Voice For Liberty

Tag: Elections

  • From Pachyderm: Wichita school board candidates

    From Pachyderm: Wichita school board candidates

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: Candidates for the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district. This was recorded October 4, 2019.

    In board district 3, incumbent Ernestine Krehbiel is running unopposed, so this event did not include that district.

    In board district 4, the candidates are James W. Kilpatrick, Jr. and Stan Reeser (incumbent).

    For the at-large board district, which covers the entire school district, the candidates are Sheril Logan (incumbent) and Joseph Shepard.

    Of note, the boundaries of the Wichita school district are not the same as the City of Wichita boundaries. Substantial parts of the city lie in other districts such as the Maize, Goddard, Andover, and Derby school districts, while the Wichita school district includes all or parts of Bel Aire, Kechi, and Park City.

    Also, while candidates for a specific school board district must live within that district and represent that district, voters in the entire Wichita school district will see the candidates for all board districts on their ballot, and may vote in each contest.

    The district offers this map.

    Shownotes

    From left: Joseph Shepard, Stan Reeser, James Kilpatrick, and Sheril Logan.
  • From Pachyderm: Wichita mayoral candidates

    From Pachyderm: Wichita mayoral candidates

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: Wichita mayoral candidates Jeff Longwell and Brandon Whipple. This audio presentation or podcast was recorded on September 27, 2019. Todd Johnson is the moderator.

    Shownotes

    From left: Brandon Whipple, Jeff Longwell, and moderator Todd Johnson.
  • Kansas Republicans buck longtime conservative voices

    Kansas Republicans buck longtime conservative voices

    In deciding to forego a presidential caucus or primary, Kansas Republicans act contrary to mainstream conservative thought.

    After several states (including Kansas) decided to cancel or not schedule primary elections or caucuses, two noted conservative publications criticized these decisions. From the editors of National Review, founded by William F. Buckley:

    The president says he has nothing to do with these decisions, but also that holding primaries he is sure to win would be a waste of money. The susceptibility of this argument to abuse by a ruler ought to preclude its being made.

    The vast majority of Republicans approve of what Trump has done on taxes, judges, regulation, and most other issues, though they also support electoral competition. Trump would be likely to win the primaries handily, demonstrating his strength among Republicans while the Democrats tussle. His allies should want to see that, rather than make it seem as though he is too weak to face competition. But regardless of how it works out for him, Republican primary voters are capable of making the decision among Trump and the others — who so far include William Weld and Joe Walsh as well as Sanford. They deserve to be able to do so. 1

    In its op-ed, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal concluded with this:

    When Mr. Trump won the GOP nomination in 2016, he disrupted a long tradition of Republican leadership and policy. He rejected GOP positions on trade and entitlement reform. In chief respects he abandoned the party’s hawkish stance on foreign policy. On guns and health care he has taken multiple positions, sometimes in the same week.

    And — how to put it delicately? — Mr. Trump has introduced a new standard of presidential behavior, by turns abrasive, funny and appalling. These and related matters are far from settled in Republican circles, and it seems unwise to prevent the rank-and-file from debating them. If Mr. Trump is as popular with Republicans as the polls say, he has nothing to fear from letting voters show it in primaries. 2

    The arguments advanced by these two stalwarts of conservative thought and opinion aren’t welcomed by some Kansas Republicans, especially 150 that are in leadership positions and voted to abstain from holding a caucus. After I shared these articles on Facebook, the reaction was almost universally negative. The consensus is that I should leave the Republican Party and find somewhere else to call home so I can vote in a caucus or primary. That doesn’t seem conducive to winning elections, and Kansas Republicans need to be concerned with winning, having lost the governorship, one congressional district, and barely winning another.

    I asked one person “And are you trying to attract people to the Republican Party, or drive them away?” The response was, “I would just as soon the Republican party would avoid attracting people such as yourself.”

    Some expressed concern over the cost of a caucus or primary election, but I wasn’t aware that we should be so concerned about the cost of democracy and its elections. On this issue, I repeat the observation of the National Review editors: “The president says he has nothing to do with these decisions, but also that holding primaries he is sure to win would be a waste of money. The susceptibility of this argument to abuse by a ruler ought to preclude its being made.” (emphasis added)

    There are some who, correctly, note that the Kansas Republican Party had not scheduled a caucus, so there was no caucus to cancel. Therefore, no harm. Lack of a caucus is a non-issue. This type of over-lawyerly reasoning might appeal to some, but it is a distinction without a difference and solidifies power in the hands of party insiders.

    Some noted that the challengers to Trump for the Republican nomination don’t have any chance of winning. Well, we hold elections on a schedule, not based on the popularity of a candidate or incumbent.

    Just as important, we don’t know who all the Republican challengers to Trump might be. And, something could change between now and March when a caucus or primary might be held. Just this week serious allegations have been made against the president and his conduct in office. Whether these are true or not, the chaotic and volatile nature of Trump and his administration means there is a very real risk that something seriously damaging could emerge before next year. Kansas Republicans ought to insist on having a voice in choosing an alternative nominee.

    Of note: Next year Kansas Democrats plan to hold a presidential primary using ranked-choice voting. It is no small irony that as Kansas Democrats apply new methods to vote and choose candidates, Kansas Republicans regress to the smoke-filled room.

    —
    Notes

    1. Let Republican Voters Choose. September 12, 2019. Available at https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/republican-presidential-primaries-let-voters-choose/. ↩
    2. Don’t Cancel the GOP Primaries: Trump has nothing to fear if he’s as popular as the polls say. September 17, 2019. Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-cancel-the-gop-primaries-11568753944. ↩
  • From Pachyderm: Wichita City Council Candidates

    From Pachyderm: Wichita City Council Candidates

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: Wichita city council candidates from districts 4 and 5. This audio presentation or podcast was recorded on September 20, 2019. Todd Johnson is the moderator.

    Shownotes

  • Wichita mayoral debate

    Wichita mayoral debate

    Details of the Wichita baseball stadium land deal were an issue at the first Wichita mayoral debate.

    The Wichita first mayoral debate of the general election season between Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell and Brandon Whipple was characterized by the Wichita Eagle headline, “Wichita mayor candidates accuse each other of lying in first debate.” But I noticed a story told by the mayor that sounds like a good deal, but deserves scrutiny.

    It has to do with the four acres of land sold for $1 per acre to the owners of the new Wichita baseball team. The controversy is that the fact of the sale was not known by the public until shortly before the council was asked to approve the deal. As reported by the Wichita Eagle:

    The City Council sold four acres of public land for $1 an acre in a deal where some city staff members acknowledged they didn’t follow city guidelines for selling city property.

    “We can always communicate better,” Longwell said. “Certainly, it was a learning opportunity for many of those at City Hall that had been working on that bill for a long time.

    “But let me tell you what really didn’t get reported. The previous stadium had a contract where the team paid us $25,000 a year to play there. The new team is going to be paying us up to $600,000 a year. I’ll negotiate four acres away every day for $600,000 every year that we can put into the Wichita city coffers and all of the growth that it’s going to bring that river corridor.

    “So at the end of the day, what people are not arguing is how good the deal is. They’re just complaining about the communications, and we can improve that.” 1

    Let’s look at “how good the deal is.” The money Longwell referenced is called a “management fee.” More commonly, a payment like this is called “rent.” It’s paid to the city by the new baseball team annually. Here’s the contract language: “Beginning with the first year of the Initial Term, the Team will pay annual fees of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000) per year, with an increase to be determined every five years based on the average increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers over the previous five years.” 2

    I’m not sure how to model the calculation described in this agreement, but one attempt showed that inflation would have to be nearly four percent per year in order to reach an annual payment of $600,000 at the time of last adjustment. For reference, the average inflation rate for the last ten years is about 1.6 percent.

    But the inflation rate doesn’t really matter, as the purpose of a payment that increases with inflation is so that its value remains constant in real dollars. So whatever the annual management fee years from now, it should be worth, in real terms, its value today, which is $350,000.

    Click for larger.

    Then: No matter what the management fee paid by the new team, some of it goes to the Wingnuts, the old team. Nearby is a table from the agreement between the city and the Wingnuts. 3 The $2,200,000 the city needs to pay is more than the first six years of management fees the new team will pay.

    One more thing: In order the get these management fees, the city had to build a stadium costing some $75 million. The management fees, after the Wingnuts are paid off, represent a rate of return of one-half of one percent.

    The mayor mentioned that a benefit would be “all of the growth that it’s going to bring that river corridor.” For now, that growth exists as plans only. I hope the river corridor is a commercial success, but the city’s experience in development is mixed.

    —
    Notes

    1. Tidd, Jason. “Wichita mayor candidates accuse each other of lying in first debate.” *Wichita Eagle,* September 10, 2019. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article234948907.html. ↩
    2. Ballpark facility use and management agreement between the city of Wichita, Kansas and Yes2No, LLC, a Massachuetts limited liability company authorized to do business in Kansas. October 12, 2018. ↩
    3. Agenda for September 11, 2018: “The total settlement amount of $2,200,000 will be paid over time by annual payments from 2018 to 2026 from the first six (6) years of management agreement payments paid by the new AAA baseball team.” ↩
  • Kansas Republicans should have their say

    Kansas Republicans should have their say

    Kansas Republicans should insist on having a voice in choosing the next Republican presidential nominee.

    The Kansas Republican Party has decided to deny giving rank-and-file party members a voice in choosing its presidential nominee for next year. In a release, the party says : “The Kansas Republican Party will not organize a Caucus for the 2020 election because President Trump is an elected incumbent from the Republican Party.”

    The release gives a reason: “Every time an elected incumbent Republican has run for re-election, except in 1912, the Kansas Republican Party state convention adopted a resolution instructing all delegates to vote for the elected incumbent. This has been the same standard for the Kansas Republican Party dating back to President Lincoln’s reelection ”

    This reasoning is undemocratic (small “d”).

    Kansas Republicans should have either a caucus or a primary election. To have neither, simply because the incumbent president is a Republican, deprives members of the Kansas GOP of a chance to make a decision.

    Yes, President Trump is popular with Republicans, very much so. But not everyone agrees. There are Republicans, myself included, who would prefer someone else than Donald Trump as the party’s nominee. Already, there are several credible candidates. Perhaps there will be more. For the Kansas Republican Party to assume that Trump would win the caucus or primary smacks of elitism. Party elders know best who should receive our convention delegates, it says. The vote of the people does not matter — this is the message from Kansas GOP leadership.

    I can hear the critics: “None of these have a chance to beat Trump.” That’s hardly the point. But these candidates are serious and have achieved success in politics. Some have been members of Congress and/or governors.

    Between now and March 2020 — when a caucus or primary would likely be held — things could change. Kansas Republicans need to position the state to have a voice in who is the next Republican nominee for president.

    Further, to give everyone an equal chance to have a voice, Kansas Republicans should abandon the caucus and hold a primary election. Participating in the caucus is difficult. Many people are not able to attend and cast their vote. No matter the cost to the party, Kansas should seek broad participation in its presidential nominating process. That means asking the people to make a selection, and it means a primary election instead of a caucus.

  • Wichita mayoral primary election, August 6, 2019

    Wichita mayoral primary election, August 6, 2019

    Here are an interactive map and table of results of the Wichita mayoral primary election, August 6, 2019. Click here to access.

    Click to access the interactive visualization.
  • From Pachyderm: David Kensinger

    From Pachyderm: David Kensinger

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: David Kensinger, President of Kensinger and Associates. His topic was “The Early Returns of the 2020 Presidential Election.” This audio presentation was recorded on August 2, 2019.

    David Kensinger.
  • Trump’s Bush League Challenge

    Trump’s Bush League Challenge

    If President Trump is going to exceed his presidential standing over his predecessors, he has to overcome his Bush league challenge, writes Karl Peterjohn.

    Trump’s Bush League Challenge
    By Karl Peterjohn

    President Trump’s government closing battle is déjà vu all over again but not in the way the liberal media is covering it. If President Trump is going to exceed his presidential standing over his predecessors, he has to overcome his Bush league challenge. This Bush 41 challenge and comparison goes back almost 30 years ago.

    In 1988 George H.W. Bush repeatedly promised, “…read my lips, no new taxes.” This became his signature campaign issue as then Vice President Bush used this promise to defeat his northeastern liberal Democrat opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, in a landslide. Bush won 40 states with 426 electoral college votes including wins in states like, California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut. Bush won with over 7 million more votes than Dukakis.

    A key reason for this success was Bush’s read my lips promise. Bush repeated this promise from the convention until the end of that campaign. Bush’s convention acceptance speech repeatedly promised to reject the Democrat-controlled House and Senate demands for higher taxes. A couple of years later the liberal media demands for compromise, combined with fraudulent congressional promises to end fiscal gridlock, consigned Bush’s “read my lips” promise to the congressional rubbish bin. Outside the D.C. beltway, “read my lips” became a political boat anchor around the Bush 41 presidency when he flipped. The swamp was delighted when spending soared. Despite federal taxes being raised, the federal debt, both on the books and off, continued to grow.

    In 1992, “read my lips, no new taxes” became a ready source of political ridicule, first from the liberal media that had previously demanded “compromis,” to end “gridlock,” and then from the GOP primary challenger Bush faced, conservative Reaganite Pat Buchanan, and even more so in the fall campaign from Democrats. The “read my lips” fiscal flip-flop became another reason for unhappy independents to leave Bush, and many flocked to Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy. Bush received over 10 million fewer votes in 1992 than he had in 1988. Contrast that vote shift with Bill Clinton receiving over 1.8 million more votes than the hapless Dukakis.

    The only Republican congressional leader opposing this GOP cave on raising federal taxes during the Bush 41 presidency was a young Georgia congressman, then GOP house whip, Newt Gingrich, who denounced this tax hike “compromise” and was roundly blasted by the liberal media, GOP moderates under Bush, and in the congress, for his trouble. Gingrich’s position did resonate with his congressional back-bench colleagues, and soon Gingrich moved up becoming the GOP minority leader in the house. The speakership arrived for Gingrich a couple of years later. Bush’s switch was fiscal surrender that the Democrat congressional majorities happily approved, and the soon to be ex-president Bush signed into law.

    “Build the wall,” is Donald Trump’s equivalent of “read my lips.” If he is truly going to go down as an outstanding president, President Trump cannot cave on this campaign promise. For many Trump voters, immigration and border control is their premier issue. Now that the federal courts immigration meddling, combined with the caravan invasion from the south this issue is bigger than it was in 2016. These Trump voters will walk away if he fails the Bush challenge and reneges on his campaign promise.

    That is why the leftist dominated House of Representatives, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s control, is adamant that Trump cave. The wall issue is the political key to breaking the Trump coalition of working and middle-class voters who believe that borders matter, and that illegal immigration must cease. This is the top issue going into the 2020 presidential contest.

    The argument against real border security, whether it is walls, fences, immovable barriers, or whatever other euphemism being sought by the budget negotiators is the key. Democrats voted for it just a couple of years ago, but Trump campaigned and won on it. Walls work around the world, and the best-known case is the way Israel stopped the Palestinian Islamic terrorists Intifada that was infiltrating terrorists out of the west bank, or Gaza.

    The White House has fences. Walls/fences/barriers surround the Obama and Pelosi residences. I suspect they keep their doors locked too. Time will tell if President Trump is able to succeed in locking in his top campaign commitment, or he will follow in the footsteps where his 41st predecessor gave away his critical campaign key to his opponents.