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
Showing posts with label Endorsements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Endorsements. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)