Voice For Liberty

Tag: Todd Tiahrt

  • Moran poll indicates big lead in Kansas Senate race

    A poll in the race for the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate from Kansas conducted on behalf of the Jerry Moran campaign shows him leading his chief rival, Todd Tiahrt, by a large margin.

    The survey shows Moran with 56 percent of the vote, and Tiahrt with 24 percent. 15 percent of voters are undecided, and two other candidates garnered four percent of the vote.

    Independent polls have shown Moran with a large lead over Tiahrt. Recently the Tiahrt campaign released its own survey showing a very close race, with Moran holding a lead within the statistical margin of error of the poll.

    The contest for this nomination has been heated. In recent forums, both candidates have scarcely paid attention to the moderators’ questions, instead using them as launching pads for attacks on the record of the other candidate.

    The Moran poll, keeping in mind that it is an internal effort, contends that Tiahrt has been the most aggressive with negative campaigning: “Fully 44% of primary voters say Tiahrt is running a more negative campaign, with just 10% saying Moran has been more negative.”

    Tiahrt has admitted that his commercials are a little “rough,” as he said at a recent rally in Wichita.

    In response to the release of this survey, the Tiahrt campaign released a statement contending that “this internal poll from the Moran campaign is about as bad as Congressman Moran’s record on taxes, immigration and national security.”

    As with all polls produced on behalf of a candidate, we need to remember that polls produced and released by campaigns are just that, and the results would probably not be released by a campaign if the results did not portray the candidate favorably. Without knowledge of the questions being asked, there is always the possibility that a poll is a “push poll,” meaning an instrument designed to influence participants and produce a desired result.

    As it has been seemingly forever since Kansas last elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate, it is likely that the winner of this primary election will be the next senator from Kansas.

    Reporting from the Wichita Eagle is at Tiahrt’s campaign objects to Moran’s in-house poll.

  • Tiahrt poll indicates closer Kansas Senate contest

    A new poll shows Todd Tiahrt gaining ground on Jerry Moran in the contest for the Republican Party nomination for the United States Senate from Kansas.

    The poll, which was conducted on behalf of the Tiahrt campaign, showed Moran with 37 percent and Tiahrt with 34 percent. 26 percent were undecided.

    These results indicate a much closer contest than other polling. As the Wichita Eagle’s reporting noted, “Campaigns often don’t release internal poll results. It should be noted that they are undertaken by partisan polling operations and should be viewed in that context.”

    Tiahrt also picked up an endorsement from radio talk show host and Fox News personality Sean Hannity. Hannity said “Sarah Palin endorsed him; Mark Levin endorsed him. A great protector of our Constitution, if you are out in Kansas, you’ve got to pay attention to Todd Tiahrt. He is pro-family, pro-Second Amendment. This is the kind of commonsense conservative we need in the US Senate. He’s never voted for a tax increase; He fought to end wasteful spending coming out of Washington. That’s the kind of guy we’re looking for.”

  • Earmarks and Kansas elections

    The topic of earmarks is playing a role in contest for the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate from Kansas between Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran.

    The United States Office of Management and Budget provides one definition of earmarks: “Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.”

    What is the difference between earmark spending and “regular” government spending? Speaking on the floor of the House in March 2009, Ron Paul, the libertarian member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas and Republican presidential candidate in 2008, made these remarks:

    In reality what we need are more earmarks. Just think of the 350 billion dollars that we recently appropriated and gave to the Treasury Department. Now everybody is running around and saying, “We don’t know where the money went, we just gave it to them in a lump sum.” We should have earmarked everything. It should have been designated where the money is going. So instead of too many earmarks we don’t have enough earmarks. Transparency is the only way we can get to the bottom of this and if you make everything earmarked it would be much better.

    This is a key distinguishing characteristic of earmark spending: legislators, rather than agencies like the Treasury Department, decide how and where the money is spent.

    According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, earmarks are estimated to cost $11 billion in the current fiscal year (2010), which is down from $15 billion the year before. The Washington newspaper The Hill warns, however, that some of this decrease is due to a change in classification of some spending.

    While some view earmarks and their elimination as a defining issue, we must remember that the level of earmark spending is relatively small compared to the entire federal budget. The 2010 budget calls for spending $3.55 trillion, so earmarks account for 0.3 percent of this amount. Considering discretionary spending only — and earmarks are discretionary — earmarks are 0.8 percent of $1.368 trillion planned discretionary spending.

    This is not to say that this spending is not harmful and should not be eliminated.

    Paul — accurately self-described as “America’s leading voice for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies” — defends his insertion of earmarks into appropriations bills. In an article titled Earmarks Don’t Add Up, Paul explained why:

    The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.

    A spokesman for House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, was quoted in The Hill article as saying “Earmarks represent less than 1 percent of the federal budget, and they don’t add a dime to it — they are simply a way for Congress to direct funding that would otherwise be directed by administration officials.”

    So here we have both liberal and conservative legislators defending the system.

    It goes without saying that we need to reform this process. Currently, it allows members to say that since the money’s going to be spent somewhere, let’s spend it in my district. The motivation of members is that since their districts are taxed to send the money to Washington, they need to fight to get their districts’ fair share back — and some more, for good measure. This used to be one of the measures of success of a Congressman.

    But the rise of federal spending and indebtedness has been one of the primary motivating factors of the tea party movement, and earmarks are a favorite target of conservative ire and anger.

    So how do the two veteran Kansas Congressmen rank on earmarks and “pork” spending? The Club for Growth compiles a scorecard called the RePORK Card. This measures votes on “68 anti-pork amendments” in the 2009 Congress. Club Executive Director David Keating writes “The RePORK Card will help taxpayers measure the dedication of their representatives to changing the culture of corruption that surrounds pork-barrel spending.”

    For 2009, Moran scored 96 percent, voting against 65 of the 68 measures. Tiahrt scored 29 percent, voting against 20 of the 68.

    In the previous year for this project (2007), the two representatives’ scores were much closer: Moran scored four percent, while Tiahrt scored zero percent.

    According to analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Tiahrt was responsible for 13 “solo” earmarks in the 2010 budget, totaling $5,550,000 in spending. Moran was close behind with eight earmarks with a total value of $5,150,000. Solo earmarks are defined as “The total of earmarks on which only that member’s name appears.”

    Considering solo earmarks and earmarks with other members, Tiahrt notched spending of $63,400,000, with Moran at $18,600,000. These earmarks are defined as “The total of earmarks on which that member’s name appears, either by itself or with other members. TCS does not split an earmark.”

    In a recent forum of candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas sponsored by the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, candidates were asked about earmarks.

    (The candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.)

    Rutschman said representatives want to do things that are in the interest of their states, but we should not pass earmarks that are detrimental to the nation.

    Schodorf said that the appropriation process should be transparent, but that we need to cut spending today.

    Anderson said that he is against earmarks, saying that the process provides for corruption of the political process. He would support legislation outlawing the process.

    Hartman said he is totally against earmarks, noting that many people think that earmarks are good when they “make your grass turn green,” but a “bridge to nowhere” is different. He seconded Anderson’s concern about corruption.

    Pompeo said he is against earmarks, saying that if “safe roads make good sense, we in Kansas can figure out how to fund them.” He agreed with concerns about corruption.

  • Olathe Republican straw poll produces wins by Tiahrt, Yoder

    Yesterday’s Olathe Republican Party picnic featured a straw poll that provided insight into statewide and local races as Kansas nears its August 3rd primary. The annual event is very popular, and this year 430 people paid the $2 fee to participate in the straw poll.

    Martin Hawver, dean of Kansas Statehouse reporters, describes the importance of the event: “The picnic/poll has been closely watched in recent years because Olathe is a conservative bastion and it tends to bring Republican politics into a comfortably conservative venue from which the party’s internal strife can be measured.”

    Voters vote only once in the poll.

    In the straw poll for the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate from Kansas, Todd Tiahrt outpolled Jerry Moran 315 to 112.

    Tom Little of Mound City and Bob Londerholm of Overland Park, little-known candidates who filed close to the June 10th deadline, each received two votes.

    Tiahrt’s numbers were undoubtedly boosted by the 69 folks who made a 178-mile bus trip from Wichita to Olathe courtesy of the Tiahrt campaign. Subtracting these leaves Tiahrt with a still-large victory margin of 246 to 112. These results are a boost to the Tiahrt campaign, as it is thought that northeast Kansas is a key battleground in this contest. Hawver’s caveat that Olathe is a conservative bastion must be kept in mind, as Tiahrt makes an explicit appeal to conservative voters.

    Both Tiahrt and Moran — along with many members of their campaign staffs — attended the event. Moran had to leave the picnic before the speechmaking started to attend to his mother, who was recently diagnosed with leukemia. Kansas Senator Karin Brownlee, an Olathe Republican, spoke in Moran’s place. Tiahrt spoke in person, and his speech was enthusiastically received by the audience.

    It is commonly thought that the winner of this August Republican primary election will cruise to victory in the November general election.

    In the contest for race for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the third district of Kansas, the straw poll showed these results:

    Kevin Yoder 156
    Patricia Lightner 117
    John Rysavy 55
    Dan Gilyeat 52
    Jean Ann Uvodich 23
    Craig McPherson 7
    Garry Klotz 5
    Dave King 0
    Jerry Malone 0

    The winner of the primary will face the winner of the Democratic party primary, either Stephene Moore (wife of current officeholder Dennis Moore) or Thomas Scherer.

    In these straw polls, it is common for campaigns to pay the poll fee ($2 for this poll) for their supporters. In this case, the Yoder campaign went a little further, distributing free coupons that, when turned into a Yoder campaign representative, would let a family avoid paying the $10 admission fee. It is not known how many of these tickets were used, and other campaigns may have done the same.

  • In Kansas, Sarah Palin chooses Todd Tiahrt

    Yesterday former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin endorsed Todd Tiahrt for the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate from Kansas.

    Tiahrt’s opponent is Jerry Moran. It is commonly thought that the winner of this August Republican primary election will cruise to victory in the November general election.

    Palin’s endorsement, which can be read on her Facebook page, reads as follows:

    I’m happy to endorse Todd Tiahrt’s campaign to be the next U.S Senator from Kansas. Todd is a protector of our Constitution, a pro-family, pro-Second Amendment Commonsense Conservative who has never voted for a tax increase and has fought to end the wasteful spending coming out of Washington. He didn’t just stand on the sidelines complacently, but instead actually battled against the bailouts, the debt-ridden stimulus spending, the cap-and-tax energy schemes, and Obamacare. In fact, remember on the day Obamacare was being debated, Todd Tiahrt was on the House floor all day working to defeat it, and he’s helped lead the charge to repeal and replace Obamacare the moment it was signed into law. We can count on Todd to take on the liberal spending agenda of the Obama administration and fight for lower taxes, more individual freedom, and less government intrusion.

    At a meet-and-greet opportunity yesterday evening, Vicki Tiahrt, wife of the candidate, said the campaign was pleased with the endorsement.

    Palin’s endorsement has been a benefit to most candidates she has endorsed. A recent Time Magazine article noted that “her record in tightly contested races [is] 8-3 overall this midterm election year.”

    The most recent public poll in this race is from May, and showed Moran leading by 52 percent to 29 percent.

  • Kansas news digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for June 25, 2010.

    Public sector grows along with KPERS dependency

    (Kansas Liberty) “Between April 2008 and April 2010, the private sector in Kansas has experienced an overall loss in jobs of approximately 5.89 percent, while the public sector has experienced an overall gain in employment of approximately .83 percent. … As the public sector and its salaries continue to grow, so does the dependence on the state’s pension plan, KPERS.”

    Kansas working toward implementing aspect of Obamacare

    (Kansas Liberty) “The Kansas Department of Insurance is working with the federal government to create a temporary high-risk insurance pool, in accordance with regulations set forth by the new federal health-care law. High-risk insurance pools are designed to provide coverage for residents with pre-existing conditions who are unable to find coverage elsewhere. The temporary high-risk pool will operate until 2014, when the law prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions.”

    Budget cuts hit small towns harder, KC Fed reports

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas government’s continuing financial jam may threaten the economic recovery of the state’s small town and rural communities, according to a new analysis published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.”

    Researchers debate number of student dropouts

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – By one count, slightly more than one in 100 students drop out of school; by another count, only 75 students out of 100 actually receive diplomas. Trying to figure out the number of students in Kansas who have graduated high school, versus the number that have dropped out before graduation is tricky and confusing business.”

    Info about Ethics Commission meeting not found by attending

    (Kansas Watchdog) “On Tuesday the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission held their monthly meeting in Topeka. The agenda for the meeting was a bit curious: The plan was for a 15-minute session that started at 11:45, followed by a 30-minute session 90 minutes later.”

    Business Owners Ask Kansas Courts to Stop Smoking Ban

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Owners of private clubs and bingo operations have asked the courts to stop the statewide smoking ban (HB2221) from taking effect July 1. Attorney Tuck Duncan Friday filed a motion to intervene in a temporary injunction sought by Michael Merriam to stop implementation of the ban while courts hear claims that the ban violates various U.S Constitutional rights.”

    Tiahrt and Moran Trade Shots Over Support for Federal Bailouts

    (State of the State KS) “The Tiahrt (R) and Moran (R) campaigns traded shots Wednesday over the issue of government bailouts with Tiahrt firing the first shot saying Moran was misleading voters when Moran said claimed he never voted for a bailout.”

    Opinion by Senate President Stephen Morris – The 2010 Legislative Session: Keeping Our Promises to Kansans

    (State of the State KS) “The 2010 Legislative Session is now officially history. When this chapter of the Kansas story is written, it will go down as perhaps the most significant since the Great Depression. In fact, the challenges facing lawmakers this year were unprecedented. As we enter the election season, you may hear a lot of misinformation about what actually happened in Topeka this year; I would like to set the record straight.”

    Response by Americans For Prosperity to Opinion Article by Senate President Steve Morris

    (State of the State KS) “The recent letter to the editor submitted by Senate President Stephen Morris caught my attention. He claims passing the largest sales tax increase in Kansas history was the ‘only responsible way’ to address the budget shortfall. A shortfall he blames on an ‘economic crisis.’”

  • Club for Growth gives slight nod to Tiahrt over Moran

    Of the groups that analyze legislators and their votes, the Club for Growth produces a scorecard that focuses on votes relating to economic growth.

    The Club for Growth describes itself as “a national network of thousands of pro-growth Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that encourage a high growth economy and a swift return to America’s founding principles primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.”

    Each year the Club for Growth produces a scorecard for both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate that ranks members on their votes, based on the Club’s judgment of which votes distinguish between legislators who believe in pro-growth policies and those who don’t.

    The Club warns of limitations of scorecards like these, including my own Kansas Economic Freedom Index: “A study of roll call votes on the floor of the House and Senate and legislative actions is just that. It can not account for a lawmaker’s work in committee, advocacy in his party’s caucus meetings, and effectiveness as a leader in advocating pro-growth policies.”

    That caveat aside, let’s look at how the Club ranked members of the Kansas House delegation, particularly Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran. These two are candidates for the Republican party nomination for the U.S. Senate. It is commonly thought that the winner of this August Republican primary election will cruise to victory in the November general election.

    One of the themes in the election — promoted especially by the Tiahrt campaign — is who is the most conservative candidate. So the Club for Growth scorecard is an important measure for someone promoting conservative, pro-growth credentials.

    On the Club’s scorecard for 2009, Tiahrt earned a rating of 90 percent, which ranks him 64th among members of the U.S. House according to Club for Growth’s criteria.

    Moran scored 85 percent, which ranks 94th.

    (A higher rating means more votes in alignment with the Club’s positions. Other Kansas House members are the second district’s Lynn Jenkins, a Republican from Topeka, who scored 87 percent, ranking 83rd, and Democrat Dennis Moore of the third district in northeast Kansas, who scored four percent with a ranking of 297th. On the Senate rankings, Sam Brownback scored 85 percent, ranking 24th among the 100 members of the Senate. Pat Roberts scored 93 percent, ranking 19th.)

    Is this difference between Tiahrt and Moran significant? That question, of course, must be answered by each voter. To help voters decide, I examined the Club’s scorecard and listed the votes where the two Congressmen voted differently. This is not a comprehensive examination of their voting records that would find all votes that were different. It only looks at the votes in the Club’s scorecard that are different.

    The Club for Growth’s scorecard looked at 24 votes. Following are the votes where Tiahrt and Moran voted differently. Information on the bills is from Govtrack.us.

    H.R. 12: Paycheck Fairness Act
    “To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.”

    Moran voted in favor of the Club’s position, while Tiahrt was absent for this vote. On a scale of one to ten that the Club uses to gauge the relative importance of votes, this bill was given a weight of one, meaning that it was judged relatively unimportant, relative to others.

    H.R. 2: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
    “To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.”

    Tiahrt voted in favor of the Club’s position, while Moran voted against it. This bill was weighted four on the scale of one to ten of relative importance.

    H.R. 3435: Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program
    “Makes emergency supplemental appropriations of $2 billion for FY2009 and FY2010 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program (Cash for Clunkers Program)”

    Moran voted for the Club’s position, while Tiahrt voted against it. This bill was weighted two on the one to ten scale of relative importance.

    H. Res. 806: Providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1035, with an amendment
    “Sets forth the rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1035 (Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Amendments Act of 2009)”

    Tiahrt voted in favor of the Club’s position, while Moran voted against it. This bill was weighted one on the scale of one to ten of relative importance. The meaning of this resolution is obscure.

    H.R. 3639: Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009
    “To amend the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 to establish an earlier effective date for various consumer protections, and for other purposes.”

    Tiahrt voted in favor of the Club’s position, while Moran voted against it. This bill was weighted two on the scale of one to ten of relative importance.

    These are the only votes that differ between the two candidates. The Club’s scorecard also takes into account other factors, such as points awarded by the National Taxpayers Union (Tiahrt earned five; Moran three), and points awarded for not sponsoring anti-trade bills (Tiahrt and Moran both earned four points)

    The scorecard also includes points awarded based on the Club’s RePORK Card, which scores legislators on how they voted on legislation that the Club considers to be pork-barrel spending. Tiahrt’s score of 29 percent earned him zero points, while Moran’s score of 96 percent earned two points.

    The scorecard also separately considered H.R. 1321: Healthy Americans Act, “To provide affordable, guaranteed private health coverage that will make Americans healthier and can never be taken away.” Tiahrt and Moran voted the same on this measure.

    While Tiahrt scores higher overall than Moran on the Club’s scorecard, it is not a consistent trend across all votes and measures.

  • Tiahrt rally features Rove endorsement

    On Saturday, about 300 supporters of Todd Tiahrt gathered in a steamy hot airport hanger in Wichita to hear the Congressman and his guest, political strategist and commentator Karl Rove. Rove enthusiastically endorsed Tiahrt’s candidacy for the United States Senate from Kansas, one of only two such endorsements he said he is making.

    Tiahrt’s best-known opponent in the August 3rd Republican primary is first district Congressman Jerry Moran of Hays. Tom Little of Mound City and Robert (Bob) Londerholm of Overland Park have also recently filed for this nomination.

    Speaking before Rove, Tiahrt said that the tea party movement has been successful in some elections, and he is proud to be associated and endorsed by Tea Party Express and Kansas groups like the 9.12 group and Icaucus.

    He said that although he’s been campaigning for 18 months, the real campaign is just beginning. He said some of his televisions ads are “a little rough,” because “we need to tell the truth.” Tiahrt told the audience that he’s never voted for a tax increase, while his opponent has, adding that he favors the Fair Tax.

    Tiahrt called for regulatory reform, saying that for manufacturing in America, regulation adds 17 percent to costs. Cutting that in half would make America more competitive.

    He said we need to get health care back “into our hands,” adding that a free market system would lower the costs and give more choices to patients and doctors.

    He told the audience that energy independence is important for putting Americans back to work.

    Finally, he said that litigation reform is important, saying that America has more lawsuits than any other country. Although not opposed to lawyers — noting that his daughter is an attorney — he said there are too many lawyers in Congress. He let the audience know that Moran, his opponent, is a lawyer.

    Rove said that he is endorsing only two candidates in the Republican Senate primary elections — Tiahrt and Marco Rubio of Florida.

    He said that he knows and has worked with both Tiahrt and Moran, and that’s why he’s endorsing Tiahrt. He called Tiahrt a “principled conservative,” saying that although you may disagree with him, you always know he comes to a conclusion because he thinks it’s right.

    Referring to Moran’s statement criticizing Rove as a Washington insider, Rove told the audience that Moran went to Washington five years before he did.

    He told a story about working with Moran on an issue, trying to get his vote. The Kansas City Star’s Steve Kraske reported this based on an interview with Rove earlier in the day:

    In the interview, Rove was particularly harsh on Moran for how the congressman approached a 2001 bill on trade promotion authority that Rove said was aimed at knocking down trade barriers and would have helped Moran’s rural western Kansas district.

    Rove said Moran tried to cut a deal on the bill, offering to back it, but only if the president or Commerce Secretary Don Evans agreed to come to Kansas to help Moran raise campaign money.

    Rove said the idea was ridiculous because Moran already had a big cash-on-hand total and likely wouldn’t face a serious opponent. Moran was from one of the safest Republican districts in the nation.

    It was, ‘What’s in it for me?’” Rove said of Moran. He said Moran told him, “You’ve got to give the president to me in a safe Republican district or the secretary of commerce to me in a safe Republican district to do a fundraiser.”

    The Bush team eventually pressed a North Carolina Republican to vote for the bill, which resulted in its narrow passage.

    Referring to Moran, Rove told the Wichita crowd that it is the Washington insider that says “I’m not doing what’s right for my state or my people, or my district, unless you give me something.”

    The Moran campaign released a statement that read, in part: “Karl doesn’t like Jerry Moran because Jerry stood up to him. Karl’s job was to line up votes to pass the President’s agenda and while Jerry agreed with much of the Bush agenda, he put his foot down against major increases in spending and government bureaucracy, like opposing No Child Left Behind.”

    Rove said that we have important battles to fight, and we need to put forth the best team: “We need people who will go there and do the tough things that are necessary to put our country on the right path again.”

    In questions after the speeches, Tiahrt said he was honored to have someone with the knowledge and stature of Rove endorse him. On why he is the “real conservative” in this race, Tiahrt said conservatism is his core value, and that he is not an election-year conversion, mentioning an Almanac of American Politics description of Moran’s voting record as “moderate.”

    Rove said that in order to win this election, Tiahrt needs to tell Kansans what he would do and believes in, and contrast that with the record of his opponent.

    Rove said that the tea party movement is a grass roots movement driven by concerns about government spending, deficit, and debt. He said that Tiahrt’s record in Congress fits in with the tea party philosophy.

    I asked Rove if he thought it was possible for Republicans to take majorities in the House or Senate this year. Rove said that for the Senate, the Republicans would have to keep every seat that is up for election, and then win many Democrat seats., noting that Republicans have twice as many seats up for election as do Democrats. He said he believes Republicans will gain more seats in both chambers than the historical average since World War II in mid-term elections like this.

    I asked if a conservative strategy was the best strategy in the third congressional district in Kansas (Wyandotte and Johnson counties, and part of Douglas county), noting that the district had elected blue dog Democrat Dennis Moore to several terms and moderate Republicans before that. Tiahrt said that he believes a majority of Johnson County voters are conservative. Rove said that Moore didn’t get out of the race “because he thought conservatism was on the wane in the third district.” He added that Moore had been saying he was a blue dog Democrat, but then voted for liberal policies in Congress.

    When I asked what it means that Moore’s wife Stephene is running for the office, Rove said “It means he’s got better political judgment than she does.”

    I asked if the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is Obama’s issue, or will it impact Congressional races? Rove said that it will impact the midterm races indirectly because it impacts the president’s popularity, adding that in midterms, the president’s job approval and the unemployment rate are two of the biggest drivers in voting. “That’s why Democrats lack enthusiasm and Republicans have intensity, because of what President Obama’s done in office.”

    I mentioned a recent Wall Street Journal editorial by Fred Barnes, which leads with this sentence: “In Washington these days, President Obama is rumored to be hoping Republicans capture the House of Representatives in the midterm election in November.” The idea is that “If Mr. Obama wants to avert a fiscal crisis and win re-election in 2012, he needs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be removed from her powerful post. A GOP takeover may be the only way.” Would a Republican takeover of the House lead Obama to a Clinton-style presidency, since the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, Clinton’s first midterm election?

    Rove said that Clinton was a centrist to begin with, and therefore was able to work with a Republican Congress. He said we haven’t seen this ability in Obama.

    I asked Tiahrt if he would endorse one of the fourth district Republican Congressional candidates, and he said no, he trusts the voters to decide.

    More coverage from State of the State KS is at Karl Rove Endorses Todd Tiahrt, Takes Shots At Jerry Moran.

  • Tiahrt, Moran vote ratings show slight difference

    The campaign for the Republican Party nomination for the United States Senate from Kansas between Todd Tiahrt of Goddard and Jerry Moran of Hays is making national news. The issue is over who is the most conservative. A new article in U.S. News and Word Report states: “Both Tiahrt and Moran have portrayed themselves as fiscal conservatives, favoring lower taxes and less spending by the federal government.”

    The Washington insider publication The Hill recently wrote of the “internecine fight for the GOP Kansas Senate.”

    Merriam-Webster defines internecine as “of, relating to, or involving conflict within a group,” which might describe any contested political primary election. But this one is turning in to something resembling the other definition given: “marked by slaughter: deadly; especially: mutually destructive.”

    Perhaps the reason why this campaign is turning negative is that on many issues, there just isn’t much difference between the two candidates and their voting records. Looking at vote rankings from several sources can help us see this.

    One respected source of vote ratings is National Journal. Some Tiahrt supporters are using a chart of National Journal vote ratings on Facebook, showing their approval of Tiahrt’s performance in these ratings.

    Tiahrt and Moran vote ratings from National Journal

    The chart shows Tiahrt with a more conservative vote rating in years past, but converging to nearly identical values last year. The chart shows Moran moving in the more conservative direction, while Tiahrt, after three years of less-conservative ratings, moving to a more conservative rating.

    National Journal produces three ratings for each legislator, based on votes on economic, social, and foreign policy issues. The number I plotted in the chart is the average of the three values for each year. In its own method of producing composite scores for 2009, National Journal gives Tiahrt a score of 85.3, and Moran gets 84.3.

    In terms of where they rank in order, Tiahrt is the 54th most conservative voter, and Moran is the 64th.

    For 2009, the average composite score for Republican members of the U.S. House was 79.4, ranging from 57.8 to 94. So while Tiahrt and Moran rank as more conservative than average, neither are anywhere near the top, in terms of conservative voting according to National Journal.

    Other organizations produce vote ratings too, such as the American Conservative Union. In these ratings, Tiahrt and Moan have the same, or nearly same score in all years except 2007, when Tiahrt had a more conservative rating. For the period shown, Tiahrt’s average score is 92.5, and Moran’s is 91.3.

    Tiahrt and Moran vote ratings from American Conservative Union

    From Americans for Tax Reform, we find a mixed picture. For the period shown, the average rating for Tiahrt is 94.6, and for Moran, 90.3.

    Tiahrt and Moran vote ratings from American for Tax Reform

    Do these relatively small differences in vote ratings amount to a true distinction between the candidates? While Tiahrt generally earns the more conservative rating, the differences are so small that voters will want to make sure they take into account other factors when they decide who to support.