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

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

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

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

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

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

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