Voice For Liberty

Tag: Mike Pompeo

  • Raj Goyle fundraising plea: wrong facts

    Recently candidate for U.S. Congress from the fourth district of Kansas Raj Goyle sent out a fundraising email that distorts facts in order to stir up protectionist fears about the world economy.

    The email pokes fun at Republican rival Mike Pompeo using so-called facts that were shown to be false and misleading during the primary election campaign.

    The Goyle email mentions Kansans who “lost our job to Mike Pompeo’s factory in Mexico.” Goyle and his campaign believe that Kansas jobs were shipped to Mexico at Pompeo’s direction.

    What was found to be true is this: A company that Pompeo once managed created a small number of jobs in Mexico, at the request of a client. It was a condition of obtaining the contract.

    Doing that not only allowed a Kansas company to gain a new contract and new business, it also created more than twice as many jobs in Kansas.

    We have to recognize that manufacturers compete globally. Goyle may not recognize this, or he may not care.

    Free trade, too, benefits all parties. This transaction is evidence of this: creating new jobs in Mexico also created new jobs in Kansas. The choices made available to Pompeo’s company did not include placing all new jobs in Kansas. The choices were: A) some new jobs in Mexico and twice as many new jobs in Kansas. Or: B) no new jobs at all, anywhere.

    Goyle may not be aware of the competitive pressure that manufacturers face. After all, his job in the Kansas Legislature can’t be outsourced. But beyond not having an understanding of economics and the realities of the way the world works, we still ought to be able to expect one thing: that Raj Goyle will tell the truth.

    Other coverage: Goyle assails Pompeo over aviation jobs, outsourcing at Old Town labor rally.

  • Wink Hartman, Libertarian Party candidate?

    As reported by Rebecca Zepick on State of the State KS, former Republican Congressional candidate from the fourth district of Kansas Wink Hartman may be considering another run for that position, this time as nominee of the Kansas Libertarian Party.

    Zepick reported the news Saturday in the story Hartman Considering Re-Entering Race For Congress Against Pompeo and Goyle. She appeared later that day by telephone on KNSS Radio’s Jim Anderson Program, as did several others involved in this story.

    Anderson’s radio program proved to be a sounding board for several issues surrounding this race. For example: All the Republican Party candidates pledged, several times, to support the winner of the Republican primary. A caller to Anderson’s radio show brought up this point, and reminded Anderson — the host of the show — that he, too, made the pledge. Anderson became agitated, at one point threatening to cut off the caller.

    Anderson said that after a certain point, the campaign changed and became negative. Although he didn’t say so explicitly, it is clear that Anderson believes the negativity releases him from his pledge to support the winner of the primary. “I’m not supporting anybody right now,” he told listeners. He repeated this later in the show.

    After this, Kansas Libertarian Party Chair and candidate for governor Andrew Gray appeared as a guest, calling in by telephone. Gray said the key to Hartman joining the ticket is Hartman’s ability to — currently or in the future — fit in the “Libertarian mode.”

    Michael O’Donnell, a staff member in the Hartman campaign, then appeared by telephone and noted, as had Anderson, that the pledges to support the eventual primary election winner were made before the campaign became negative. True enough.

    But where O’Donnell missed the mark is in his assertion that the Pompeo campaign launched the first negative attacks, referring to information made available about Hartman’s Florida home ownership and his Florida voting record. Hartman’s recent Florida voting record was first reported by me on this site.

    While this information was not convenient to the Hartman campaign, it did not fall into the category of negative campaigning. This is the type of information voters are interested in. It was a matter of public record. It was all true.

    O’Donnell said that the Hartman campaign merely retaliated. But it did much more than that, launching some vicious attacks on Pompeo using the techniques of negative campaigns. Hartman’s campaign escalated the attacks, culminating with a charge against Pompeo that Hartman could not back up with convincing evidence.

    The pledges to support the primary winner were not made conditionally. They were absolute. In particular, candidates Anderson and Jean Schodorf need to step up and support Pompeo, the nominee. Evidently Paij Rutschman has made a financial contribution to the Pompeo campaign, but her website doesn’t endorse Pompeo.

    Looking forward, O’Donnell said that he wanted to make sure that Hartman didn’t appear as a “sore loser mentality.” Losing a primary and then running on a different ticket qualifies as just that: a sore loser. And Hartman lost the primary election in a big way. Hartman’s support declined in the polls as the election drew closer. From July 1 to July 28 his campaign did not receive a single dollar in campaign contributions other than those made by the candidate himself.

    Now Hartman may seek another round.

    It’s difficult to see what positive things Hartman would accomplish as the Libertarian Party candidate. His political views are barely compatible with those of libertarians. Hartman seems the type of Republican that pokes fun of libertarians — like me — for their absolute defense of personal liberty (including legalization of all drugs and prostitution), a peaceful and non-imperialist foreign policy, deregulation of marriage (not prohibiting gay marriage), a welcoming approach to immigrants (instead of the fortified border that Hartman advocated during the campaign), and uncompromising opposition to corporate welfare (as reported, Hartman will receive many millions in such welfare in conjunction with his Hartman Arena).

    Radical forms of libertarianism, including anarcho-capitalism or even the milder minarchism, seem beyond Hartman’s ability to grasp and understand.

    The Kansas Libertarian Party has a decision to make, too. Will it embrace a candidate — one clearly non-libertarian and blemished from running a negative campaign — who can contribute millions to its cause and give the party a big boost in coverage and recognition?

  • Pompeo, Congressional candidate, to address Pacyhderms

    The speaker at this Friday’s meeting (September 3rd) of the Wichita Pachyderm Club is candidate for the United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas Mike Pompeo.

    Pompeo, a Republican, is challenged by Reform party candidate Susan Ducey, Democrat Raj Goyle, and Libertarian David Moffett.

    All are welcome to attend Wichita Pachyderm Club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). You may park in the garage (enter west side of Broadway between Douglas and First Streets) and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. The Petroleum Club will stamp your parking ticket and the fee will be $1.00. Or, there is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • Roberts endorses Mike Pompeo

    This morning United States Senator Pat Roberts stopped by the Mike Pompeo campaign headquarters in east Wichita to endorse Pompeo in his campaign for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas.

    In his endorsement, Roberts said that Pompeo knows the airplane manufacturing business and how to meet a payroll. Roberts said that the general aviation industry is in a fight almost every session of Congress, and that Pompeo’s knowledge of this industry will be a plus in Washington.

    Roberts described Pompeo’s leading opponent — Democrat Raj Goyle — as having a “very liberal background.” Roberts described how some of his colleagues in the Senate on the other side of the aisle — meaning they are Democrats — would make conservative speeches in their home states, but vote the Democratic party line in Washington. He told the audience “We cannot afford to send anybody, no matter what they say in this campaign, to Washington when the first vote they will cast will be for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.”

    Roberts also said that Pompeo’s military background and experience means he understands the value of national security, which Roberts said is the first obligation of the federal government. He added that Pompeo would be a good match for the armed services committee.

    Roberts characterized this election as a “crossroads,” although he recognized this word is overused. Bureaucratic agencies in Washington are planning to further the Obama agenda without Congress, creating what he called a “fourth branch of government.”

    Their ultimate goal is to implement cap-and-trade energy regulation and taxation without the consent of Congress, Roberts told the audience. “Either we’re going to make decisions with the consent of the governed and send a message to Congress, or they’re going to make the decisions for us, and we’re going to have to live with it.”

    In his remarks, Pompeo said this is a unique election, as “we stand as a nation in a place we have not been in my lifetime,” citing the recent large federal deficit spending. This, he said, was his primary reason for deciding to run for Congress. He said that Goyle, his opponent, thinks about the world “in a way that’s very different from most Kansans” and has an East Coast philosophy and experiences that represent the Obama/Pelosi agenda. That agenda is not right for Kansas, he added.

    I asked about the upcoming lame duck session of Congress — the period after the November election and before newly-elected members take office: If there is a big win by Republicans, is there a danger that many just-defeated members will be voting on potentially important legislation?

    Roberts answered that there should not be a lame duck session. Specific areas of concern during the session include card check, immigration, raising taxes in a recession, and other things that would further the Obama agenda.

    He said that there are 125,000 more federal employees now than when Obama assumed office, and that their average salary is $125,000. These people are the fourth branch of government, he said, and they’re trying to get the Obama agenda passed despite — or around — Congress.

    A lame duck session with partisan political goals is not in the best interest of America, and there is a danger of that, he said.

    Besides Pompeo and Goyle other candidates in this race are Reform party candidate Susan Ducey and Libertarian David Moffett.

    Additional coverage is available at the Wichita Eagle and at State of the State KS, which includes video.

  • Goyle’s social security protection pledge is a tax increase pledge

    Raj Goyle, candidate for Congress, has pledged to protect social security. He doesn’t mention the tax increase that will be required to fulfill this pledge.

    Goyle’s opponents in the campaign for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas are Reform party candidate Susan Ducey, Libertarian David Moffett, and Republican Mike Pompeo.

    In his pledge, Goyle promises to “work for real solutions that strengthen Social Security for the long term.” Specifically, he pledges to oppose all efforts at privatization and raising the retirement age to 70.

    The problem is that after ruling out reforms like these, there’s not much left to do except to raise taxes. Evidence of this can be found in today’s Wichita Eagle, which carries an editorial from the Los Angeles Times. Titled Ignore fearmongering on Social Security, it mostly looks back at opposition to the formation of the Social Security system 75 years ago.

    But the article recognizes that the system needs “minor adjustments” to remain solvent. The authors write: “Economists say that raising the income ceiling on the payroll tax, applying the Social Security tax to nonwage income or adding a modest increase to the payroll tax could add decades to the health of the Social Security trust fund.”

    Each of these policy changes is a tax increase. The article lists no other solutions than these.

    These recommendations are not Goyle’s. He hasn’t said what he would do to place the system on a sound financial footing.

    But there’s not much that we can do except raise taxes if we want to keep the current system.

    We need to do something quickly. Social Security will pay out more in benefits this year than it receives in contributions from payroll taxes. It had been thought that this milestone would not be reached until 2017 or later.

    There are those who cite the Social Security trust fund and its large balance of over $2 trillion as evidence that the system is doing well. But as Thomas Sowell explains, the trust fund is merely an illusion. The money in the fund has already been spent by government agencies. The only way they can pay back the fund is through tax revenues.

    It’s not as though Republicans are confronting the problem head-on. One of the few officeholders willing to do so is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who is ranking member of the House Budget Committee. His Roadmap for America’s future is a plan that recognizes the seriousness of the current situation, not only with Social Security, but in other areas of the federal budget.

    His recommendations, specific as they are, cause consternation among some Republicans who would rather talk about problems in general terms rather than specifics. A recent Washington Post profile of Ryan referred to “… many Republican colleagues, who, even as they praise Ryan for his doggedness, privately consider the Roadmap a path to electoral disaster. Unlike most politicians of either party, he doesn’t speak generically about reducing spending, but he does acknowledge the very real cuts in popular programs that will be required to bring down the debt.”

    Also: “House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has alternately praised Ryan and emphasized that his ideas are not those of the party.”

    The fact that frank talk about the budget and government spending might be an electoral disaster is a bad sign for America.

  • For Raj Goyle, most money comes from outside Kansas

    In the race for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas between Democrat Raj Goyle and Republican Mike Pompeo, there’s a distinct difference in the nature and source of campaign contributions for the two candidates. So far, 70 percent of Goyle’s campaign contributions have come from donors outside Kansas, with Washington DC being the metropolitan area with the highest source of contributions.

    Analysis of campaign contributions may be found at OpenSecrets.org, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics. The following tables are based on data through the last comprehensive reporting period, which ended June 30, 2010.

    As of that date, Goyle had raised $1,255,403, and Pompeo had raised $935,084.

    The distribution between in-state and out-of-state donors is this:

                    In Kansas       Out of Kansas
Raj Goyle     $306,151 (30%)    $721,322 (70%)
Mike Pompeo   $646,572 (79%)    $167,743 (21%)

    During the primary election, a frequent criticism of Pompeo made by his opponents was that he was a “Washington insider,” and that was where much of his support and campaign funds were coming from. When looking at the metropolitan areas that contributions have come from, we see that little of Pompeo’s campaign contributions came from Washington, while Washington is the single largest source of Goyle’s funds, outpacing Wichita, the dominant population center in the fourth Congressional district of Kansas:

    For Raj Goyle:
Metro Area                  Total
WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA-WV   $195,827
WICHITA                   $169,851
NEW YORK                  $109,385
KANSAS CITY, MO-KS        $105,400
SAN FRANCISCO              $35,552

For Mike Pompeo:
Metro Area                  Total
WICHITA                   $585,617
CHICAGO                    $20,400
WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA-WV    $18,326
KANSAS CITY, MO-KS         $17,250
DALLAS                     $11,950

    An area of concern for some voters is the influence of political action committees (PACs). In the primary election, Pompeo’s opponents made frequent charges that he was beholden to PAC money. Looking again at data from OpenSecrets, we see that Goyle has received $76,250 in contributions from sources that OpenSecrets classifies as PACs. The figure for Pompeo is $28,000.

    OpenSecrets also classifies contributions based on the industry of the donor. For each candidate, here are the top five industries that made contributions:

    For Raj Goyle:
Sector                   Total
Lawyers & Lobbyists    $120,538
Finance/Insur/RealEst  $104,500
Ideology/Single-Issue  $100,629
Other                   $75,094
Health                  $72,403

For Mike Pompeo:
Sector                   Total
Finance/Insur/RealEst  $102,993 
Energy/Nat Resource     $62,850 
Construction            $35,950 
Other                   $35,700 
Lawyers & Lobbyists     $33,150

    In the Republican primary, Pompeo’s opponents charged that he was too close to lobbyists, but this category made up relatively little of his campaign dollars. If lobbyist contributions are a concern for voters, this industry category is the leading source of contributions for Goyle.

    An area where Goyle does better than Pompeo is in what OpenSecrets calls “quality of disclosure,” meaning how well the contributions include the names of donors and their occupations and employers. For Goyle, 3.1 percent of the contributions (based on dollar amounts) have “incomplete” or “none” for these pieces of data. For Pompeo, the figure is 11.8 percent.

    These reports include contributions made only through June 30, 2010. The focus at that time was the primary election, more for Republicans than Democrats, as Goyle faced an inexperienced and under-funded candidate, although at one time Goyle trailed in a poll. Now that the general election is the focus for both candidates, the characteristics and distribution of contributions may change.

  • Kansas fourth Congressional district poll released

    The first public poll covering the race for United States Congress from the Kansas fourth district shows a close race between the two leading contenders, with Republican Mike Pompeo edging Democrat Raj Goyle by 49 percent to 42 percent.

    Libertarian Party candidate David Moffett received four percent support, and Reform party candidate Susan Ducey received one percent. Five percent were undecided.

    The poll was released by KWCH Television in Wichita and SurveyUSA. The poll’s margin of sampling error was not given, but previous polls by this firm and similar to this have had a margin of sampling error of about four percentage points.

    Pompeo receives strong support from young voters. For those under 50 years old, Pompeo leads 59 percent to 28 percent, while for voters over 50, he trails Goyle by 41 percent to 51 percent.

    Men favor Pompeo 53 percent to 38 percent, while women favor Goyle 46 percent to 44 percent.

    Those who attend church regularly, those with pro-life beliefs, and gun owners favored Pompeo. Democrats, Independents, those with self-described moderate beliefs, and voters with incomes less than $50,000 favored Goyle.

    Important dates for voters to remember are these:

    October 13: Election offices begin mailing advance voting ballots

    October 18: Last day to register to vote or change party affiliation for the general election

    October 27: Last day for election office to mail advance voting applications

    October 29: Last day for election office to mail advance voting ballots

    November 2: Election day

    Kansas fourth Congressional district pollKansas fourth Congressional district poll, August 12, 2010

  • Kansas polls and election results

    In the hotly contested Kansas Republican primary elections this year, polls generated a lot of interest. In two Kansas Congressional districts, independent polls did a good job of predicting the vote for all candidates except the two winners, and a candidate’s own poll may have been undermined by large voter turnout.

    In a KWCH/SurveyUSA poll of the Kansas first Congressional district, the poll accurately (within the margin of sampling error) predicted the outcomes for all candidates except for victor Tim Huelskamp. The survey predicted 24 percent of the vote for him, and the actual vote was 35 percent. This poll had three candidates tied, so it didn’t predict a winner.

    The same group also polled the fourth Congressional district. For three candidates — Jim Anderson, Wink Hartman, and Jean Schodorf, the poll predicted the exact percentage that the candidates actually received. The exception was winner Mike Pompeo. The poll predicted he would win and receive 31 percent of the vote. He did win, and his actual vote total was 39 percent.

    An election eve poll by political consulting firm Singularis had mixed results in the fourth district, but is notable in that it predicted eventual winner Pompeo’s vote total closely. The poll indicated 37 percent of the vote, and the actual was 39 percent.

    In the fourth district, Schodorf released four polls that her campaign commissioned. Each poll showed her support increasing, until in the third poll, she took the lead. In the fourth poll her lead increased.

    When comparing this poll to actual election results, we find that Schodorf’s poll overstated her actual performance by six percentage points. The performance of Anderson and Hartman were understated by six and seven points. For winner Pompeo, the final Schodorf poll understated his performance by 13 percentage points. (These polls did not include candidate Paij Rutschman.)

    In a conversation before the election with Schodorf’s pollster, he indicated several reasons why the numbers in her surveys were different than the KWCH/SurveyUSA poll numbers.

    One difference between the polls was the source of the voters called by the pollsters. The KWCH/SurveyUSA polls started with a list of households. To determine likely voters, the pollster would ask respondents if they were going to vote. Schodorf’s polls used voter lists as a source, calling only on voters who had a history of voting in August primary elections.

    Because many people look at voting as a positive civic duty, it is thought that people will overstate their actual tendency to vote, and this is a reason why polls might decide to use voter history as a selection device, especially in primary elections where turnout is generally low. It is standard practice of campaigns to use voter lists in their voter contact efforts.

    But this year voter turnout was high. The Wichita Eagle reported voter turnout in Sedgwick County — home to about 71 percent of the population in the fourth district — was 25 percent. That’s higher than the 19 percent turnout predicted statewide, and higher than in most primary elections.

    Considering Republican voters, the Sedgwick County election office reports there are 104,558 registered Republicans, and 49,967 Republican ballots were cast. That indicates a turnout of almost 48 percent, considering Sedgwick County only.

    By calling only those with a history of primary voting, many people who voted in this election would not have been sampled by polls based on voter history.

    The Schodorf polls were conducted by live operators, while the KWCH/SurveyUSA polls were automated response. This can lead to a difference in the types of people that respond to the poll.

    In the Republican Senate primary between Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt, the final KWCH/SurveyUSA poll had Moran ahead by 49 to 39 percent, with eight percent undecided. The actual totals were Moran winning with 50 percent to Tiahrt’s 45 percent, so that poll understated Tiahrt’s total by six percentage points while correctly choosing the winner.

  • Kansas primary election analysis

    At State of the State KS, Fort Hays State University Political Science Professor Chapman Rackaway contributes analysis of the statewide and Congressional races.

    Rackaway notes that the Kansas first and fourth Congressional districts were expected to be very close races, but both Tim Huelskamp and Mike Pompeo won going away with large margins.

    The big message of the night, he writes, is this: “[Jerry] Moran’s win in the Senate primary suggests that the Kansas GOP prefers a more centrist message. But Moran’s win was an anomaly. Kobach, Pompeo, Brownback, and Huelskamp suggest that the state has taken a turn to the right.”

    At National Review Online, Denis Boyles, author of the insightful book — despite its name — on Kansas politics Superior, Nebraska: The Common Sense Values of America’s Heartland, contributes (Mostly) Good News from Kansas. he starts by laying out the essential facts of the Kansas political landscape: “In Kansas, local politics is often made confusing by the powerful presence of very liberal RINOs [Republicans In Name Only]. They constitute a third party, and their half-century of influence has done some nasty work, most recently insuring the victory, twice, of Kathleen Sebelius.”

    Boyles is enthusiastic about the first Congressional district result: “But for people who like their conservatism straight up — no glass, no ice — the best news may be the victory of state Sen. Tim Huelskamp.”

    About the fourth district, Boyles wrote: “In Tiahrt’s district, a very liberal Democrat named Raj Goyle will spend a lot of his own money to try to defeat the GOP’s Mike Pompeo, a local businessman with a military career (he graduated first in his class at West Point) behind him. The Wichita newspaper, a McClatchy thing, has always been loyal to Goyle. Fortunately, fewer and fewer readers will notice.”

    But for the Kansas statehouse, the picture is not as bright. He presents a message he received from an unnamed Kansas legislator, who wrote: “Overall though, I am very disappointed … we did not change the left-wing Republican margin in the House.”

    Boyles concluded: “It’s true that the state senate and the house are both at the mercy of liberal Republicans. RINOs really do tear up the landscape.”

    For results of statewide races and other state offices, click on 2010 unofficial primary election results at Kansas Secretary of State.