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.

ELECTION PROFILE: U.S. Congressional District 3 - (R) Kevin Yoder v. (D) Kelly Kultala

Primetime, Kansas City metro-area U.S. Congressional race of 2014:  Free State style!  Below is the map of 3rd U.S. Congressional District of Kansas.

 

 

It's always an interesting race when Kevin Yoder is on the ballot.  No, we won't make a cheap shot about skinny-dipping in the Holy Land.  We mean whoops!  We're very sorry.  But, seriously?

 

 

THE CANDIDATES

Our Kansas City race consists of incumbent (R) Kevin Yoder and his challenger (D) Kelly Kultala.

 

 

(R) Kevin Yoder (Incumbent) - The incumbent Congressman was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives during the "Tea Party Year" in 2011.  Prior to serving in Congress, Yoder was a State Representative in the Kansas Legislature for eight years, starting in 2003.  During his time in the Kansas Legislature, he "chaired the House Appropriations Committee where he led the effort to cut spending, balance the state budget and fight tax increases."  With that experience at the state level, the Congressman is now on the House Appropriations Committee in the United States Congress. 

 

Before his 12 years of political office holding, Yoder went to the University of Kansas, where received both his Bachelor's degree (with honors) and his law degree in 2002.  It is widely said in Lawrence that while the Congressman was at KU, he was the President of the College Democrats.  After receiving his J.D. Yoder practiced law in the KC area, while he was a State Representative before being elected to the United State Congress.  The Congressman supports many social causes (head start education and down syndrome) and has received many awards for his efforts.

 

(D) Kelly Kultala - The Democrat challenger, like her opponent, is fifth generation Kansan.  She has an impressive list of political experience and accomplishments as well.  She "served on the Piper School Board, as a commissioner on the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas and as a State Senator for the 5^th District, which included western Wyandotte and Leavenworth Counties." 

 

Her bio further states that "she served on the Ways & Means Committee and was the Ranking Minority Member on the Transportation Committee and Utilities Committee.  She was part of the leadership team that crafted the T-Works Comprehensive Transportation Plan, creating 175,000 jobs throughout the state and she was instrumental in working with local and state officials to bring the Sporting KC Soccer Stadium and Cerner office complex to Wyandotte County, creating over 5,000 jobs."

 

 

Both candidates have impressive resumes and have shown instrumental leadership in accomplishing big and important tasks. 

 

THE ISSUES

 

1.  EDUCATION:  Kelly Kultala's website presents her deep commitment to assuring that Kansas schools are properly funded and that teachers have all the resources they need.  Kevin Yoder's website does not list issues.  We are aware that he has received the Kansas State Head Start Champion's Award in 2012 and that he is for cutting unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind.  However, we don't really have much to provide here.

 

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:

There's simply not enough information.  While its true Republicans are for cutting funding to social programs, such as education, in order to cut spending, both candidates did benefit from public education and both claim it's something they want to enhance.  Surely there is wasteful spending on education, but improving education needs to be top priority for our leaders in Washington.  An educated workforce is essential to improving the economy and reducing spending on Welfare programs for the lower class. 

 

We lean towards Kultala, but we aren't going to pledge a full victory for her on the issue either.  She provides good rhetoric here, "We need to educate our kids for the jobs of the 21^st century in science, technology, engineering and math. And we need to make it easier, not harder, for middle class families to send their kids college", but good rhetoric isn't enough.

 

2.  MIDDLE CLASS:  Kelly Kultala refuses to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.  She will not support cuts to Medicare or Social Security and she supports more efficient measures to take care of veterans.  She accuses Congress of trying to slash those programs as well as education, in order to maintain tax cuts for the wealthy.  She is opposed to shutting down the government, which she believes burdens small businesses and is for raising the minimum wage. 

 

In 2010, Yoder was on the record for opposing the privatization of Social Security and retirement accounts.  Nothing of his voting record suggests he has changed his position on the issue.  He's also not nearly the high profile U.S. Representative of Jenkins or Huelskamp which makes it more difficult to accurately access his voting record.

 

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:

Still not enough information.  Kultala probably has more in line with typical independent voters, but due to her lack of specificity on the issues and Yoder's lack of publicity of votes on them, its hard to determine who really represents Independents in the 3rd District the best.

 

3.  THOSE ARE THE ONLY ISSUES:  We're not joking.  Yoder doesn't have an issues page and Kultala only lists those two issues on hers.  Still though, there must be some way to measure them up.  That's why we have decided to consult with American Conservative Union, the right wing interest group that calculates every member of Congresses 'conservative' score.  We've decided to compare Yoder to his fellow Republicans (both in Kansas and high profile out-of-staters).

 

Yoder has a lifetime score of 88. 

 

Lynn Jenkins (KS - 2) has a lifetime score of 91.2.

 

Tim Huelskamp (KS - 1) has a lifetime score of 93.33.

 

Mike Pompeo (KS - 4) has a lifetime score of 96.

 

Eric Cantor has a lifetime score of 95.07.

 

John Boehner has a lifetime score of 86.99.

 

Pat Roberts (KS - Senator)  has a score of 86.4.

 

Jerry Moran (KS - Senator) has a score since of 89.51.

 

Paul Ryan (WI - 1) has a score since of 90.67.

 

Trey Gowdy (SC - 4) has a lifetime score of 98.67.

 

Michelle Bachman (MN - 6) has a score of 99.35.

 

Marco Rubio (FL - Senator) has a score of 98.67.

 

Mitch McConnell (KY - Senator) has a score of 90.16.

 

Rand Paul (KY - Senator) has a score of 98.67.

 

Ted Cruz (TX - Senator) has a score of 100.00.

 

CONCLUSION

We are under the impression that Yoder still holds on to some of his previous 'Democrat' beliefs and that he probably represents Independents about as well as any Republican in Congress.  Further, since he is in the Kansas City metro area, and as a result is required to break from political dogmatists more often because his constituents are more 'moderate' by their nature.  We're okay with that.......for now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ELECTION PROFILE: U.S. Congressional District 2 - (R) Jenkins v. (D) Wakefield v. (L) Clemmons

Our next election profile will be centered on the U.S. Congressional race of the 2nd District in Kansas.  Below is the map of the district.

The 2nd District is considered one of the most naturally competitive U.S. Congressional Districts in Kansas.  Ironically, midterm years seem to favor Democrats in this district.  The district now also includes Lawrence, the bluest city in the state (as well as the most Libertarian), which could make for an interesting race.

THE CANDIDATES

The race features a matchup of incumbent Congresswoman (R) Lynn Jenkins, squaring off with challengers (D) Margie Wakefield and (L) Chris Clemmons.  Lynn Jenkins is not an incredibly popular incumbent, but she may not need to be to hold off this year's opponents.  Lynn Jenkins's 'conservative' primary opponent, Josh Tucker (Pittsburg), managed to generate 30% of the primary vote with virtually no financial support by often criticizing Jenkins for not being sufficiently "conservative".  It apparently made Jenkins somewhat nervous as she had to resort to wheeling former Senator and Republican Presidential nominee, Bob Dole, out for a few primary campaign commercials.  Since then, however, Jenkins seems to have remained quite low key after winning the primary.

(R) Lynn Jenkins (Incumbent) - Congresswoman Jenkins has held political office for the past 15 years.  Before being elected to Congress as a member of the United States House of Representatives in 2008, Lynn Jenkins served as Kansas State Treasurer (from 2003-2008), District 20 Kansas State Senator (1999-2001) and District 52 Kansas State Representative (2001-2003).  She has been a Certified Public Account for over 20 years and has become a fairly high ranking member of the Republican Party in her 6 years of tenure.  She is on the Ways and Means Committee and is a member of the Tea Party caucus.  Often you can see Congresswoman Jenkins standing with Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

(D) Margie Wakefield - Margie Wakefield has been an attorney located in Lawrence since graduating from the University of Kansas School of Law in 1985.  Her primary practice area has been focused on family law.  Before attending law school, Wakefield worked for Senator Bob Dole in his Topeka Office, as a constituent services aide.  Like Jenkins, Wakefield has a strong sense of service, evident from her diverse community organizational involvement and party leadership roles.

(L) Chris Clemmons - Mr. Clemmons, as his students refer to him (probably), is a Libertarian candidate from Leavenworth, KS who teaches Life Science at Rosedale Middle School in Kansas City, KS.  He's a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu enthusiast (for all you martial arts fans out there) and is a self-described, "outdoorsman".  Why he's running?  We'll let his own words answer that question:

"While it was never my intention to enter the political arena, my interest in politics has built quickly over the last few years as I watch an ever increasing divide in Congress grow and money becoming the motivating factor behind most of the decisions made.  Our constitutional rights are secretly being stripped away, our environment is in ever increasing jeopardy, and our farmers are being run over by big corporations.  With all that’s happening in the world, I’m ready to take a stand and represent my state so that we can build a better future for the coming generations of Americans."

All three candidates represent a unique choice, and all three are educated and informed individuals.  This district gets to choose between a CPA, a Family-Law Attorney, and a Science Teacher.  We should all only be so lucky.  A Republican with a high disapproval rating and a 'conservative' base unhappy with the Republican's leadership with a viable Libertarian candidate.  Put that together in the most moderate district now encompassing the most "liberal" city in the state, it wouldn't be the craziest thing on election night to see a very interesting outcome.

THE ISSUES

1.  NATIONAL DEBT:  When addressing "Fiscal Responsibility" (R) Lynn Jenkins states she will "pledge to continue opposing wasteful earmarks, working to eliminate government programs with no constitutional justification, and rooting out government corruption and waste."  Without actually pointing to what any of those are. (She does say she wants to get rid of the EPA, but that doesn't seem to be very popular or reasonable in a state that heavily relies on the quality of farm land.)  She will only look to cut spending in order to address the debt crisis.

(L) Chris Clemmons is much more specific when addressing the issue.  Looking at his website, he too favors a path of cutting, but when you add up his proposed cuts you see how easy it would be.  Unlike Republicans, who recently support government spending cuts, Clemmons is also willing to cut military expenditures (by 1/2 to 350 billion dollars, which is still significantly more in spending on military than the next country), as well as defunding the NSA (and forcing a spy agency consolidation), abolishing multiple bureaucratic agencies (USDA, FDA, and DoE), ending the War on Drugs, and addressing the overcrowded prison problem America is facing.  Clemmons idea is bold, and will be perceived as somewhat radical.  Many Kansans agree with some of these cuts, but strongly disagree on others.

(D) Margie Wakefield may have an opinion on the issue, and if she does we would sure like for someone on her campaign to let us know what that is.  After sifting through her website and Facebook page, we were unable to find anything on the subject.

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
Depends:  Some Independents are adamantly against military cuts, some against bureaucratic cuts such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency.  Most Independents believe that the solution to fixing the debt problem involves cutting spending and raising revenues by closing tax loopholes that many corporations continue to exploit.  Clemmons is willing to cut a little out of everything, Jenkins is only willing to cut anything that isn't a subsidy (for oil) or a part of the 'Military Industrial Complex'.  Wakefield, well can only assume.  She claims she wants to work across the isle, if that is the case, then she probably believes in spending cuts and revenue increases (either by directly taxing the top or by closing tax loopholes).



2.  EDUCATION:  All three candidates believe we should get away from standardized tests, with Wakefield and Clemmons specifically stating that it is the most important thing a state/country can provide to promote a healthy economy and free society.  Clemmons and Jenkins stress local control, while Wakefield stresses absolute affordability.  Wakefield, goes on to argue for the importance high qualified teachers as a measure for fostering that high quality education.  Clemmons is also a big proponent of fiscal transparency, especially for schools that accept federal funding and Student Loan Reform for Higher Education.

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
It's a close one.  (1) Clemmons, (2) Wakefield, (3) Jenkins.  They're all very close and I would say Wakefield and Clemmons are neck and neck.  However, Clemmons's understanding of Student Loan Reform and stressing of fiscal transparency are very important issues that narrowly push him ahead.



3.  HEALTHCARE:  Jenkins takes the typical Republican repeal and replace approach.  The sooner Congress can move beyond that approach the better off we will be.  Wakefield takes the position that the law is probably not going to be repealed and that since it is already law, Congress should work to make the law better and more effective.  I can't find Clemmons's stance on Healthcare, but we probably don't have to guess very hard considering he's a Libertarian.  However, we will not presume considering he sometimes take positions on issues that aren't stereotypically 'Libertarian'.

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
Wakefield (for now).



4.  ECONOMY & JOBS:  Wakefield and Clemmons support a fair tax system, and Jenkins supports tax reform.  All understand that the economy grows when capital is in more hands.  Jenkins only seems to think that more tax cuts are what is needed to continue economic growth and higher paying jobs, where as Wakefield supports a tax system that explicitly incentivizes small businesses and not big corporations.  Clemmons supports "small government budgets, fair tax rates, and union labor.  All three put more money in the pockets of our citizens which will eventually lead to a strong economy with better paying jobs." 

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
Clemmons.  Anytime you have a Libertarian supporting union labor, you know you have a unique pragmatic candidate on your hands.  Wakefield and Jenkins are too general on the issue.



5.  ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY:  I'm not even sure how to articulate the differences here, because there certainly are some.  Read them for yourselves: Lynn Jenkins, Margie Wakefield, and Chris Clemmons. 

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
Which issue?  The Keystone Pipeline:  Lynn Jenkins.  Yet, do not be confused with thinking the Pipeline will lower the price of Gas.  Oil companies are engaged in collusion and everyone knows it.  They have no interest in lowering gas prices.  But, from our understanding, the Keystone Pipeline is actually environmentally more safe than the current form of transportation, freight.  However,  Republicans in Congress won't issue a study to see how vulnerable the pipeline would be to terrorist attacks.  Wakefield, doesn't discuss the issue and Clemmons wants to block it.  Yet, he is a science teacher, he probably knows more about it than us.

Renewable Energy:  Margie Wakefield.  Lynn Jenkins and Margie Wakefield are both advocates for wind energy.  Wakefield stresses the potential benefit for Kansas jobs than Jenkins does and Clemmons doesn't have an expressed opinion on the matter (although we assume he supports it, given his environmental concerns).

Environment:  Clemmons.  Just read his material.

CONCLUSION:

If you're an Independent in the 2nd Congressional District you actually have a very tough decision to make.  It's hard to tell who is the most moderate or independent versus who is the most ideological.  On paper positions, we like Chris Clemmons.  In personal experience, we like Lynn Jenkins.  If you had to combine the two, we like Margie Wakefield, but that's not an endorsement.  It's close.  Hopefully, they'll include Mr. Clemmons in future debates and the press will give him some spotlight.

It wouldn't be unfathomable for Clemmons to grab a significant share of the disgruntled 'conservatives'.  He's logical and up their alley.  Many of these new young 'conservatives' are more principled than their party gives them credit for.  Jenkins winning the Republican nomination simply won't be enough for some of them. Also, if more people become aware of him in the next 30 days, he may be primed to not only capitalize on a 10-15% (modest prediction) Republican support, get out Libertarians, but also sway some Independents who have been burned by GOP rhetoric and Democrat ineptitude.  

The straight ticket Republicans will vote for Jenkins, just as the straight ticket Democrats will vote for Wakefield.  Wakefield will need to get out the Democrat vote and also hope that a strong majority of Independents break her way.  Jenkins would be wise not to loop herself into the Brownback, Roberts, Kobach mess and take the odds that history is on her side.

Pittsburg and Lawrence will most likely break for Wakefield, while Jenkins cleans up most of Southeast and Northern rural-Kansas.  Topeka, could be the deciding factor, as well as how the principled 'conservatives' of Pittsburg and Lawrence (as well as the rest of the district) vote.  Your typical issues such as abortion, guns, and same-sex marriage don't seem to be a driving force in this district's midterm (not that it won't influence how people vote).

UPDATE:

Since we posted our profile of the race, a few things have changed:

1. Lynn Jenkins is terrified of a "down ticket effect".  National leaders are concerned that the discontent with the Three Headed Republican Monster (Brownback, Kobach, Roberts) will trickle down the ticket and knock her off.
2. All of the races have become increasingly toxic, with Republican aligned groups Hell-bent on labeling anyone who disagrees with them a "liberal".  Interestingly, they haven't learned from their mistakes.  Their "conservative" party-purification is exactly what got them into this mess.

A few things haven't changed:

1. Lynn Jenkins and Margie Wakefield continue to give us reasons not to vote for each other.  That isn't new.
2. The campaigns continue to accuse one another of campaign violations.  Again, that isn't new either.
3. Both are continuing to ignore and respect the candidacy of Libertarian Chris Clemmons.

So what's our update?  We've decided to throw our pick out there.  But since we're still open to changing our pick, we'll go ahead and rank the candidates.

1. (L) Chris Clemmons
2. Write In Candidates
3. Tie - (D) Margie Wakefield and (R) Lynn Jenkins

Wakefield has an advantage at this stage over Jenkins as far as "class" is concerned, but we're not convinced that the only reason she has that advantage is because she has less money.  Yet, it's a bit ridiculous that Jenkins isn't running on her record, rather than running against he opposition.  We'll go ahead and Wakefield the 2.9 slot and Lynn Jenkins the 3.1.  (But since we rounded to the nearest tenth, they'll both get the 3.)  Also, with Clemmons attending forums neither candidate is willing to show because it's 'beneath' them and then also refusing to invite him to others...eh...we don't like that.  We're also convinced that Clemmons is going to work more for his constituents and not what party bosses in Washington and Kansas tell him to do.

ELECTION PROFILE: U.S. Congressional District 1 - (R) Huelskamp v. (D) Sherow

This is our first installment of what we will try to provide as thoughtful and informed political coverage for independents and swing party voters.  We will ignore partisan rhetoric and focus on issues and candidates.  Now, to our candidates.


If you're not sure where the First U.S. Congressional District of Kansas is, here is a map provided below. 

THE CANDIDATES:

The race matches incumbent (R) Tim Huelskamp versus the challenger (D) Jim Sherrow. 

Tim Huelskamp (Republican) has been in elected office for 18 years now, having served in the Kansas State Senate from 1996 - 2010.  In 2010, Huelskamp was elected to the United States Congress and is running for his third term as a member of the House of Representatives.  Before entering politics, Huelskamp was a farmer and rancher. 

Jim Sherow (Democrat) has a very diverse background.  From 2007-2012, Sherow was a City Commissioner and Mayor of Manhattan, KS.  Sherow served in the United States Air Force from 1970-1974 and has dedicated his professional career to education and history (working for the History Department at K-State, spending 3 years as a high school teacher, and serving 22 years as the Historian on the Kansas Historic Sites Board of Review, appointed by Governor Graves). 

The GOOD NEWS for voters in the First District is that both candidates seem qualified.  Both have experience in government and are probably competent.  Furthermore, both are homegrown stock, which is always important when you're sending them off to Washington, D.C.

THE ISSUES:

1.  ABORTION:  This is proverbial clash over Right to Life versus Women's Rights.  The "Pro-Life" movement argues that abortion is taking a life.  The "Pro-Choice" counter argues that government does not have a right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.  Both make compelling arguments, but neither addresses each other's argument. 

It seems to be very clear from reading their websites, Huelskamp takes the now common Republican position of "Pro-Life" and Sherow seems to be "Pro-Choice".  It could be that simple, but like we said, we're going to ignore the rhetoric and dive deeper into the issue.

Huelskamp claims to have a 100% Pro-Life voting record.  What does that mean?  He mentions that has "been active in efforts to outlaw partial-birth abortion and euthanasia, pass parental notification laws, and voted to protect unborn children under the same criminal code as other people."  Those are very good things.  He then goes to say, "have led the effort to defund Planned Parenthood of all their state funding, and prohibit taxpayer funding of embryonic stem-cell research. I will do the same in Congress."

Alright, but what are you doing to actually stop abortion from happening?  Saying that abortions occur because they're legal and available is the same as saying murders happen because there are guns.  Which the latter is something Huelskamp wouldn't say.  I think Huelskamp is spot on when he states, "I believe that if we do not protect Life, then all other rights are without meaning."  However, how are you protecting life, if you're not addressing the problem?

Sherow actually tackles this issue with a much more pragmatic approach, "Our abortion rate in this country is too high, but we will not reduce abortions by criminalizing, shaming, and intimidating women. Instead, we should implement what does work, which means giving young women and men the information they need to make responsible decisions and enhancing access to affordable birth control. We must also remember that helping working families, and reducing poverty, especially single-mother poverty, are keys to reducing unintended pregnancies."

Looking at the rest of Huelskamp's positions, it's quite clear that Huelskamp promotes an economic system which causes the great economic inequality we see in our society today.  Economic inequality is one of the biggest factors in high abortion rates.  If Huelskamp is serious about tackling the abortion issue, he will have to do more than just words and "upholding a 100% pro-life voting record" that is rated purely on partisan bias.  He needs to support life after its born, not just from the point of conception to the moment of birth.  Like he says, "if we do not protect Life, then all other rights are without meaning."

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
PRO-CHOICE VOTERS:  Jim Sherow.
PRO-LIFE VOTERS:  Depends.  Jim Sherow at least partially acknowledges what causes the problem, and wants to address the cause.  Where as Huelskmap just takes the cookie cutter partisan position which actually doesn't solve the social problems that cause abortion.  If you're a one issue voter (and abortion is your issue), and you really get beyond the rhetoric and look into the statistics, this will be a very difficult choice. 



2.  NATIONAL DEBT:  Both candidates acknowledge that spending must be cut, and the government must live within its means.  However, only one candidate sees that the national debt must be tackled through a combination of spending cuts and a mixture of tax cuts and increases.  Generally, if a candidate is endorsed by Americans for Prosperity, that gives you a pretty good inclination that he is going to be unwilling to look at spending and taxing in a practical matter.

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
PRACTICALALITY: Jim Sherow
IDEOLOGICALLY: Tim Huelskamp takes an ideological approach.  Hardline ideologies are problematic when talking about fixing complex issues.  You could conceivably cut taxes and spending and pay off the debt in a responsible manner, if you were willing to cut military spending.  However, Huelskamp is not, that's the problem.



3.  AGRICULTRE: I think the fact that Huelskamp has been kicked off the Agriculture Committee combined with this article from the Capital Journal (how the Kansas Farm Bureau and the Kansas Livestock Association both declined to endorse Huelskamp) and this Hutch News article say it all.  Huelskamp puts Tea Party ideology ahead of Kansas farmers.  Jim Sherow, although probably not as knowledgeable as Huelskamp is on farming, takes a much more pragmatic and Pro-Kansas Farmer approach. 

Straight from Sherow's campaign website:

"The First Congressional District of Kansas has the third-largest farm economy in the nation. But for the first time in over a century, Kansans are not represented on the House Agricultural Committee — because Rep. Huelskamp was kicked off it by the Republican leadership. One of my first priorities, therefore, is to be placed on this committee. Once there, I will champion agriculture policies to enhance prosperity and the responsible stewardship of natural resources across the district and the nation. 

Unlike Huelskamp, who voted against every version of the most recent farm bill, with or without food stamp funding, I will put the interests of Kansas growers and ranchers ahead of ideology. In addition, I will do everything I can to bring relief to western Kansans suffering from the terrible ongoing drought. And I will work to ensure that EPA surface water regulations do not ignore the diverse ecology of the first district."

Huelskamp on the other hand doesn't seem to have updated the issue on his website since 2010, before he was in Congress.

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
Do you want counter productive ideology or common sense?



4.  HEALTHCARE:  Huelskamp claims the solution to addressing rising healthcare costs is, "tort reform, expanded Health Savings Accounts, removing government mandates, and real Medicare and Medicaid reform that allows for patient empowerment, choice, and responsibility."  Let's start with the first issue, "Tort Reform."  What is it?  Well, click here to find out.  So that doesn't help us any.  Health Savings Accounts still don't lower the cost of medical services, and exactly what kind of Medicare and Medicaid reform are we talking about?  Reform through Sequester cuts?  None of these measures have answered the rising costs of medical care.  However, Huelskamp's opponent Sherow doesn't seem to have very many ideas either.

His campaign states, "In office, I will work to enhance the features of the health law that are working, and seek to change or eliminate the features that are not."  At least he'll not take the position of wasting more money and resources on voting for more repeals.  He also cuts through the partisan rhetoric on the issue when he says, "The Affordable Care Act is a mixed bag and has burdened many employers. Yet it has helped the rate of insurance premium growth slow (see Wall Street Journal, “Cost of Insurance Premiums Shows Muted Growth,” Sept. 10, 2014) and, given that employment has come all the way back to its pre-2008 levels, likely not harmed job growth."

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
Again, this comes down to one candidate taking an ideological position, which prevents him from solving or even addressing the problem, because he fundamentally believes that government shouldn't even try.  However, his opponent sees the system's virtues, as well as its flaws and he wants to improve it.



5.  VETERAN'S:  Tim Huelskamp serves on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.  On his website, Huelskamp claims, "I will do everything within my power to make sure we protect those who protect us."  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this issue is particularly important to many voters.  It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the treatment of veterans over the last 30 years has been subpar at best.  Perhaps the biggest scandal is not the story that broke this summer of the VA Hospitals' mismanagement, but that it took so long for anyone to care. 

Jim Sherow, a veteran himself, expresses this view of the issue:
"Although Rep. Huelskamp served on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs since his election, it was only after the recent scandal of failing health services for veterans came to light that he finally agreed to work with others to begin improving the agency. Veterans in this nation deserve leaders who will recognize and address problems before they become disasters."

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
It's starting to become ridiculous:  Jim Sherow. 


6.  ENERGY:  Each candidate seems to believe in the same approach to energy issues.  The only difference is that Jim Sherow cites an environmental-moral responsibility (he obviously has concerns for the environment and possibly climate change), where Huelskamp doesn't address any such concern, but focuses more on the economic impact.

WHO WINS THE ISSUE:
Neither, both, toss-up, draw, etc. 

CONCLUSION

It's quite clear that the incumbent, Tim Huelskamp, is much more ideological than his Democrat opponent Jim Sherow.  Narrow ideologies tend to turn Independents off, rather than attract them in.  It seems to be the case that Huelskamp sees most issues in absolutes, while Sherow takes a much more pragmatic and abstract approach.  Sherow is probably much less likely to be strong-armed by his party than Huelskamp would be by his.  Although, it's unlikely that Sherow knocks off Huelskamp, I can't imagine that if Independents, after doing their own research, turned out to vote, they would be very optimistic about casting a vote for the incumbent.