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.
No comments:
Post a Comment