Pat Roberts and Ron Thornburgh duke it out.

Two Kansas Republicans enter the Thunderdome, only one shall leave.

Pat Roberts and Ron Thornburgh are spending the waning days of the election arguing over who deserves credit for the increase in the total number of Republicans registered to vote in Kansas.

Roberts, predictably, credits himself. Whereas Thornburgh, a Republican who is already running for Governor, credits Barack Obama.

See our post from Friday or Boyda Bloc's excellent post from the other day.

Here is Roberts' self-aggrandizing press release.

TOPEKA, KS, — Senator Pat Roberts today said the Roberts for Senate campaign’s
comprehensive grassroots registration and advance voting program has increased
numbers for Republicans in all areas.

“Our campaign has run a technologically advanced grassroots operation across the state working with our local candidates to produce a large increase in Republican advance voting,” Senator Roberts said. “I am proud of my team and despite Democratic momentum on the national level, we have been able to build a sophisticated advance ballot program that has already achieved results in Kansas .”

Roberts’ comments come today as the Secretary of State released new voter registration data.

As of today, over 106,000 Republicans have requested advance ballots and over sixty-seven percent of those ballots have already been turned in. Republicans requested 30,000 more ballots than Democrats. Republicans maintain a large advantage in voter registration with 287,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. Due to the Roberts for Senate field operation efforts, Republicans gained 32,000 registrants from June to October of this year.

“As I said when I announced my run back in January of 2007, I am the top of the ticket in Kansas and I intend to help all Republicans up and down the ballot. I am proud to say we have done just that. I look forward to Election Day as our turn out operation will provide positive results for Republicans in Kansas .”

Senator Roberts has set in-state fundraising records for a federal election since announcing his intention to run for re-election in 2008. Senator Roberts is running for his third term in the U.S. Senate.

Now, as we pointed out, the problem with Sen. Roberts' tooting his own horn is, you know, the facts don't back it up.

Truth: There are more registered Republicans in Kansas in 2008 than there were in 2004.

Also truth: The percentage of Republicans in terms of overall registration has DECLINED - from 46% to 44% - whereas the percentage of Democrats and Unaffiliated voters each went up by 1%.

Good work Pat, way to help Republicans.

Pat Roberts: Don't blame the Senate Intelligence Committee for faulty intelligence

At what appears to be a rare debate between US Senator Pat Roberts and his challenger, former Democratic Congressman Jim Slattery, Roberts said that he shouldn't be held accountable for helping usher the US into the wrong war at the wrong time using faulty intelligence.

Just because he was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in charge of overseeing all of that nonsense, doesn't mean he should be responsible for matters relating to intelligence oversight, apparently.

You see, Pat says that since his committee released a report (a couple of years after they were supposed to) that sort of kind of admitted that we screwed up, he should get a pass on being the one in charge when the screw-up happened. No joke, folks.

Roberts countered that the world, not just the U.S., got the intelligence wrong -- and once that was realized it was his committee that made the information public. Several audience members laughed at Roberts' statement.

Unfazed, Roberts continued: "Jim, you wouldn't even know about this information except for the fact I released it."

OK, first of all, EVERYONE knew the intelligence was faulty, it was only a matter of those who were willing to admit it. Second of all, Roberts should not get a pass for admitting he was a worthless chair, especially when it took him so long to do it.

Memory Pills Roberts has got to go. Forty years is long enough.

Slattery launches web site

Jim Slattery posted this video on his official blog yesterday, hitting on the same theme we've hit on a couple of times (here and here). Pat Roberts is scared of his record and he's scared of a legitimate candidate like Jim Slattery.

The Slattery camp also launched a new Web site, 40 Years is Long Enough, detailing Pat Roberts many failings as a United States Senator.

Check out the video, the blog and the Web site and let's get Pat Roberts out of office.

The Kansas Republican Assembly is right

Stop the presses folks, the nutjobs over at the Kansas Republican Assembly -- a shell organization which, in effect, runs the KS GOP -- have actually made a good point, though I don't think it was intentional.

In an effort to slander the "Red Star" (some people refer to it as the Kansas City Star, a Pulitzer prize winning newspaper) these radicals have said something intelligent.

A very wise politician once told me, “You’ll know when your opponent thinks you might win when they start attacking you by name.”

They were referring to an admittedly curious development in which Dave Helling over at PrimeBuzz has been specifically referencing The Kansas Meadowlark, the grandaddy of all crazy republican blogs in Kansas. Imagine if the folks at TKR were just a little bit more unstable, but actually did research. Ya, that's Meadowlark.

So, with this quote in mind, do you believe the Republicans when they say Slattery doesn't have a chance?







Neither do I. The worst part? This isn't even all of them. There have been two more TV ads and a radio ad attacking Jim Slattery. Please use our ActBlue widget at the right of your screen to help Jim Slattery fight back. Pat Roberts has millions and this onslaught is not going to stop anytime soon.

Roberts: When I said I was going to play nice, I didn't REALLY mean it

Pat Roberts has gone negative yet again. Curiously, his most recent ad isn't on his web site. Embarrassed of your new spot, Pat?

Maybe its because you remember that you said something back in August 2007, when you spoke with Rep. Dennis Moore at an event at Johnson County Community College. What was it that you said? Can't remember for sure Sen. Memory Pills?



Oh no worries, here's a video to remind you.

There is a difference between campaigning for the office, and campaigning against somebody else and I have always tried to campaign for the office…I will campaign for the office and I will not campaign against anybody.

We totally agree Pat, we totally agree.

A Republican and a lie, two peas in a pod

Homer Simpson once said, "It takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen."

In this case, we refuse to take part in the Kansas Republican Party's latest mistruth.

In a Harris News story this morning, the Boyda camp rightly called the GOP's claims that Boyda voted for "the largest tax increase in history" "malarkey." (See Boyda Bloc's explanation).

The fact of the matter is, Boyda supports several aspects of the Bush tax cuts -- the ones targeted at the middle class, where they should be. The problem is most of the actual revenue is lost from the tax cuts on the uber-wealthy, which a Boyda spokesman even said she would support if the Republicans could find a responsible way to fund them (they can't, don't worry!)

So what smoking gun did the poster who goes by the name "Kansas Republican Party" (didn't Christian Morgan blast so-called "anonymous" blog posters awhile back? Just asking.)

An alleged quote from Boyda's MySpace page two years ago, a page that the GOP knows full-well was not run by the campaign or anyone associated with it.

If ever you needed proof that the KS GOP was run by adolescents, this is it.

"But, but, but...you said on your MySpace page!"

Something else worth noting in the Harris piece. Morgan claims that McCain will be a boon for the victor of the Ryun/Jenkins snoozefest.

Uh, perhaps you didn't see the poll commissioned by Sen. Roberts. McCain is polling under 50% in Kansas. There go those facts again.

Roberts releases poll

Pat Roberts released a poll, paid for by his campaign, that shows the "overwhelmingly popular" Senator barely has a majority, despite being in congress for decades.

The poll shows Roberts leading presumptive Democratic nominee Jim Slattery 54% to 34%.

As we've said on this blog since day 1, while this race will be difficult for Slattery, anytime you see an incumbent as entrenched as Roberts is hovering around 50% four months out, things could get exciting.

More than that, this poll was conducted June 27 - July 1. Which means Pat Roberts had already been on the air for weeks with three television commercials and a radio ad before any of this was taken into account, and still only 54% of Kansans are willing to add on to his 40+ years in Washington.

The poll also included numbers for the Presidential race. Like the Senate race, it shows a Republican who is winning, but with numbers that should be concerning. The poll has McCain beating Democratic nominee Barack Obama 49% to 36%.

Again, remember, George W Bush got over 60% in 2000 and 2004, so for a Republican presidential nominee to be polling under 50% in Kansas -- in July -- is HUGE.

In the end, both these polls show what most people watching these races already know -- Sen. Obama and former Congressman Slattery are facing tall odds, but they each have the advantage of running against thoroughly flawed incumbents and could be in position to mount challenges no one thought possible in a "red" state like Kansas.

McCain outraised by Obama in Kansas; Roberts hires Mean Girl to campaign

A couple of interesting notes in a Harris News story from this weekend.

First, we see that Sen. Barack Obama has raised more money in Kansans than has Sen. John McCain.

Obviously, it's early and this isn't necessarily a good method of predicting elections, but it was certainly unexpected and I think goes to show that a) Kansans are excited about the candidacy of Barack Obama and b) John McCain still has some work to do after losing the Kansas caucuses to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Especially intriguing was the response by KS GOP Executive Director Christian Morgan...

"Senator McCain has a pretty big lead in the state of Kansas and he's not going to lose that lead to Barack Obama," Morgan said.

OK. Glad to know the KS GOP still thinks John McCain will win Kansas. Doesn't really address the fundraising numbers, but hey, it'll do.

Speaking of intriguing responses. Responding to Slattery's claim that Sen. Pat Roberts used your tax dollars to come back to Wichita and film a TV commercial, Roberts' camp had an especially venomous response that would make Regina George proud.

"Kansas is winning and Jim Slattery is whining," said Roberts' spokeswoman, Molly Haase.

Classy. Word is Tina Fey has contacted Molly about being cast in the sequel to Mean Girls.

Of course, Sunday's Topeka Capital-Journal shows even the mainstream media now realizes that whatever Kansas may have won from the recent GAO decision, it was in spite of, not as a result of, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, John McCain and Todd Tiahrt.

Slattery hits Roberts on Buy American

The Slattery camp today hit Sen. Pat Roberts for his reactionary "leadership" on the matter of the controversial contract awarded by the USAF to a French company.

This is an issue that we here at LBK have been all over since the first days of our existence, and something our Republican counterparts on the Net have pretty much ignored (coal is so much more sexy).

“Roberts had two chances to fight for Boeing and Kansas,” Slattery said. “First as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and then as a member of the conference committee for the 2006 Defense Authorization bill. On both occasions, Roberts failed.”

The Roberts camp had contended that the provision wouldn't have prevented the deal because Northrop Grumman -- an American defense contractor -- is partnering with AirBus on the contract. According to Defense News, that's not the case.

“The [Buy American] provision aimed at Airbus, a subsidiary of European giant EADS, is a narrowly written amendment banning the defense secretary from buying goods or services from any foreign company that receives subsidies from a foreign government that is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The prohibition applies when the United States is engaged in an unresolved WTO dispute over the subsidies, or if the WTO has ruled that the subsidy is prohibited.

The language is tailor-made to keep Airbus from winning an Air Force tanker contract against its American rival, Boeing.”

NOTE: It is but a coincidence that the son of Pat Roberts, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was a lobbyist for one of the biggest defense contractors in the country (Northrop) and he just worked on helicopters, so there is nothing unseemly going on there.

The Roberts camp is singing a different tune now. Now they're saying they voted against the Buy American Provision because it was "protectionist" and "irresponsible" and that it would have been vetoed by the President.

The problem is, if the provision was specifically tailored to prevent the very eventuality that happened -- AirBus winning the contract -- why is Roberts so outraged now? Does he no longer believe it's "protectionist" to prevent the outsourcing of military contracts to companies subsidized by foreign governments?

Also, don't forget the fight to kill the Buy American provision was championed by none other than Sen. John McCain.

Kudos to Slattery for holding Roberts' feet to the fire and saying what we've all been thinking since ol' Memory Pills started carrying the Bush Administration's water.

“It’s time Roberts put the best interests of Kansas ahead of old party politics,” Slattery said. “Roberts had an obligation to do his job and stand up to President Bush on behalf of Boeing and Wichita.”

...

Slattery said Roberts should be fired for failing to protect Kansas jobs. “It is time to replace Roberts with a senator who will care about Kansans and champions the issues important to them,” Slattery said.

I think Sen. Sam Brownback put it best.

"Thanks be to God and the GAO."

Someone had to make the right decision, because Brownback, Tiahrt, Roberts and McCain sure weren't in any mood to do it. Not if it meant standing up to George W. Bush and their EADS lobbyist buddies.

Cheese flavored lies

Another post from The Kansas Republican, another lie. Or at least a blind assumption made in the absence of facts.

These clowns read a story on da int-ruh-netz that said a cheese factory decided to locate in Eastern Colorado as opposed to Western Kansas.

OBVIOUSLY this is Gov. Sebelius' fault. Not the Republican-controlled legislature. They eveen linked to the story!

The problem is, the story made no mention of anything even remotely political.

Leprino reportedly chose the location partly due to the quality and availability of milk in neighbouring Weld County. Moerover, in December 2007, FLEXNEWS had reported that Leprino had also considered other locations for the plant in north Colorado and in south west Kansas.

Leprino provides mozzarella cheese to companies such as Domino's Pizza and Pizza Hut and has 9 plants in the US, and 2 in the UK.

Apparently its Governor Sebelius' fault there isn't more/higher quality milk in Western Kansas.

Then, they repeat the same baseless accusations made by their cousins over at Stay Red Kansas, that 1) the recent GAO decision was the result of Roberts, Tiahrt, Brownback and Moran's hard work and 2) Jim Slattery is angry about the decision.

Meanwhile, thanks to tireless work by Senator Roberts, Brownback and the rest of
the DC gang, the GAO ruled that the Air Force's procurement process was not
handled properly.

What, no props for Reps. Nancy Boyda and Dennis Moore?

Nevermind the fact that Slattery released a press release praising the decision or that Roberts and Brownback actively created an atmosphere condusive to the decision while Tiahrt and Moran sat on their hands.

The casual relationship that TKR and SRK seem to have with "facts" and "truth" is starting to get annoying.

GAO tells us what we already know

Breaking news out of the Government Accountability Office -- the decision to grant a contract to the French company AirBus was a bad one.

Thanks captain obvious.

Turns out the Air Force just made a bunch of crap up about how much it was going to cost Boeing to build the thing.

Our friends at StayRed are prepared to knight Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Todd Tiahrt for their tireless work in getting GAO to tell us what we already knew.

Of course, if Sen. Roberts would've told John McCain and George Bush where to stick it and opposed stripping the Buy American provision from the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill, Boeing would already be building the damn plane, but we digress.

Wethinks there is something fishy going on, though, now that it appears the bid process was unduly influenced by invisible hands to favor Airbus. Both Sens. John McCain and Pat Roberts have extensive lobbying ties to Northrop Grumman, AirBus' American partner, and AirBus itself.

According to a press release from the Jim Slattery campaign, Pat Roberts' son David lobbied the Senate for AirBus on issues related to the very Defense Authorization bill that would pave the way for this decision.

And we already know about McCain's ties to AirBus lobbyists.

If Sen. Roberts and Rep. Tiahrt had anything to do with this, which is debatable since the decision seemed to be pretty obvious, well, it's about damn time. Next time, how about you fight for Kansas jobs BEFORE they get outsourced to France. Then we won't have to worry about all this mess.

The Law of Supply

The conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch -- which used to focus on national security issues but apparently now has no particular "cause" -- has announced that it will be making robocalls into a few dozen Congressional districts, including the Kansas 2nd (Nancy Boyda). The group said the ads will focus on gas prices and Rep. Boyda's vote against offshore drilling.

This obsession with affecting gas prices by increasing supply infuriates me.

I don't know if y'all remember Econ 101, but there are two sides to that chart that looks like an X. You've got the supply part down. In theory, increasing supply while demand remains constant will decrease the price (though economists believe IF such a theory were to work, it would take nearly a decade to see any noticeable affect).

The problem is, most economists believe any increase in supply will result in a corresponding increase in demand, thereby negating any downward pressure on price and perhaps even causing it to rise some. Not to mention increasing carbon output and ignoring our reliance on carbon-based fuels of which we have a finite supply.

I'm not going to go so far as to imply that its a poorly disguised attempt to increase oil consumption and thus increase the profits of oil companies, but it sort of makes you wonder.

That other line? That's called demand. On this side, the theory is if demand decreases while supply remains constant, prices will decrease.

The answer is conservation. Jimmy Carter hit the nail on the head in his American Malaise speech, though he was chastised for it, the only way to truly ween ourselves off of oil is to enact policies that affect demand, not supply.

We need to be focusing on designing and developing American cars that might actually be feasible to sell 10 years from now. The SUV, the 5,000 lbs car and the 6.5 liter V8 are dying, and it's time for Detroit to realize that.

We need to enact policies that make public transportation in the midwest a real possibility.

We need to start dedicating federal research dollars to developing wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and any other non-carbon-based form of energy production. (Thanks for twice voting against those taxbreaks to encourage alternative fuel research, Sen. Roberts)

We need to start investing in ethanol that is not made from things that we might want to eat.

We need to stop promoting shortsighted policies that do nothing more than increase the profits of oil companies.

The truth is, no matter what we do, gas prices aren't going to be $2.00 a gallon anymore. The only real solution is taking steps to ween ourselves off of ALL oil, not just foreign oil.

Disastrous politics

First and foremost, the LBK team would like to extend our heartfelt condolences to those in the Heartland who bore the brunt of mother nature's fury in the past few days.

It seems, however, that Kansas bloggers and politicians think these disasters are a good time to make some political hay.

Appropriately, Sen. Pat Roberts began running a new campaign commercial, "Greensburg" this week. The commercial shows the good Senator and his wife, Franki, walking around touring the destruction in Greensburg.

Honestly, our hats are off to Senator Roberts for being quick to get to Greensburg and tour the devastation with the rest of the Kansas Congressional delegation, but it seems he was the only one to bring a camera crew along.

An entire town was destroyed, several people were killed and even more injured, and Pat Roberts uses it for his own political gain. Classy.

Now, after an E-F3 tornado demolished the city of Chapman and the same storm produced an E-F4 tornado that sliced through Manhattan and the campus of Kansas State University before moving on to Jackson County, the craziest of all crazy Republican bloggers decides it'd be a good topic to attack the anti-coal crowd again (don't worry, it doesn't make sense to us either).

Typically, we don't link to the Meadowlark. We have a policy that his neurotic (although well-researched) rants aren't worth responding to, but today we'd like to make an exception to prove a larger point. Natural disasters are off limits.

Meadowlark argues that the research reactor at KSU (which doesn't actually provide power for anything) is a microcosm of the coal fight. He likens the political backlash against coal today to the backlash against nuclear energy in the past, and apparently this storm is somehow supposed to make us realize we should build the plants in Holcomb. I told you, dude is crazy!

Anyway, even if that argument made sense, which it doesn't, natural disasters such as this one, which took the lives of two people in Dickinson and Jackson counties, are not fodder for political advancement. They're tragedies, and should be viewed as such.

Shame on you Pat Roberts, and shame on the Kansas Meadowlark.

How do you know Jim Slattery is legit?

When the National Republican Senatorial Committee decides to use some of their precious few campaign funds to slander him.

It's official folks, not only do Republicans realize that Slattery is a legitimate candidate, methinks they may even be a little nervous. The NRSC is broke, they aren't going to spend one red penny in a race that they think is in the bag.

So what do we do? Well, for starters, donate to Jim's campaign using our ActBlue widget to counteract the national right-wing money.

Pat Roberts hasn't lived in Kansas for nearly half a century and has been in Washington since before man walked on the moon. It's time for him to retire.

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.

Pass the mud, please

I'm growing more and more disgusted with the Pat Roberts campaign each time his spokesmodel Ashley McManus opens her mouth.

Of course, Pat Roberts has always said he's tired of the way campaigns resort to slinging mud instead of focusing on the issues. After his first $50,000 ad-buy (in April), apparently the type of shoes Jim Slattery wears is considered an issue.

Now, in a recent story in the Washington D.C. newspaper The Hill, McManus is up to her typical underhanded, immature snarkiness.

Ashley McManus, a Roberts spokeswoman, said Slattery’s criticism of the war is “a bizarre thing for Jim Slattery to say, given that when he was in Congress he voted for us to go to war with Iraq [in Operation Desert Storm].

Are you serious? Is this woman really going to have us believe that voting for Operation: Desert Storm is the same thing as voting to preemptively invade a sovereign nation based on faulty intelligence (which her candidate would help cover up later on)?

Maybe that kind of stuff goes over in Virginia, Ashley, but here in Kansas, we're not buying it.

As the story went on, McManus continued to prove that she and the Roberts campaign have permanently waved bye-bye to reality.

“We look forward to a campaign based on the issues and the differences between Pat Roberts’s tireless service to Kansas and Jim Slattery, who stopped working for Kansas so he could enrich himself working for special interests,” McManus said.

Just because you heard Pat Roberts' voice at the beginning of the "gucci loafer" radio ad saying "I'm Pat Roberts, and I approved this message," that doesn't mean he...well...approved the message.

It's not just the Roberts campaign though that has separated themselves from reality. Republican consultants too seem to be basking in the false sense of security.

“I’m sure [Slattery]’ll be able to raise some money, and I’m sure that the senatorial committee will come in and spend some money too, because they’re definitely raising a lot, but I think Pat Roberts is very well-respected throughout Kansas, both in the eastern and western part of the state. And when the ads start coming up, I think that Pat Roberts will probably pull away,” [Republican consultant Aaron] Trost said.

As we've covered here extensively, the public polling data doesn't back up this claim of Roberts' popularity.

Though his overall approval rating is 54% as of 4/25, it is heavily propped up by a 70% approval rating in Western Kansas. In Eastern Kansas and Wichita, where the overwhelming majority of voters in the state live, his approval ratings are 52 and 48%. Hardly a slam-dunk for a guy who has been in Congress for 20-some years and has never got less than 62% of the vote in November.

For Roberts to win this race, he must do extremely well in Eastern Kansas and Wichita and he must pull a good number of moderates and independents into his fold. His numbers among moderates and independents? 51 and 54%.

But honestly, what does the public know about who the public likes.

BREAKING NEWS: Rasmussen poll shows Roberts is vulnerable

HUGE news from the Slattery/Roberts race. An independent Rasmussen Reports poll shows Roberts leading Slattery 52-40.

That's right, Roberts, who didn't even have an opponent in 2002 (not had a weak opponent, had NO opponent) can only muster 52% before Jim Slattery has spent one red penny on advertising.

Moreover, the poll also indicated that 17% of respondents were undecided on Jim Slattery, if those votes break 50/50, that makes it a 48-44 race before a single Slattery TV commercial hits the airwaves.

Obviously Roberts has ample campaign funds, so this will still not be an easy race, but we're here to tell you that, come September, October and November, this will be one of the races the whole nation is watching.

Inspired by our friends at Kos and some of the other major liberal blogs, we'd like to take this opportunity to put forth a challenge to our readers. We're still a very young blog, so let's start off with a modest goal, say, $100 by the Sunday at 8 p.m. Use our ActBlue widget at right or head to our ActBlue page so that we can track donations.

Run, Roberts, Run!!!

Before the Democrats even sort out who their nominee will be for the United States Senate seat currently held by Pat Roberts, Roberts and the KS GOP have already set the tone for how this election cycle is going to go. Dirty.

First, Roberts' camp launched a radio ad attacking Jim Slattery for living in Washington, D.C. since 1994. The ad claims that Slattery was a lobbyist "Gucci loafers and all." No word on whether Slattery actually wears Gucci loafers.

Then, the pimple-faced operatives over at the KS GOP found the YouTube.



These two ads show us two things. One, the Kansas Republican Party and the Pat Roberts' campaign have no intentions of talking about issues. Two, they're scared.

Thankfully, the Kansas Democratic Party has shown they're not going to let Pat Roberts voting record and dedication to the failed policies of the Bush Administration be swept under the rug.



Nothing like the smell of political mud in the springtime. At least one party and one campaign is more interested in issues than childish, personal attacks.

Record Prices a the Pump = Record Profits for Big Oil

Big Oil has been announcing staggering first-quarter oil profits this week:

• Exxon Mobil: $10.9 billion
• Shell: $9.1 billion
• BP: $7.62 billion
• ConocoPhillips: $4.12 billion
• Chevron: announces tomorrow

And while these record profits help to line the pockets of Big Oil CEO's, those same CEO's line the pockets of rotten politicians like Pat Roberts and Todd Tiahrt.

And what are our pockets lined with? Well, mine feel about $50.00 lighter every time I fill up my gas tank. How about yours?

Wait...wait...what's this? I just found some complete bullshit in my pocket. I wonder who put that there?

“Any tax increase that Congress imposes on the oil companies would only be paid for by consumers through boosted prices at the gas pump.”

Thanks, Tiahrt. But a study by the Consumer Federation of America begs to differ:

The oil industry’s response to increased demand and higher prices suggests market manipulation. Rather than investing in additional refining and storage capacity to avoid shortfalls, the industry has systematically underinvested and there is thus a shortfall of over 3 million barrels per day in refining capacity. This is not the behavior of ordinary market participants in absence of collusion.

Thanks to Pat Roberts and Todd Tiahrt - who have been taking money from Big Oil for years and repaying them by voting for billions in tax breaks and incentives - we are stuck with empty pockets and no plans for a summer vacation.

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.