The candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas will participate in a forum this Friday in El Dorado.
The event is sponsored by the Great American Forum. The date is Friday, April 23 at 7:00 pm, at the El Dorado Senior Center, 210 E. 2nd Avenue, El Dorado, KS.
Questions may be submitted in advance my email at questions@gacpac.com. For more information, contact Ben Sauceda at 316-640-2065 or GreatAmericanForum@gmail.com.
By Wendy Aylworth, kansasgrandmother@cox.net.
Would you like to be our new Congressman or Congresswoman? According to the political action group Independence Caucus (aka icaucus) you can be, even if you have no political track record. Can you defeat a six-term incumbent, even if he outspends you 6 to 1? According to icaucus you can — all you need is 1,000 grassroots volunteers in your Congressional District. You don’t need lots of money, you only need the icaucus methods.[1]
From the Independence Caucus Big Stick Tea Party Facebook page:
The Independence Caucus began as a group of volunteers in Utah who helped in the election of Jason Chaffetz. Despite being outspent by more than a 6 to 1 margin, through the efforts of some of the early iCaucus members, Chaffetz, with no real political track record, defeated a 6-term, incumbent who was endorsed by the local Republican machine (the dominant party in Utah), the two sitting senators, and President Bush.[2]
Believing the above, everyday citizens nationwide, with no political experience, have launched campaigns to become members of Congress.
Here in the 4th Congressional District of Kansas the members of icaucus seem convinced they can elect to Congress a man with no political or campaign experience. They believe Jason Chaffetz, a common, ordinary citizen with no political experience, has already defeated a 6 term incumbent Congressman and the “Republican machine” in another state, and they can therefore duplicate this success in Kansas.
But is the above story of Jason Chaffetz’ success accurate?
(1) Was Jason Chaffetz a common, ordinary citizen “with no real political track record?”
(2) Did Jason Chaffetz defeat a 6 term incumbent in the general election?
(3) Was a man with no political experience really able to defeat a powerful Democrat?
(4) Did Jason Chaffetz defeat the local “Republican machine?”
(5) Can the events of the 3rd Congressional District of Utah, where Chaffetz was elected, be duplicated here in Kansas’ 4th Congressional District?
Raised in a wealthy, politically connected family, his father’s first wife was Kitty Dukakis, who next married Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democrat nominee for U.S. President. His half brother is former actor, John Kerry aide, and Democrat National Political Director John Dukakis.[3]
Prior to running for Congress, Chaffetz had “a resume bursting at the seams with political experience.”[4]
Chaffetz had already been a campaign worker on local campaigns, and, twenty-two years ago, while playing football at BYU, was Utah co-chairman for Michael Dukakis’s 1988 campaign for U.S. President.
Following his graduation from BYU, Jason Chaffetz took a corporate job with one of the largest employers in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District, where, in 1990, he assisted then former President Ronald Reagan in a meeting tour with top Utah dignitaries. Through participating in these high-level private meetings he became personally acquainted with the key influential people in the state. His skills and charismatic personality soon raised him to the position of Managing Director of Marketing in the Corporation.
Eager to get back into Politics, Chaffetz was selected Campaign Manager of Jon Huntsman for Governor of Utah election campaign, serving two years before becoming the Governor’s Chief of Staff.[5] In these positions Chaffetz nurtured his ties with the state’s most important insiders, and began contemplating a run for Congress.[6] When Chaffetz left his position with the Governor’s office it was speculated that he might challenge the lone Democrat Congressman from Utah in whose district he lived.
Chaffetz returned to the private sector and Nu Skin Corporation, having decided against challenging Democrat Congressman Matheson of Utah’s 2nd Congressional District. Chaffetz took the politically expedient path, knowing that he was not yet ready to take on an incumbent Democrat, even in the most Republican and most conservative state of the Union. Instead Chaffetz looked for a district where his chances would be stronger. He chose the 3rd Congressional District of Utah, where he did not live,[7] as the location where he would make his run for Congress. Located in this district were BYU and the Nu Skin Corporation, and, best of all, no strong Democrat — only an unpopular Republican Congressman.[8]
In the 3rd District Chaffetz had the opportunity to defeat the incumbent Republican by working behind the scenes within the Republican Party structure. He could gather the votes of the Party decision makers long before any public election, and even end the career of the incumbent Republican Congressman without ever going to a public election.
Yes, Chaffetz defeated a 6 term incumbent — but that incumbent was not a Democrat.
Three years in advance he knew both his district and his opponent and devised a long-term strategy. Appointed by the Governor to a Trustee position with the largest public college in the district, he also served as President of BYU’s Cougar Club giving him name recognition and a resume with nearly every college graduate in this BYU-dominated area.[9] He developed personal relationships with Republican Party Committeemen and women, and with the Republican Delegates whose votes he would need. His supporters lobbied party delegates for months prior to the vote.[10] On Jan 1, 2007 Chaffetz made his announcement and quickly received campaign contributions both from in-state and out-of-state sources, PACs and the Huntsman Corporation of the Governor’s family.[11]
Political parties in Utah use a unique method for selecting which candidate will receive party backing. In a Congressional election the nominee is not chosen via a public primary, as in Kansas. Instead, each party holds a State Convention and party delegates choose the nominee.[12] A primary election occurs only if neither of the two final candidates receives at least 60% of the vote. Chaffetz’ two years of behind-the-scenes work, his charisma, unique background, and terrific speaking ability all paid off at the convention where he succeeded in knocking out all challengers and very nearly defeating the incumbent. On the last ballot Chaffetz fell 9 votes short of the 60% total he needed to oust the incumbent, receiving 59.5%.[13]
Chaffetz had spent only $150 per delegate, one-sixth that of incumbent Chris Cannon, and nearly defeated him without a primary.[14]
A key advantage Chaffetz had in this particular district is the candidate winning the Republican primary is widely considered the winner of the general election.[15] This characteristic of the 3rd District is one reason Chaffetz selected it — fewer than 25% of the population are registered Democrats.[16] The lack of Democrats and the very Conservative electorate means Republicans do not need to concern themselves with choosing a nominee capable of attracting moderate or Democrat voters to defeat the Democrat. They merely choose the Republican most appealing to themselves.[17]
This key factor, Chaffetz knew, would make it possible for him, a man who had not before run for public office, to obtain the nomination. The key problem of needing to face Democrat opposition was virtually non-existent here in this ONE district out of all of the districts in the nation. In fact in Utah County, the seat of the district, only 1% of the voters were registered Democrats.[18]
With his army of volunteers, and top-notch campaign staff, the lobbying now turned to run a public campaign.[19]
Chaffetz gained local and state endorsements important to the voters in this district, and his friend Republican Governor Jon Huntsman stated he would wait until after the primary to endorse a candidate, leaving the incumbent hanging.[20]
With steady, focused work the Chaffetz campaign was free to use any and all of the inadequacies of incumbent Cannon and his voting record against him, without fear of the material creating a Democrat win in the general election (should Cannon win the primary) as there were simply not enough Democrats in the entire district to defeat even a weakened Republican candidate.[21]
Chaffetz prevailed in the primary and was hailed nationwide as the new Congressman of the 3rd Congressional District of Utah having spent half what the incumbent did.[22] In a few months Chaffetz would easily defeat the Democrat 66 to 28 percent[23] having spent ten times more money.[24]
Can the lessons of how to run a grassroots Congressional campaign be applied to other Congressional Districts in the U.S.? Certainly; provided they possess the demographics and political structure of Utah’s 3rd Congressional District.
Footnotes are on the following page.
By Eric O’Keefe.
We may never fully know the damage that will be done by the massive health care bill Congress passed on Sunday, but one thing is certain: It will lead to lower-quality care at higher costs.
Dozens of new health boards will come on line in the next few years, as bureaucrats gradually take control of our health care system. Who knows how many bright college students will decide to avoid medical careers because they don’t want to follow orders from these bureaucrats?
As alarming as some of the bill’s provisions are, what’s more dangerous is the arrogance this Congress demonstrated.
The House of Representatives used to represent; now it rules.
This health care reform was widely debated for a year, and it became less popular by the month. A weekend poll by Rasmussen Reports showed the depth of that unpopularity, with only 26 percent strongly supporting the reform and 45 percent strongly opposing it.
How can elected representatives defy the considered will of the people?
Because defiance becomes an easy habit when you know that there is almost no chance you will lose your next election. The loss of accountability enables public servants to indulge their own lust for power. As Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
If we do not address the problem of a permanent class of rulers in Congress, we will watch Congress bankrupt the country and destroy the republic.
Most members of the House represent specially drawn districts where one party dominates. As a result, these members face no primary election challengers and only nominal competition in the general election.
Congressional entrenchment is not a product of popularity; Congress has routinely been unpopular the past 30 years. A February survey by Rasmussen Reports showed approval of Congress at a historic low, with only 10 percent rating their performance as good or excellent. Rasmussen also found 63 percent favor replacing the entire Congress.
Unfortunately, that will not happen. Even during this year’s extreme political turmoil, you can be confident that over 80 percent of House incumbents will win yet again in November. In most modern US elections, more than 95 percent of House incumbents are reelected.
The reason is a century of entrenchment by incumbents looking out for themselves. They have large staffs and budgets to run a permanent campaign; they have pork and patronage to distribute at taxpayer expense; and they enacted campaign restrictions to hobble challengers.
With mostly one-party districts, incumbents own their seats unless they face serious primary challenges. But party organizations controlled by incumbents work to discourage primary challenges, regardless of the performance of the incumbent. In fact, only eight incumbents have lost their primary races in the past three elections combined – that’s a renomination rate of over 99 percent.
To regain congressional accountability, we must work outside the political parties to set the standard of acceptable behavior, and to enforce it in primary elections.
In 2006 and 2008, Democrats won the close House races and took control of Congress because voters were tired of big-spending Republicans. In 2010 voters will defeat Democrats in close elections, and the House is likely to return to Republican control. But what will those Republicans do? Should we trust them to behave this time?
I would say no. Congress will not behave on its own because the political parties now exist to serve the politicians, not the taxpayers.
That’s why the development of the tea party movement has been so forceful and swift. Tea party leaders stepped up because both parties had failed us. Yet they understand that you don’t solve the problem of two unaccountable parties by creating a third. What we really need is a way to hold politicians of any party accountable, and that begins with independent organizations demanding accountability, and backing primary challengers to representatives of both political parties who fail to live up to their job title: Representative.
In 2010, tossing out some big-spending Democrats may be all that voters can accomplish. But if we don’t solve the bigger problem of creating the organizations to systematically hold politicians accountable, we will only get another round of broken promises on the road to ruin. The fate of the republic depends on building an independent system to hold Congress accountable to the taxpayers.
Eric O’Keefe is chairman of Sam Adams Alliance, a Chicago-based nonprofit focused on communicating free-market principles.
A financial services regulation bill could place many types of businesses under new regulations, even though they are nothing like banks or other companies typically considered to be in the financial services business.
I had thought that this possibility might simply be an example of the unintended consequences of regulation. But after reading a Wall Street Journal article (Will Walmart Pay for the Next Bailout?), I’ve come to believe that these consequences — the spread of regulation to vast new sectors of industry — is, in fact, intended.
Gregory Zerzan, the author, explains: “The current proposals for ‘financial’ reform are stalking horses allowing government intervention into virtually every facet of the U.S. Economy.” He explains that the Federal Reserve — if it believes a company poses a threat to the economy — could order the company to separate its businesses so that its financial dealings could be regulated as a bank holding company.
Which companies could be subjected to this new regulation by the Federal Reserve? Zerzan explains:
Despite non-binding staff explanations to the contrary, there is no mystery as to who is being targeted. Under the bill the Fed gets regulatory authority over bank holding companies with greater than $50 billion in assets, and “nonbank financial companies”. As the Fed already regulates bank holding companies the new twist is that non-banks become subject to Federal Reserve regulation for the first time. The language is unusually clear: if the new systemic risk regulator so chooses, any company engaged in routine business transactions can suddenly be deemed “financial” and subject to bank-like regulation. (emphasis added)
In Wichita, several large companies could be impacted. The author mentions an “airplane manufacturer that holds customer down payments for future delivery” as an example of a company that could now be regulated by the Federal Reserve.
Why is the legislation being considered? Zerzan explains that it’s partly based on the belief by some that the government can manage the economy, but there’s also an opportunity to generate new tax revenue:
Why would the systemic risk regulator seek to make regular American businesses subject to bank-like regulation? No doubt in part it is the belief in some quarters that the government can stop financial crises from happening if only it has enough power and influence over the economy. Even among true believers the near-collapse of the highly regulated banking sector should call that article of faith into question. But there is a more practical reason to seek to turn Walmart, IBM, Boeing and other Fortune 500 companies into “financial” businesses. Under both the House bill and the Dodd legislation it is these companies that are to be taxed to pay for winding up a “too big to fail” firm. If a company gets deemed systemically risky it is on the hook for bailing out financial firms that took on too much risk. Such a regime is neither fair nor sensible from an economic perspective, but existing taxpayers’ money is already over-allocated; the Treasury needs the contents of new wallets to pay for the next crisis.
Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Christopher Dodd has introduced sweeping legislation to regulate the financial services industry. The bill, at 1,336 pages, would dramatically change the regulatory landscape for one of our most important industries and spread to other non-financial industries.
The bill would create vast new regulatory powers for the Treasury Department. According to an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Senator Bob Corker says that “there’s no question that Treasury is pushing left,” indicating the Treasury’s Department’s desire for more regulatory power.
In fact, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is expected to deliver a speech today that calls for Congress to pass a bill with “real reforms.”
Indication of interest in these regulations may be gauged by the fact that some 400 amendments to the bill have been offered.
As with any regulation, especially a law designed to regulate a large and multi-faceted industry, unintended consequences are certain to arise. The Main Street Alliance, a coalition of leading U.S. manufacturers and business groups warned that many businesses that would not usually be considered financial institutions could fall under this regulation.
The Dodd bill extends systemic risk regulation to “nonbank financial companies,” defined as any business substantially engaged in “financial activities.” Because the term “financial activities” is so broad and includes things like lending money and investing a company’s own assets, the bill could authorize the new systemic risk regulator to regulate manufacturers, retailers and other non-financial services businesses.
Also: “We are concerned the new draft bill is so broad that larger manufacturers could be subjected to regulation by the Federal Reserve,” says Dorothy Coleman of the National Association of Manufacturers, a member of the Alliance.
Dodd’s proposed regulation is a response to the financial crisis of 2008. Whether new regulation is needed in response to that crisis is one question. But as the Main Street Alliance wrote in a letter to the Senate Banking Committee: “We do not believe that it is the intent of Congress to impose a new regulatory regime on companies that had nothing to do with the financial crisis of 2008.”
It should be noted that Dodd is not running for re-election this year. He faced declining poll numbers in his home state of Connecticut.
Today, Wichita businessman and candidate for the Republican Party nomination for the United States House of Representatives from the fourth district of Kansas Wink Hartman kicked off his “Back to Work” tour by meeting with a group of about 15 citizens in a downtown Kingman cafe.
In brief opening remarks, Hartman expressed concern over the direction this country and our state — even families — is going. He said he is a third generation Kansan, born in Wichita, graduating from Southeast High School and Wichita State University. He has five children and six grandsons.
Hartman said he is a businessman, not a politician, and is currently involved in 44 small businesses, with the largest of these having 25 employees. He said people ask him “why are you running for Congress?” Hartman replies by saying he brings a multitude of benefits to the people of the fourth district. He said his business background is important, having taught him how to balance a budget, gave him experience providing health care for his employees, and let him experience and understand the stress of making a payroll continuously. He added that he’s never asked the government to bail him out of anything.
Most people know him for the Hartman Arena, he said. He built it for many reason, but partly because he was told he couldn’t build it. He said he didn’t ask for any government assistance in building the arena, and paid taxes on the money he used to build the arena.
He said “I’m not going to Congress because of what Wink Hartman needs or wants … what it’s all about is what you need and want. Your elected representatives should represent you … not what Wink Hartman wants.”
He said he is the only independent candidate in the fourth district that “does not have a lobbyist on my shoulder.” He said that such people will eventually ask for a favor. His friends, he said, say “Wink doesn’t have a reverse gear.”
In the first question from the audience, a woman asked if there was any way we could get government to start pulling out of the private sector. Hartman replied that government has become intrusive, with increasing regulation and size. He said that the only way to get government out of your life is through the people you elect to send to Congress. A new direction requires new people, he added.
What about members of Congress who have ethical problems? Hartman said that Washington has a herd mentality, and that fresh blood and new thinking is needed in Washington to clean up the mess.
A gentleman remarked that our nation’s troubles started when we took God out of our lives. Hartman agreed. He said that he was raised in the Episcopal church, and that his walk with the Lord “got a little bit strained and frayed in my mid-years.” At Central Christian Church, which he attends now, a recent sermon impressed upon him that “believers need to turn into disciples.” The difference, he explained, is that disciples are 24/7 believers.
He added that he is on the board of directors of the Jesus prom. This event allows students with disabilities to attend an event like a high school prom. Last year he said 543 people attended.
On funded abortions, Hartman said he is totally against this.
A question asked about the differences between Hartman and Mike Pompeo, another Wichita businessman and candidate for the fourth district Republican nomination. Hartman said that he does not have a law degree, as does Pompeo.
As a second area of difference, Hartman said that he has truly created businesses from the ground up, and Pompeo has not. In his stump speech and on his website, however, Pompeo notes his accomplishment in founding Thayer Aerospace, a major aviation contractor that grew to over 500 employees.
On national energy policy, Hartman said that the Obama administration has sent $2 billion to Brazil so that country can drill offshore for oil hat will be sold to China. Of what benefit is that to American taxpayers, he asked? He said that the United States and North America has huge oil and oil shale reserves that we could tap. He also said that although he is in the oil business, he believes in “all of the above,” meaning that we should seek diversified sources of energy, including nuclear power, which he said is a good short-term answer. Wind energy has a place, he said, but a problem is our aging electrical power grid.
On national priorities, Hartman said that our first responsibility is national security, with our blooming national debt in second place.
Hartman said we have a serious problem with illegal immigration, noting that there are legal ways to immigrate to the United States. Referring to a case about an ill woman who is in the United States illegally, Hartman said that she could return to her original country to receive medical care.
Speaking about his process for making decisions, Hartman said that he doesn’t have the answers to all questions and problems. What he does in business is to gather people who have knowledge and experience, and together they make decisions.
On education, Hartman said that education needs to be administered locally by the community and parents. Also, not everyone needs to have a college degree. Vocational and technical education has a stigma, he said, but children should be educated so they can provide for themselves. Many trades pay well, he added.
At a luncheon meeting on February 25, Wichita aviation leaders — dubbed “Wingmen for Pompeo” — endorsed Mike Pompeo for the Republican Party nomination for the United States House of Representatives from the fourth district of Kansas.
In a recorded video appearance, Spirit Aerosystems Chief Executive Officer Jeff Turner said that Pompeo is the kind of representative we need in these difficult and turbulent times. He said he’s known Pompeo for several years, and found him to be a man of integrity who understands business in general and the aviation business in particular.
Bill Boisture Jr., chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, said that after meeting Pompeo, he was convinced that he understood business, investment and risk-taking, and had similar ideas to his on the size of government. He added that this election will be directional to our country for several years.
In his remarks, Pompeo said we are in serious times. Washington has too few people who have run businesses, and that played a role in his decision to run for Congress. He said we are short about 10,000 to 13,000 jobs in the Kansas fourth district compared to just a short time ago. Demand for airplanes built here is down to levels not seen in a long time. This has a tremendous impact on the local economy and workers and their families.
Pompeo said that when you’re in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. He mentioned President Obama’s remarks last year making it politically incorrect to fly in business aircraft. His policies have also made credit scarce and business people unwilling to invest, he said. Businesses don’t know what’s coming next from Washington he said, citing the health care summit taking place and the effort to federalize one-sixth of the nation’s economy. The burden of taxation and regulation are harming business, too. “There are 32 agencies that keep our drinking water safe, just at the federal level.” When it comes time to grow again, will new jobs be in America or somewhere else where business can be more competitive?
Pompeo said this his belief is that the federal governments’ role should be “intensely limited,” mentioning national defense as one role. He said that he recognizes that he, as a Member of Congress, can not create jobs. High taxes, he said, make capital go somewhere else, and that takes jobs away with it. He added there’s a place for a strong Federal Aviation Administration to create air traffic infrastructure.
Wichita has an entrepreneurial tradition, Pompeo said, and liberals and progressives in Washington believe they know better than we do about business. Their deal of offering security in exchange for control results in a false security.
Closing his remarks, Pompeo said that “compromise is something you do about the things that don’t matter a whole lot.” The things that matter — jobs, families, schools — are things he will not compromise on.
Jack Pelton, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer for Cessna Aircraft Company, said that our next congressman needs to understand business, capitalism, and the importance of national security, things he said Pompeo understands. He added that the values and integrity of Pompeo and his wife Susan also convinced him to support Pompeo’s candidacy.
Recently two political celebrities visited Wichita to campaign for candidates for the Republican Party nomination for the United States House of Representatives from the fourth district of Kansas.
Joe the Plumber, who gained national attention for his questioning of candidate Barack Obama, appeared in Wichita on January 28 at a town hall meeting on behalf of Jim Anderson.
Speaking before — should I refer to him as “Joe” or “Plumber”? — Anderson said he was born in Boise. After college, he started working for Eastern Airlines as a pilot, finishing his career with ATA Airlines. His job brought him to Wichita, but then his job was eliminated. Although offered a position in another town, he and his wife decided to stay in Wichita and raise their three children here.
Anderson said he has always wanted to make a contribution to government, and that’s why he’s running for Congress. He said he can’t take it anymore watching our country “slip down the slope into socialism.” When the fourth district position became open, he said this is the time to run for office.
Anderson said he is a Reagan Republican and believes in limited government based on the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Everything else, he said, is supposed to be relegated to the states, but that’s not the way it is right now. He said he supports the Fair Tax, which he said would be the best way to generate revenue for a limited government.
2010 is a turning point for our country, he said, and he told the audience that it’s crucial to stand up and speak loudly.
Joe the Plumber said he’s received many requests to campaign for candidates across the country, but he’s being selective in who he decides to campaign for. It’s about the individual, and not party politics, he said.
When he speaks across the country, often at tea parties, Joe said he speaks on four issues: individual responsibility, accountability, education, and the Constitution.
On individual responsibility, Joe said that our political leaders and celebrities are quick to lay blame elsewhere when caught doing something bad. “Freedom means responsibility,” he said, and Americans have accepted responsibility for a long time. The tea party movement is evidence of people taking responsibility, he said.
Joe said that parents need to take more responsibility for their children’s education.
Joe said that Jim Anderson truly wants to represent the fourth district. It’s a big job and responsibility, he said, being a public servant. He said that Anderson wants to serve his fellow man, and there’s no higher calling than that.
Answering a question from the audience, Anderson said that state’s rights are very important to him. He said that we should be running our own state, rather than tolerating so much federal government intervention. He said he supports term limits for federal elected officeholders. He said he will not vote for any earmarks.
Former Arkansas governor, presidential candidate, and winner of the 2008 Kansas Republican Caucus Mike Huckabee appeared in Wichita on February 24 on bahelf of candidate Dick Kelsey.
Before Huckabee’s appearance, Kelsey spoke about his campaign for Congress. “Leadership does make a difference,” he said, and our country is in need of leadership that is willing to take a stand and find solutions to tough problems. In the campaign there are four conservatives, and Kelsey said he is the only one who has a proven voting record. The type of experience he has gained, he said, will be necessary to be effective in Washington.
In his remarks, Huckabee told the audience of over 200 why it is important to elect Kelsey to Congress. He said he’s come to know Kelsey, and has talked to people who have served in the Kansas Legislature with him. Huckabee said Kelsey is a principled individual who has convictions. He’s not bull-headed, though, Huckabee said, as Kelsey knows that it is the responsibility of legislators to make things function.
Huckabee added that Kelsey brings experience to the race, and that he has a record that is consistent with what he’s campaigning on. “You will not find him saying things as a Congressional candidate that are polar opposite of the way he voted here in Kansas. … That alone is the best reason that I can possibly think of to elect him.”
Huckebee said that although times may be tough now, America will rebound. He said America will see a political and spiritual revival. Electing people like Dick Kelsey is part of making this happen.
He also said that those who value low taxes and those who are worried about the national debt should vote for Kelsey, as should those who believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
Answering a question, Huckabee said that Republicans will take back the House of Representatives in this year’s elections, and they have a good shot at taking back the Senate, or getting close. The Democrats are in a state of disarray, he added. Republicans need to have a clear and concise message, as they shouldn’t assume they’ll win just because voters are angry at Democrats. He added that third party conservative or libertarian candidates mean defeat for Republicans.
Huckabee said he hasn’t decided on another campaign for the presidency, saying he hasn’t ruled it out.
A coalition of liberal political action groups has released a poll that contradicts the conventional wisdom stemming from Tuesday’s election.
The poll, conducted after Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the United States Senate election in Massachusetts, was sponsored by Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and MoveOn.org.
According to a communique from Democracy for America, Democrats in Washington should “Be bold, fight for more change — not less, and pass healthcare with a public option.”
The message speaks of “Stay-at-Home Voters and Obama-Voting Independents” as a new set of swing voters. These voters, DFA claims, were responsible for Brown’s victory.
The poll results, delivered under the sub-heading “Even Scott Brown voters want the public option, want Democrats to be bolder” is interpreted by Charles Chamberlain, political director of Democracy for America this way: “In an election between Scott Brown and the public option, the public option would have won.”
Further, according to DFA, “Both sets of swing voters don’t think the current Senate bill goes far enough and over 80% of them want a public option. … If a public option was in the Senate bill then these swing voters would have delivered victory to the Democrats.”