Replies

Interesting article by Ben Hodge ? (not sure who he is)

http://www.redcounty.com/why-its-a-good-bet-nick-jordan-drops-out-third-district-congressional-race/35825

Why It's A Good Bet That Nick Jordan Drops Out Of The Third District Congressional Race

By Benjamin Hodge | 01/17/10

»For what it's worth, I'm one-for-one on this type of guess: in January 2009, I wrote here at Red County that I did not think Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh would end up challenging US Senator Sam Brownback in the 2010 Republican primary for Kansas Governor. In June 2009, Thornburgh ended his campaign. Of course, when one's batting 1.000, there's only one way to go, and that's down. If I'm wrong, so be it, but I'd wager some Royals or Chiefs tickets on Nick Jordan ending his congressional campaign in the relatively near future.

First, I'll say two things. One, I want to emphasize that it's hard to find a nicer man than Nick Jordan. While I do not know him in a close manner, what I do know about him leads me to say this: in terms of personality and character, most of us should be more like Jordan, and not less.

Two, I am supporting former Kansas Representative Patricia Lightner's candidacy. The reasons why I am not supporting Jordan have to do with ideology (issues) and strategy (the future direction of the Republican party). I'm not pretending to be unbiased. But frankly, I don't think any news organization or writer should pretend to be unbaised.

In no particular order, here are the reasons why I think Nick Jordan is likely to end his campaign, and sooner rather than later.

1.Weak name ID, and how the front-runner status is a myth. Yes, Nick Jordan ran in 2008 as the Republican nominee. But after being a state senator from 1996-2008, and after spending over $1 million in the 2008 campaign, Jordan is not well-known. The rumor I've heard is this: Jordan has only 40% "soft" name ID ("have you heard at all of Nick Jordan...") and only 15% "hard" name ID ("do you have an opinion of this person..."). To be clear: that's an unproven rumor, but from a good source, and I'm uncertain as to whether that poll applies to all voters or Republican voters.

2.Senator Mary Pilcher Cook: as further evidence of weak support among voters, Jordan's own state senator endorsed another candidate, Patricia Lightner. Senator Cook is a first-term senator, and she would not have done this without thinking through all of the political ramifications; clearly, Cook was not intimidated by Jordan's political capital.

3.Jordan's base: largely non-existent, as discussed above. To the extent that he has one, it's largely composed of movement conservatives (who may prefer Daniel Gilyeat, Patricia Lightner, or John Rysavy) or liberal Republicans (who will prefer Kevin Yoder).

4.Patricia Lightner, a state representative from 1998-2004: Slowly but surely, Lightner is proving to be the choice as the most movement-oriented conservative candidate, who can also win the prize that is both the primary and general elections. She's winning over many of Kris Kobach's voters from 2004, the last year in which we had truly competitive primary and general elections. Lightner is also impressing conservatives in DC: working now for Lightner is a woman named Kellyanne Conway, who also just joined the campaign of widely-respected Mike Pence, the third-ranking US House Republican. Granted, Lightner is quite lucky to have been out of politics since 2004, because it's extremely "not cool" to be a politician right now. Jordan was required to take some votes from 2004-2008 that Lightner didn't have to take. But life's not fair.

5.Crony Capitalism (read this article in Forbes by Congressman Paul Ryan). Nick Jordan is not an economic conservative. He's not a capitalist. He does not understand economic freedom. Jordan believes that government should be intimately involved in growing the private sector; he believes that government should be picking winners and losers. Examples:

◦He does not support property rights. He believes that government should be able to forcibly take one person's private property through eminent domain, and then give it to another private individual. The second individual (the person/corporation who ends up receiving the taken property) almost always is currently both wealthy and well-connected to politicians. Property recipient (the "winner") will have been savvy enough to able to work his way through government channels, so that he has convinced enough elected officials that the property transfer will result in "economic development" (read: a net increase in property taxes and sales taxes). In these uses of eminent domain, offensive definitions of "blight" and "public use" are used. Under a correct interpretation of the US Constitution, this all would be illegal. This is legal only because of an incorrect, 5-4 Kelo decision by the US Supreme Court. As in so many cases, "moderate" Justice Anthony Kennedy played the role as the "swing vote." In the Kansas Legislature, Jordan drafted legislation that would have allowed the taking of private property for "economic development;" it didn't pass. ◦You may recall the "soccer vote" of 2006. This was an attempt by Johnson County Government to pass a bond (functionally a tax), with the ultimate purpose of building soccer fields that would have been used by premier-level youth soccer leagues. The theory was to promote "tourism," which would then, in theory, bring in tax revenue. But the entire thing smelled bad. It turned out that the chief funder behind the "pro-soccer movement" was the out-of-town land-owner; as I recall, that development company wanted to get rid of the land because the land was rocky and undesirable on which to build. Nick Jordan was one of the behind-the-scenes supporters and promoters of the "soccer vote." Not only did the public reject this ballot initiative, but they rejected it 60-40 during one of the most pro-liberal voting years in Johnson County history: motivating voters were Sebelius, Moore, Paul Morrison vs. Phill Kline, a national anti-GOP trend, and under-funded GOP challengers for governor and congress).

6.Jordan's voting record is pro-socialized medicine. On the campaign trail, Jordan is hitting Democrats on socialized medicine. But in the Kansas Senate, Jordan chose to join the majority in supporting the expansion of SCHIP for those making 250% of the federal poverty level. This is the middle class we're talking about, and families of four who make over $50,000 a year. The program is unsustainable on the federal end, and it ends up raising everyone else's health insurance premiums by encouraging Americans to drop their private health insurance (decreasing the size of the "pool" for private insurers). Jordan had a key opportunity to demonstrate leadership and oppose this legislation; he chose to support it. You can read here and here about how Hawaii at one time experimented with universal health care, but then ended the program after too many people intentionally dropped their private insurance in order to receive "free" health insurance; of course, nothing in life is truly "free."

7.US Senator Sam Brownback, and KMBZ 980's Mike Shanin and Scott Parks: They're enthusiastic about Nick Jordan. Plenty of evidence suggests that they are thoroughly out of touch with the average Republican voters; just like the NRCC and NRSC, it's generally a safe bet to conclude, "If they're doing this, the opposite is probably a better idea." Each one's record indicates that they're embarrassed of being associated with a conservative message. Parks openly ridicules conservatives. Shanin says over and over again, "I'm a Reagan Republican," but he doesn't explain what that means, and he rarely applies the "Reagan Republican" theme to local political issues. And Senator Brownback's support among Kansas Republicans has never been lower, ever. All in just the last 2 years: ◦Brownback supported a liberal immigration bill described by Rush Limbaugh as the "destroy the Republican party bill;" ◦Brownback used to be trusted on the pro-life issue, but that's not the case, anymore. For example, when the presidential primaries were down to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee, Brownback endorsed McCain, even though McCain is known to support federal funding of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. ◦The endorsement of John McCain deserves its own bullet point. Which reminds me to tell you that John McCain has endorsed Jerry Moran for Senate and Brownback former chief of staff Rob Wasinger in the First District.

◦With virtually nobody asking him to, Brownback worked against Kansans for Life and played a leading role in the election of Steve Howe, who has turned out to be probably the worst district attorney the county has ever had. Steve Howe is just as untrustworthy as former DA Paul Morrison (who switched parties in 2006 to run as a Democrat for AG), but less competent than Morrison;

◦He enthusiastically supported for HHS Kathleen Sebelius, who is one of the most pro-abortion, activist liberal (read: law-breaking), and effective/dangerous Democratic politicians in America;

◦About two months ago, Brownback helped organize a closed-door meeting with Nick Jordan, Pat Roberts' staff, Ronnie Metsker, Amanda Adkins, Charlotte O'Hare, Greg Musil, and just a few other local GOP officials, which the purpose being to hand-pick a "consensus" nominee; this meeting back-fired, as many Republicans were rightly offended by the "we know better than you" attitude that this meeting portrayed.

◦Brownback currently has a known corrupt local politician (liberal Republican Lynn Mitchelson of Mission Woods) on the Brownback for Governor steering committee.

◦It's an understatement to state that nobody knows, anymore, who Sam Brownback really is. The only thing about which Republicans are confident is that Brownback still has presidential goals.

8.Current silence from Jordan campaign: that's always a sign that there's not much good news to report.

9.Steve Rose writes that Jordan is a conservative. Nobody* takes Steve Rose seriously, and the only election in which Rose is even mildly influential is in the very-low-turnout (under 10%) spring elections, in which the electorate leans center-left. When Rose wants to influence an election, he often either lies or else just makes stuff up. If Rose says Jordan is a conservative, then Jordan is not a conservative.

*Mike Shanin and Scott Parks do take Steve Rose seriously. Unfortunately, "Shanin and Parks" is the only afternoon, local radio news program