Two quotes start off this TRACKSIDE, one from an early American statesman and one from a noted geopolitical analyst:

“The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.” –Senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

“Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties. … I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?” – - George Friedman, STRATFOR

The failure of Congress to hold the President accountable for plunging us into war without a formal declaration by Congress does represent a mortal threat to our country. Congress whistles past the graveyard while the President shreds the Constitution. What Congressional authority will he usurp next? Maybe the budget. He could declare a national fiscal emergency that demands unilateral action, that a Congressional budget debate would take too long to keep the dollars flowing to his favored constituencies. Or will he just dismiss Congress as irrelevant? That in effect is what he has done by his actions.

The President has said that he wants Gadhafi to be ousted, but our mission is just to enforce the no-fly zone – he would not put “boots on the ground.” We now find that we do have boots on the ground – it was a hard swallow from Day One to accept “no boots on the ground” – somebody had to be providing time-sensitive targeting data, laser pointing for laser-guided weaponry, and battle space coordination with the rebels. To compound the folly, the Administration is talking about arming the rebels, who they admit, they do not know much about. Just what we need, more printing-press dollars being used to put weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and to put our country deeper in debt. (But then, the Administration has experience with giving weapons to bad guys with its Operation Gunrunner on the Mexican border.)

And speaking of enforcing the no-fly zone, it would certainly be appropriate for NATO (or whomever is pulling the strings), to enunciate the enforcement rules of engagement. It appears that the no-fly zone was endangered by Libyan small craft in the harbor of Misratah. To take out this danger to our aircraft, a U.S. P-3 patrol aircraft launched one or more Maverick missiles at a 40-foot coast guard cutter that had to be beached, and an A-10 Warthog made splinters of one small boat with its 30mm Gatling gun. All in all, in the words of one commentator, it is silly to call it a no-fly zone when it is obvious that the target list goes well beyond just enforcing a no-fly zone.

The Patriot Post raised another question about the no-fly zone and the “humanitarian” basis for our undeclared war on Libya in the April 1st edition:

”Reasonable people have asked how Libya qualifies for a NATO-imposed no-fly zone and air strikes to neuter the Libyan military, but Syria is somehow different. Don’t the Syrians want exactly the same relief from a murderous, tyrannical government that the Libyans want? Isn’t the regime using deadly force against civilians? What happened to the “interests and values” about which Obama so sanctimoniously opined?”

And it is not just Syria that belies the veracity of the President’s stated rationale for taking us to war against Libya. Scan the news and you can find repressive regimes slaughtering people: Ivory Coast, Bahrain, and Yemen to name a few. Why just pick Libya? An easy target to build 2012 election campaign points? Doing the will of Europe for oil? Or something more devious? The President has said that the mission is not regime change, but it has been reported that a European diplomat admitted that the no-fly zone was but a diplomatic smokescreen designed to get Arab states on board with a military operation that had regime change as the real goal. I do not doubt it in the least. An author on the American Thinker website, in the same vein, ends his article asking:

“How do voters feel about Congress being sidelined to serve the interests of the Arab League?”

The President lies to the American people and gives Congress the mushroom treatment. Articulated or not, we are in a Constitutional crisis. When is Congress going to stand up and be counted? When is Congress going to act to protect the supremacy of our Constitution, the bulwark of our freedom?

See you Trackside.

It seems the Democrats in Sedgwick County are so desperate to get interest in their events they have to resort to using popular Republicans! (story here)

I guess we can’t blame them, even their own elected folks in the Kansas Senate voted for Kris Kobach’s Voter ID bill – and perhaps they’ve got a great idea, it’s time for a party to celebrate!

With that in mind I’ve started a Happy Birthday Kris Kobach campaign! You can help kick this party off – just go to to the KRA Facebook page (like it while you are there!) and click the Share button under the Happy Birthday post to pass it on to your Facebook friends. Lets see if we can get this birthday party shared nationwide!

(if you don’t see the Kris Kobach photo on the KRA Facebook page, try this link )

Not on Facebook or want other ways to invite friends to join the party? You can share this blog post link or this twitter link.

Pass it on – everyone is welcome to join the party!

HB2130, a measure that would stop unions from automatically deducting political contributions from members, passed on a 75-46 vote, but not without union thugs in the galley attempting to stop the vote from happening. Video of the incident can be seen here.

After union members attempted to stop the vote through blunt intimidation, they were escorted out under Kansas Highway Troopers supervision. So much for improving the public discourse, right?

14 Republicans voted with the unions. You can see everyone’s vote here.

As members entered the chamber, female legislators reported being called derogatory names by union thugs. And the Wichita Eagle is reporting a union boss told everyone to be quiet until HB2130 came up for a vote, and then they could, “…do whatever you want.”

Absolutely disgusting behavior Kansas voters will continue to reject.

Congressman Tim Huelskamp is about as conservative as they come. First elected in 1996 to represent folks from southwestern Kansas to Topeka, he swiftly became known as an unshakeable force on both the life and tax issues, compromising not an inch.

In the 14 years he served his senate district, Huelskamp served on various committees, including Ways & Means, Agriculture, Education, and Elections & Local Government, the last of which included being on the subcommittee in charge of redistricting in 2002. His expertise from past experience as a farmer, teacher, and statistical analyst contributed to his many decisions made in those committees.

In 2008, Tim prepared to run for Congress when Rep. Jerry Moran was rumored to be considering leaving his seat. This didn’t pan out, but laid the grassroots and fundraising groundwork for his successful 2010 bid for the same seat. On January 3, 2011, Tim took the oath of office, along with 83 other freshman Republicans elected in the November elections.

I first came to know Tim in 2000 when I interned for State Rep. Peggy (Long) Mast. She made a point to introduce us early in the session, telling me I had to know this young senator. Before I knew it, I was splitting my time between Peggy’s office and Tim’s. Two years later, I asked to intern for him again.

In the two sessions I worked for Tim, I came to regard him as one of the most stalwart persons I knew—and know. He’s challenged me to be a better conservative, a better Christian, and now a better wife and mother.

I’m so glad to call him friend. I hope you’ll join us for the 2011 Gala Banquet where you can have a chance to hear and meet this most honorable man.

Ticket for the 13th annual KRA Gala Banquet are now on sale! Click here to register for your tickets today! Click here to get driving directions to the banquet.

Our guest speaker this year is newly elected Congressman Tim Huelskamp from the Big First District.

Tim was raised in Kansas and following high school attended a seminary in Santa Fe, New Mexico and pursued his bachelor’s degree in social science education at the College of Santa Fe. After his undergraduate education, Tim accepted a scholarship to pursue doctoral studies at The American University in Washington, D.C. Studying political science with a specialization in agriculture policy, he completed his Ph.D. there in four years. During his time at American University, Tim met his wife Angela and together they were active in assisting women in crisis pregnancies. Additionally, Tim was busy as a college instructor teaching public policy and working as a statistical analyst.

Upon graduation, Tim and Angela turned down various job offers and decided to return home to farm, ranch and raise a family in Fowler, and since then have adopted four children: Natasha, Rebecca, Athan and Alexander. Both girls are from Haiti, while the two boys were already Americans. Together they’ve managed the farm that his grandparents started in 1925. Serving since 1997, Tim was one of the state legislature’s most conservative members, even opposing his GOP leaders in the state Senate on spending issues. He will now continue his conservative voting record in Washington, D.C.

Join us in welcoming home one of KRA’s own as we celebrate the victories of 2010 and look forward to the challenges ahead!

Where were you Raj when your party was passing stimulus after stimulus, bailout after bailout of corporations that deserved to go under? Where were you while your party took over one industry after another? Where were you while your President advocated (and continues to advocate) centralization of the US economy, lead by an ineffective government?

After all Mr. Goyle, you are a prominent politician, a former ACLU lawyer who, according to your own campaign finance records, has numerous political contacts in Washington D.C. When your party was heading up the take over one industry after another, what were you doing to stop it? You say you want to represent the people of south-central Kansas, but in reality that is something you can do without a title or an office in D.C., isn’t it? So what have you done besides produce an ad to get yourself elected to stop the bailouts, to stop the madness?

Nothing Mr. Goyle. You’ve done nothing.

You’ve done nothing because you are 100% in lockstep with Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. Your lower than the corporations you skewer in your ads, a politician who will do anything, say anything to get elected.

Take a look at the ad and decide for yourself. Goyle has been described as charismatic and charming by some, but this ad certainly doesn’t show it. Goyle comes across as so wimpy he must feign anger at policies his party continues to support.

Click for Moore's full letter to supporters

In an email to supporters today, Stephene Moore called herself a, “moderate and fiscal conservative.” What exactly that means, of course, is anyone’s guess.

It’s no secret that her husband has been anything but a fiscal conservative after supporting government take overs of every industry you can think of, from the financial sector to automobiles to our health care system. In an article on PrimeBuzz of the Kansas City Star, Stephene stated that she basically agreed with her husband’s votes, noting only that she wanted more oversight (control) of the bank bailout bill, leaving the reader to postulate that she would have supported such a bailout if more oversight had been included. What exactly is “moderate” or “fiscally conservative” about more taxes and more bailouts isn’t explained in her letter.

In this year’s election there are numerous candidates calling themselves “moderate” and “fiscally conservative” when their record reflects something much different. The fact is if voters want the change they thought they were getting in 2008, they must look past the buzz words certain candidates love to throw around. And that includes “conservative” that apparently every Republican candidate liked to call themselves before August, again many times in spite of a very liberal record.

Now, as far as how one can be a “moderate” and “fiscal conservative,” I’m at a loss. It would seem the label machine at Moore’s campaign headquarters seems to be working overtime.

One must look no further for evidence of this than KAKE Channel 10′s website where a condensed version was published under the byline of the Associated Press with no mention of “Analysis,” “Opinion” or otherwise with it.

The fact is in the past decade, “Analysis” has become in vogue with the press to justify using opinion pieces as news. Some claim it to be the brainchild of the mainstream media attempting to further influence the electorate. More likely it is simply the symptom of a press corps seriously strapped for cash partly due to them being completely out of touch on how to report real news relevant to the public.

Whatever the reason, it’s clear they are written in an attempt to publish select facts and influence the public. In this instance, it appears Milburn is attempting to explain away Brownback’s superior proposals on education in Kansas. It’s interesting that in attempting to place blame on the courts rather than the politicians for out of control education spending, Milburn actually validates past arguments by conservatives that unelected judges in Kansas virtually control over half the state’s budget.

While in the actual piece this isn’t necessarily the explicit message, it’s interesting to note this piece from the KAKE Channel 10 revision.

Both Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Tom Holland say they will focus on preserving what they see as an excellent system of K-12 schools. Where they differ is how they would steer the behemoth system that consumes more than 50 percent of the state budget.

History would suggest that it’s more likely that litigation, not pontification, will decide the course.

In the past two decades, action or the threat of from the Kansas Supreme Court has played a bigger role than activity in the Statehouse.

If these last two sentences are true, then that means that unelected and unaccountable judges control our tax dollars and how they are spent, not elected officials who represent the people. This stronger language by KAKE 10 shows the power of “Analysis” pieces by the press and how they can morph into a story of their own. It just so happens that KAKE happened to take the piece in a direction that highlighted past arguments made by conservatives.

The piece also once again highlights Holland’s curious stance against revising the state’s finance formula due to increased property taxes while simultaneously advocating for increasing a district’s local option budget.

In any case, the public can analyze this, “Analysis” is just another word for “Editorial.”

It’s an interesting strategy that so far seems to be reaping what it is sewing. While Holland has consistently and loudly attacked Republican Sam Brownback from the halls of the state capital, he swung and missed when it came time for his innovative ideas on how to move Kansas forward.

The Topeka Capital Journal highlighted Holland’s non-sense best when it quoted Holland as saying Brownback’s education plan would result in, “significantly higher property taxes and guaranteed litigation.”

Too bad for Tom that Kansas schools have been suing the state for more than a decade and in fact won a verdict for more than $1 billion in additional funding, all under the direction of a Democratic administration. The state is faced with even more litigation this year, again under a Democratic administration. So far it seems to me and many Kansans that if a Democrat like Holland had a better idea, he’s had more than enough time to propose and pass it. Holland must be pretty dense to make such a statement in light of current and previous litigation.

But Holland just couldn’t stop himself and topped off his statement by expressing his support for… you guessed it… higher property taxes.

Holland said if elected governor he would maintain the state’s constitutional obligation to equalize opportunities for children while supporting a move to grant local school boards authority to raise additional property tax for schools through the local option budget process.

Tom, what do you think “local option budget process” means? Uhh, property taxes Tom, it means property taxes. And you just said you’d support raising them.

Tuesday we found out that Holland is just more of the same when it comes to what Kansas Democrats want to happen to our state. More money for the education bureaucracy, at a time when our state can least afford it, higher taxes and more government. That isn’t a detailed plan, it’s a hastily laid sketch for disaster.

While Holland has been screaming at the top of his lung, hoping to stick anything he can to his opponent, Sam Brownback has been touring the state, actually meeting with voters and fulfilling his promise to visit every one of Kansas’ 105 counties. So far Holland has become familiar with Shawnee County, especially the capital grounds, but so far has failed to meet many folks outside of that area.

A new KWCH/Survey USA poll shows that Holland is way behind Republican Sam Brownback. Brownback leads Holland 67% to 25% with a margin of error of only 3.9%.

It’s unfortunate that Holland has decided that campaigning means calling press conference after press conference at the capital and then saying one thing when he supports another. But perhaps Holland knows he doesn’t stand a chance against the Republican wave that’s coming to Kansas this November and this is just his last desperate attempt to spend as much time as he can in the capital.

After the U.S. Senate results were in, Sen. John Cornyn issued a statement critical of the Democratic candidate, Lisa Johnston.

“Democrat nominee Lisa Johnston has clearly demonstrated that she would simply serve as another rubberstamp for President Obama and Harry Reid’s out-of-control economic agenda if she makes it to Washington.”

The “huh” moment came when the Kansas Democratic Party’s official blog came to Johnston’s aid by guarenteeing that she’ll be no rubberstamp. In fact according to them, it’s nothing more than mudslinging because, you know, she’s already told them she won’t be another rubberstamp for Harry Reid and Obama. She’s going to vote against her own party. You know, the party that’s posting her response on it’s own official blog.

“During a July 15, 2010 bipartisan candidate forum in Mound City, KS, Lisa was asked “Will you as a Senator vote according to the wishes of the people you represent even if it meant voting against your party line?” She replied, “Absolutely, without question. One of the things I am committed to is leading with integrity and having an independent mind.”

Independent mind? Right. Which is why the party’s official blog had to write about it. Because the Kansas Democratic Party has clearly demonstrated their willingness to fully support candidates that don’t 100% adhere to an all out liberal mind set.

Psst. Does party leadership’s endorsement of Chris Steineger ringer a bell? The name Mark Gilstrap jog anybody’s memory? The guy who voted against his party and got thanked with a party recruited and funded primary opponent?

Yea right, the KDP is going to support somebody who doesn’t tow the party line. Because they’ve clearly been so tolerant in the past.

Besides, how is she going to respond to a puff question like that?

“Oh yes, I believe 100% in the economic and social policies of our President and Harry Reid, both of which I know nearly 70% of the voting public in Kansas don’t approve of. I think what they’ve done for America is right on. I’d support government run health care that I know not a single sane Kansas voter supports and I’d pretty much go to Washington and jump however high Harry Reid told me I needed to jump.”

Now that would have been a truthful response. Of course it also would have been a suicidal response.

Oh, and by the way, I know the elitists at the KDP probably won’t figure this out anytime soon, but by continually referring to your candidate as, “Dr. Lisa Johnston,” all you’re doing to making her seem as if she’s better than the people she wants to represent. Only elitists like Johnston insist on people recognizing her educational status by calling her “Doctor.” We know power tripping on your students is educationally in vogue Lisa, but you should really get a grip on that before you have a Barbara Boxer moment at a candidate forum. I’m not sure what’s up with Democrats and their love of titles but apparently it’s a universal thing.

Maybe instead of Doctor, Lisa would prefer to be addressed as “Independent Doctor Lisa Johnston.” Or “Independent, committed, not a politician, independent, vote against my party, independent Doctor Lisa Johnston.” She could be like the educational elite who put more letters about how educated they are behind their name than are in their name.

Oh, that’d make an awesome “I approve this message” message.

“My name is Independent, committed, honorable, independent, not really a Democrat, independent, Doctor Pepper, independent, Doctor, Doctor Lisa Johnston, and I have to tell you I approve this message because I’m clearly smarter than you and I’m not quite sure you’d figure that out without me telling you.”

All kidding aside, does anybody really think Johnston (PhD, MD, DO, MSKJLEKKWIUTH, blah…) won’t be just another “Yes” vote for Reid and Obama?

Nah, I didn’t think so.

Candidate Rob Wasinger of Cottonwood Falls polled at only 12%, which is still within the margin of error of his showing in previous polls. Today’s results show what previous polls have illustrated for some time now, that if Rob Wasinger continues to be a candidate in this race, he may single-handedly split the conservative vote and give a win to liberal Jim Barnett or Tracey Mann.

In any other election year, Rob would more than likely be a perfectly acceptable candidate. But in today’s political environment of candidates saying one thing and then once elected doing another, it’s vital that voters in the First District elect a candidate with a proven track record of conservative values. Tim Huelskamp has a 16 year record as a state Senator where he has consistently fought for conservative principles, whether they be popular or not.

In light of Sen. Huelskamp’s outstanding record and superior position in the polls, conservative voters should rally around his candidacy immediately.

With only a week until election day, it has become clear that Rob cannot win this election; all he can do is hand the seat to a liberal Republican for years to come.

Rob Wasinger is a good man and candidate, but in this particular race the choice just couldn’t be more clear. Trusting that Rob values the conservative movement more than his personal political career, it would be prudent for him to end his campaign and immediately support Tim Huelskamp.

In fact, the ad is so new the campaign hasn’t even uploaded it to its YouTube channel yet. I’ll add the link here when it is online.

Goyle’s previous ads make no mention of his party affiliation or previous ties to the ACLU or other liberal groups. In expected liberal Kansas style, Goyle attempts to portray himself with the usual buzz words “independent” and “Kansas values.” In a bit of irony, Goyle’s own campaign website header proclaims, “Good ideas don’t come with a party label. All that matters is whether it’s right for Kansas.”

That is, of course, as long as you make it past your primary. When that’s in doubt, then a party label comes in pretty handy.

It looks like his election year make-over was a little too effective. The latest poll in the fourth district had Goyle 3 points behind his Democratic challenger, Robert Tillman. Tillman claims to have spent less than $5,000 on the race while Goyle has collected over $1 million in campaign funds.

As Bob Weeks at Wichita Liberty noted previously, this year Raj Goyle voted more conservatively than Jean Schodorf, who is running for the same seat. What an example of things politicians will do to convince a voter they’re something they’ve never been in the past.

Could Kansas be the next South Carolina? It certainly looks like the Goyle campaign thinks it might.

KRA endorsed Mike Pompeo is the conservative candidate in the fourth district. Unlike Goyle or Schodorf, he’s run an issues oriented, hard hitting campaign that shows why his military and business experience is what’s needed in Washington.

The name “Kansas Republican Assembly” has been officially registered with the Kansas Secretary of State since January 1999 to a Mr. Kris Van Meteren, one of the original founders of the KRA and who is still active in the group and conservative politics in Kansas. It is based on this registration that KRA operates under the name “Kansas Republican Assembly” and can rightfully claim to be the the official KRA. It is also on this evidence that anyone else claiming to be the KRA, Kansas Republican Assembly or the official Kansas Republican Assembly are purposefully misleading Kansas voters.

In fact, there is no record of any other group beginning with the name “Kansas Republican” registered with the Secretary of State until 2003 when the Kansas Republican Victory Fund, a KRA PAC, was registered. Again, no activity until 2005 when the name “Kansas Republican Action Assembly” was registered to a Mr. Mark Gietzen of Wichita. Mr. Gietzen is also the current leader of a group which has settled on the KRA name in his quest for personal glorification in the political arena.

Mr. Gietzen failed to file with the Secretary of State and forfeited the KRAA name in October 2007. It was subsequently bought by a Mr. Jared Suhn of Topeka, another original founder of the KRA and business associate of Mr. Van Meteren. Thus both the KRA and KRAA names are owned by this organization, and anyone else using them without permission is in violation of Kansas law.

In response, Mr. Geitzen registered the name “Kansas Republican Assembly (Actual)” in 2008. This is the name he operated under after giving up the name KRAA. He has subsequently again failed to register with the Secretary of State and no longer owns the “Actual” name.

Mr. Gietzen has proven over the years to be more interested in self glorification than in promoting conservative values. The only break the KRA has experienced was when Mr. Gietzen decided to leave on his own and attempt to form his own group. It appears thus far he has been unsuccessful in replicating the hundreds of members the real KRA has across the state.

Mr. Gietzen has been a perpetual candidate for office, thus far always being rejected by the voters. In 1996, he sued a previous opponent for libel when his opponent rightfully criticized Mr. Gietzen’s family values after being charged with abuse of his first wife. In the mailer, his opponent, Mr. Paul Feleciano, stated:

“Unfortunately, for those of us who will not lie for any reason, the ‘political lie’ seems to be more acceptable than it has ever been. My opponent, Mark Gietzen, is a case in point. Mark’s favorite subject for any political discussion is ‘family values’. It seems ironic that this strong family advocate has a public record in Kansas courts of being just the opposite. His treatment of his wives show that actions do, indeed, speak louder than words.

“In July 1986, Mr. Gietzen was charged with battery (spousal abuse) of his first wife. As a result of this crime he was placed on probation for twelve months, and subsequently was divorced. In August of this year his second wife, of two and a half years, filed for divorce.

“If this constitutes Mr. Gietzen’s philosophy of ‘family values’, can we trust his judgment in making decisions that will impact each and every one of you?”

On appeal, the Kansas court noted that Mr. Gietzen failed to refute the statements made by Mr. Feleciano, which were in fact supported by previous court documents and statements made by Mr. Gietzen. The court went on to state that the admission by Mr. Gietzen was essentially an admission of guilt on his part.

Gietzen’s cause of action is based on libel. Senator Feleciano filed a motion for summary judgment, in which he set out most of the facts which are recited in his letter to the voters. These facts were set out as uncontroverted statements of fact. While Gietzen responded to Senator Feleciano’s motion for summary judgment, he did not controvert any of the uncontroverted statements of fact. It is well settled that uncontroverted statements of fact in a party’s motion for summary judgment are deemed admitted by a party who fails to controvert those facts.

The net effect of Gietzen’s failure to controvert the uncontroverted facts set forth in Senator Feleciano’s motion for summary judgment is to admit that the facts stated in the motion for summary judgment are true.

In fact, Mr. Gietzen has made it a habit to lie to the public and the press in any such fashion that will bring attention to himself. Just this past month, an email was sent using the KRA name regarding a candidate forum in the Fourth Congressional District. Not only did the email falsely state that the debate was to be between senate candidates Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran, but it also attempted to take credit for the forum itself. The debate was actually organized and hosted by the Sedgwick County Republican Party, and not Mr. Gietzen’s made up KRA.

In fact, he went further and once again claimed that his organization is the only one, “recognized by the RNC.” This is in fact a lie that Mr. Gietzen has enjoyed perpetuating for years, to the detriment of the RNC. In fact, it so bothered the RNC that they were forced to send a cease and desist letter to Mr. Gietzen, which he has apparently subsequently ignored.

The fact is that there is only one KRA in Kansas, and the group, if it can be called that, that Mr. Gietzen leads in Wichita is fraudulent. Mr. Gietzen himself has a history of not only questionable personal choices but also a very questionable public reputation as well. Any candidate associating him or herself with Mr. Giezen or his group should take care to be well versed in his past actions and fully evaluate if they want to be linked to a liar and self-admitted wife beater.

Once again, Mr. Gietzen has placed himself on the ballot for the Kansas House of Representatives in District 96. We sincerely hope that once again the voters will be well informed of Mr. Gietzens past actions. If so, we are confident that he will once again be rejected. We can only hope that media organizations, now well aware of his personal and public reputation, will limit their own association with him.

KRA Stays Neutral in Senate, 2nd and 3rd Congressional District Primaries
Calls on Tiahrt, Anderson to Refuse Endorsement from Fake Group

Comments Attributed to Charlotte Esau, Executive Director, Kansas Republican Assembly

“We have received several questions regarding our endorsement votes taken during Saturday’s endorsement convention that were released late last night. The primary questions center around KRA’s actions in the contested primaries for the U.S. Senate, 2nd Congressional District and 3rd Congressional District. Just as clarification, votes were taken in all three of those races and no candidate received the 2/3 vote necessary to achieve an endorsement. The official Kansas Republican Assembly position on those races is neutral. This indicates a very a mixed feeling among conservative Republican activists in these races.

It has come to our attention that a rogue organization portraying themselves as the Kansas Republican Assembly is stating today that the organization endorsed Todd Tiahrt in the U.S. Senate primary. This organization also tried to lead people to believe the Kansas Republican Assembly had endorsed Jim Anderson in the 4th District Congressional race. This is a group whose own release states they have fewer than twenty members. The official Kansas Republican Assembly has not endorsed Todd Tiahrt in the U.S. Senate primary or Jim Anderson in his race for Congress and we respectfully call on the Tiahrt and Anderson campaigns to refuse the endorsement of this rogue group so that individuals are not confused by this group’s actions.

Congressional District Candidate Mike Pompeo called the Kansas Republican Assembly, ‘THE leading traditional Republican grassroots organization all across Kansas.’ We appreciate Mike’s kind words and look forward to helping elect him as the new Congressman from Kansas 4th Congressional District”

US House 1 Tim Huelskamp
US House 4 Mike Pompeo
Governor / Lt. Governor  Sam Brownback / Jeff Colyer
Secretary of State Kris Kobach
Insurance Commissioner David J. Powell
State Treasurer Ron Estes
KS Senate 7 David Harvey
SBOE 3 John W. Bacon
SBOE 7 Kenneth R. Willard
KS House 2 Jeffrey G. “Jeff” Locke
KS House 3 Terry Calloway
KS House 4 Caryn Tyson
KS House 6 Jene Vickrey
KS House 9 Raymond ‘Bud’ Sifers
KS House 10 Terri Lois Gregory
KS House 11 Virgil Peck
KS House 13 Forrest Knox
KS House 14 Lance Kinzer
KS House 15 Arlen H. Siegfreid
KS House 16 Amanda Grosserode
KS House 17 Kelly Meigs
KS House 18 John Rubin
KS House 19 Jim Denning
KS House 22 Greg A. Smith
KS House 23 Brett Hildabrand
KS House 26 Rob Olson
KS House 27 Ray Merrick
KS House 29 Richard Downing
KS House 31 Eric Hite
KS House 35 Chiquita C. Coggs
KS House 38 Anthony R. Brown
KS House 39 Owen Donohoe
KS House 40 Sandra Bohne
KS House 41 Jana Taylor Goodman
KS House 42 Connie O’Brien
KS House 43 S. Mike Kiegerl
KS House 47 Lee Tafanelli
KS House 49 Scott Schwab
KS House 50 Rocky Fund
KS House 51 Mike Burgess
KS House 52 Lana Gordon
KS House 53 L.W. Abney
KS House 54 Joe Patton
KS House 55 Bruce G Williamson
KS House 56 Becky Nioce
KS House 60 Daniel Buller
KS House 61 Richard Carlson
KS House 64 Michael Musselman
KS House 65 Ernest F. Honas
KS House 66 Lee Modesitt
KS House 67 Susan Mosier
KS House 68 Calvin Seadeek Jr.
KS House 69 Tom Arpke
KS House 70 Cheryl Green
KS House 72 Marc Rhoades
KS House 73 Clark Shultz
KS House 74 Don Schroeder
KS House 76 Peggy Mast
KS House 77 J. David Crum
KS House 79 Kasha Kelley
KS House 80 Ellen Janoski
KS House 81 Pete DeGraaf
KS House 82 Jim Howell
KS House 83 Kyle Amos
KS House 84 Dan Heflin
KS House 85 Steven Brunk
KS House 87 Joseph Scapa
KS House 90 Steve Huebert
KS House 91 Brenda Landwehr
KS House 92 James A. Woomack
KS House 93 Daniel J. Kerschen
KS House 94 Joe McLeland
KS House 95 Benny L. Boman
KS House 96 Phil Hermanson
KS House 98 James Clendenin
KS House 99 Aaron Jack
KS House 100 Mario Goico
KS House 101 Joe Seiwert
KS House 104 Michael R. “Mike” O’Neal
KS House 105 Gene Suellentrop
KS House 106 Sharon Schwartz
KS House 107 Elaine S. Bowers
KS House 110 Dan L. Collins
KS House 112 Bill Wolf
KS House 114 Mitch Holmes
KS House 116 Kyle D. Hoffman
KS House 117 Larry R Powell
KS House 120 John M. Faber
KS House 121 Jim Morrison
KS House 122 Gary K. Hayzlett
KS House 124 Dan Widder
KS House 125 Carl D. Holmes

And will an un-elected Democrat Secretary of State give Republican candidates the run around?

State Representative Bill Light

State Representative Bill Light withdrew his candidacy for re-election to the Kansas House May 12. Light was facing a strong conservative challenge in the August primary by Dan Widder of Ulysses.

In a Hutchinson News article, Light claimed that his retirement had nothing to do with his conservative challenger, even claiming that he didn’t know Widder. However, the article notes that Light filed for re-election in January and told the Hutchinson News in November that he liked to file in January before the start of a legislative session, “so that all will know my intentions.”

When contacted, Widder stated that he had attended a legislative coffee a few weeks ago where he questioned Light about the upcoming budget debate. While he didn’t disclose his planned challenge to Light, he said that Light certainly knew who he was.

So apparently something happened during this legislative session that changed Light’s mind about serving another term. That something, I believe, is Light’s realization that voting for a massive tax increase and facing a serious conservative challenger meant his chances at winning another term were little to none.

When asked about Light’s withdraw, Widder reiterated that it changed nothing as far as he is concerned.

“I don’t plan to do anything differently,” Widder stated.

In his bid to be placed on the ballot, Widder and campaign volunteers collected the signatures of more than 175 registered Republicans in his district. Widder stated that he contacted the Kansas Secretary of State’s office prior to beginning to collect signatures and asked what the procedures were for being placed on the ballot via petition. Widder’s campaign then collected the signatures and submitted them to the Sec. of State’s office.

However the Sec. of State rejected the petitions stating that they needed to be signed by the volunteers that collected the signatures, according to Widder. So he directed all volunteers that collected signatures to sign the petition and resubmitted it to the Sec. of State’s office.

Once again, Widder said, the petition was rejected. This time another contact in the Sec. of State’s office said that each page of the petition needed to be signed on the back with the volunteer that collected those signatures. Widder stated that he simply put all the signatures together into one petition and had all volunteers sign together. Further, the Sec. of State’s office claimed that volunteers should have only signed and dated the petition after collecting all of the signatures. Due to time constraints and lack of communication with the Sec. of State’s office, Widder elected to file by fee.

Widder claimed that he made numerous phone calls to the Sec. of State’s office before beginning to collect signatures and at no time did anyone detail to him that volunteers must sign the back of each petition page they collected. Widder said each time he called he seemed to get a different reason why he couldn’t file via petition.

The Sec. of State’s office is currently being held by un-elected Democrat Chris Biggs. Biggs is one of five Democrats holding statewide office that were not elected but rather appointed by either former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius or current Gov. Mark Parkinson. Both Sebelius and Parkinson appointed only Democrats, regardless of the party affiliation of the previous office holder.

And as this Kansas Liberty article notes, Bigg’s appointment also means that the state’s three person canvassing board is now held entirely by unelected Democrats. The board is tasked with verifying the state’s election results.

The 124th House district may be a template for the rest of the state and a significant sign of how the August elections may pan out. Gov. Parkinson and other Democrats claim that they will be rewarded for raising taxes on Kansas families, but Light’s withdraw seems to indicate that liberal Democrats and Republicans know otherwise.

Democrat Dennis Moore also withdrew for re-election this year after voting in favor of national health care and multiple bailouts. The two situations are eerily similar.

Raj Goyle, D-Wichita

Only two House Democrats voted against the massive budget bill in the House yesterday, one that will require the largest tax increase in Kansas history. One was Patrick Maloney of Kingman. He replaced Dennis McKinney, who is one of many Democrats to be appointed to a statewide seat. The other was Raj Goyle of Wichita.

Goyle is a former ACLU attorney and liberal member of the Kansas House. Goyle is running for Congress in the fourth congressional district around Wichita, and just recently was the only House Democrat who voted to end the corporate income tax in Kansas. This vote was very out of character for him, and this weekend’s budget vote was even more strange.

Goyle has a measly 9% rating with APF-Kansas for the 2009 legislative session.

Could it be that Goyle is now voting how he knows the voters in Wichita want him to vote, just so he can get elected to Congress and then later vote however he wants, a la Dennis Moore?

Nahhh, that’d never happen.

Kansas Senator and KS-04 Congressional candidate Jean Schodorf

When push came to shove, State Senator Jean Schodorf clung to her pro-abortion beliefs and was the deciding vote in downing HB 2115, a compromise abortion reporting law that fell one vote short of a veto override in the Senate.

Schodorf claims that she’ll be working on a “compromise” bill in the future, but I wouldn’t hold my breathe. Former Governor and abortion cheerleader Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a similar piece of legislation last year. If Schodorf was serious about passing something meaningful then she should have been working on it during this session rather than waiting for another inevitable veto from current pro-abortion Gov. Parkinson.

The Senator further claims that she sided with pro-abortion legislators because of the way the bill was brought forward in the, “dark of the night.” One wonders if this distaste for the process covers tax increases and budget bills. I’m willing to bet it doesn’t. Her “reasoning” is nothing more than a lie, and if Schodorf votes in favor of a tax package not thoroughly vetted in committee then she’s nothing more than a hypocrite.

Couple this with the fact that next year there will be a different Governor who’s veto pen legislator’s won’t need to worry about and her vote was absolutely pointless. Pointless unless her aim was to make her pro-abortion beliefs crystal clear for far left activists. If that was the point, then she’s performed quite well.

See also:

• Lone State Senator with Congressional Ambitions Kills KS Abortion Override

“During Senate action today, Sen. Schodorf announced she was emailing an invitation to Kansans for Life and Planned Parenthood to meet with her to create a ‘compromise bill. Sen. Schodorf’s 11th hour announcement was the height of hypocrisy as she has already supported this exact language in 2008 — prior to her re-election. After she was elected, she voted AGAINST the provisions of HB 2115 in 2009, as she did again today.”

• “Mainstreet Republican”

They are going to debate this on the Senate floor as early as Monday next week. I don’t have a bill number handy but they all know what you talking about if you refer to the budget and proposed taxes.

This has not been a good week for conservatives in the Senate. On Wednesday the Senate defeated a motion to pull a proposed constitutional amendment out of committee – one that would have let you vote on federal health care this fall – and voted down a community of defense act. That last one is an example of how some Senators tell you one thing in person (of course I’m for lower taxes or health care freedom) but then when their vote matters, they vote differently. The Senators had known for weeks the CDA would be voted on when they returned as it was debated the last day of the regular session, then delayed until a date certain, that date being April 28. And still we have one Senator who voted yes, until it was passing, then switched to no. And as aggravating as that is to watch, what’s even more appalling is when I hear Senators voting no on this because it would cost some jobs – yet those same people want to raise your taxes. I suppose that makes sense in their minds, people can’t pay taxes if they don’t have a job, so who are we to say it’s a job that’s not good for society. Decency and morals apparently don’t factor in, whether it’s in how we make money or how we tax the people.

I think most of you would like to know how your Senator voted on the above measure. Our friends at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families created a spreadsheet (linked here) showing you their votes and their contact info. Please feel free to use this information to let your elected Senators know your thoughts this weekend. I also encourage you to share your thoughts here on this blog as well!