Kansas news brief
Friday, July 18, 2008
TOPEKA — Democrats’ complaints prompted Republican Sen. Pat Roberts to modify his latest television ad, but he hasn’t dropped a theme that could be helping his re-election campaign in the short-term.
Roberts’ campaign made what spokeswoman Molly Haase described as “two small tweaks” over questions of whether the 30-second spot complied with a federal “Stand by Your Ad” requirement.
The questions were raised by Mike Gaughan, the Kansas Democratic Party’s executive director, in a complaint to the Federal Election Commission. He doesn’t plan to withdraw his complaint.
Democrats continued Thursday to criticize the GOP incumbent because the ad attacks former Rep. Jim Slattery, the Democrats’ leading Senate candidate. And a Slattery aide acknowledged that Roberts’ advertising may have widened the gap between the two candidates in recent weeks.
“Anytime you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars running negative ads against your opponent, they will likely have some effect,” said Slattery spokeswoman Abbie Hodgson.
Roberts has made Slattery’s work as a Washington lobbyist an issue. The ad began airing last week in Topeka and Wichita. It praises Roberts and describes Slattery as “helping the special interests that made him rich.”
VVV
WASHINGTON — The head of the Kansas National Guard told Senate lawmakers Thursday that he is pleased with the federal response since a devastating tornado struck Greensburg., Kan., last year, but he also said there is room for improvement.
Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting praised Federal Emergency Management Agency officials for moving quickly to build temporary shelters, install communications systems and help remove tons of debris.
But Bunting said there has been some confusion and inconsistency in how the agency processes disaster payments. That has caused a delay in starting some reconstruction projects, such as work on the new county courthouse.
He blamed the problem on excessive staff turnover in FEMA’s Public Assistance program.
“I think things have gotten better, but there still is a challenge of lengthy debates about who’s going to pay for what,” Bunting told the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee on disaster recovery. “As such, the net result is work doesn’t get done.”
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
I am confused about Kansas Democrats simultaneously supporting Barack Obama for President and Jim Slattery for the US Senate. One (Obama) runs on a platform of "change", arguing that lobbyists are symptomatic of Washington's problems, while the other (Slattery) became a millionaire as a (you guessed it) Washington lobbyist. Like the old saying, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. It has to be one or the other.
July 18, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dml (anonymous) says...
I am curious to know what special interests Slattery has worked for. Could the Gazette perhaps track track down and report who and how much?
July 18, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
frustrated (anonymous) says...
Kansas Democrats can support both when they understand the difference between the bad lobbyists - the ones we all hear about often like Abramoff, and the lobbyists who work hard for legitimate causes. From what I have heard, Slattery spent a great deal of his lobbying time working for Kansas companies and Kansans' best interests. I think that he's done alot of good things for Kansas. His record in the House shows him as a deficit hawk and I personally think that we really need that. And we should get rid of Roberts before he can rob us of any more money. His voting record shows that he has helped put us in this position. We no longer need the Bush "ditto-head" in office.
July 20, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
If, frustrated, you are correct about Jim Slattery's lobbying record being on behalf of Kansas businesses and Kansans' best interest, the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that these Kansas businesses and others paid better than the other side. They must have paid well - he made millions. Slattery has a history of looking out for himself financially (one example would be the personal benefit that he got in the House Banking Scandal when he was still in Congress). I think that it is also telling that he left Kansas after losing the 1994 gubernatorial election, and didn't come back until he had another opportunity to obtain high office. Apparently, others had dibs on high offices in Virginia. We also need to remember that another Democrat in the congress will only bolster their party's leadership (like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) and committee chairmen like Ted Kennedy.
July 20, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
I'm not going to endorse Slattery, but two quick points: First, making this a party ethics issue probably doesn't hold water. Both parties have close ties with lobbyists, and both sides have a tendency to bounce (when not in the public sector) back into the private sector to raise funds for their next campaign. Secondly, and this is coming from someone whose family has deep ties to the GOP, talking about bolstering the democratic party as a threat after the complete and utter disaster republican federal leadership has been over the past 6-8 years isn't very scary. Government has gotten bigger, debt worse, our international standing is in the toilet, the dollar is weak, the response to many natural disasters has been shall we say "sub par", we are in two wars with no end in sight, jobs continue to move overseas, we are in an energy crisis, the nation is still reeling from a host of business scandals, efforts to improve pollution standards have been blocked (which the international community loves us for), and even when the republicans held the House, Senate and the Presidency little was done to help on core issues like health care, immigration reform and a host of other issues. This “us against us” attitude simply leads to more divisive extremist politics and ultimately to inaction on legislation needed to get this nation back on track. We need an actual “uniter” and not more party politics.
I'm not pro-democratic national party at this point, either. But, at this point in time, to claim a distinct leadership advantage on a national level by the GOP is inaccurate at best.
July 21, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
The fact remains that Barack Obama is running on a platform of Change, and specifically identifies lobbyists as part of Washington's problems. Yet the Senate candidate of his party is a lobbyist. I don't know how anyone can reconcile that.
momus, I agree completely that the Republicans did not do the job that their supporters sent them to do. However, of the solutions offered by the two parties, I still support the Republicans. For example, there is little doubt that the root of the economic problems is the cost of oil. Republicans support more and expanded drilling, nuclear, wind, solar, etc., while Democrats oppose expanded drilling and nucs. Even if a good alternative fuel were discovered today, we will still be an oil based economy for at least 15 years. Otherwise, every car on the road would go to a giant salvage yard. There is no distribution system for any other fuel, and imagine the job of simply retooling the entire economy. Therefore, we best be finding more oil where ever it is, and the Democrats oppose that.
I agree that we need a uniter and not more party politics. John McCain has crossed the line many times (a recent example is when he joined the"gang of 14" - 7 Democrats, 7 Republicans - to compromise on judicial selection procedure). In fact, it has him in hot water with the conservative wing of the party most of the time. On the other hand, Obama is the most liberal and partisan member of the Senate. Clearly, McCain would be the better uniter.
July 21, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )