a significance greater than Winter Lager and Frank Sinatra songs. The Tiahrts' wining and dining with liberal elites in the White House seriously undermines his ability to properly represent the best interests of regular Kansans like you and me.
Furthermore, this ‘Candy Cane Summit’ as I like to call it brings to question the honesty and effectiveness of Mr. Tiahrt’s criticisms of Obama as the “most liberal President ever.” If Obama’s the most liberal president ever, then why would a Congressmen and Senatorial candidate who describes himself as a “true conservative” want to share cocoa and Christmas cookies with him?
I believe that the Candy Cane Summit gives more credence to my belief that Todd and Vicki Tiahrt are more interested in participating in the DC lifestyle than they are in representing the opinions of true conservatives across Kansas, as well as the rest of the heartland.
If the Tiahrts want to stand under the mistletoe with the Obamas, that’s fine with me. I just don’t want them to do it while representing the state of Kansas, or pretending that they are true conservative Republicans which they are not.
Dreaming of a White Christmas,
Publius
Todd and Vicki Tiahrt recently attended a White House Christmas Party.
The rumor actually makes sense to me. President Obama seems like a cool guy, so I’m sure it would be fun to sing Christmas carols, drink Egg Nog, and discuss Tiger Woods’s marital problems with him. If I had the opportunity to go to a White House Christmas party, I’d even offer to bring the nutmeg. The problem is that I’m just a regular American who is not trying to run for United States Senate.
Todd Tiahrt IS running for Senate, and when you are an elected official representing a constituency (and seeking to represent a larger constituency) these parties have a significance greater than Winter Lager and Frank Sinatra songs. The Tiahrts' wining and dining with liberal elites in the White House seriously undermines his ability to properly represent the best interests of regular Kansans like you and me.
Furthermore, this ‘Candy Cane Summit’ as I like to call it brings to question the honesty and effectiveness of Mr. Tiahrt’s criticisms of Obama as the “most liberal President ever.” If Obama’s the most liberal president ever, then why would a Congressmen and Senatorial candidate who describes himself as a “true conservative” want to share cocoa and Christmas cookies with him?
I believe that the Candy Cane Summit gives more credence to my belief that Todd and Vicki Tiahrt are more interested in participating in the DC lifestyle than they are in representing the opinions of true conservatives across Kansas, as well as the rest of the heartland.
If the Tiahrts want to stand under the mistletoe with the Obamas, that’s fine with me. I just don’t want them to do it while representing the state of Kansas, or pretending that they are true conservative Republicans which they are not.
Dreaming of a White Christmas,
Publius
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Let’s Talk About 'True Conservatism'
Allow me, if you will, to delve a little bit further into the hypocrisy of Mr. Tiahrt’s recent criticism of US Senator John McCain. You see, while I previously talked about the lunacy behind Mr. Tiahrt’s claims that McCain should have ran a more conservative campaign last fall; I failed to mention the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of Mr. Tiahrt’s proclamations of real conservatism.
That hypocrisy lies in the fact that Mr. Tiahrt himself does not practice the true conservative principles that he idealizes.
True conservatism means decreasing the size of government. True conservatism means cutting back on wasteful spending. True conservatism means a complete refusal of earmark legislation and pork-barrel politics. Todd Tiahrt’s congressional record does not back up his oh-so-often-proclaimed ‘true conservative’ ideals.
According to the 2009 Club for Growth RePork Card, which compiled the voting record for 68 anti-Pork amendments this year, Mr. Tiahrt has voted in favor of anti-Pork amendments an upsettingly low 29% of the time. This means that our ‘True Conservative’ Congressman has voted in favor of wasteful spending more the twice as often as he has voted against it.
Even more shocking, is how these pork projects might not just be any old excess. According to a Washington Post story from earlier this fall, Tiahrt is one of seven congressional lawmakers (mostly liberal Democrats by the way) on the House Appropriations committee that worked to steer over $200 million in earmarks towards the increasingly shady PMA Group.
Not only are these actions decidedly NOT those of a fiscal conservative, but they are potentially illegal.
All these things would be troubling in and of themselves, but when they are considered in light of last week’s critical Op-Ed, we see a far more hypocritical Tiahrt that is more of snake than a GOP elephant. You see, John McCain has spent much of his illustrious Senatorial career championing legislation against pork-barrel earmarks. McCain has consistently been rated above 85% by the Citizens Against Government Waste, and had a 94% rating from the Club for Growth in 2007.
Furthermore, McCain authored the Line-Item Veto law that would work to prevent wasteful spending, and has championed the cause of taking wasteful spending out of government.
This is the opinion of a true conservative, and these are the actions of a true conservative. Mr. Tiahrt should take notice.
Conservatively Yours,
Publius
That hypocrisy lies in the fact that Mr. Tiahrt himself does not practice the true conservative principles that he idealizes.
True conservatism means decreasing the size of government. True conservatism means cutting back on wasteful spending. True conservatism means a complete refusal of earmark legislation and pork-barrel politics. Todd Tiahrt’s congressional record does not back up his oh-so-often-proclaimed ‘true conservative’ ideals.
According to the 2009 Club for Growth RePork Card, which compiled the voting record for 68 anti-Pork amendments this year, Mr. Tiahrt has voted in favor of anti-Pork amendments an upsettingly low 29% of the time. This means that our ‘True Conservative’ Congressman has voted in favor of wasteful spending more the twice as often as he has voted against it.
Even more shocking, is how these pork projects might not just be any old excess. According to a Washington Post story from earlier this fall, Tiahrt is one of seven congressional lawmakers (mostly liberal Democrats by the way) on the House Appropriations committee that worked to steer over $200 million in earmarks towards the increasingly shady PMA Group.
Not only are these actions decidedly NOT those of a fiscal conservative, but they are potentially illegal.
All these things would be troubling in and of themselves, but when they are considered in light of last week’s critical Op-Ed, we see a far more hypocritical Tiahrt that is more of snake than a GOP elephant. You see, John McCain has spent much of his illustrious Senatorial career championing legislation against pork-barrel earmarks. McCain has consistently been rated above 85% by the Citizens Against Government Waste, and had a 94% rating from the Club for Growth in 2007.
Furthermore, McCain authored the Line-Item Veto law that would work to prevent wasteful spending, and has championed the cause of taking wasteful spending out of government.
This is the opinion of a true conservative, and these are the actions of a true conservative. Mr. Tiahrt should take notice.
Conservatively Yours,
Publius
Friday, December 4, 2009
Outspending Himself
Todd Tiahrt claims that he is a true conservative "committed to fiscal restraint", but how could he possibly be committed to a responsible fiscal policy when his own Senate campaign is not fiscally responsible?
It's no secret that Mr. Tiahrt has a penchant for spending in Washington D.C. (his latest Club for Growth rating is lowest amongst the Kansas Republican delegation). Recently, however, Kansans have learned the true extent of Mr. Tiahrt’s free-spending ways when his campaign reported their finances to the Federal Election Committee.
In the 3rd Quarter of 2009, Mr. Tiahrt took in $341,000 and spent $353,500. Ironically, most of this money was actually used by the campaign to pay the firms that they have hired to raise money for them (talk about wasteful spending).
I would like to lead my fellow Kansans in urging Mr. Tiahrt to run a fiscally responsible campaign, not only to back up his claims of true fiscal conservatism, but also so that his credit score remains reasonable.
Unrestrainedly yours,
Publius
It's no secret that Mr. Tiahrt has a penchant for spending in Washington D.C. (his latest Club for Growth rating is lowest amongst the Kansas Republican delegation). Recently, however, Kansans have learned the true extent of Mr. Tiahrt’s free-spending ways when his campaign reported their finances to the Federal Election Committee.
In the 3rd Quarter of 2009, Mr. Tiahrt took in $341,000 and spent $353,500. Ironically, most of this money was actually used by the campaign to pay the firms that they have hired to raise money for them (talk about wasteful spending).
I would like to lead my fellow Kansans in urging Mr. Tiahrt to run a fiscally responsible campaign, not only to back up his claims of true fiscal conservatism, but also so that his credit score remains reasonable.
Unrestrainedly yours,
Publius
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Conservative Values?
"This campaign's not about me, but about standing tall for conservative values, your values." - Todd Tiahrt
You, my fellow Kansans, can watch Mr. Tiahrt say this for yourself at his website, www.toddtiahrt.com. You can also see him recite the word values so often that it seems the only thing he actually values is the word ‘values’.
While the hypnotic repetition of the video can certainly put fellow Kansans into a coma, the hypocrisy of it all is more than evident given the recent news regarding Tiahrt for Senate employee, Field Coordinator Jase Stanton.
On November 18th, Mike Mahoney from KMBC News broke the story that Stanton was recently charged with aggravated sodomy and aggravated assault surrounding an event that took place in July 2008. Stanton has a plea hearing December 9th, but has preliminarily pled not guilty. Stanton did not reveal the charges to the Tiahrt campaign when hired.
I find this report troubling for several reasons.
1. There appears to be minimal if any due diligence on Tiahrt's part in hiring Stanton. Wouldn't a quick criminal records search be the first task an employer/candidate does when hiring staff?
2. These are serious charges by any standard.
3. It all comes back to values.
Sexual Assault and Aggravated Sodomy are not "conservative values" or "our values". If Todd Tiahrt believes that his values are one and the same with those of Kansans, then he must explain this apparent discrepancy. I might not agree with every position of my representatives, but if these truly are the values that Mr. Tiahrt endorses than I believe he should be honest and forthright with Kansans about these beliefs.
I want honesty when talking about what people value, and I believe that all Kansans should expect the same.
Your Valued Writer,
Publius
You, my fellow Kansans, can watch Mr. Tiahrt say this for yourself at his website, www.toddtiahrt.com. You can also see him recite the word values so often that it seems the only thing he actually values is the word ‘values’.
While the hypnotic repetition of the video can certainly put fellow Kansans into a coma, the hypocrisy of it all is more than evident given the recent news regarding Tiahrt for Senate employee, Field Coordinator Jase Stanton.
On November 18th, Mike Mahoney from KMBC News broke the story that Stanton was recently charged with aggravated sodomy and aggravated assault surrounding an event that took place in July 2008. Stanton has a plea hearing December 9th, but has preliminarily pled not guilty. Stanton did not reveal the charges to the Tiahrt campaign when hired.
I find this report troubling for several reasons.
1. There appears to be minimal if any due diligence on Tiahrt's part in hiring Stanton. Wouldn't a quick criminal records search be the first task an employer/candidate does when hiring staff?
2. These are serious charges by any standard.
3. It all comes back to values.
Sexual Assault and Aggravated Sodomy are not "conservative values" or "our values". If Todd Tiahrt believes that his values are one and the same with those of Kansans, then he must explain this apparent discrepancy. I might not agree with every position of my representatives, but if these truly are the values that Mr. Tiahrt endorses than I believe he should be honest and forthright with Kansans about these beliefs.
I want honesty when talking about what people value, and I believe that all Kansans should expect the same.
Your Valued Writer,
Publius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)