Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Doing stuff how it's always been done



Old school Republicans are one sorry bunch of clueless. Sorry, but it needs to be said.

First, there's this. Click on that link and just prepare to be sorely disappointed. 

The blog post is from an anonymous poster in Mississippi. In that state, the politically astute will recall,  a doddering Republican Establishment Senator Thad Cochran won a vicious primary against a younger, Tea Party-backed candidate.

Here's the gist of the blog post:

"WE ARE LOST and you...the GOP...just bet your last dollar on an old man that can barely walk, barely talk, and other geriatric candidates that you can control so the control you have had in the past will continue so I ask you...What profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?

I went to this event because I wanted to see the 11 million dollar man for myself. When it ended, 2 gentlemen that were behind me, young, well-dressed, affluent(or appeared that way) looked at each other and for a second I thought they were thinking what I was thinking...OMG we gave up McDaniels for this? But then one of them said Woohoo and clapped and then there was some mild clapping that followed. I know deep down in my heart they were thinking something different...OMG we are in trouble."

The parallels between the Cochran-McDaniel primary and the Roberts-Wolf race aren't perfect. The Mississippi race was far nastier, and Cochran, backed by the NRSC (shame, shame, shame on Jerry Moran and the group he chairs) resorted to blatant falsehoods that somehow McDaniel was a racist. 
 
That is by far the most disgusting charge a Republican can level at another Republican -- especially when there is no evidence to support it. It was race baiting, pure and simple. And I personally believe that should (not shall, but should) be beneath the Republicans. The Roberts-Wolf, though ugly, was no where near that level of pig pen.

 

The blog post goes into a lengthy reverie about how the author could not bear to be hard on Cochran, because he is a doddering old man. Pat Roberts is not a doddering old man. He's old, all right. But he isn't doddering. He's as energetic as any 25-year-old still living in his parents' basement playing videogames. (That's to say, he's still got some get-up-and-go, but maybe not the same amount as a 25-year-old athlete.)
Anyway, the blogger has some meaningful things to say about the current Republican Party. He (or she) questions how the Republican Party would rally about someone who so obviously should retire. About the rally he attended, he writes:

"I can tell you one thing...there was no excitement, there was no passion, and there was no hope...just people going through the motions of what? I don't know."

Preach it, Brother Whoever You Are. 

In the last few days, I have been especially troubled that Republican candidates seem to be hanging their hopes on old-style campaigning. While Democrats are using their considerable war chests hiring (astroturf) people to go door-to-door and rally specific demographics to vote, Republicans are spending the majority of their campaign funds for things like television commercials. (You can read more about it at DailyKos. Sorry.)

Quick show of hands: How many of you actually watch commercials when you sit in front of the television? 

Yeah. Me neither. In addition to elect-me promises that sound like Back to the Future -- hello, Todd Tiahrt -- Republicans are campaigning like it's 1985. Between Netflix, On Demand cable programming and my DVR, I almost never watch the commercials. (The commercials I've linked to here, I've seen only because they are available on YouTube and I look for them.) Blowing a campaign war chest on commercials is so last week. (Or really, last decade).



In 2012, President Obama specifically targeted black voters. His primary objective was to register record numbers of black voters and drive them to the polls. He did this partially through traditional advertising, but primarily, he used initiatives like targeting barber and beauty shops in specific neighborhoods.

Democrats are following that playbook in 2014. I don't know if it will work in this election, but it is definitely going to make election margins much tighter for Republicans than it traditionally would be.

And Roberts, Moran via the NRSC, and the Republican Governor's Association may as well be using stone tablets to get their message out.

Does the Roberts' campaign have a ground game, like at all? How many doorsteps has Roberts himself visited? I'm guessing pitifully few. Had Roberts ever actually had to mount a competitive campaign, he would at least have a core group of grassroots people in every corner of the state ready to rally voters to his cause. (Yoder seems to be doing yeoman's work, campaigning like he's got a tight race. This bodes well for continued success in the future.)

It's true Republicans are coming around, somewhat. Last election cycle, the National GOP Committee finally figured out that having a bunch of offices in Washington D.C. was stupid. (Shame on Republicans for letting Democrats figure this out first.) Supposedly, the National GOP has fanned out setting up offices across the nation this year. It's a start, but it may be too little too late.

Shocker. Well not really.

Who saw this one coming?

Oh wait. Everyone.

A panel of liberal Democratic judges ruled today that the Democrats do not have to put a Democrat on the ballot for U.S. Senate. It's true, there already is a Democrat on the ballot, but Greg Orman is running without a 'D' behind his name. (And that shouldn't count, because the Democrats had a primary and everything. No really. Just a few months ago, they had a primary election with two whole candidates battling it out to be the guy who drops out of the race to make way for Orman.)

What is it with liberals and their basic misunderstanding of language?

"Shall" equals "used in laws,  regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory." No seriously. That's the actual definition from Webster's Dictionary. 

I feel pretty certain that when law makers use that word in legislation, the legislators interpret "shall" to mean "mandatory." 

I am also really, really confident what the word "is" means as I am a native English speaker with, apparently, an unusually exceptional understanding of the meaning of common words. I am not a judge, alas, so I am not adept at parsing language so words mean what I want them to mean instead of what they actually mean.



So, the Democrats will not replace Chad Taylor on the ballot. Everyone saw that coming, right? And by everyone, I mean the Roberts campaign staff. You guys knew this was coming, and are properly prepared, right?

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

About that nepotistic pioneer

The Kansas City Star reports today and the Washington Post reported last week that former Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum refused to do a commercial for Sen. Pat Roberts. 


I sure as hades hope the Roberts campaign wasn't dumb enough to ask her. I am pretty certain they did ask. Otherwise, Kassebaum is senile in addition to being a traitor. 

Kassebaum says Roberts has moved dramatically to the right. Well, of course he's to the right of her. Pro-abortion, friend of Kennedy, Kassebaum has never been a conservative. She barely even played one in the U.S. Congress.

Kassebaum is a woman who worked with Clinton to stifle the First Amendment and lead a "bipartisan" committee -- with the help of liberal failure Walter Mondale. Her son William is currently the treasurer for the Paul Davis for Governor campaign. (Morris County, are you embarrassed yet?)

Since the day she left office, she has consistently served as a stooge for liberals, allowing herself to be named as a "Republican" for Whatever Cause of the Day.

Quite frankly, she's an embarrassment to the great state of Kansas, and a cautionary tale against electing people simply because they have the "right" last name. Yes, she was the first U.S. Senator to be elected to a seat without following in her husband's footsteps. But let's be honest: She landed in the U.S. Congress in large part because she had a man behind her -- her father, former Kansas Gov. Alf Landon. 

The Republican Party showed loyalty to her precisely because of her father, but she has never shown an ounce of fidelity to the Kansas GOP. 

It's ironic that a major complaint she voiced to the Washington Post about Sen. Pat Roberts is that Roberts didn't show loyalty to former Sen. Bob Dole. Roberts she j'accuse voted against a U.N. Treaty pimped by Bob Dole. 

"People thought, 'Gosh, why couldn't he have done that for Bob?'" Kassebaum whined to the Washington Post. "That just triggered an emotional disappointment with Pat. I think that carried on and has not been changed."

Sigh.

I've explained this before: Just because Bob Dole advocates for something, that doesn't mean it's right or that it can't be questioned. Or that the opposition is extreme. And the fact that he's in a wheelchair doesn't mean his support of an issue deserves additional credence.

The treaty Dole was advancing was extraordinarily problematic. It did not include a definition of the word, "disabled." The term was to be defined at a later date by U.N. bureaucrats. (Remember, these are the same bureaucrats who call Israel a terrorist state. They're judgment is not to be trusted.) 

The Dole-approved treaty declared the state in charge of determining what is in the best interests of a disabled child.  And when the U.N. finished determining the best interests of disabled children, they would start considering the "economic, social and cultural rights" of the disabled.

Just to recount: The U.S. is already the worldwide leader of rights of the disabled. The Dole-approved U.N. treaty did not bring other countries up to our standards.

(Let me drop a few words here and let you draw your own conclusions: quality of life. Limited resources. OK. I'll draw the conclusion for  you -- that treaty ends with a pile of disabled people in an incinerator. Sorry to be so blunt, but the seriousness of the issue demands it.)

Pat Roberts voted against that horrendous treaty, over the objections of Bob Dole. Dole, by the way, is campaigning for Roberts, because Dole is a man of integrity.

 Nancy, there are a few things more important than loyalty. One of those is principle. Unfortunately, Nancy has neither loyalty or principles.

 

 

Swartzendruber's War on Women

Oh, there's a War on Women Single Moms in Salina, and the Major General leading the charge is none other than Democrat Gary Swartzendruber.

I received an email this morning detailing how this so-called supporter of women did everything short of Susan Smithing in order to avoid paying child support. Gross.


You can read the entire release here. But here's the quick and dirty version:

Swartzendruber, a Democratic candidate for the Kansas House of Representatives in Salina, abandoned his family and attempted to avoid providing for the basic needs of his children. (I guess for women's lib. So, thanks?)

The Judge in his child support case was not impressed.

"It is clear that (Gary Swartzendruber) has consistently avoided financial contribution..." the Judge wrote. 

In a ghastly move, the Democratic candidate threatened to cancel government grants for his own son if the judge ordered that he pay child support. He threatened not to provide information for his daughter's financial aid applications.

"The Court is at a loss to understand (Swartzendruber's) apparently mean-spirited 'trade-off' that if he is ordered to pay support, he will someone retaliate through cancellation of his son's PELL Grant application and Stafford Loan and refuse to participate in applications for his daughter," the Judge wrote. 

Um. Grants and loans in his childens' names cost Swartzendruber nothing. 

Swartzendruber faces Republican J.R. Claeys in the general election. The House race in Salina is a dangerously tight, I hear, and as of this afternoon, I have yet to see the Salina Journal or any of the local media there reporting on Swartzendruber's War on Single Moms.  If Democrats manage to squeak this one out, I never want to hear another word about the so-called War on Women. Between this guy and Paul Davis' Strippergate, I think it's pretty clear which party values women and cares for the welfare of children.

Typical, liberal bias. They'll trample over their grandmothers to run dirt on a Republican, but when a Republican uncovers court documents that make a Democrat look like the slime ball he is, those journalists leftist shills can't be bothered to write or run a story.

Wouldn't you want Strippergate to go away?

You'd think gubernatorial candidate Paul Davis would want talk of his frequenting strip clubs to go away.  You'd be wrong.

Davis' campaign complained late last week that Timothy Keck, Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer's chief of staff, requested strippergate police reports from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office days before the news story broke.

The Davis campaign alleges that the request was s misuse of state resources.


Davis campaign spokesperson said, "This is a disgusting revelation that puts a public employee in the middle of a smear campaign and likely using taxpayer money to fund it."


I don't even. Since when did Democrats care about wasting funding?

And it also begs the question I asked at the outset. A person of high moral character would wish the strippergate story would go away. However, knowing Davis schleps around "funding" struggling single mothers will likely entice more Dems to the polls. (They are so weird.)

Since I do care about the misuse of government resources, I would have a problem if Keck was spending hours and hours on opposition research while on the public dime. However, I know from experience that when dealing with a public entity that isn't a complete abomination (ahem. Derek Schmidt's office), a KORA request takes about 15 seconds. Keck could have made the request on his lunch break, or even a bathroom break. Keck has the right, as a private citizen, to request whatever records he wants.

For what it's worth, the Brownback campaign responded that state law allows Keck to work on Brownback's campaign. 

The law, Kansas Statute 25-4169, reads: "The provisions of this section prohibiting the use of time of any officer or employee for such (campaign) purposes shall not apply to an incumbent officer campaigning for nomination or re-election to a succeeding term to such office or to members of the personal staff of any elected officer."

Politicians always protect their campaigning activities via legislation. 


Duh. As long as Davis has been in office and involved in politics, I'm shocked he didn't know this already.This is why political signs are always allowed, no matter particular covenants; why door-knocking for candidates is A-OK despite anti-solicitation laws; and why your phone number tied to your voter registration is released to candidates regardless of the no call list.

Friday, September 26, 2014

From the horse's mouth

Or at least his Facebook page:

"Sorry to disappoint the media, there’s no meeting with Greg Orman and I don’t have any plans to make an endorsement," Milton Wolf wrote on his Facebook page today.

I guess that solves that mystery.

Still, one must wonder when or if Wolf will go ahead and endorse Sen. Pat Roberts. It's time.

 

Proving his critics right

(Edit: After posting this, two trusted sources posted they had spoken or texted with Wolf and he said there is no meeting and no endorsement.)

I really hope this story isn't true.

Politico reports today that Milton Wolf, one-time Pat Roberts primary challenger, will consider endorsing Greg Orman in the U.S. Senate race.

Ugh.

According to the report, Wolf will only agree to make such an endorsement if Orman agrees to caucus with the Republicans.

This is just stupid. I don't know how much power Wolf believes he has, but why would Orman make that deal when whatever the Claire McCaskill and Harry Reid offered is probably so much sweeter. What can Wolf offer? Free x-rays for life?

If Wolf was wise, or if Wolf actually believed the stuff he campaigned on (pro-life, pro 2nd Amendment and other Constitutional principles), he wouldn't dare endorse Orman. 


Orman is pro-abortion. He is anti-Second Amendment. He voted for and funded Obama for heaven's sake. 

I am mildly hopeful that this story is so-much-ado about nothing -- that this is a liberal media ploy to give conservative street clred -- however, fleetingly -- to Greg Orman.

A man of principle wouldn't even bother meeting with Orman. There's no point. 

While I personally believe Wolf should have lost gracefully and endorsed Roberts, I also understand that human nature is an ugly beast. It was a horrible, ugly primary, and it was probably unreasonable to expect Wolf's immediate endorsement of Roberts. 

A man of high character and principle would have done so, but I recognize that's not everyone. I anticipated it may take time to battle those primary demons into submission, and I wouldn't fault Wolf if it took him until October to come around and do the right thing.

There is no "right thing" in endorsing Orman. That's simply sour grapes. It shows low moral character and lack of principle.

If Wolf endorses independent Democrat Orman over Roberts, Wolf will prove his worst critics absolutely correct.