Intentionally ironic, blissfully ignorant or willfully hypocritical?

Which is it GOP?

The Republican National Committee has launched a new feature on their Web site where they countdown the time until the next "gaffe" from Joe Biden, complete with a video of him calling Obama "Barack America."

Seriously? The party of George W. Bush wants to make gaffes an issue. The sitting President from their party has contributed a new word to our political lexicon referring to his repeated gaffes.



Or how about John McCain? The supposed expert on foreign policy isn't sure which factions of Islam are fighting against each other (but somehow thinks he is better suited to protect us against them) or even that Czechoslovakia is no longer a country.





So, would you rather have a Vice President who in a major speech transposes words, or a President who is an idiot. When Biden misspeaks, its a gaffe, when McCain forgets that Czechoslovakia split into the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, you know, 15 years ago, what is that?

New poll shows Boyda wins, drilling loses

As seen on Boyda Bloc and Swing State Project, a Survey USA poll commissioned by the Washington D.C. newspaper Roll Call shows Nancy Boyda beating Lynn Jenkins, CPA 50-43.

We'd like to dig a little deeper into some of the cross tabs of this poll.

1) The poll posed the question "If two candidates were running for Congress, and one says that offshore drilling is the best way to solve America's energy problems ... and the other says that America needs to identify and promote alternative sources of energy ... which candidate would you vote for?" and 56% of the people chose the candidate who wanted to identify and promote alternative resources. Once again, Kansas Republicans are on the wrong side of an issue.

2) McCain is beating Obama pretty handily, but not keeping pace even with George Bush's 2004 performance. We've said on this blog before, in all likelihood McCain will win Kansas, but if he wins it with 50-55%, that 5-10% drop could send people like Jim Slattery and Donald Betts to Washington.

3) 46% of voters have a favorable opinion of Nancy Boyda compared to only 36% of voters who have a favorable opinion of Lynn Jenkins. A staggering 45% of voters have either a neutral opinion of Lynn Jenkins or they just flat out don't know who the hell she is. Given the fact that she has been elected to statewide office twice and just won a pretty contested and well-covered primary, this ain't so good for Jenky.

4) Remember how Lynn Jenkins is so "moderate" and Nancy Boyda is so "liberal"? Well, among self-identified moderates, Nancy Boyda is winning 47%-42%. Conservatives side with Lynn 85% of the time. Only 28% of moderates have a favorable opinion of Lynn Jenkins. Don't worry Lynn, you've got George Bush coming to town...

5) The poll shows Kansans have a 36% approval rating of George W Bush, slightly higher than the national average, but pretty abysmal for a "deep red" state. Bush's approval rating among moderates? 24%.

6) Though the Ryun/Jenkins primary didn't feature the kind of fireworks many thought it would, it is clear there have been some lingering affects. Jenkins garners the support of a mere 70% of Republicans, compared to 88% of Democrats supporting Nancy Boyda.

In the end, it's hard to find any positives for Jenkins in this poll. Yes, she's only 7% down, but with this data unless she changes her strategy some (see Bush, drilling) you have to think she's pretty much at her ceiling. Her best hope is that some of the right-wingers will come to realize she is one of them, and Bush swooping in should help in that regard, but Jim Ryun can tell you how that worked for him in 2006.

The poll was conducted August 19-21 and includes 620 likely voters. It has a margin of error of +/- 4%

GOP leaders: Sorry Mr. President, we have to rearrange our sock drawer

No members of Kansas' Republican Congressional delegation have gotten around to endorsing Sen. Nick Jordan in his quest to unseat popular incumbent Dennis Moore. They're very busy (though, not busy enough to keep them from endorsing a candidate for a county office in Johnson County, where neither of them live)

Those same busy schedules appear to be keeping Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback and Reps. Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran away from today's fundraiser with President George W. Bush.

Some of you might be saying, "See, this was a bad idea to bring the President and his record-low approval ratings."

Not so says Christian Morgan.

Kansas Republican Party executive director Christian Morgan said he doesn't believe the president's poll numbers are an issue.

"If the president's popularity really had something to do with it, then they would have stayed away from even putting their names on something with the president," Morgan said. "I don't think its a case of them skipping this event, it's a case of them having scheduling difficulties, especially when this thing was thrown together pretty quickly."

So, the fact that only 39% of voters in our Republican state support the President is of no concern to Christian. We're standing by his side because...well...why the Hell are we standing by his side?

In reality, this is just further proof that Christian Morgan, Nick Jordan and the Kansas Republican Party are so radically out of touch with everyday Kansans that they still think that George W. Bush has appeal to the average voter.

Speaking of out of touch, Pat Roberts had a perfectly legitimate reason to miss the event. He's going to be in California raising money.

Sen. Pat Roberts will be in California on a longstanding trip to raise money for his own re-election bid, campaign spokeswoman Ashley McManus said. She said Roberts was proud to be named an honorary chairman of the fundraiser and "he was proud to be with the president three weeks ago in Greensburg."

The part about Roberts supporting Bush despite the miserable failure that has been his Presidency and his awful approval ratings in Kansas should come as no surprise to anyone. Roberts has been George W. Bush's lapdog for nearly seven years. What shocked me is the cavalier manner in which his spokesmodel admitted to raising money in California.

I suppose this shouldn't surprise me either, since Roberts hasn't lived in Kansas since 1962, but I guess I always just thought since they've been trying to start a pissing match with Jim Slattery over who's more of a Kansan that they might try to downplay it just a little.

Guess not.

You're invited!

Bush is in town tomorrow for Nick Jordan! Be sure to read the invite! Then, head on over to Dennis Moore's site and help keep Nick Jordan away from D.C.!

Tiahrt supports millionaires instead of our troops

Recently, the House passed (with the support of Reps. Dennis Moore and Nancy Boyda) an expansion of the GI Bill that would allow more veteran returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to get a college degree. You would think those patriotic, flag-waving, troop-hugging Republicans who sent them over there in the first damn place would be the ones supporting the bill and chastising Democrats for not supporting our troops.

Well, apparently wearing a flag pin on your lapel is enough for them.

Numerous Republicans, including Kansas Reps. Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran, voted nay.

Why, you ask? Well, Tiahrt and Moran haven't bothered to explain themselves as of yet, but several Republicans have said the bill would discourage soldiers from re-enlisting. Perhaps if they weren't bogged down in an unjust war with no end, they would be a little more enthusiastic about putting off their education.

The other hitching point for Republicans? The bill would increase the personal income tax on individuals making at least $500,000 per year by one half of one percent. That's less than a penny on the dollar for the richest of the rich.

Unacceptable.

Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush have both spoken out against this bill. It heads to the Senate this week, where we can only hope a veteran like Pat Roberts will support it.

We now know that Reps. Tiahrt and Moran, as well as Bush and McCain, are on the side of the wealthiest Americans, now the question becomes who's side is Pat Roberts on?

Some videos on the subject...

Why bring in the President?

Yesterday, we were the first in the blogosphere with news that President George W. Bush was bringing his low approval ratings back to Kansas for the second time this month, this time to stump for 3rd District GOP hopeful Sen. Nick Jordan.

The GOP has been almost comically unable to wrestle this seat away from Moore in a solidly Republican district. Either they run a right-wing hack (Kris Kobach) or they have a bloody primary that leaves a hapless and broke candidate (Adam Taff and Chuck "Don't call me Maynard" Ahner).

This year, some thought it might be different. Some thought that Nick Jordan, who is still pretty conservative but not perceived to be amongst the likes of Phill Kline and Kris Kobach, might be the one to start pulling those moderate Republican Johnson County voters away from Dennis Moore.

However, the KS GOP has shown a penchant for losing lately, and it looks like they're in no hurry to reverse that trend.

The GOP already brought in Dick Cheney to raise money for Jordan, who faces a 3:1 fundraising disadvantage on top of relatively low name recognition. Now, they're bringing in Bush as well.

Which begs the question; Do they really think the moderate Republican and unaffiliated voters in Johnson County that swing that election time and time again to Dennis Moore are going to be swayed by the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? If they do, they should pass whatever they're smoking.

Bush carried Johnson County with 62% of the vote in 2004, but that was four long years ago. A recent Survey USA poll shows that Bush's approval rating in Eastern Kansas (the 3rd District probably makes up over 50% of the population of "Eastern Kansas," depending on how they define the region) was a meager 34%. Moreover, 64% say they disapprove of the job he is doing, leaving only 1% of voters who aren't sure how they feel about the President.

Perhaps more importantly than Bush's general numbers are his numbers among unaffiliated voters -- you know, the ones that Nick Jordan absolutely has to woo in large numbers to have even the slightest of prayers. Among unaffiliated voters in Kansas (Survey USA does not have a subsection for party affiliating within the regions) Bush's approval rating dips to 27%. It is only 30% among self-identified moderates.

While there is no polling available for Dick Cheney's job approval rating in our fair state, it's safe to say it's probably not much better than President Bush's.

As Democrats and proud Dennis Moore supporters, we'd just like to say thank you to the Nick Jordan campaign and the KS GOP for being so out of touch with Kansans that they still actually think it's a good idea to bring Bush and Cheney to town. (Ask Jim Ryun how it worked for him in 2006!)

Head over to our new ActBlue widget on the right side of our page and help Dennis Moore fight the Bush/Cheney machine that has decided they want him out of Congress.

Breaking news: Bush to stump for Jordan in KC

Word from the KS GOP is that George W. Bush will bring his lowest-ever approval rating into Kansas City in the near future to campaign for Nick Jordan. Jordan has already brought Dick Cheney into the district to campaign on his behalf.

No word on if Sen. Jordan realizes that George W. Bush has a 34% approval rating in Eastern Kansas and only a 40% approval rating overall in the state.

We'll give you more deets as they become available.

George Bush and Pat Roberts *heart* oil

This is not going to be a conspiracy theorist rant about the "true" motivations behind the boneheaded move to invade Iraq. However, sometimes politicians do things that just make you scratch your head.

Folks in Washington have trying to make political hay out of the rising gas prices, and understandably so, but it makes you wonder "Who's fault is it really?"

Does the blame lay at the feet of the oil producing countries? Economic conditions beyond our control? Our inability to ween ourselves off oil? Politicians who line their pockets with oil company money and then protect their interests over the American people's?

In the end, I think it's a combination of all of these factors, but it's the last one that really bothers me.

The Big Oil companies -- you know the one's that Pat Roberts is so dedicated to protecting -- would have you think their record profits are due to rising costs of doing business.

Anyone who has taken a basic economics class should be perplexed by this statement. The issue isn't that they've seen an increased revenue, which could be plausibly explained by an increase in costs. The issue is they have seen an increase in profit, which means either the increase in cost argument is crap or they have increased the price they charge disproportionately.

But curiously, when President Bush spoke at the rose garden yesterday, he addressed just about everything other than the activities of the major oil companies.

I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems. Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them. One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.

OK, fair enough. Demand is growing faster than supply. Can't argue with you here. But there are two ways to curtail that problem. Bush seems obsessed with increasing supply, which in theory would solve the problem. But where is the call to decrease demand? Oh right, that's the thing that's been in all your State of the Union speeches but you never actually did anything about.

They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20-percent increase of oil -- crude oil production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices. And yet such efforts to explore in ANWR have been consistently blocked.

OK, other than "environmentally safe" drilling in ANWR, what exactly have you proposed to solve any of the problems you mentioned, Mr. President? BTW, ANWR doesn't have enough oil, environmentally safe or not, to have any positive impact on oil prices, but thanks for playing.

Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries.

This one really gets me.

If a junky is addicted to heroin. All of a sudden heroin prices start skyrocketing. He comes to you and says "Hey man, I need some smack but I don't have a job and prices are a real bitch lately." You don't say, "You know what dude, if you started making your own heroin, you could put it in the market and drastically increase supply while demand stays relatively constant, then you could get your fix at a more reasonable price." You say, "Hey man, let's get you some help so you don't need heroin anymore."

Once again, all of Bush's proposals involve using more oil. He gives passing references to things like ethanol, but the solution to the energy problem in our country and in our world cannot be a band-aid approach. It has to be a wholesale change in our policy outlook.

You don't have to be a tree-hugger to realize that, one of these days, we're going to run out of oil. Obviously, this day isn't coming in the near future, but it seems to this blogger that it would be prudent to figure what the heck we're going to do next.

It seems the oil apologists are stuck in a 20th century mindset (just like they are in foreign policy). The same thing can be said for the coal apologists here in Kansas.

The solution to the oil issue isn't to figure out a way to bring down the price of gasoline and ween ourselves off of foreign oil, its to figure out a cost-effective way to ween ourselves off oil in general.

Network TV War Analysts: Robots in Disguise

The Bush administration lied to the American people about Iraq, and then spent seven years and billions of dollars covering up that lie.

I know this is no longer a surprise to anyone, but it still makes me angry.

And yesterday's story in The New York Times made me especially angry because it involves television network news and I HATE television network news. Fox, CNN, NBC - you name it, I hate it. And here's just another example of why:

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

Reading on...

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.

We know the Bush administration flushed their ethics down the toilet long ago - but why these "journalists" allowed individuals - with not only known financial ties to contractors in Iraq but also close ties to the Bush administration - to act as independent voices on their "news" shows...well...it makes me sick.

In a Q&A related to this piece, NYTimes reporter David Bastow was asked if he discovered why the major network executives and news editors didn't vet their "analysts." Here's his answer:

Two networks, CBS and Fox News, declined to answer any questions about their use of military analysts, including what specific steps they took to vet them for business ties that could pose conflicts and what ethical guidelines they established for them. NBC would not allow any executives to be interviewed, but released a short statement saying it had “clear policies in place’’ to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest. Spokesmen for CNN and ABC said that while their military analysts were expected to keep them informed of outside sources of income, neither network had written ethics policies governing potential conflicts of interest with their analysts.

But the question you raise – why didn’t the network news executives try to “close the gap’’ between what journalists were reporting and what some analysts were saying – is a good one. One possible answer: Several analysts said in interviews that network news officials tended to defer to their experience and expertise in military matters.

Are you as disgusted as I am?