Skip to main content

This past week a Democratic congressional candidate in Kansas did something courageous. He chose to endorse an Independent candidate in the US Senate race against Pat Roberts. This never happens and the result has been predictable, as party officials and donors pile on the criticism. Nevertheless, 1st district candidate Jim Sherow did Democrats nationwide a service.

Kansas has a legit 3 way Senate race between Sen Pat Roberts (R), Democrat Chad Taylor, and Independent Greg Orman. Only two have a chance of winning and neither of them is a Democrat. You want to beat Pat Roberts? Make the Senate a little less crazy? Listen to Jim Sherow.

“I believe that Greg Orman presents the best chance at providing Kansas new energy in the US Senate - and that energy is needed to help promote the growth of the Kansas economy,” Sherow said.
I had already abandoned Chad Taylor, but seeing Jim Sherow do it really just confirmed my belief. I consider Jim to be the very definition of what Kansas needs in Congress. He is a fourth generation Kansan, a KSU professor, and the former mayor of Manhattan, KS. His opinion carries weight for me because of his lifetime of statewide action.

I have a different view of Democratic candidate Chad Taylor's accomplishments in the state.

“It started when Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor announced that a 10 percent budget cut would force him to end his office’s prosecution of misdemeanor cases, almost half of which last year were domestic battery cases. With that, Taylor stopped prosecuting the cases and left them to the city.”
That's right, Chad Taylor is the DA who refused to prosecute domestic abuse cases in Topeka because they cost too much. And don't let him excuse this as a budget standoff, real people saw real results while Chad Taylor was busy shutting down the local government like a tea partier.
“In the meantime, police spokeswoman Kristen Veverka confirmed that 16 people have been arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor domestic battery since Sept. 8 but were released from the Shawnee County Jail after charges weren’t filed.”
And the Democratic party wants me to vote for this guy? First I need to check in with some women's advocates to see if there is any reason to worry about these victims...
“Letting abusive partners out of jail with no consequences puts victims in incredibly dangerous positions,” said Becky Dickinson of the YWCA. “The abuser will often become more violent in an attempt to regain control.” The YMCA also said that some survivors associated with their Center for Safety and Empowerment were afraid for their safety if the dispute wasn’t resolved soon.
Seems like a reasonable concern for the 16 families who sat at home and waited for the perpetrator to return THE SAME NIGHT! Anyone else want to weigh in?
"To have public officials pointing fingers while victims of domestic violence are trying to figure out who will protect them is just stunning," Joyce Grover, executive director of the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence told the Times.

The Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence apparently doesn't agree with abuse prosecution as a budget cutting measure. Maybe Chad Taylor's spokesperson can beat some sense into them...
“Dakota Loomis, spokesman for Taylor, said the district attorney’s office “agrees that domestic violence is a crime that should be taken seriously and charged. Our situation isn’t what it was in 2009 in regard to funding,” Loomis said Tuesday. “Limited resources have forced us to determine what we’re statutorily required to do.”
Classy. Now keep in mind that this decision flew directly in the face of an agreement DA Chad Taylor had signed onto himself with the YWCA Battered Women Task Force.
“Joyce Martin, CEO of the Topeka YWCA, said in a statement Tuesday. “We believe the Shawnee County District Attorney’s Office is the most appropriate agency to prosecute this serious crime.”

Martin said that in 2009 the YWCA worked with the district attorney’s office, Topeka Police Department, Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office and Third Judicial District Court Services to create “community protocols” for responding to and prosecuting domestic violence cases. Once finalized, the protocols were signed by District Attorney Chad Taylor...

Martin said in signing the protocols, Taylor agreed that his office would “aggressively prosecute domestic violence,” “review domestic violence cases as first priority” and “charge the cases that meet sufficient evidence to prosecute the case.”

“We’re concerned the district attorney isn’t following through on those things (protocols),” she (Laura Burton, public educator for the YWCA’s Center for Safety and Empowerment) said.

His apologists will tell you that this was a budget standoff. That he expected the city of Topeka to take over like some other towns in Kansas. But that would assume he was unaware of these facts...
“Interim City Manager Dan Stanley said the city attorney's office isn’t equipped to handle domestic violence cases. Stanley told city council members Tuesday evening the district attorney's office has seven people dedicated to prosecuting misdemeanor domestic violence cases. The city attorney's office has five prosecutors total, only one of whom prosecuted any domestic violence cases, with the last one having taken place 10 years ago."
So go make excuses for someone else. Maybe John Edwards has an opening. And I haven't even mentioned the lawsuits that have come out of his office.
“The allegations include gender discrimination for lack of providing breast-feeding stations and race discrimination relating to the women’s supervisor, who allegedly used her position to coerce Hispanic employees and clients to clean her home."
Maybe I am being unfair. Maybe he is a champion of women's rights in other ways. Let's look for an abortion stance...
“no stance on record”
It is hard to find clear statements from Taylor about his stance on abortion. For example, his website includes “Women's Issues” under the category of “Social Issues”. By contrast, Orman doesn't hide, discussing abortion under “Reproductive Rights” on his site where he clearly states...
“We’ve spent a lot of time over the last two decades debating whether or not women should have the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health. As a man, I’ll never have to face some of the decisions that women have to make. I know the women of Kansas are smart, and I trust them to make their own decisions about their reproductive health.

I believe it’s time for our government to move past this issue and start focusing on other important issues, such as healthcare and higher education affordability, tax code simplification, and fixing our broken immigration system.”

I can sign on with that. So did Women For Kansas, when they endorsed Greg Orman recently. Surprised? No? Me either.
“We are very pleased Orman threw his hat in the ring. It lets us put forth a more complete roster of candidates who could truly begin changing the direction of Kansas. We hope you agree.

Lynn Stephan
Convention Co-chair”

No doubt the Democrats who are angry with Jim Sherow can't find the time to share that annoyance with Women for Kansas.

The other major party choice is Senator Pat Roberts, the symbol of all that is wrong with Kansas politics. Beholden to the Koch brothers before it was cool, Sen Roberts has proven to be one of the worst Senators in the US, voting against the Violence Against Women Act and for a Constitutional ban on marriage equality, all while screaming “FREEDOM!” The need to defeat him is critical to Kansas and the US.  

And that brings us back to Democrat Jim Sherow's endorsement of Independent Greg Orman. This may have been easy for him. He could see the writing on the wall. Taylor lost in all the populous counties in Jim Sherow's district; Ford, Finney, Reno, Salina, Russell.  In fact, if it wasn't for Taylor's vote margin in Shawnee, his home town, he would have lost the primary election to someone who did not campaign at all. Taylor has no real base, only the people who vote straight ticket, a loser strategy for a Kansas Dem. Meanwhile, Orman's Facebook page is littered with recognizable Democrats.

Why should Jim Sherow endorse a terrible Democratic candidate that can't win anyway? A guy who had less then $2,000 cash on hand before the primary? Take a look, Greg Orman is kicking Taylor's butt at fund-raising and is hanging tight with Pat Roberts. Does anyone believe that Taylor can raise the least money and still win a three way race against an incumbent? Please.

So where is Orman on the issues? Check his website and you will see him call for comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. On gun rights he clearly calls for background checks for gun purchases.

He gets the dangers of the Hobby Lobby decision stating “This is a dangerous precedent to set and opens the door to many more court challenges from private employers.” He also sums up Citizens United well by saying “I believe the Supreme Court made a mistake in giving corporations the same rights as people.”  

Orman brings a lot to the table and is clearly the best choice of the three. He has raised more money than Taylor and doesn't receive the generic disdain many have for the Democratic Party around here. He is seen by little 'r' republicans as a viable alternative to the carpet bagger Pat Roberts. In head to head polls Orman is the obvious leader. From the WSJ on Friday...

“The GOP's saving grace is that the senator's opponents—businessman Greg Orman, an independent, and Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor, a Democrat—are "pretty much splitting the anti-Roberts vote evenly," according to PPP. But if one of them were to drop out, "Roberts would really be in trouble." In head-to-head match ups, the Republican leads Mr. Taylor by four points and trails Mr. Orman by 10. The independent would "take 30% of the Republican vote while losing only 11% of Democrats to Roberts."
The Kansas GOP is in full civil war mode, moderate Republicans are lining up behind the Democratic Governor candidate Paul Davis and abandoning Gov Sam Brownback. That leaves the Christian Right battling the Tea Party for the ample scraps of the Kansas GOP. The Tea Party has already made it clear that Roberts ain't their guy, so he can't count on them getting off the couch on election day. They may decide Independent Orman tastes better even if he is less filling.

Don't waste the Republican civil war. Moderate and left of center voters have a chance to line up with the candidate that can compete and put the national Republicans on the defense in a previously safe area.

As a Kansan I have seen the damage up close that Conservative policies create. We have watched as this once great state crumbles at the hands of the Kansas Republican Party. I have dutifully voted Democratic and fought hard to get others to do the same. I have even scolded others who suggested we vote for a third party.

Not this time.  Count me in Jim.

Updates
Chad Taylor's comments about the President on local TV, from his own site.

Wheat: Something that a lot of Republicans, especially incumbents, are coming out with as well is that if you elect a Democrat you’re basically putting President Obama into the House or the Senate. You’ve distanced yourself from the Obama Administration, haven’t you?

Taylor: You know I’ve never been a huge fan of the President’s. There are several issues that he and I greatly disagree on. His leadership style is very different from mine. It’s funny, I’ve already heard the same comments that you have, Shawn: “A vote for Chad Taylor is a vote for Harry Reid and a vote for Barack Obama.” I just think that is absolutely absurd.

And from this morning Greg Orman on MSNBC's Up with Steve Kornacki
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well said (24+ / 0-)

    It's abundantly clear that not only is Mr. Taylor a bad candidate.  He helps the GOP keep a senate seat that is in peril and he's a drag on Democrats statewide.  Do the right thing, Mr. Taylor, go spend some more time with your family and leave the senate race to someone who can win.

  •  drop out mr taylor. dont be like Cutler in maine (14+ / 0-)

    and run a spoiler effort in a race you have no chance to win. Like Cutler, all Taylor can do is get enough support to hand the race to the R incumbent.

  •  Turnaround Tuesdays and More (18+ / 0-)

    Over the last few weeks several of us became aware of the issues at foot.   Some groups had reached out directly and at times forcefully over this and other issues.  

    I understand those who believe in Chad and want a straight Democratic ticket.   But a Democrat hasn't won the senate here in 70+ years.  

    Equally important is that the group of Democrats who are vocally upset are a group of democrats that I believe in, and they are Democrats that I know both personally and professionally.   They are not wanna-be Republicans.  They've been advocates in the strongest way on many of the issues I care deeply about.

    Chad Taylor has a chance to work hard  in the DA office and elsewhere, to build his resume and to prove to the state that he is a good man who has a bright political future.  I believe he could build a career and be a powerful option for state Attorney General, or run for other positions.

    However, he needs time.  He needs time to build his career much more to present a man who is the things he says he is.   Right now is too close to the happenings in his office, the back and forth over domestic violence, the sexual harassment stuff..

    Some people know I've been outed as working with Sherow, and I know some of you forwarded this blog to me when it went up who wonder what I think.

    I think that sending Roberts back to DC is a disaster.  A true disaster.  I think that as someone who understands politics, Chad can't win.   I also think that as groups come out and voice their open displeasure, candidates who have spent their entire political careers arguing about moral righteousness of the democratic party risk being painted as hypocrites.

    Soon, in Topeka groups will begin "Turnaround Tuesdays" a statement to the state that Democrats want to capture the higher moral ground.   It will be held every Tuesday..

    This series of events is being hosted by the Topeka Center for Peace and Justice and the organizational work is being planned by Rev. Joshua Longbottom of Central Congregational Church, Rev. Tobias Schlingensiepen of First Congregational Church and myself in cooperation with, and oversight by, Rev. Jim McCullough of the Center for Peace and Justice.

    I believe these events are important.   I know there are frayed nerves.   But I believe we must advocate for the morality of government, and along with many people who have discussed this and heard the vocal - as I said at times VERY vocal - opposition I understood.

    At the KDP party platform committee, we acknowledged the importance of recognizing and morality in what we do not as politicians but as people.

    http://www.ksdp.org/...

    We must defeat Pat Roberts.   Chad Taylor cannot.  Chad Taylor will face powerful forces that can significantly harm our messaging from now until Election day, and he will face those forces not from Republicans but from people who I view as hardened Democrats.

    We need to win at all levels.  And one candidate wh could quickly get embroiled into a bitter war over his handling of domestic abuse and sexual harassment  could risk much of what we are trying to build.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle
    >Follow @tmservo433

    by Chris Reeves on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 08:45:21 AM PDT

  •  this is all very disheartening... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, MKinTN, skohayes

    ...with support for Pat Roberts so weak, this year should be a golden opportunity for Democrats to finally win a senate seat in Kansas after many, many years.

    However, having two Democrats...one running as an independent...to split the anti-Roberts vote probably feels like manna from heaven for Roberts.

    How in the world could Democrats in Kansas be blowing the best opportunity in a generation to win a senate seat by being so

    Either Chad Taylor or Greg Orman would be far better than Pat Roberts. Unfortunately, with these two spending all their time fighting each other...it looks like Democrats in Kansas are doing their best to blow their best opportunity in a generation.

    •  take heart that Orman gives us a chance (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKinTN, skohayes, sandzen, WomenForKansas

      Taylor was a lost cause without Orman in the race. His past would still come up in the general. Orman has the time and the money to win over middle of the road voters without any of the stigma of being a Democrat in Kansas.

    •  Seems like Taylor won't be far better (3+ / 0-)

      though.  Either because he's not campaigning or raising funds.  Hopefully this will be another Maine 2012 where the Independent, Angus King, got party support and won while the real Democrat languished in third.  The only problem is Kansas is not Maine and Dems are at a disadvantage.  So even if Dems backed Orman, so long as Taylor siphoned off a few votes, those votes could be the difference.  For the sake of the party, Kansas and even the US, Taylor should really step aside.  Dems could give Orman their support in exchange for him caucusing with them and Taylor could get a promise of support for another position in state gov't or in a senate run in a few years when Jerry Moron runs for re-election.  That would be the ideal case.  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 10:06:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fight the good fight, Kansas. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmservo433

    Fight the good fight, Kansas. n/t

  •  Can Orman be persuaded (0+ / 0-)

    to caucus with Team Blue for organizational purposes?

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 10:46:47 AM PDT

    •  He will caucus with the winning team (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevenaxelrod, WomenForKansas

      So says his website. I fail to see how the GOP could have the majority if Roberts loses. Even if GOP won he has still called for things they consider downright evil- path to citizenship, background checks, pro choice...It would be hilarious to see him vote from within the GOP.

      I doubt that will happen. If he wind, Dems will surely hold the majority.

        •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zamrzla

          What if his vote was the deciding vote, and there were 49Rs and 49Ds (this includes Sanders), and his decision would decide whether or not Biden would be the tiebreaker?

          "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

          by TLS66 on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 11:33:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here are his exact words on his site-emphasis mine (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes, WomenForKansas

            Greg Orman-
            "If I’m elected, there’s a reasonable chance that neither party would have a majority in the US Senate. If that is the case, I will work with the other independent Senators to caucus with the party that is most willing to face our country’s difficult problems head on and advance our problem-solving, non-partisan agenda.

            When it comes time to support a candidate for Majority Leader, I would encourage both parties to select a leader who has a demonstrated track record of working across the aisle as one indicator of his or her willingness to solve problems. I will look at responsible leaders from both sides like Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Lisa Murkowski who are willing to cross party lines to vote for what is right. Both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have been too partisan for far too long to earn my vote for Majority Leader.

            With that said, if one party is clearly in the majority, I will seek to caucus with the party that was in the majority as that would be in the best interest for the state of Kansas.

      •  I have a real problem with that answer (0+ / 0-)

        A man of principle he is not. I don't know if the senate will flip this year, but many prognosticators are saying it just may well flip.

        I find it unconscionable that Kansas Democrats are contemplating the vote to impeach and convict the President.

        "He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave." — William Drummond of Hawthornedenne (13 December 1585 – 4 December 1649), Scottish poet.

        by zamrzla on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 11:39:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What do you mean 'impeach and convict Prez" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes, WomenForKansas

          I know of no Kansas Democrat doing that. Nor does Orman have any such goal.

        •  You mean Chad Taylor on the president, right? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WomenForKansas, colbey

          Because he was the one who went on WIBW in Topeka and called him a bad leader and said he favored continued investigations into Benghazi.

          You can find the video on youtube or it's spreading through facebook.  

          •  added transcript and link as update above (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WomenForKansas
          •  OMG! (0+ / 0-)

            Nowhere in the WIBW interview did Taylor mention Benghazi. He did NOT call him a bad leader.

            "You know I’ve never been a huge fan of the President’s. There are several issues that he and I greatly disagree on. His leadership style is very different from mine. It’s funny, I’ve already heard the same comments that you have, Shawn: “A vote for Chad Taylor is a vote for Harry Reid and a vote for Barack Obama.” I just think that is absolutely absurd."

            I know of a LOT of progressive and moderate Democrats that feel the same way. Doesn't mean they think that Romney or McCain should have won or that Obama shouldn't be in office.  

            http://taylorforussenate.com/...

            •  To my knowledge (0+ / 0-)

              I've seen Taylor at many events.  I've never seen him say anything about Benghazi, outside of saying he believes in full investigations.. but that isn't quite the same.   I think that's linking two different things together.

              Just so that on the record I can agree with you, despite our assessment of the race realities.

              Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle
              >Follow @tmservo433

              by Chris Reeves on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 09:13:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Conviction requires 67 votes, and the Rs will be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmservo433

          far short of that, even in the best scenarios for them. So, No Obama wont be convicted and removed from office, even if the Rs take the Senate.

  •  Taylor's primary opponent didn't impress, either. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluebarnstormer

    After looking on Wiesner's web site, I'm not that surprised Taylor won.

    The Senate mission of Patrick is paying off the government’s debt.

    Today the incumbents don’t debate paying off the debt.  There is no talk of a surplus. They have given up on balancing the budget.  The process is structured so that appropriations that pay for entitlements are never up for a vote. Even though taking four out of every 10 federal dollars, Congress has set these outlays up on perpetual appropriations.  Whatever the cost, the money will be spent – there isn’t any discussion of how much.  The system is rigged so no member of Congress ever has to take a stand on entitlement spending.

    (Emphasis added).

    I'm OK with this

    On top of the $18 trillion in Treasury bond obligations, our Congress and the lobbyists have unloaded $5.0 trillion of housing loan guarantees onto the taxpayers plus another $1.0 trillion in student loans.
    But Wiesner's "solution" was obviously to cut "entitlements", like, say, the Social Security you paid into your whole working life.  That's not what I want to hear from Democrats.

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 10:52:51 AM PDT

  •  Greg Orman on MSNBC's UP- video here! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WomenForKansas

    UP w/ Steve Kornacki interviewed Greg this morning.

    http://www.msnbc.com/...

  •  More on unlawful withholding of info (0+ / 0-)

    Here is a a diary I have published on the unlawful withholding of the records and information in this case.

    See here.

  •  Ok, where do I start? (0+ / 0-)

    Am I unhappy about Taylor's budget decision? Yes. Do I think Orman can win? No. He ran against Moran last cycle as a democrat and didn't even raise a blip on the screen. recent polling suggests Orman is supported by over 30% of likely republican voters to his campaign and less than 10% of democrats and less than 30% of independents.
    One can infer from the data that Taylor comes out ahead when leaners are thrown in the mix.

    It is going to be very close, but I believe Chad has a legitimate shot at this. The timing is right, the candidate is as well. Kansas won't elect an Elizabeth Warren nor will they elect Greg Orman as an independent.  BTW, has he said who he'd caucus with if he did win?

    "He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave." — William Drummond of Hawthornedenne (13 December 1585 – 4 December 1649), Scottish poet.

    by zamrzla on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 11:31:38 AM PDT

    •  As a Dem with no base, Taylor was DOA (2+ / 0-)

      Recent polling suggests that Taylor does not have a chance. The WSJ poll from Friday that I linked above shows that Orman is ahead of Roberts now and Taylor is behind.

      Don't underestimate the stigma of being a Dem in Kansas. There is no reason to "infer from the data that Taylor comes out ahead when leaners are thrown in." If they aren't in Taylor's corner already, then why would they join him later? Especially since he has no money to get his message out, which means he will be defined by the right wing Kansas media, out of his own control.

      The fact that Orman can draw so much support from Republicans, see WSJ above, is the dream of the Kansas Democratic Party. 30% of GOP voters in Kansas is huge! Only Davis is getting Republican support other than Orman. Both can win.

      Orman says he will caucus with the majority party. And if he wins, the Dems are the odds on favorite to hold the majority.

      •  The numbers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ajsuited

        Poll numbers of Roberts 33% and Orman  43%.

        The numbers for Taylor were Roberts 43% and Taylor 39%.

        Right off the top, 10% of Orman's came from Roberts base. Of course those 10% aren't going to poll for Taylor. This was just given the choice of one of two.

        When given a choice between ALL of those running for Roberts' seat, Taylor had 25% and Orman had 23%.

        Same people polled and Orman polled below Taylor.

  •  It's time people told the truth. (3+ / 0-)

    No democrat near me voted for Taylor.   We won't in the fall either, and I certainly won't give money.   We've known that for a long time.

  •  Where's the past history for Orman? (0+ / 0-)

    These are things that give me pause with Greg Orman.

    On taxes Orman says:
    "By eliminating loopholes, credits, and deductions and lowering the overall corporate tax rate..."

    From Robert Reich:
    "Last year, the Government Accountability Office, examined corporate tax returns in detail and found that in 2010, profitable corporations headquartered in the United States paid an effective federal tax rate of 13 percent on their worldwide income, 17 percent including state and local taxes. Some pay no taxes at all."
    http://robertreich.org/...

    IF the corporations would ACTUALLY pay a reduced rate which would be more than they are paying now.

    Orman:
    "We should also move to a territorial tax system..."

    Google 'territorial tax system". This is a Koch Heritage.org baby. I'm finding it associated with Fix the Debt also...
    http://ourfuture.org/...

    The Fiscal and Economic Risks of Territorial Taxation
    http://www.cbpp.org/...

    Orman on healthcare:
    "We had a national crisis in health care before the Affordable Care Act passed, and that crisis still exists today. But instead of playing political games with this issue as Republicans and Democrats in Congress have done, I believe we need to focus on what Washington can actually do to ensure that healthcare is affordable for all Americans.

    It’s clear that with the Affordable Care Act the Congress simply expanded a broken system, one that rewards providers for more tests and procedures rather than for better outcomes for individuals. We have to change that way of thinking, alter the incentives to providers to reward quality not quantity of care, and ensure that our government as the largest purchaser of healthcare in the country is prudent with the dollars it spends."

    This certainly does NOT sound like he's supportive of the ACA.

    Orman on jobs and the economy:

    "I’m the only candidate in this race who has a real record of private sector job creation.  And as a businessman, I’ve had to deal with many of the problems that most of the folks in Washington only talk about.  I’ve had to deal with rising healthcare costs, balancing budgets, and the impact of new regulations.  Running a business is about solving problems every day."

    The United States government is NOT a business. It is run NOTHING LIKE a business. No business can decide to do a project, get it all approved and lined up THEN create taxes or tariffs or fees to cover it. Government is not suppose to make a profit, it creates no product, sells no service. It is NOT a business and businessmen screw it up.

    Orman on government spending:

    "As a country, we need to live within our means.  I believe it’s immoral to pass along large debts to the next generation.  The only way we get spending under control is by making hard choices that Congress today seems unwilling to make.  With each party fighting for their own pet projects and political power, there is no accountability to the American people."

    This is MORE rightwing BS. We are NOT living above our means, they keep cutting the revenue for the 1%. WWII saw the debt go as high GDP% as we are and it was paid down under 20 years. The debt wasn't the focus THEN and it shouldn't be NOW.
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/...

    Orman was asked, With Which Party Will You Caucus?

    "... if one party is clearly in the majority, I will seek to caucus with the party that was in the majority as that would be in the best interest for the state of Kansas."

    I have NEVER thought that because there was a majority response that their response would necessarily be what was good for everyone.

    •  nice rant but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WomenForKansas

      Taylor's site contains the same intent and language on almost every issue. You could post much of what you say to him if you want to argue campaign semantics.

      Why do they read so similarly? Because Orman is an acceptable choice for a Democratic voter.

      •  Same on the the social issues... (0+ / 0-)

        But that's about it. Social issues won't get the Kansas economy growing. Orman is a member of the 1%, a businessman through and through. He's good at it. But our Government is NOT a business and the problem with our economy right now is that's how it's being treated.

        Check the links I posted. Check out Fix the Debt. Read what the CBPP says about Territorial Taxation.

        I will not vote for Orman on his own policies, not because he's not a Democrat or anything to do with any other candidate. Regardless of what banner he's running under, his economic policies are aligned with the Koch brothers and their ilk.

  •  Orman's name scrubbed from involvement (0+ / 0-)

    When I first began checking Orman out his Common Sense Coalition website was still up. I had accessed one page. The next day they were all down. Other than his having already said he was a co-founder their is little mention of his name ANYWHERE in many of the groups/organizations that he has had a hand in helping organize (the Moderate Party of Kansas and the Centrist Project).

    His wife was involved in the formation of Women for Kansas. Chad Taylor had approach W4K in February or March about giving a talk and they refused him saying that they had already endorsed Orman. When I questioned them about it this is the response I received:

    1.  When the stuff comes out about Chad Taylor refusing to prosecute domestic violence cases, a lot of women will lose their enthusiasm.  And no one knows better than you the importance of money in politics. Taylor doesn't have any & is unlikely to get any.  And this: 24% of the state is D; 32% is Independent.  Now whether they actually vote is unknown to me. Finally, an endorsement from us isn't a mandate. Everyone has free will.  

    2.  PLUS the W4K convention is now going to include the 4 U.S. House candidates, who are all D's!!  They just got invitations to join us for the Sat. night cocktail party and will be seated at the banquet.  A very early Facebook reaction was, "you're all just Democrats masquerading as bi-partisans." Pretty hard to refute.

    Sounds to me like they were already setting up their smear campaign.

    Essentially, the county commission cut the DA’s budget by 10%, which eliminated attorneys from his office and reduced their effectiveness. When the DA’s office made the decision to limit what they could review and prosecute, the City of Topeka repealed their ordinance, effectively making misdemeanor domestic abuse legal in the city (as a gambit to force the DA’s office to prosecute). When Chad saw the council playing games with these cases, he decided to swallow the hard pill and took the cases back on — doing more with less. As a result, he ended up losing 17% of his workforce [http://cjonline.com/...] with the potential to adversely affect other areas of the office. Here is a good breakdown of what happened, but essentially, Chad ended up doing the hard thing and prosecuting the cases with fewer resources when the city failed to step up to the challenge. http://www.forbes.com/...

    •  Sounds a little personal, and not very important (0+ / 0-)

      As far as your references to the budget I shared my opinion in the post.

    •  So much fiction. Where to start? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluebarnstormer, ajsuited
      His wife was involved in the formation of Women for Kansas.
      1. Orman's wife was not involved in the formation of Women for Kansas and is not involved in the group. A few members of the leadership team have met her a couple of times, either socially with Greg or at a recent Orman bus tour stop in Wichita. She's a wonderful woman for Kansas, but she's not involved in our group. We're hoping she attends our banquet Saturday night where Greg will be speaking. They both may also attend our rally on Friday. The free public rally starts at 5:30 in downtown Wichita. Here's the rally info on our website and here's the event page on Facebook.
      Chad Taylor had approach W4K in February or March about giving a talk and they refused him saying that they had already endorsed Orman.
      2. Chad Taylor has never approached Women for Kansas. We have never approached him.

      3. In February and March, we were still sorting out our game plan. We didn't even have our website up. We weren't thinking about endorsements beyond Davis/Docking/Shodorf.

      4. How could Taylor talk to us about giving a talk in Feb/March when we had no where for anyone to give talks?

      5. How could we have endorsed Orman in Feb/March when he hadn't even decided to run? We endorsed Orman in early August. See the announcement here.

      If you are Leann Strobel, you've asked us many questions on this topic and you've posted all this information on our Facebook page more than once. We have heard you. Why you are choosing to spread misinformation about Women for Kansas is a mystery when we've always been straight-forward with you and everyone else.

      It's true the candidates we're endorsing are all Democrats except for Orman. We would have loved to support a Republican in any of these races, but they all need to be replaced. An example of a Republican who is a keeper, running for a state office, is Sally Cauble, the incumbent from District 5 for the Kansas State Board of Education. She has no opponent in this election so she needs no support.

      Prior to the primaries we posted a voting guide written by friends of Women For Kansas who are moderates. They are putting together another voting guide we will distribute this weekend and then post online. The recommendations do not follow party lines. They look at values similar to the ones in our mission statement.

      Our leadership team is composed of mostly life-long Republicans who are representative of the Kansas Republicans who are sick of what people like Brownback, Kobach and Roberts have done to their party.

      We've taken the time to respond here with no hope of changing your mind. We primarily wanted to set the record straight on the false statements you posted.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site