ELECTION PROFILE: United States Senate - (R) Pat Roberts v. (L) Randall Batson v. (I) Greg Orman

Making for one more interesting and intensely watched race in Kansas, is the race for the United States Senate.  We have an incumbent that's been in Washington for 47 years and couldn't win the majority vote in his primary; an out of nowhere Independent who actually has the funds to compete in a high profile race; a viable Democrat who dropped out of the race and a completely ignored Libertarian who has ran for office two times before.  This race encompasses it all.

THE CANDIDATES

(R) Pat Roberts (incumbent) - The Senator has run what can only be described as the most inept campaign in recent memory.  It's been so bad you would think The Campaign was a prophecy of his re-election bid.  Roberts was born in Topeka, KS and raised in Holton, KS, graduating from Holton High School in 1954.  Immediately after high school Senator Roberts enrolled in Kansas State University (Manhattan, KS) where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism in 1958. 

Right after college, the Senator went into the Marine Corps, serving from 1958 to 1962.  After ending his service in the Marine Corps, Roberts became a journalist and editor for multiple newspapers in Arizona from 1962 until 1967.  In 1967, the Roberts left Arizona and joined former Senator Frank Carlson's and then joined (1st District) Congressman Keith Sebelius's staff in 1969.  Roberts served as the administrative assistant until Congressman Sebelius retired in 1981, when Roberts won his boss's seat.  In 1997, after living in Washington, D.C. for 28 years (16 as a Congressman), Roberts was sworn into the United States Senate after his successful campaign.  During that campaign, Roberts made the statement, "I don't plan on serving more than two terms in the Senate."  After almost 18 years, the Senator is seeking his fourth term.

(Interestingly, when Pat Roberts ran for Congress in the First District he listed then, just as he does now, that his residency was in Dodge City, but when did he ever have time to live there?  He lived in Topeka, Holton, and Manhattan until he was 22.  He then went away to the Marine Corps until he was 26, lived in Arizona to the age of 31, then went to work in Washington, D.C. and has worked there ever sense.  Not only is it odd that he listed Dodge City as his residence, but its odd that he had never lived in Kansas's U.S. Congressional District 1.  Manhattan was in District 2 at that time.  His 2014 Republican Primary Tea Party challenger was the first to point this out.)

Ironically, this is the first time in Roberts's 34 year career as a politician that he has faced a competitive race.  In the primary he clearly underestimated his opposition in Dr. Milton Wolf, the Kansas City area "conservative" and Kansas grassroots/Tea Party favorite.  Roberts started things off kind of rough when he stated that although he doesn't have a home in Kansas he does have full access to a recliner in Dodge City.  This fed right into Milton Wolf's disdain for Roberts and his perceived discontent with career politicians.  All of a sudden, the 33 year Congressional incumbent that hadn't really lived in Kansas (according to Milton Wolf's camp and how loosely you define "lived" as in "residency")  since he was 22 was facing heat for there being a 19 year gap between the last time he really lived in Kansas and when he was first elected to represent a district in Kansas he never really lived in.

Still though, it's questionable at what point Senator Roberts began to take Milton Wolf seriously as a legitimate challenger.  We're not sure if it was incompetence, hubris, or a Freudian-slip, but while on a radio show he made the statement, "every time I get an opponent...I'm home."  Catching himself right after he realized his slip and just before "I'm home", he interjected, "I mean every time I get a chance."  This gave Wolf even more ammunition against the Senator.  At the same time, the Senator had a few tricks up his sleeves as well.

Even though Pat Roberts had moved far to the right before the rise of the Tea Party, national and local Tea Party groups remembered Roberts's decades long record as a moderate Republican, allowing Wolf to pick up the Tea Party Express endorsement.  This caused the man who had spent the last 56 years of his life living away from Kansas to accuse Milton Wolf supporters of being outsiders and that Kansans shouldn't trust them.  Still though, the "right wing" radio show pundits began to rush behind Wolf's candidacy.  It seemed like it was every day that Mark Levin was calling for the Republicans of Kansas to throw Pat Roberts out and go with Wolf.

With Roberts feeling the pressure and fearing for his political life, he decided to make the race go personal and attacked Wolf for posting X-Rays on his Facebook page, pouring all of his money into the T.V. ads.  The ads effectively painted Wolf as an irrational, out of control radical reactionary.  This strategy was necessary, because he had essentially lost both bases of the Kansas GOP and needed to rally support around his candidacy. 

In moving to the right to avoid any potential primary challenge, Roberts even went so far as to call for the resignation of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius.  The attack on Sebelius (also, the former Governor of Kansas) appalled many moderate Republicans throughout the state.  Had it not been for the Sebelius family, many of the moderates believed Roberts would not be anywhere close to as successful as he is now.  After all, it was Congressman Sebelius's staff that Roberts served on for 12 years.  It was Congressman Sebelius who handpicked Roberts to succeed Sebelius after he retired.  It was Sebelius's seat, in a district Roberts never really lived in that Roberts began his now almost 34 year career.  His attack on Congressman Sebelius's daughter-in-law was the final betrayal to the moderate base.

The attack ads proved useful enough to hold off Wolf in the primaries, but even in victory Roberts still looked weak as he was unable to win the majority, only receiving 48%.  Wolf finished with 41% and two unknowns split the remaining 11%.  It was clear that he received the moderate base's support by framing Wolf as a radical incompetent, but he did so at the expense of alienating a significant portion of the grass roots, Tea Party, and "conservative" base.  This is most evident on social media, and that Milton Wolf still refuses to endorse Roberts.  The 11% portion going to unknowns in a hotly contested and covered primary looks like a moderate protest.  It is also unlikely that all of the primary support Roberts received is a lock as a good portion were alienated moderates who he made fear Wolf. 

(L)  Randall Batson - Batson is the Libertarian candidate in the race for the United States Senate race in Kansas.  Looking at his website you will find that he is from Wichita, served in the military, is blue collar, and had a political awakening.  We also know that he ran for State Representative twice and his candidacy is pretty simple: Justice, Liberty, & Peace.

(I) Greg Orman - All we knew was that right after the primaries Pat Roberts only had a 4 point lead over Democrat Chad Taylor.  Then a couple weeks later, after an Independent candidate actually had enough money to run an advertisement on television, polls started to show this.  A week later, Taylor's support tanked to 15% and he decided to pull out of the race altogether.  As soon as it was announced that Taylor was dropping out of the race every poll started to show Orman leading Roberts in a race even with Taylor's name left on the ballot.  This created all kinds of chaos both in Democrat and Republican ranks.  Clearly Orman's rise was spurred by moderate Republicans looking for a viable moderate candidate, Independents tired of the partisan gridlock, and moderate Democrats who wanted nothing more than to see Roberts gone.

But the question remained:  Who is Greg Orman? Why is he Independent? It became abundantly clear, Greg Orman is what the plurality of us are.  Someone who tried being a Republican, but after eight years of the Bush administration decided he would give "Change" a chance.  After four years of gridlock and no change, he voted for Romney, grew tired of the game and two years later decided he was none of the above.  A successful Venture Capitalist by profession, pragmatist by nature, and ideologically non-affiliated political Independent, Greg Orman has made what was already going to be an interesting election year in Kansas even more so.

ISSUES

1:  Partisan Gridlock?  Checking out the issues page of each candidate (Pat Roberts; Randall Batson; and Greg Orman) it's obvious that only one candidate actually acknowledges this issue and that it is a legitimate problem.  With Roberts being an ever-partisan-loyalist (regardless of where the party moves) and Batson seemingly a strict ideologue, there doesn't appear to be much room for agreement.  Orman on the other hand, is neither of these and as a result has much more room to make governance work.

Who Wins the Issue?
Greg Orman

2:  Jobs and Economy?  Roberts gives us generalized nonsense on his warrior experience in fighting regulation and an industry (although important) only employs 22,000 Kansans (we also doubt that Obama could pick Roberts out in a line up).  Batson actually proposes an interesting idea of eliminating income tax on overtime wages.  However, Orman grants us a more in depth look at how we can improve the economy and promote job creation. 

It makes sense that he would have a better understanding of the issue (not to knock Batson's experience), as he is an entrepreneur by trade and has created jobs where as Roberts only spent five years in the private sector (50 years ago as a newspaper writer) and at this point is just a Republican rubber stamp.  Orman points out that K-12 education must change, innovation must occur, healthcare inefficiencies and affordability issues must be fixed, and that governmental gridlock creates an environment of uncertainty for investors and would be small business starters. 

Who Wins the Issue?
Greg Orman.

3:  Immigration?  Roberts wants us to enforce our current laws.  Furthermore, he actually doesn't even take the time to even offer a general paragraph of words that don't say anything about the problem on his issues page (see).  Batson states on his issues page that if immigrants come here legally and have proven themselves with integrity, they should be allowed to become citizens.

Again, Orman really steals the points on the issue.  Pat Roberts claims Orman supports amnesty.  Pat Roberts is a liar when he says that.  Read Orman's immigration stance.  It's an accurate analysis of how Washington is handling the issue now, and it's a practical approach for the United States and for Kansas that addresses the problem and doesn't harm our economy.

Who Wins the Issue?
Greg Orman

4:  Education?  Roberts apparently was too busy to address education, because there is nothing on his issues page about it.  Batson is for eliminating the Department of Education because he sees that it has diminished our quality of education by taking the state's duty of administration of education away from them.  He also supports funding private schools.  Orman acknowledges the importance of education, claims that is primarily a function of states to administer, but believes the federal government has the role of encouraging innovation.  He is also for making higher education more affordable and reforming the student loan system and making universities accountable.  That makes a lot of sense since we do have over $1 Trillion in student loan debt as a nation.

Who Wins the Issue?
Greg Orman (Student loan debt is a HUGE ISSUE and it CANNOT be ignored.  Actually, it may be the most important issue to address in the next five years.)

5:  Taxes?  Roberts gives another paragraph of general nonsense, he claims he supports a Fair Tax, but doesn't explain what that is.  Batson supports the Fair Tax as well, but he refers to it as a consumption tax and would like to repeal the 16th amendment (he better watch out the Republicans might accuse him of being against the Constitution).  The Independent for U.S. Senate, though, recognizes that the most desirable trait in a tax system is it's equitability.  He's for simplification of the tax code, the closing of loopholes for major corporations and for moving to a territorial tax system that would punish businesses for moving out of the country and reward those that stay in the country and reinvest into their workforce.

Who Wins the Issue?
Greg Orman

6:  Environment & Energy?  Pat Roberts uses a GOP talking points bulletin for his views on the issue.  He completely ignores that coal is harmful to the environment and he erroneously states that the Keystone Pipeline will reduce prices for gas.  (The Keystone Pipeline will not reduce prices because the oil companies are in collusion and engage in market manipulation, it is however safer than the current means of oil transport, but he doesn't make that argument so we can't reward him for being for it's construction, we can only ding him for lying.)

Batson doesn't provide any information on his issues page.  Orman does though.  In fact, Orman tells us that having to choose between protecting the environment and protecting industry is an erroneous presentation of the choices.  He actually points out that his first company 'Environmental Lighting Concepts' was a lighting efficiency company that created jobs and helped the environment.

Who Wins The Issue?
Greg Orman

7:  Healthcare? Roberts insanely champions that he helped shut down the government and cost the American tax payers 12.5 MILLION DOLLARS AN HOUR FOR 17 DAYS in order to protest the Affordable Care Act.  He also promotes that he demanded Secretary Sebelius resign or post which is a reason moderate Republicans have decided to abandon him.  He also claims that he voted to replace the Affordable Care Act, but he doesn't say with what.  Further, Roberts's generalized GOP talking points memo claims that he believes healthcare is better between a doctor and the patient and not the government, but fails how to state where the government has asserted itself in the doctor-patient relationship and also ignores that insurance companies have always presented barriers to that relationship.

Batson doesn't provide any opinion on the matter, but we assume that he is not for the Affordable Care Act.  Yet, we still don't know.  It's only speculation.

Orman condemns the political games being played over the issue.  He accurately points out that the ACA expanded an already broken health care system and didn't solve the crisis that existed before.  Instead of playing more political games like Roberts (which cost the country billions of dollars) Orman believes we should work to truly resolve the problems with the healthcare law.

Who Wins the Issue?
Greg Orman

8.  National Debt?  Pat Roberts puts out another generalized GOP talking points memo paragraph that continues to say nothing specific.  We also find it interesting that when Pat Roberts was elected to Congress the United States national debt was $907 Billion, since Pat Roberts been in office the national debt has raised by $16,959,000,000,000.00.  That's SIXTEEN TRILLION, NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTYNINE BILLION DOLLARS!  So clearly he has been as effective as his claim that he has long championed a balanced budget.

Batson doesn't state a policy opinion here.

Greg Orman says that hard decisions will have to be made and that running up high debts only to pass on to future generations is immoral and that the partisan gridlock won't allow for any of those hard choices to be made (he's right).  He is also in support of requiring the government to report as detailed information about it's spending as it requires tax payers.

Who Wins the Issue?
Greg Orman (Roberts does not have a credible leg to stand on)

9.  Military & Veterans?  Roberts, Batson, and Orman all take honorable stances on veterans issues.  Roberts record on governmental accountability regarding military issues is pretty horrendous (often referred to as Cover-Up Chairman). Also, retired United States Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson has some choice words for Senator Pat Roberts and his involvement in the government's retaliatory leak of the identity of a C.I.A. agent. 

Batson is for respecting the sovereignty of other nations and explains how that is not an isolationist approach. 

Orman on other military issues, specifically with current international threats like ISIL, takes an approach we think most Americans agree with.  If the Iraqi people are going to have a stable and free society, it is ultimately they that need to accomplish it.  He believes we should continue to provide them with logistical, training, and armed air support, but boots on the ground is not a must.

Who Wins the Issue?
Greg Orman

10.  2nd Amendment?  None of the candidates are against the 2nd Amendment, as Pat Roberts's political propaganda would have you believe.  Background checks and firearm regulations are not against the 2nd Amendment "not even to the most "conservative" Constitutional-originalist judge in history" and Pat Roberts used to support them, but he has changed his mind because he has no backbone.  The constitution uses the term "arms" not "guns" nor "rifles" or "muskets".  If you believe that means any arms, such as military grade weaponry, you are completely irrational.  You have a fundamental right of self defense, but decades have long passed since the military's arms weaponry became so advanced that a civilian population could possibly defeat the military.  To advocate for access to such weapons would be entirely unreasonable, irrational, and irresponsible. 

Who Wins the Issue?
Tie - Randall Batson and Greg Orman

11.  Abortion?  Pat Roberts has received a 100% National Right to Life Rating (that means he's anti-abortion, which the person writing this profile likes, but it doesn't actually make him Pro-Life, which we find hypocritical; we also don't like partisan groups like National Right to Life that are really just extensions of political parties, not advocate groups).  However, his social policies have actually shown to increase the rates of abortion when his party has control, so that's a bit counterproductive to being anti-abortion if you can't ever win the majority necessary to amend the Constitution.  Being pro-life actually begins before conception and doesn't end at birth. 

Batson takes a much more pragmatic approach, seemingly very much in line with the understanding we laid out in criticizing Roberts for being nothing more than a partisan-point collector.  Orman is pro-choice.

Who Wins the Issue?
We're not sure.  Pat Roberts comes right out and says he's against abortion (good).  Batson doesn't say if he is against abortion or for women's choice, but from how we can read his tone we're going to guess he's Pro-Life, but in a much more practical manner than Roberts.  So we'll say:

Batson, but we'd like more clarity.

12.  Agriculutre?  Well, even though Roberts likes to tout his Agricultural Credentials this report just came out showing that he has missed almost 2/3 of all agriculture committee meetings he was supposed to attend over the last 15 years. 

Who Wins the Issue?
Anyone who can show up for a meeting half the time.

CONCLUSION

Greg Orman was taking a lot of knocks for not having enough information regarding his policies, but after analyzing all the candidates, Orman is far above the most comprehensive in his policy agenda.  We pick Greg Orman (Randall Batson is a strong 2nd, while Roberts is a long distant 3rd).  It's not really that difficult.  Kansas has an opportunity to spur national change, true to its Jayhawker spirit.  If Kansas and South Dakota can send Independents to the Senate in Washington this election, how many more will rise around the country in the next election?  In America, we almost never limit ourselves to either or choices, why have we let political parties tell us we have to when it comes to politics?  We even lost almost all respect for the Tea Party caving in on their principles for the sake of the Republican Party.

ELECTION PROFILE: Govenor - (R) Sam Brownback v. (D) Paul Davis v. (L) Keen Umbehr

The Kansas Governor's race is one of national intrigue.  But on paper, it should be the easiest race in the entire United States to predict.  The incumbent is a Republican.  He won the office in a landslide championing the modern Republican platform.  He was a Republican Presidential candidate and was elected to represent Kansas in the United States Senate in two landslide elections.  Before that, he was elected to represent the state in the United States House of Representatives.  Furthermore, the platform he ran on to become governor, was something he carried out.  However, in the vast majority of polls that have been released covering this race, the incumbent Republican governor has trailed his Democrat challenger.

While the race has centered exclusively around the Democrat challenger and the Republican incumbent, the Libertarian candidate has made some buzz around social media.  It seems interesting, that even though he's attended the gubernatorial debates, the news media seems quite a bit less interested in his candidacy, and most polls have neglected to even mention him.  This makes the polls very hard to seriously consider.  Libertarian candidates fit very well with the new Republican fiscal and economic policy hardliners and they also appeal to the modern Democrat voter on issues of reproduction and same-sex policies.  With a very unpopular governor who has a lot of money in his war chest to attack his biggest challenger, how many prospective voters might break away from the R vs. D spectrum and take a gamble and vote Libertarian?

 

KANSAS GOVERNOR

AUTHORITY:

The Governor of the state of Kansas's office derives its authority from Article 1, Section 1 of the Kansas State Constitution.

DUTIES:

The Governor is the chief executive of Kansas.  Name a department, and the governor is probably responsible for the office's administration.  It is the most high profile office in the state and for good reason.  The Governor of Kansas is modeled off the President of the United States.  Laws cannot pass without his authorization (unless there is a veto proof majority) and his office is very influential regarding the rest of the state's politics.  Many voters may not know who their elected representatives are, but they do know who the governor is.  With that advantage, the governor is often in a position to put public pressure on lesser office holders.

THE CANDIDATES

(R) Sam Brownback (Incumbent) - When it comes to Kansas politics, there may not be a bigger name in the history of the state than Sam Brownback (Eisenhower wasn't a political actor in Kansas before becoming President).  Yes, even bigger than former Senator and Republican Presidential nominee, Bob Dole.  Brownback is currently holding an office Dole never did, and has been a much more controversial politician, both within the state and nationally.  The incumbent previously held Dole's old senate seat, being elected to two terms. 

Before his time in the United States Senate, Brownback served in Congress from 1995 - 96 as a member of the United States House of Representatives.  Prior to his 20 year full-time political career, Brownback was employed by the state of Kansas as the Secretary of Agriculture (1986-1990 and 1991-1993) and the federal government in the White House Fellow program detailed to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (1990-1991, returning his Secretary of Agriculture after his fellowship commenced).  He spent four years in the private sector as an attorney and broadcaster in Manhattan, KS after graduating from Kansas State University in 1979 and the University of Kansas School of Law in 1982.  The governor, ironically for being a champion of the conservative movement, has made his career in politics.

Sam Brownback's reputation for being a controversial politician can easily be found in news paper and media headlines.  As governor, he made Kansas the first state in the country to cut all state funding for the arts.  This was incredibly alarming given that it has been well established there is a correlation between art and high test scores in almost all other subjects.  In 2013, the governor reapproved arts funding, but only at very small fraction of what the original funding was.  Also, as governor, Sam Brownback led the controversial "Great Kansas Republican Purge of 2012" against moderate Republicans that did not go along with his high controversial tax policy that has left Kansas with huge budget deficits and has caused the state's credit rating to drop multiple times. 

Adding to the governor's political obstacles was the Kansas State Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year that lack of school funding is unconstitutional.  Prior to the decision the governor rejected plans to increase funding and conservatives in the legislature aligned with Brownback issued threats to the court if they found the lack of funding to be unconstitutional.  Amid the controversy, the governor tried to link the issue to his support of all-day kindergarten, but when push came to shove, Brownback effectively rejected funding that would help this initiative.  The governor stated that before signing the request, he would want the legislature to weigh in (knowing the legislature was not in session and allowing the deadline to lapse without action).  Recently, Brownback and his fellow conservative law makers have taken credit that funding for Kansas education is at an all time high, but have failed to mention that when the money is subjected to inflation rates, it's actually still far less than pre-Great Recession era funding.  Yet, even in the process of complying with Supreme Court's school funding ruling, they managed to take another opportunity to attack their political foes by ending due process for teachers.  Furthermore, the governor has used misleading statistics associated with the KPERS (Kansas Public Employee Retirement Service) pension funding, which Kansas teachers have access to, in order to show that he has increased education funding.

His controversial record does not stop there.  In his 1994 campaign for Congress, there was a "mysterious" wave of 'robo-calls' that voters received late at night, wanting to remind voters that "Jill Docking is a Jew." In the 2008 Presidential Republican primary, Mitt Romney was a victim of similar robo-call waged by Sam Brownback's campaign in Iowa.  What's more, is while serving in the U.S. Senate, Brownback was famously caught switching his votes more times than this sole video shows.  Recently, Brownback's campaign has taken heat from even Kansas Republicans for a state employee, an assistant of Brownback's Lt. Governor, checking Montgomery County records in order to dig up dirt on his opponent and leaking it a local newspaper who ran the story.  It's clearly a pattern of behavior for the governor to issue seemingly "cheap" personal attacks on his political rivals that are competing with him in the polls.

(D) Paul Davis - The Democrat challenger was a bit of an unknown before he announced his intention to run for governor.  Davis received his bachelor's degree from the University of Kansas and then went on to earn his law degree from Washburn University.  He is partner in the Lawrence, KS based law firm Fagan, Emert, and Davis, LLC and has served in the Kansas State House of Representatives since 2003.  Davis became the House Minority Leader in 2008 and before becoming a member of the state legislature, he worked as the Assistant Director of Governmental Affairs for Insurance Commissioner Kathleen Sebelius (former Kansas Governor and United States Secretary of Health and Human Services).  During his undergraduate and law school years he also served as an intern for State Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley and Congressman Jim Slattery (also the Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate against Pat Roberts in 2008).

Paul Davis made major strides when he was endorsed by more than 100 Republican office holders, both current and former.  That number of Republican endorsements has now reached over 500 politicians and educators.  His criticisms of Governor Brownback's policy have resonated with Kansas voters, most indicative by the majority of polling showing he has had a consistent 4 to 5 point lead over the governor.  The Republican machine has tried various avenues of attack on his candidacy, by either labeling him as the "liberal lawyer from Lawrence" (Lawrence being seen by conservatives in the state as liberal as Kansas, which everyone knows is quite laughable), the "Obama Democrat", and the "tax and spend liberal."  Nothing has managed to stick however, which has caused the Brownback led Republican machine to dig up dirt on the challenger.  After the Coffeyville Journal broke the story that Davis was at a strip club (owned by his firm's client), with his boss during a meth raid, it was discovered that a public employee, while on the clock, requested those records from Montgomery County.  As a result, the personal attacks that have stemmed from that "dirt digging" have actually caused public backlash and have been received as mostly an attempt to smear the incumbent's challenger in order to avoid the discussion over the public's discontent with his policy initiatives. 

Even though the polls have consistently shown Davis with a lead, however as of late some polls are showing Brownback in the lead.  Nate Silver has said he hasn't been taking the last several polls in Kansas very seriously because they seem to have a Republican bias that is not truly representative of the state's demographics nor at all consistent with any data (numbers virtually flipping without showing any trend before hand seems more like an outlier than a true sample).  Republicans have been publically proclaiming momentum, yet internal polls from both parties are causing pause for any expectations of a Republican sweep.  They're actually so worrisome that now U.S. Congressional leadership is now pleading congressional Republicans to financially support Jenkins, for fear of a down ticket strike against the Republicans in Kansas.  Read that again!  National Republicans, after looking at internal polling data, are freaking out because they fear Jenkins will be voted out of office BECAUSE of the polling for the races above her (that includes Brownback, Roberts, and Kobach).  We've heard word that either Huelskamp or Yoder are worried about the same affect (however, we can't confirm, but we will say that the tipster made it sound like it's someone that shouldn't normally be worried at all which would point to Huelskamp, because Yoder should always expect a competitive race). Regardless, neither candidate has been able to break the 50 point threshold, which really makes the race a toss up, between the two.....

or does it?  How about?

(L) Keen Umbehr -  There probably hasn't been a more interesting candidate for Kansas governor than this year in Keen Umbehr.  Not because he's a flamboyant character with radical political views, but because he may embody Kansas Values and the American Dream better than any before him.  Like his opponents, Keen graduated from law school.  Like Brownback, he obtained his undergraduate degree from Kansas State University and like Davis, he earned his law degree from Washburn.  However, unlike Brownback and Davis, Keen did it all in his 40's; after he won an appeals court decision on the First Amendment right of 'Freedom of Speech'; after he was a successful business man that collected trash; and after his son graduated from high school. 

The obscure candidate (not by his choice mind you, but by the media and his challengers) from the an obscure Kansas town (Alma), that looks kind of like a young Bill Murray is actually the only candidate in the race that has a legitimate issues page on his website.  (If you'd like to see it, check it out here.)  And sense Umbehr is the only candidate that has a legitimate issues page, we'll let his issues dictate the match up on the issues he addresses.  But, we are going to arbitrarily assign point values to issues and then maybe even ignore how they add up in the end (so don't focus too much on that).

MEDIA NOTE:  But seriously media, you've a ton a terrible job covering his candidacy.  So what he may not have the name recognition or sell the papers, but you have a duty as journalists, too expose the public to all candidates.  Don't regulate the political process, we just want you to be informative and honest.  For instance, if someone is blatantly lying, tell us.  If I have three options, don't write as if I only have two. Most of you take the position that there is too much money in politics, but you don't give anyone without money exposure to the electorate.  You're not doing your job and that's why we have resorted to social media.

ISSUES:

1. Can Keen Umbehr Wing?  Well of course he can.  A candidate only needs a plurality of votes, not a majority.  In a three way race 34% could be all that's needed to win.  As Umbehr's website points out that 32% of Kansans don't identify themselves as Republican or Democrat, if a third party candidate were to syphon that group and grab one percent from each of the other the candidate would get that 34% number.  Is it realistic? Probably not, but the media fulfilling the desire of the two parties to only promote the two parties is a big factor. 

CONCLUSION:  We are calling on all Kansans to pay more attention to local and state races than they do to federal races.  We have a tendency to only focus on what's going on in the White House, the Speaker of House's and Senate Majority Leader's offices.  This allows for greater corruption from the governments that impact your life more directly.  If you pay attention to your local races within their local  contexts, candidates like Keen Umbehr that actually outline policy decisions will receive the focus and recognition they deserve.  He's just as intelligent than his Republican and Democratic counterparts.  He has just as much education and even has more life experience. 

On paper, I'd be more inclined to believe a candidate that lives in Alma, KS is probably more in line with the values of common Kansans than a candidate that has only lived in the Topeka - Lawrence areas of the state, which in itself is even better than the candidate that has spent 28 years in government, spending most of that time in Washington, D.C. who also clearly has been planning his road to the Presidency before he even ran for governor.

2.  How are the candidates defined politically?  Sam Brownback champions being a "conservative", he claims Davis is a "liberal", but Davis identifies as a "moderate" (if he identifies at all), and Umbehr claims to be a "conservative libertarian".  Umbehr goes on to claim that since he is an attorney he is a "strict constitutionalist".  However, the other candidates are attorneys as well, all learning and mastering the same legal philosophies in law school. 

Umbehr then states that a "strict constitutionalist" is some one who believes and understands the "the words used at the time our Constitution was written controls my interpretation of the document".  Really, that means he is a constitutional "originalist" (yet, even this a very broad statement; look at the U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller and note how the majority opinion written by originalist, Justice Scalia, is contrasted with the dissenting opinion of originalist, Justice Stevens).  However, that prefaces his next claim which is that the Constitution is not a living document subject to reinterpration and that he holds "the Constitution supreme above party ideology and political expediency."  That's fair.  It's a political belief, which sums up his final statement that he believes "our state and federal constitutions limit the government, not the people."  That as well is a pretty accurate statement.  However, it doesn't quite address that the purpose of government is to efficiently regulate society, but it does acknowledge the respective constitutions limit the governments in the means and ends of what that regulation can be.

Sam Brownback is a "conservative".  Which really is not the appropriate term to describe the kind of political ideology or philosophies Brownback prefers.  It would be more accurate to claim that Brownback is "right-wing" (and we'll explain those distinctions in later posts, but in essence "conservative" means traditionalist in a policy sense and it means to conserve in a personal sense).  If Sam Brownback were truly a Kansas "conservative" in its correct political terminology, Brownback would actually be more of a centrist.  However, he is not.  He's anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage, which would qualify as positions of a Kansas "conservative", but his economic and education philosophies are not consistent with positions that qualify as a Kansas "conservative", but instead are right-wing (even though that term is flawed as well, but since we haven't at all introduced the idea of "political-fusionism" we will let the right-wing term stand for now: for fun click on this for the absurdity of the left-right classification.).  Ultimately, it's clear that Sam Brownback believes that inequality is inevitable and not only do his policies allow for this inequality to be achieved it actually promotes inequality as if it is desired.

Paul Davis seems to be the "moderate", with evidence of his 500+ officials of the GOP endorsing him.  Obviously, when compared to Sam Brownback, Paul Davis would be to the left, but that doesn't inherently make him "left-wing" or even what we more inadequately describe as "liberal" or "progressive".  A "liberal" is one that believes in freedom, independence, and self-determination.  You already see the flaw in that description, because it is exactly what "conservatives" claim to be.  Paul Davis's view seem to be more equality based.  To be put a better way, Davis's views seem to promote the idea that the opportunity for equality should always be present or at the very least encouraged. Looking at his candidacy as a whole, (we're unaware of his view on same-sex marriage) but his views on economic and social policies seem to be much closer the moderate tradition which is prevalent in Kansas's history.  So more correctly, Paul Davis is the closest thing in this race to the actual Kansas political-conservative.  (We're cutting it off here, because if we dissect them to far on this point, there will be no need to review the other issues Keen Umbehr identifies.)

CONCLUSION:  Keen Umbehr clearly identifies who he is and is line with that self identification (3 points for consistency, -1 for ideology).  Sam Brownback plays the "liberal-conservative" game which is actually the "left-right" game and it doesn't help identify what he truly is in terms of a label, but since he uses the label we have to ding him for (-2 points for him).  Davis isn't a label based candidate, but since he's working a race that was shaped that way before it even started, Davis has taken the "moderate" approach.  It's a label that isn't a label.  We really aren't even sure what a moderate is, but its clear that he's more in line with Umbehr taking a positions approach rather than a label approach which is something we like (2 points for taking a positions approach, 2 points for not defining himself as a label, -1 point for still pandering to the labeling game).

3.  Tax Plan:  Umbehr probably sums up the charge that Brownback promotes inequality as if it desired best with his critique of Brownback's tax plan.  Umbehr accurately points out that the governor has shifted the burden onto W-2 wage earners to pay 100% of the state's income tax (allowing 191,000 businesses to pay zero income tax).  Umbher's solution is to implement the Fair Tax.  The Fair Tax is a "consumption tax" of 5.7% on goods and services and repeals all state income and sales tax.  Tax philosophers generally consider three principles when considering the appropriateness of a tax:  (1) equity, (2) neutrality, and (3) efficiency. 

The consumption tax is facially economically neutral (all who consume get taxed the same rate) and it administratively efficient (it's easy to figure out, it's a flat tax of 5.7% on all consumption), but it lacks equity (horizontal-equity being that all who have the same ability to pay taxes should pay the same and vertical-equity being that those who have the ability to pay more taxes pay more than those who have a lesser ability).  It is nondiscriminatory facially speaking, but its arguable that it still shift the tax burden on the lesser earners as a whole (they pay a higher percentage of their income and wealth in taxes, because they have less ability to save money, which wouldn't be taxed in a consumption tax system).  But it also doesn't claim to be an equitable tax system.  In fact its proponents would probably argue that an equity system (horizontal and vertical equity) is discriminatory.  Yet, as we pointed out above, the proponents of an equity system would argue that the consumption system is discriminatory.  We would encourage Umbehr to address this conflict and convince us why consumption is less discriminatory than equity.

Brownback's plan is much of the same, pointed out by his Roadmap 2.0.  In fact, the income taxes are scheduled to keep falling.  (We're not taking that as an issues page, because it's really just a generalization of an outline without substance.  Also, his site's pages, 'Record' and 'Reality Check', are really just conveniently sliced statistics that lack substance and have been widely refuted and debunked. His apologists say that's just the liberal media bias, but we're so tired of that argument, especially when his allies quote the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation as evidence of his policies working.  They're not biased at all [with the most sarcastic tone one can muster]).  We see where this tax philosophy has us; revenue shortages, Kansas's credit-rating downgrades, and more state debt the taxpayer will have pay in the future.

Davis's plan seems to be more pragmatic.  He first is calling a freeze to income taxes to keep the revenue shortages and state debt from continuing to rise.  Davis has stated that before we consider rolling back the taxes we first have to stop the bleeding (adequately fund education to pre-recession era levels when you take inflation into account).

CONCLUSION:  Umbehr has a consistent and well thought out plan, he acknowledges that the current tax policy is discriminatory in its nature.  However, consumption tax worries us.  Why?  Mexico.  We'd still like further explanation on why consumption is better than equity, but at least he engages in the issue (2 points for pointing out Brownback's tax flaw, 1 point for proposing a viable alternative, and perhaps a +/- 1 point on whether he can show consumption is better than equity).

Brownback's plan is literally underfunding the government and it seems it will continue to do so, unless the economy picks up.  He still hasn't convincingly shown how that will work (-3 points for Kansas's credit rating downgrades).

Davis is engaging the issue at a traditionally "conservative" approach where caution is emphasized and solutions will be framed to address the problem as is.  It's an interesting approach for a Democrat to take.  It certainly isn't a left-wing approach.  And it's refreshing that a candidate isn't succumbing to the 24-hour media force of "we want to know everything, we want it simply, and we want it now".  He's going to act with caution and access (2 points for pragmatism, 2 points for acknowledging the problems of Brownback's tax, -1 for not enough emphasis).

4.  K-12 Education:  Umbehr applauds the tradition of Kansas's education system.  He wants it properly funded (without being explicitly clear on what that means, unless you scroll down his policy page where he talks about current funding) and is opposed to Common Core. 

Brownback is all over the board on the issue.  He fights against its funding, then champions his shoring up of the KPERS (not exclusive to teachers, but also other public employees) system.  Next he strips teachers of their due process and then he advocates for all day kindergarten, which he effectively rejects helpful funding. 

Davis claims education funding is his number 1 priority.  He wants it restored to pre-recession levels (which is slightly more explicit than Umbehr's stance on funding).  Davis proudly acknowledges Kansas's historical placement of value on education.  He says that education is vital to a strong economy.  These are true, but there isn't very much analysis.  Davis is listening to teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board members and his position is that Kansas needs to provide these educators with resources they need to improve the quality of education.  Paul Davis hasn't addressed Common Core, but it might be for the reason that the majority of those in the education field (school board members, superintendents, principals, and teachers) support the system (for what that's worth).  However, that's pure unsubstantiated speculation. 

CONCLUSION:  Umbehr gets it that Kansas has a great historical record on education, he also supports it's proper funding (1 point for Kansas tradition).

Governor Brownback's record is too inconsistent (-4 points for being insufferable on the issue).

Paul Davis clearly values education, but doesn't get down to the nitty gritty (2 points for understanding education and the economy, 1 point for Kansas tradition, 1 point for funding, -1 point for not being too clear).

5.  Job Creation:  Keen Umbehr believes that government in general does not and can not create public sector jobs.  It can encourage growth by repealing harmful legislation such as PEAK and IMPAC and also implementing his tax policy. 

Sam Brownback believes we need to continue to cut more taxes in line with the current structure he passed into law.

Paul Davis believes that education and halting Brownback's tax policy are the essential first steps.

CONCLUSION:  Umbehr  (1 point for identifying economically harmful legislation and 1 point for identifying tax policy as a driver.  But -1 pointon government not being able to create private sector jobs we immediately wonder how the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, or I-70 was built).

Brownback (0 points. The purpose of his policies is to show that conservative utopian society works, the jury is still out, it's really not looking good, but its not over yet).

Davis (1 point for education, 1 point for tax policy acknowledgment, -1 point for clarity).

6.  Kansas Economy:  Umbehr says, "The sun is not shining on the Kansas economy, nor is the doomsday scenario an accurate assessment."  He then talks about education funding cuts and sees the problem.  Brownback is still for more of the same and Paul Davis's position is the same on job creation as well.

CONCLUSION:  Since this is really an auxiliary position to the job creation issue and Umbehr further acknowledges education he gets the only point, because the other two candidates' answers don't necessarily change.

7.  Abortion:  Umbehr first points out that he is 100% pro-life.  This is probably where his "conservative" title that prefaces his "libertarian" foundation comes in.  The typical Libertarian approach is that the government should not regulate personal decisions, but he takes a principled stand and makes a moral argument.  Furthermore, Umbehr relies on his constitutionalist grounds as well.  He acknowledges that the state of Kansas has restricted abortion to the fullest extent allowed by Roe v. Wade and he further goes on to state he doesn't support any public funding for abortion.

Sam Brownback is pro-life as well, although its uncertain as to whether or not he believes anti-abortion laws in Kansas have been maxed out.  Regardless, there isn't any real concrete distinction between himself and Umbehr on the matter.

Paul Davis is more similar to his two opponents than he is different.  He is opposed to any abortion beyond the first trimester (with exception to the mother's life).  Beyond that it's somewhat unclear, but since this race has been about the overall direction Kansas is headed economically and educationally this issue seems to have not gained any traction.

CONCLUSION:  We really can't see where any candidate could further restrict abortion access or get the legislature to loose the restrictions on abortion either.  Davis's view seems to fit the Constitutional analysis provided by Roe v. Wade and the other two candidates are restrained from passing any more restriction on the issue.  The reality is that Governor of Kansas does not hold any position to amend the Constitution of the United States.  State legislators do, through the means of a constitutional amendment convention of the states, but governors are not included in that approach.

8.  Same-Sex Marriage:  Umbehr doesn't explicitly state his view on the subject, but he effectively concedes that although Kansas has a constitutional ban on the institution, states' constitutional bans within our federal court district that a similar law have been found to be unconstitutional and it's only a question of time when Kansas's ban gets overturned as well. 

Brownback will fight same-sex marriage and Paul Davis wants to focus on other issues. 

CONCLUSION: Umbehr gets 2 points for taking a stance.  Brownback loses 3 points for fighting another mute issue and Davis gets no points for letting the issue work itself out (this San Francisco article says it all) in court (which any attorney would be willing to bet everything they could that constitutional ban will be overturned).

9.  Marijuana: Umbehr supports medical usage, Brownback opposes all use, and Davis hasn't clarified (but this seems like silly issue in this race, because no one is advocating for the Colorado law).  No points given.

10.  State Spending Cuts & Social Programs:  Umbehr wants to pay off the bonds which will require spending to be cut if there isn't a surplus.  He also wants to keep education at the current level of funding (I think we found our education answer), provide adequate funding for the poor and vulnerable, and fund judiciary and corrections departments. Brownback is willing to cut funding to education, or at least he fought for it when the issue came before the Kansas Supreme Court.  Brownback's government is also using the Kansas State Department of Transportation as a slush fund to make up for the revenue shortfalls.  Not to mention his cuts to other social safety net institutions that and legal services that are causing outcry.  Davis wants to immediately freeze that Brownback tax and then go from there.  This may require spending cuts but they won't come from education.

CONCLUSION:  Umbehr 3 points for being clear and moral.  Brownback - 3 points for being a true believer that is willing to sacrifice the most economically beneficial area for the purposes of paying for his tax cuts. Davis 1 point for not letting education be apart of the chopping block, 1 point for education funding exceeding current levels, 1 point for being pragmatic but -1 for less clarity than Umbehr.

11.  Voter ID:  Both Umbehr and Davis condemn the voter registration law and see it as a disenfranchisement of the right to vote.  Brownback signed it.

CONLCUSION:  10 points for Davis and Umbehr. -10 points for Brownback.

The other issues seem to be inconsequential from here.

OUR PICK: 

Clearly this is a two candidate race.  The candidate race really comes down to (D) Paul Davis vs. (L) Keen Umbehr.  Sadly, the media and the current unfair advantage the Republican and Democrat system employ does not provide voters with enough information on who the third party candidates are, and specifically in this race, the Libertarian Keen Umbehr.  Even exacerbating the problem is that the incumbent Republican is the one with all the money and the built in advantage.  This puts us in a place where we don't want to be.  Governor Brownback will most assuredly receive 45% or more of the vote on the Kansas virtue of being a Republican and not enough people being informed.  What's worse is that it's not even as if he's a good Republican (like Schmidt, Jenkins, or Yoder) he's the worst breed, probably only outdone in terms of awfulness by Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Even so, we still lean with Davis.  Not just because he has a realistically greater opportunity to beat Brownback, but we like his pragmatic approach (although it gets kind of frustrating when you're trying to do your homework and he doesn't offer you solid bullet points; pragmatism certainly has flaws as well).  On the flip side, regardless of who wins this race, we'd really like to see Umbehr run for governor again (if not another office).  Umbehr and Clemmons have shown a side of Libertarianism that truly connects with people and we want to hear that voice get quite a bit louder.
 

ELECTION PROFILE: Kansas Secretary of State - (R) Kris Kobach v. (D) Jean Schodorf

The last of our state wide elections of offices that are NOT SUPPOSED TO succumb to partisan politics, but instead the duties of their office, is the Secretary of State.  For the last time we'll show the government organizational chart (we won't for governor, because if you don't know what the governor's role in government is, you shouldn't vote).



For state wide offices that are not intended to be politically partisan activists in their objectives, the Attorney General is generally the more interesting and almost always gets the most publicity.  It makes sense, the Attorney General plays an integral role in the justice system.  When high profile crimes occur, the Attorney General's office almost always gets involved, either by direct prosecution or with assistance and the providing of resources to the county attorneys.  When the Federal Government enacts a law like the Affordable Care Act and the majority of citizens in Kansas believe it's unconstitutional, the Attorney General files suit on the state's behalf. 

The Secretary of State, however, almost never receives publicity.  Usually, if an office holder whose office doesn't receive publicity is showing up in the news everyday, it's not a good thing.  If half a state knows the name of their Secretary of State, generally speaking, it is not a good thing.  Why then, is the Secretary of State election in Kansas so heated?  Why are their national media agencies paying attention to the 34th (out of 50) most populated state's Secretary of State race?  When "Googling" the Kansas Secretary of State by his name "Kris Kobach", why is the top related search "Kris Kobach racist"? (Seriously, Google "Kris Kobach" then scroll down to the bottom.) What does the Secretary of State do to garner all of that attention?  Well, that's why we're here, to answer those questions.

KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE

AUTHORITY:

Like the Kansas Attorney General, the Kansas Secretary of State's office derives it authority from Article 1, Section 1 of the Kansas State Constitution.

DUTIES:

The Kansas Secretary of State office serves three basic purposes, (1) electoral, (2) economic, and (3) administrative.  We'll break each of them down for you.

• Electoral:  As the chief elections officer of the state, he or she provides this service in an administrative role.  In this role, the Secretary of State oversees elections and voter registrations.  In addition, the Secretary of State is required to file campaign finance reports of all the campaigns in the state, as well as register lobbyists.  However, when the matter turns to regulating lobbying and campaign finance, he or she shares that duty with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission.
• Economic:  The Secretary of State operates the Business Filing Center.  The Business Filing Center registers business entities, trademarks, trade-names, and liens pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  In addition, the Secretary of State has regulation duties for a wide range of businesses such as: trade unions, funeral homes, and cemeteries.
• Administrative:  The Secretary of State's other administrative duty is Publication.  That duty includes publishing legal or informational state documents, i.e., statutory and administrative law publications, session laws, regulations, the "Kansas Registers" (the state's gazette). The Secretary of State also operates "Safe at Home". 

The Secretary of State has an enormously important responsibility of administering our most basic right in a democratic-republic (voting) and safeguarding it against any electoral violations (both statutory and inherent) that may infringe on that most basic right, as well as serving in an extremely detailed oriented capacity registering businesses and administering the publication of all state business.  Due to those responsibilities, the Kansas Secretary of State must continuously strive to be as impartial as possible regarding political-partisan influence.  Furthermore, the office, by it's very nature, requires a holder that must be held to a significantly higher standard of ethical behavior.  If our most fundamental and basic right as Americans and Kansans is compromised for the political advantage for (and undue influence of) parties, political actions committees, Super-PAC's, 501(c)(4)'s and/or any other politically interested entity, our freedom will be fundamentally stripped away.

THE CANDIDATES

(R) Kris Kobach (Incumbent) - When it comes to educational prestige, Kris Kobach is rarely matched.  After graduating at the top his class with a Bachelor's degree in Government from Harvard University (only regarded as the #1 undergraduate university in the world), Kobach earned his Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D. in the U.S.) from Oxford University (United Kingdom; and only regarded as the #1 political theory graduate university in the world).  Upon returning to the United States, the Kansas Secretary of State attended Yale Law School (only the #1 law school in the U.S.) where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal (that's a really big deal to law students) and earned his Juris Doctor (law degree).  Basically, Kobach's educational pedigree could only be summarized as a scholastic triple crown (in the studies of law and politics). 

After racking up the most impressive educational resume' one in law could every hope to achieve, Kris Kobach clerked for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and became a law professor at the University of Missouri in Kansas City - School of Law.  After a few years he was offered a fellowship under United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, eventually serving as Counsel for the Attorney General.  He was charged with the task of leading a team of attorneys and researches who created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System.  (If that sounds familiar it may be that you watched "Aliens Among Us".) 

After his tenure with United States Attorney General's office, Kobach returned to UMKC and resumed his role as a law professor and also found himself in various immigration lawsuits.  He sued the states of Kansas (2004; case was dismissed), California (2005; he lost), and Nebraska (2010; case is still pending) over the states allowing illegal aliens (there's a difference between state residency and U.S. citizenship) to only have to pay in-state tuition for higher education (they still have to meet the same state residency requirements as anyone else does).  In 2009, Kobach finally won a final appeal on an immigration lawsuit in Missouri, but then lost on a similar case in Pennsylvania in 2013.  He's currently involved in another similar lawsuit in Texas.

On the immigration front, Kobach is most known for playing a significant role in the drafting of Arizona SB 170, the highly publicized and controversial Arizona state illegal-immigration law.  In Arizona v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down 3 of the 4 challenged provisions as being unconstitutional.  Most notably of the provisions struck down was Section 6, which gave Arizona law enforcement officers the power to make warrantless arrests of immigrants suspected of being removable. In another highly controversial state immigration law, Kobach is given primary credit for authoring Alabama H.B. 56.  Described as a tougher version of Arizona SB 170, it has essentially been completed dismantled for being unconstitutional as a result of Alabama v. United States. This has resulted in the state of Alabama agreeing to settle out of court in two other cases, HICA v. Bentley and Central Alabama Fair Housing Center v. Magee.  In the settlements, the state of Alabama has agreed to pay the opposing parties' attorneys' fees, totaling up to $580,000.00.

In the middle of his immigration law career, Kris Kobach became the Chairman of the Republican Party, starting in 2007.  His time as the Chairman included establishing a "direct-role policy" for the Republican Party in targeted races (a requirement of all Republicans to support the Republican party in that specific race, or else...).  He initiated the creation of a "loyalty committee" which sanctioned (within the party) Republicans who supported (enacting their constitutionally guaranteed right - "Freedom of Association") Democrats in any contested races.  As a result, many party officers were stripped of their party voting rights as punishment.  Kobach also sent out an email to state Republicans stating,  "To date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years." (For those of you who don't know what "voter-caging" is.)

In an audit, the Federal Elections Commission found that the Kansas Republican Party, while under the direction of Kris Kobach from 2007 - 2009, accepted illegal campaign contributions and failed to pay Federal and State taxes.  In addition, his 2010 Secretary of State campaign underreported campaign contributions and expenditures by $75,000 and as a result was fined $5,000 by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission (he claimed that it was a 'liberal' attack, but neglected to note that the majority of those on the commission were Republicans).

(D) Jean Schodorf  - Kobach's challenger is an interesting character in her own right.  Jean Schodorf is the sister of world renowned journalist and film personality Bill Kurtis (A&E; voice overs in the Anchorman; owns a good portion of Montgomery and Chataqua counties) and the mother of Emmy winning television producer and director Brian Schodorf.  Jean received her Bachelor's and Master's degrees from New Mexico University and her Ph.D. in Communicative-Disorders (as well post doctoral in education administration).  She is a Speech Pathologist in Wichita, KS by trade.

Schodorf's political career is nothing to wince at either.  She served on the USD 259 (Wichita) school board from 1989 - 2000, even serving as the school board President in '93, '97, and '99.  In 2001, Jean Schodorf was elected to the Kansas State Senate as Republican, representing the 25th Senatorial District.  In 2010, Schodorf ran for the Republican nomination for U.S. Congress in Kansas's 4th district.  Although she lost the primary, she managed to pick up an endorsement from U.S. Senator Nancy Kassenbaum.  In the Kansas State Senate, Jean rose to the rank of Majority Whip.  However, she fell victim in the 2012 primaries, in what has come to be known as The Great Kansas Republican Purge of 2012.  After the 'Moderate' Republicans were forced out of the party, Schodorf switches party affiliation in January, 2013.

THE ISSUES

1.  ELECTORAL:  Kris Kobach, while serving as Kansas Secretary of State, is mostly known for his drafting and advocating of Kansas's (and other states') stricter voting laws.  Not only are there Voter ID laws, but one must also prove their citizenship when registering to vote, by providing a birth-certificate.  In 2012 alone, it was estimated that 18,000 voters' voting rights were blocked as a result.  In 2014 alone, it is estimated by the Secretary of State's office that number is over 22,000.  It is harder to vote in Kansas than it is to buy a gun.  That's quite a bit troubling.  Especially when you add his uber-partisanship past (most evident of the circus he created regarding the Chad Taylor incident.  Any law school student at Washburn, KU, or even UMKC could have told you how that was going to play out.  The definition of "shall" is pretty well established in Kansas law), campaign ethics violations, and proud proclamation of voter-caging. If they take away the people's right to vote, how hard do you think it will be to take away your guns?

Jean Schodorf wants to restore the voting process back to an easier and simpler process.  It's not as if there aren't already a poll watchers that circle the process like vultures waiting to spring on anyone that acts remotely suspicious. 

2. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS
What?  Nothing else matters?  No.  It's not supposed to be a controversial office.  If someone is running for the office charged with safeguarding the election process and all laws and procedures associated with it, habitually committed the very violations the office is supposed to protect against, it's a no brainer.

But if you want the other issues, look at their websites and do some Google searches.  Stay away from the crazy sites and keep a level head.  We have no idea, why Kris Kobach's issues page includes the 2nd Amendment under "Important Issues".  The Secretary of State is not a legislator nor is he the governor.  He has no authority in passing and executing laws and certainly no authority in administering laws outside of his scope.  Furthermore, it's quite concerning that he has a really bad history of not understanding what the Preemption Clause of the United States Constitution is (given his legal career track record). (Here's Schodorf's issues page.)

CONCLUSION

If you're an Independent, there isn't a worse candidate for any office in any state, at any level, that's more against your interest than Kris Kobach.  Being an informed Independent and voting for Kris Kobach, would be like the British Parliament installing Napoleon Bonaparte as Prime Minister.  It would be like the Missouri Republicans nominating Todd Akin for another shot at U.S. Senate.  It would be K-State hiring Ron Prince back after Bill Snyder retires again.  It would be like the Germans going for a Fourth Reich.  It would be like electing the Cookie Monster as the "Cookie Conservationist".  IT'S THE DUMBEST THING YOU CAN DO ON NOVEMBER 4TH!

ELECTION PROFILE: Kansas Insurance Commissioner - (R) Kevin Selzer v. (D) Dennis Anderson

Moving on to our next state wide elected office is the Kansas Insurance Commissioner's race.  Again, we'll provide a government organizational chart below so that you know where the office falls.

 

 

Like the Attorney General's office, the Kansas Insurance Commissioner is not a partisan influence office by design.  Yet again, that's very difficult to guard against.  I think the biggest question about this office in particular is, "what does an Insurance Commissioner do?"  That's a fair question for the average voter, considering it's not what you traditionally think of as an elected office. So we'll try to answer that for you.  (But you may want to start with checking out this website: http://www.ksinsurance.org/).

 

 

KANSAS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

MISSION:

If you click here, you'll see the four goals of the office:

1. Regulate and review companies;
2. Educate consumers;
3. Assist consumers; and
4. License agents.

It seems to be pretty self explanatory.  The Kansas Insurance Department makes sure that insurance companies follow the law, they help consumers with insurance compliance and insurance disputes, and they regulate insurance agents and administer tests (similar to how the Kansas Bar Association regulates attorneys in the state).

So basically, what you're looking for in an Insurance Commissioner is someone who (1) understands the insurance industry, and (2) has effective management and administration skills.



THE CANDIDATES

(R) Kevin Selzer - Looking at Kevin Selzer's website, you're immediately impressed with his education (B.S.-Accounting from Kansas State University, and a M.B.A. from the University of Southern California), professional (Certified Public Accountant,  "Executive Managing Director for Aon Benfield and has extensive experience in the reinsurance and reinsurance brokerage industries"), and community organization experience.  Click here if you don't know what "reinsurance" is.

(D) Dennis Anderson - The Democrat nominee received an Agriculture Economics degree from Kansas State University and currently works for A.D. Banker, a company he founded, where he trains and provides continuing education for licensed insurance agents.  He has 30 years of experience in all lines of the insurance industry and even received the endorsement from the current Kansas Insurance Commissioner, (R) Sandy Praeger.  In addition Dennis Anderson also has an issues page, for your inquisitive pleasure.

CONCLUSION

Both are qualified for the position, but on paper Dennis Anderson seems to be the first choice candidate.  That's no slight at all to Kevin Selzer, we mean would Jeff Corwin be upset if you told him we'd prefer Steve Irwin (if he were still alive) to wrestle the alligator?  If Kevin Selzer doesn't win this election (which is probably unlikely), we'd certainly like to that fun KS imagery on a State Treasurer sign some day.

ELECTION PROFILE: Kansas Attorney General - (R) Derek Schmidt v. (D) A.J. Kotich

Finally, we move beyond U.S. House of Representative races and we get to focus on broader offices that entire state's electorate will decide.  Our first office in this list will be the Kansas Attorney General race.  Just so there's no confusion about the Kansas Attorney General's office, we're providing a Kansas state government organizational chart below.

Unlike policy offices, e.g. Representatives, Senators, Governors, etc., state offices such as Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, and Kansas Commissioner of Insurance, are largely non-partisan positions.  There is, of course, no escaping that partisan politics can (and often do) affect how the office holders perform their tasks.  However, they are not inherently designed to be major policy influencing/shaping offices, so much as they are to be policy enforcing offices.  With that in mind, it is probably better to start off with outlining and explaining what the responsibilities are of the Kansas Attorney General, before examining the credentials and competency of those running for the office.

KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL

AUTHORITY:

The Kansas Attorney General derives it's authority from Article 1, Section 1 of the Kansas State Constitution.  It reads as the following:

 

"The constitutional officers of the executive department shall be the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, who shall have such qualifications as are provided by law."

DUTIES:

The Attorney General's office carries out its prescribed duties through the coordinated efforts of its constituent divisions. The office is responsible for (1) protecting consumers from fraud, (2) assisting the victims of crime, (3) defending the state in civil proceedings, (4) giving legal council to the state's various agencies and boards, and (5) ensuring the legal integrity of overall governmental operations as per Kansas' constitutional guidelines and state code. http://ballotpedia.org/Attorney_General_of_Kansas.

DIVISIONS:

1. Kansas Bureau of Investigation
2. Civil Litigation Division
3. Consumer Protection Division
4. Criminal Litigation Division
5. Legal Opinions and Government Counsel Division
6. Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Department
7. Victims' Services Division

LAYMAN'S TERMS: (Corresponding with the list above)

1. Investigates criminal activity at the request of local law enforcement.  Ex: Drug stings, organized crime, mass shootings, etc.
2. Acts as a defense law team when the state is sued.  Ex: State neglected to properly fix a dam which as a result broke and water flooded property and caused a lot of damage.
3. Investigates Scams.  Ex: Check fraud.
4. Assists by providing advice and resources to county attorneys offices in criminal cases. Ex: A huge child prostitution bust occurs in Kiowa County. They probably don't have all the resources necessary to deal with such a case, given how small it is.
5. Prepares legal opinions (can be binding) for public officials to avoid litigation by resolving legal disputes.  Also provides legal advice to other agencies to reduce litigation expense.  Ex: Legal interpretation on the definition of "shall" in the context of a specific statute.
6. Investigates and prosecutes health care provider fraud, handles complaints of patient abuse (financial and/or physical), and complaints of neglect by Medicaid providers.  Ex:  Doctor offices running up fraudulent bills and having Medicare cover the cost; nursing home residents who are scammed or abused by nursing home providers; and making sure Medicaid providers pay for what they're supposed to.
7. Educates victims and community members of victims' rights and coordinates statewide victim's services programs. Ex: Child abuse victims and counseling.

So basically, what we're looking for in an Attorney General, is someone who carries out and follows the law.  An attorney who upholds their oath to protect the Constitution of the United States and the Kansas State Constitution.  Also, we'd prefer the candidate to not easily succumb to political pressures or inappropriately use their office for political or personal reasons.

THE CANDIDATES 

(R) Derek Schmidt (Incumbent) - Personal campaign bio available here. Attorney General Schmidt served for 6 years as the majority leader of the Kansas State Senate before being elected to attorney general in 2010.   He served as an aid to 'moderates' Governor Bill Graves (R-Kansas, '95-'03), U.S. Senator Nancy Kassenbaum (R-Kansas, '78-'97) , and U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska, '97-'09; currently serving as Secretary of Defense).  He received his B.A. in Journalism from KU, a Masters in International Politics from the University of Leicester (United Kingdom), and his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center. 

(D)  A.J. Kotich - The challenger in this race is no slouch either.  A.J. Kotich touts an equally impressive resume'.  He served in the United States Marine Corps, both as an enlisted soldier and as a Laywer Officer.  During his military career he was a USMC Judge Advocate and received the Navy Achievement Award.  He received his law degree from Washburn University and attended the prosecutor institute at Northwestern University School of Law. 

After his honorable service in the Marine Corps, "Kotich served as Chief Legal Counsel to three major state administrative agencies for thirteen agency heads under seven Kansas Governors of both major political parties. Additionally, Kotich served as Special Assistant Attorney General under each of the former Kansas Attorneys General beginning with Attorney General Bob Stephan....Beginning with the term of office of Kansas Governor Robert Bennett, Kotich first served as staff attorney and then as Chief Legal Counsel in the Kansas Department of Human Resources, now renamed the Kansas Department of Labor. Kotich served as Chief Counsel as well as other top executive positions at Human Resources/Labor from the late-1970’s until 2010 and became Chief Counsel for the Kansas Department of Administration shortly after Governor Sam Brownback took office in 2011. Kotich left that position in March of 2013."

CONCLUSION

It's clear that Derek Schmidt puts his office duties ahead of politics.  A.J. Kotich, although qualified, is not receiving any support from the Democrat machine.  His only real issue is that conceal carry permits are not being issued fast enough.  Ironically, this is what some on the 'right' were fervently criticizing Derek Schmidt for, even threatening to run a candidate to the 'right' of him.  You could vote for A.J. Kotich, but we think you should probably err on the side of the incumbent.  Why?  Kansas is in need of principled, state-first, party-second office holders.  Schmidt may not have any further political ambitions after his time as Attorney General is over, but we hope like Hell he does.  He's exactly what Independents look for.

ELECTION PROFILE: U.S. Congressional District 4 - (R) Mike Pompeo v. (D) Perry Schuckman

This is one is going to be short and sweet.  Below is the map of the 'Massacre of 2014'.

This isn't David vs. Goliath.  David had a [sling]shot and capitalized on it to win.  This is more like Ford Fiesta vs. an F-5 Tornado.  Mike Pompeo has a strong approval rating, impeccable education and business experience, and a lot of cash in the war chest.  Perry Schuckman is unknown, a Democrat, and in the 4th U.S. Congressional District of Kansas.  If you like watching videos of sharks eating seals starting at the point the seal is already in the shark's mouth, this race is for you.

THE CANDIDATES

(R) Mike Pompeo (Incumbent)  -  Mike Pompeo graduated from West Point, earned his law degree from Harvard Law, and proceeded to embark on a very successful business career.  We just described the ideal Congressman.  If we were casting a movie about Teddy Roosevelt, Mike Pompeo would be our first choice (not for politics, but for character).  He was elected to Congress in 2010 and is seeking his third term.

(D) Perry Schuckman - Perry Schuckman took a very different approach.  He's certainly competent and has the blood of a public serviceman running through his veins.  Schuckman racked up an incredible public service resume.  I mean seriously, check him out.  Judging from his experience and credentials, he's just as viable a candidate as his incumbent opponent.

Pompeo is very much an ideologue.  But unlike his contemporaries, we actually think Pompeo's politics represent his own personal beliefs and not something spoon fed to him by American's for Prosperity or Freedom Works.  He believes in personal responsibility, because he is the very definition of personal responsibility.  He seems very principled, even if he is a bit insufferable for those of who don't like absolute approaches.

Schuckman on the other hand, is very engaged in community building and making private enterprises work for the common good.  It's almost as if he should be working for Pompeo.  Unlike his challenger, however, Schuckman doesn't rely on political dogma and absolute approaches.  He's interested in viable solutions, not partisan politics.  With that said, his website does a really terrible job of organizing this information.

THE ISSUES

1.  ISSUES?  While Pompeo's website (being top notch as it is) clearly and concisely pinpoints his stance on the issues (see how wonderful it is), Schuckman's is a case of amateur-hour (in case you didn't click on it before.....see what we're talking about?).  We get it, Pompeo is the 'conservative' ideologue with the highest ACU 'conservative' rating of all Kansas U.S. Representatives, where as Schuckman cares about common sense and working together.  But give us something!

CONCLUSION

We seriously doubt that Schuckman thinks he's going to win.  The cards just aren't there.  Also, if he's going to want to run for Congress in a 'millennial', technological, 21-st Century world he's going to have to do a better job with his media presentation.  He probably does represent Independents better, but how would any Independent be able to figure that out, unless he specifically addresses the issues and gives us an organized layout on how to find it.  At least we know where Pompeo stands, and take comfort in knowing that he could probably disarm a terrorist attacker, hold him until the appropriate authorities arrived, competently prosecute him and make sure he gets the justice he deserves, and then write a law review article on the importance of one-man justice.