HUTCHINSON, Kan. - As if the doldrums and cold of January aren't depressing enough I subjected myself to more than an hour of Mr. Tiahrt's blather at a town hall meeting in Hutchinson this morning.
In truth it turned out to be more of a GOP rally.
He started with a attempt at humor, commenting on the frigid temperatures and complaining that Gore had led us astray with his promise of warming. I could tell it was going to be a long morning when the audience tittered appreciatively at that and his next remark about hoping to speak well without the aid of a teleprompter - snicker, snicker.
The bulk of his presentation read like the talking points from any of the all too pervasive rant radio drek that fouls the air waves in these parts. From whining that THEY won't let us have any input to THEY are bankrupting us with their SOCIALISM, it was little more than a Democratic Bashfest from beginning to end. About half way through all I could think was if there were an attending drinking game in play the entire place would soon be blind drunk if the requisite trigger word was LIBERAL. The invective was presented in conjunction with references to that San Francisco Liberal - drink up folks - Pelosi, the socialistic take over of health care by the Liberals - GULP- , those NASTY Liberal - I'm starting to see double, chug a lug - attorneys who are ruining the country and on and on, ad nauseum.
When I had the chance to ask a question, in light of Todd's indictment of those nasty big
Liberal - bottoms up - labor unions and all the money they can pour into LIberal - down another shot - campaigns, I asked what he thought of the case heard by the Supreme Court that would extend the same protection of free speech afforded individuals, aka unfettered campaign contributions, to corporations. This of course would open the floodgates with the potential of millions of fat cat dollars pouring into campaign coffers. At first he answered that he DID NOT think they should have the same rights as individuals. But true to form he continued by saying anyone should be allowed to contribute any amount as long as it was reported within 24 hours. I guess the logic of his theory being graft and bribery are all right as long as they are acknowledged and well publicized!
Most of the other queries were about how those nasty LIBERALS - and yet another shot -
should be sued for their health care plan. By far the most troubling question came from a man who wanted to know how many members in Congress did Todd think really embraced the Judeo/Christian ethic. For a group so fond of waving the constitution around they might try actually reading it where they would discover that any hint of discrimination in the selection of a candidate based on their religion - or lack thereof - is expressly forbidden.
Todd sprinkled his talk with mention of his website, welcomed any contributions and in closing declared his support for the Fair Tax plan. If Progressive Kansans don't get their act together and work against this conservative takeover I fear Bush's eight years will start to look like the good old days.
I don't heart Tiahrt either and I thouroughly enjoyed reading this. Can't wait for the next.
Did Mr. Tiarht define his 'Fair Tax' plan? The conservative tax plans have all been directed at protecting the wealthy and denying aid to the poor. Quite fair, don't you think?
While I will almost certainly work for the Democratic Party's nominee for the First District and U.S. Senate, I have to express my preference for Rep. Moran in the Senate primary race on the Republican side. Mr. Moran is certainly more moderate and less partisan and ideological than Rep. Tiarht and was very professional in our race in 2008. Having said that, I can see where the Republicans nominating far right candidates like Tiarht and Brownback actually make moderate and conservative Democrats more likely to win.
James, you know I have enormous respect for you. Respectfully, I have to disagree with your comment that Jerry Moran is "certainly more moderate" than Todd Tiahrt. I think it's what Moran would like us to think, but I don't think the facts bear it out.
The only reason we think that Moran is less conservative than Tiahrt is because that's how Moran talks about himself and how Moran wants to be seen. But it's not how Moran votes.
Moran's own actions in the U.S. House just don't bear that out.
According to the Washington Post, Jerry Moran has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 94.7% of the time during the current Congress.
Tiahrt goes 'rogue' more than Moran. The Washington Post lays out the information that Todd Tiahrt is the real maverick, not Moran. Tiahrt votes only 91.8% of the time in synchrony with the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
Todd Tiart votes more moderately than Jerry Moran. In fact, Jerry Moran is the scarier of the two because while he votes more conservatively, he behaves as if he doesn't. At least with Tiahrt, what you see is what you get. With Moran, what you see is definitely not what you get.
If Tiarht wins the primary or seat, he'll be easier to beat or unseat later. If Moran wins, we will actually have a more conservative ideologue AND he'll be harder to get rid of later.
Before you make up your mind which candidate (Tiahrt or Moran) is the more conservative of the two, please go back and read an article I wrote here:
http://www.kansasfreepress.com/2009/12/republicans-polled-dead-heat-between-tiarht-and-moran.html
Because of Moran's lockstep with the conservatives and because of his less than honest portrayal of his own voting patterns, I hope that Tiahrt wins the primary. I think it will be better for the state and for its citizens.
Pamela, I have taken your comments to heart. I would certainly agree that the best way to judge the intended voting record of a prospective candidate is to examine their past record. However, past voting records, and in particular the percentage of votes cast in favor of an 'official' position by the members' party [especially candidates which are only several percentage points apart as are Moran and Tiahrt] are not dispositive. One should also attempt to determine what a particular candidate intends to do if elected. I have attempted a cursory comparison of the relative 'conservativeness' of each Congressman by perusing their websites [focused primarily on 'Issues' and 'Endorsements' and will try relate my observations in a separate post which will argue that Moran is in fact the least ideologically conservative [as that term has come to be popularized]. In the interim, to directly address your counterpoint, I would note that, according to a November 14th story in the Kansas City Star by Steve Kraske, Moran's voting record is listed in a widely distributed political almanac as a moderate and Tiahrt's is considered conservative.
Tiahrt is so much more of a maverick than Moran.
I have followed the performance of both Moran and Tiahrt in Congress for years. I agree that Moran is the least desirable Senate candidate.
Moran is the more conservative of the two, and, like Pam points out, Moran is the least trustworthy because he votes in lockstep with the more extreme segment of his party, but he talks like he doesn't. In short, Jerry Moran is not trustworthy because he doesn't tell the public about the extremely partisan legislation that he helps to pass. In several cases, if Moran would not have voted with the 'far right' - it would have changed the outcome of legislation for the better.
Todd Tiahrt is the least conservative of the two, and the most trustworthy of the two.
Kansas would be better served by having Tiahrt in the Senate.
Thanks everybody for the comments! We have some really well informed readers and writers here at KFP! And, of course, we don't always agree. We are strong-minded and smart!