Posted on 08/22/2007 6:06:30 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
Kansas state Sen. Nick Jordan said Tuesday that he would run for Congress next year, setting up a likely challenge to Democratic incumbent Dennis Moore.
“I’m in,” Jordan said.
The long-expected announcement presents Moore, the five-term 3rd District incumbent, a potentially formidable Republican challenger who has shown an ability to appeal to conservative and moderate Republicans.
Moore campaign manager Julie Merz said only that her boss would “continue to provide moderate, common-sense leadership and top-notch constituent services” to the district. “He looks forward to campaigning — next year.”
Jordan’s entry also sets up three pivotal congressional races in the Kansas City area. The two others are Kay Barnes-Sam Graves in Missouri’s 6th District and two Republicans —former U.S. Rep. Jim Ryun and Kansas Treasurer Lynn Jenkins — vying for the right to take on freshman Democrat Nancy Boyda in Kansas’ 2nd District.
The outcome of those races could begin to determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives, where Democrats hold a 231-202 edge with two vacancies.
Jordan, a 12-year state senator from Shawnee, said he would release a statement today about his intentions.
The Democratic-led Congress is taking the country the wrong way, Jordan said, citing Congress’ 18 percent approval rating, among the lowest in history.
He cited a Washington Post study showing that Moore had voted with his party at a 96 percent clip, higher than in recent terms.
“He’s now in the majority,” said Jordan, 57. “They’re certainly going to start counting on him to vote with leadership.”
Jordan could have one asset that other GOP challengers to Moore have lacked — a competition-free primary. As of now, no other Republican challengers have emerged.
The national Republican Party appears ready to give Jordan help. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is expected to drop by the 3rd District on Tuesday morning. (He’s also expected to meet with Graves.)
Lack of party support doomed other GOP challengers, particularly Adam Taff in 2002.
Kansas 2nd looks to be a cat-fight between Ryun and Jenkins. That only benefits Boyda.
Continue to ? He has yet to start. Time to dump the Kansas moonbats.
Average GOP KS legislator ACU rating = 93
Moore’s average ACU rating = 20
It may be an interesting race. Nick won his last two senate races handily, and if he can bring back the moderates who voted for Moore in the past then he’s got a shot. At the very worst it will make the race a whole lot more competative than it’s been for the last two elections.
Dennis Moore? He steals from the rich and gives to the poor - dumb dumb dumb ;)
Well, Nick Jordan has won the support of moderates in his past elections. So he is probably the best candidate the GOP can find, who can unite the conservative and RINO wings. The only possible stumbling block is whether he can raise sufficient funds.
Define a RINO as it applies in this case.
The pro-abort, gun-grabbing, country club establishment voters who have supported Dennis Moore in the past few elections.
So again we see that those who don't meet the abortion acid test, but are merely in favor of smaller and less intrusive government, lower taxes, reduced government spending, stuff like that are not really Republicans, much less conservative Republicans, but are merely RINOs. And are constantly told as much by those like fieldmarshaldj for whom abortion is the be-all and end-all of conservatism. And people wonder why Republicans are losing in a lot of local elections in this state. You have one wing of the party telling the other wing that they aren't Republicans, not really. And that other wing wondering how they can get hijacked out of the party when they still support what used to be core conservative values. Why is it surprising that they stay home or look elsewhere? Ronald Reagan used to say something to the effect that someone who disagreed with him on 5% of the issues, still agreed with him on 95%. But for all to many people that isn't true anymore. Unless they agree 100% then they're RINOs. Until we get back to that way of thinking the party will grow more and more divided and the Democrats will take advantage of that.
You have summed up the division among Republicans in Kansas. But there is reason to believe that Nick Jordan can bridge the schism, unlike the previous candidates.
I have never referred to someone with whom I agree on 19 out of 20 issues as a RINO. However, someone who is pro-abortion and pro-gun control disagrees with me (and the overwhelming majority of conservative Republicans) on far more than 5% of issues (especially since such social liberals also tend to disagree with conservatives on religious speech and a whole slew of environmental issues).
And what is that reason? Every one says he can do that, but Shawnee isn't a hotbed of liberalism. If anything it's more conservative that Leawood is. Nick hasn't had to run any close races where he needed every vote from all parts of the party.
You have to remember that a certain percentage of the moderate wing of the party have been comfortable voting for Moore following the contentious primaries we tend to have. If Jordan moves towards the center to attract them will the social conservatives abandon him and sit out the election rather than vote RINO? He he plays towards that wing of the party then why should the moderates jump onboard? I don't know Nick very well, he represents a district in a suburb north and west of me, so I don't know what kind of campaign he'll run. But if he can avoid a primary opponent then he has a better chance of winning because he won't have to pander to one wing or the other. No primary and then it boils down to money. So Nick had better hit the money tail for the rest of the year. I know Moore has been and will be. If next summer polls show that Nick has a chance of willing then the national party will open up the money tap. That will force the DNC to devote money to Moore. Best outcome is that Nick wins. But at worst every dollar that the DNC has to spend on Moore is a dollar that they can't spend on another close race.
Say for the sake of arguement a candidate outlines solid positions against big government, defines how he would limit the size of government, presents a plan to shrink government spending, and advocates strict constitutionalist judges but refuses to come out either for or against repealing Roe v. Wade and says that gun control is a state issue and not a federal one, do you support him?
NS, why do you insist on being so disingenuous in your arguments ? I've told you, to your chagrin, that while abortion is NOT the be all and end all of Conservatism, it does tell me basically about the character of the candidate. If they don't think 50 million hamburgerized since Roe is a biggie, their view on other issues is likely to be at greater chance of being similarly askew.
I don’t have a problem with a candidate appealing to RINOs, just as long as they don’t VOTE like one. I wish we could get Vince Snowbarger back.
It isn't I who is being disengenuous. You've stated for the record on more than one occasion that you will not vote for a candidate who doesn't share your views on abortion, regardless of what other positions you hold. You claim that abortion isn't your acid test yet you apply it as such.
And why should RINOs find such a candidate appealing to them? "You ain't really Republicans, regardless of what you think, but I'll let you vote for me anyway." Heck of an appeal there, DJ. What ever happened to the big tent? I'm not saying include everyone, but you've shrunk the size of the tent to such a ridiculously small size that you only let in those who side with you on a narrow set of issues, or even one single issue.
So tell me, in the scenario I outlined in message 13. Do you vote for the candidate or not?
Like I said, and you continue to distort, that it is one of MANY issues, only that it is a KEY indicator of how the candidate may likely lean or be moved toward on others. If a candidate has no beef with abortion, they’re likely not going to have much of a beef with issues such as taxes, expansionist government, and other liberal notions. Remember, the concept of “fiscal conservative, social liberal” is a bull$hit one, since it is a contradiction in terms as well as goals. You can, however (as we’ve seen with our previous Congresses) be “socially conservative and fiscally liberal.” Even pro-lifers can spend like drunken sailors.
NS,
Are you really promoting the idea that the division in the KS GOP is just one way?
In other words, are you oblivious to the fact that your argument can be reversed and remain accurate and valid?
Consider it a case of get with the program or get out of the party. If RINOs feel leftist Democrats more represent their views, why SHOULD they remain Republicans ? It seems the only reason why they stay is because they wish to wreak havoc and move the GOP in the wrong direction -- the direction that has led to near moribund status in far too many states.
"What ever happened to the big tent? I'm not saying include everyone, but you've shrunk the size of the tent to such a ridiculously small size that you only let in those who side with you on a narrow set of issues, or even one single issue."
As I wrote the other day, the big tent is baloney. The only thing under a big tent is hot air and clowns. A party that stands for everything stands for nothing. A good part of the reason why voter turnout is often so low in so many places is because the view is that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. This like of yours of including all these leftist RINOs does little to either move our party or our agenda forward. It's interesting that in the last election, the Democrats took exactly the tack of appealing to and talking Conservative positions, but, of course, they never had any intention of voting that way. So why not take a similar course with RINOs. If they enjoy being deceived so much, give the audience what they want.
"So tell me, in the scenario I outlined in message 13. Do you vote for the candidate or not?"
With respect to Roe and gun rights, that sounds like way too many weasel words for a candidate in a GOP-leaning district. The 2nd Amendment makes "gun rights" a national, not a state, issue (although anti-gun types CAN make the argument that the way it is written, that only those in a well-regulated militia can unquestionably bear arms -- I'm one who has always been for specifically revising and clarifying that language in the Amendment). Roe is just plain bad law, period, and never met Constitutional muster (there IS no Constitutional right to privacy, although it is something that could, and probably should, be clarified via Amendment, spelling out specific points). If a candidate can't recognize Constitutionally dubious laws, once again, it's going to be hard to trust their judgment on other issues, be they fiscal, social, or whatever.
Oh hell no, it's both ways. The two wings of the party are barely on speaking terms and do not support each other's candidates. If a more moderate Republican wins the primary then the conservative wing stays home. If the more conservative candidate wins then the moderate wing stays home or votes for the Democrat. I've watched that happen for the last 4 elections in the 3rd Congressional district. And the last couple of statewide elections as well.
Complete bullshit. In fact I've found the opposite to be true. Phill Kline, for example, has never taken positions on shrinking Kansas government or making government less intrusive yet you hold him up as your conservative stalwart. Why? His position on abortion. I can point you to a whole lot of people who firmly believe in core conservative values on government, but solely because abortion may be number 5 or 6 on their list instead of number one you will dismiss them as RINOs. So save your denials, you've been shown time and again to be a one-issue conservative.
But you've shrunk the program to a single issue. There is no program, there's abortion and that's it. Anyone who does not hold up abortion as number 1 is a RINO in your eyes. It's not a case of them leaving the party, it's you booting them.
As I wrote the other day, the big tent is baloney. The only thing under a big tent is hot air and clowns.
Your little tent, too.
With respect to Roe and gun rights, that sounds like way too many weasel words for a candidate in a GOP-leaning district.
See. Back to one issue. Why do you keep denying it?
I consider myself a solid conservative, your lame opinions to the contrary not withstanding. I believe passionately in smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, less intrusive government, and that the states are in a better position to determine what is better for their residents than Congress is. I believe that judges should strictly interpret the Constitution as our founders intended. Abortion is not in my top 5, and no, I'm not a supporter of abortion regardless of what you say. I don't worry about it because I firmly believe that if we appoint the kind of judges I believe we should then the question of Roe v. Wade will be settled soon enough. I believe that they should let Roe v. Wade stand or fall on its own merits, and I happen to believe it will fall. While I agree that implied in the Constitution are certain rights to privacy, I believe that those rights were badly abused in that particular case.
So you have your priorities and I have mine. You think I'm a liberal and I'm positive that you would vote for anyone if they met your abortion criteria. I could honestly not care less of what you think of me and I suspect the same is true of you. Back to where we started from.
You should follow your Killer Tiller funded AG Morrison in leaving the GOP and going Demonrat. You won't be missed any more than Nancy Landon Kassebaum is missed. You would be joining so many other Demonrats who get verrrrry worked up over dead issues like slavery while actively and enthusiastically rooting for more and more dead babies to be added to the pile.
You probably think that John Brown was justified at Potawatomie Creek. Normal folks would say that Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart, as the leaders of the US military at Harper's Ferry were more than justified in hanging the evil murdering SOB.
50+ million sliced, diced and hamburgerized innocent babies is far, far more than enough. Would a "smaller, less intrusive" gummint end the slaughter????
So what if some Demonrat in disguise posing as a Republican poses for holy pictures as an advocate of limited gummint to gull the suckers???? Do you think you will live long enough to see such a candidate elected POTUS? Or such candidates as a majority of the House and Senate? In each case, neither will God live long enough to see such election results. Will your putative libertoonian jackasses be abolishing Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug coverage, military pensions, reducing military manpower and veterans' benefits, abolishing education spending, health care spending, welfare spending, housing spending, nursing home subsidies to the institutions and patients alike, government payrolls generally, gummint pensions, agricultural subsidy schemes, or even the government's wool quality board or tea-tasting board????
Let's go waaaaaaay out on a limb and fantasize that they could accomplish in one federal budget 25% of those agendas (not counting tea-tasting and wool quality opinions being returned to the free market). Wanna venture a guess as to the next federal election's results? I will. The next Congress will be renamed the US supreme soviet.
Assuming that one Congress and POTUS act as the "fiscal" "conservatives" would like, spending and taxing issues are inherent in every election. Such results in favor of fiscal sanity are quite promptly reversible and all the decades of decisions in favor of fiscal insanity have proven quite durable.
The Confederacy has a better chance of rising again than the chance that "fiscal""conservatism" will be the guideline of any party but the libertoonian much less the guideline of American governance.
So you, too, are one of those who call themselves conservatives but who would, in fact, support Hillary Clinton if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was anti-abortion. Why am I not surprised?
If a smaller, less intrusive government is not a conservative value then what is it?
Of course you wouldn't. Not for the reasons you mentioned, but for the one you didn't. Abortion.
The Confederacy has a better chance of rising again than the chance that "fiscal""conservatism" will be the guideline of any party but the libertoonian much less the guideline of American governance.
And if it did then you would feel right at home in it, too. Considering the big government, big tax, overly intrusive, socialistic beginnings the Davis regime set for it, then by now it would have evolved into your version of a Big Brother nirvana. If not an out-and-out military junta. Best of both worlds for you.
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, riding through the land
Soon every lupine in the land will be in his mighty hand
I've met Dennis a couple of times. His hand is actually quite clammy.
That’s quite right, but doesn’t seem consistent with your ranting here about the pro-abort candidates.
And I would love to hear the logic from your strawman candidate that says that gun control is a state issue, but abortion is above reproach.
It certainly wouldn’t be the extension of a conservative line of thinking.
First of all when did I say abortion was above reproach?
The second amendment says that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Prior to the 1930's the Supreme Court took that to mean that since milita were a state matter then gun control laws were a state matter, too, since states regulate their military bodies. In US v. Miller the Supreme Court invervened for the first time in favor of federal controls when they ruled, among other things, that laws against sawed off shotguns were constitutional since that weapon had no military use. I disagree with Miller and think that the court should have upheld the lower court ruling. Federal laws outlawing assault weapons or magazines of certain sizes or matters like that are, I believe, improper since that decision should be made at the state level. I believe that federal taxes meant to discourage fireams ownership are wrong as well.
Now, what's wrong with that?
There is an aspect of Roe vs. Wade which is rarely pointed out. It’s not like the American people rose up and voted to install abortion as a Constitutional right. Instead, seven judges (on the Supreme Court) created a Constitutional right out of thin air. Even many who think that abortion is a sound policy privately agree that Roe vs. Wade is poorly written. If it is overturned, than the Court simply removes itself from the issue and turns it over to the states.
And isn't that as it should be?
Smaller government is a conservative value but not high on the list of either priorities or probabilities. As a primary goal, it marks its enthusiasts as people who are materialists with little to recommend them otherwise and people of cramped vision who cannot be bothered to avoid the errors of Cain in arguing against social responsibility for the lives of others who cannot defend themselves.
The notion that the Hildebeast might ever be pro-life is as preposterous as the notion that you might ever share the basic values of the Reagan and post-Reagan GOP.
"Less intrusive government" coming from the mouths of social revolutionary RINOs means allowing: babies to be butchered, guns to be grabbed locally, marriages to be mocked by tax breaks for perverts imitating marriage or even by allowing them to carry on in public as though their perversions were somehow respectable, and a general attitude of: Don't give a damn so long as your stock portfolio and murderous private habits and private perversions are not affected. A GOP with that attitude would make Nancy Landon Kassebaum's daddy's efforts of 1936 look like powerhouse politics by comparison.
For every Kansas RINO splitting the party to keep the babykilling and gun grabbing and surrendermonkeyism imbedded in its feather (not wing) of the GOP, there are five Joan Finney type Democrats to be wooed and won. Maybe we should budge in their direction on economics to some extent to prove that are priorities are more important than your soulless cheapskatism in service to infanticide.
A government so non"intrusive" as to allow the right to keep and bear arms to be exposed to state gun grabbers or to expose babies to slaughter for convenience or worse is a government of cowards and not a conservative anything.
Your portfolio OR the babies' lives? Conservatism and the babies! If you bankrupt, ask me if I care.
I note your continued understandable refusal to address the evils of John Brown and his pals and draw the obvious conclusions.
Conservatives need not be peacecreeps in the "constitution as living document" wars in the sense that the SCOTUS attacks religion, babies, marriage, sexual normality, merit selection of students rather than racial quotas, enforcement of criminal laws and a wide variety of other basic values and we spend decades wailing in futility. The time is now to add a few more young conservatives to SCOTUS and a generation of them to Circuit Courts of Appeals and District judgeships and turn the tables in the words of Scalia by tearing down judicial liberalism door jamb by door jamb, window sash by window sash until it is utterly destroyed. Build the farm system and build it DEEP. Drive the Patrick Leahys and Schmuckie Chewmers and RINO survivors over the cliff.
Noting that, you will, no doubt, join your Demonrat buddies like AG (and now honest former RINO) Morrison next year in voting for POTUS. Like Kassebaum, you will not be missed when you become an honest former RINO. When ten ancestral Andrew Jacksonian Democrats of modest means replace obsolete Lincolnian you and dedicate themselves to country, military, babies, marriage and the other basic values of the GOP, it will be a more honest world for all concerned.
Good riddance to babykiller Morrison and let me be the first to congratulate you on becoming an honest Demonrat in futuro rather than a Demonrat in GOP drag. Genuine conservatives and Republicans will not be surprised by your future hegira.
Of course, Mr. Injustice Hugo Black did not discover the “incorporation” doctrine until well after 1930 and applied it only to causes dear to the left. How about “incorporating” the entire Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment so that state gun controls would be as invalid as state legislation purporting to control the content of speech or of newspapers or of political rallies? How about noticing that the unborn ought to be among those non-citizen “persons” protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th from state or local discrimination or that gun owners (many of them actual citizens) should enjoy the same equal protection of state law whether they live in Chicago or rural Illinois or in NYC or upstate NY??? For such a Lincoln lover, you have very little use for the most lasting legacy of his war, the 14th Amendment.
Real Republicans have no particular use or reason to talk with: phonies who pose as “moderates,” babykillers like Tiller and his supporters, babykillers of a more generic sort, lavender perverts posing as “married,” paleopacifist squishballs, gun grabbers, racist quota hucksters, Hillary sound alikes and the like. Your post is one more proof of the need to recruit decent Democrats to replace the disgraces that are RINOs. That may not go over well with Muffy and her Junior League pals or Skipper and the guys down at the polo club but they won’t be missed either.
Lincoln is admired by some for his rhetoric. Lee and his fellow Confederate generals named above are admired for their characters and for their lives. Those generals were, by far, the best of their generation.
If you like this Nick Jordan, we can probably wait an additional two years and elect a Republican and a conservative, getting Jordan out of the State Senate simultaneously.
How is it minimal, non-intrusive government to invent out of whole cloth a non-existent federal government right to prevent and punish secession and BIG government to exercise the 10th Amendment right of eleven states individually to secede from the Union as desired by their constituents and in conformity to the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence? Just asking.
Very much so. But one cause of nasty primaries in Kansas is that there is an element of the GOP which supports Roe vs. Wade not being sent to the states, but remaining a Constitutional right. They have a right to that belief, but many of them cross party lines in the general elections to support Democrats.
IMHO, Nick Jordan has the potential win win over pro-abort Republicans on the basis of his stands on other issues. Hopefully, he can avoid a contentious primary.
Sure he was. Your knowledge of Davis and his policies is on a par with the rest of your knowledge of politics.
And another cause is that there is another element supported by people like BlackElk and fieldmarshaldj who are one issue candidates. They, too, have a right to that believe but when a candidate from the other wing is presented to them they stay home. And the Democrats win.
IMHO, Nick Jordan has the potential win win over pro-abort Republicans on the basis of his stands on other issues. Hopefully, he can avoid a contentious primary.
He may be able to, time will tell. If he can avoid a primary and if he can raise enough money then he has a chance. Probably the best chance the GOP has had for the last 5 years.
What benefits Boyda is the Ryun-Jenkins primary battle.
But if she was there is no doubt in my mind that you'd be right there in her corner.
Smaller government is a conservative value but not high on the list of either priorities or probabilities.
For true conservitives there is no higher priority or greater goal than smaller, less intrusive government.
I note your continued understandable refusal to address the evils of John Brown and his pals and draw the obvious conclusions
I note your refusal to embrace even the most elementary conservative values. But then again, you're a Jeff Davis supporter so perhaps that is not surprising.
I can't argue with such eloquence. You are, indeed, the master of spin.
The fact that you consider someone who believes in the value of smaller government, lower spending, and less intrusive government to be a democrat says a lot about your understanding of politics. Or lack thereof.
Sometimes the simplest terms are the most accurate.
I can consider myself Sean Connery, but that doesn't make it so. And most solid Conservatives wouldn't go on constant obsessive tirades against pro-lifers, pro-life politicians, and, yeah, good folks that save entire nations from Communist calamities. I'll bet you and your pro-Allende "Conservatives" could caucus in a phone booth. Talk about a tiny tent. ;-)
Do you think you're clever repeating these silly canned retorts ad infinitum ? It's no wonder that talking to you is like talking to a bot. I have convos with rodents almost every day, and they often don't act as ridiculous as you do... and that's REALLY saying something.
The difference is that if you consider yourself Sean Connery then the fact that I may say otherwise doesn't mean you're wrong. The fact that you doubt my conservative beliefs doesn't bother me a bit. I've read your posts.
And most solid Conservatives wouldn't go on constant obsessive tirades against pro-lifers, pro-life politicians, and, yeah, good folks that save entire nations from Communist calamities. I'll bet you and your pro-Allende "Conservatives" could caucus in a phone booth. Talk about a tiny tent. ;-)
Solid conservatives do not base their conservative beliefs on one single issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.