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.