A small group of area residents were at Bruff’s Bar and Grill Tuesday morning for an informal question-and-answer session with Rob Wasinger of Cottonwood Falls, who is running for the First District congressional seat currently held by U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran.
Moran is giving up his seat to run for the U.S. Senate job that will be vacated by Sen. Sam Brownback at the end of this term.
Wasinger has been knocking on doors in Emporia to talk with voters and estimated he had contacted 500 to 600 so far. The face-to-face campaign is necessary to get his message to the voters and listen to their opinions.
“I got a lot of people running against me in the field,” Wasinger said.
Most of them have only announced their candidacies, with only three listed as having filed officially.
As of Wednesday, the Kansas Secretary of State’s office showed Sue Holloway Boldra, Marck Cobb and Tim Huelskamp, all Republicans, have filed for the Big First seat.
Wasinger grew up in Hays, where he attended public schools, mowed lawns, carried newspapers and worked as a dishwasher at local restaurants until his sophomore year in high school. Then, a teacher suggested he apply for admission to a boarding school on the East Coast, according to Wasinger’s website. The website does not name the school.
He was accepted and given a full scholarship, with room and board, plus plane tickets to travel back and forth to Kansas.
After boarding school, he was accepted at Harvard University and, using grants and scholarships, graduated with a degree in economics.
Wasinger has worked for several politicians since he graduated from Harvard University.
When he returned to Kansas with his new wife, Meghan, he worked as a constituent services representative for Gov. Bill Graves until 1995, when he joined Moran’s staff. The following year, he went to work for Brownback’s senatorial campaign and, after the election, worked for Brownback in Washington, D.C. By 2003, he had been named legislative director and soon after, he became chief of staff.
About a year ago, the Wasingers and their nine children returned to Kansas and bought a house in Cottonwood Falls.
Wasinger identifies himself as a conservative Republican.
“My main message is economic growth and prosperity,” Wasinger said. “… I’m kind of a less-government guy. Build the roads, defend the homeland, get out of our lives.”
He told the group that he is a proponent of the 10th Amendment, the last of the Bill of Rights, which states that powers not granted by the Constitution to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.
Rights lost
Wasinger objected to government intrusion into private business, such as smoking bans and obesity task forces.
“All these bad ‘nanny’ states (leaders) don’t apply these laws to themselves,” he said, pointing out that the Kansas smoking ban exempts state-owned casinos.
He asked Bruff’s owner Gary Burgess whether Emporia’s smoking ban had affected business.
“We laid off — well, we didn’t lay ’em off — we fired seven people,” Burgess said.
Receipts are down about $240,000 for the year the ban has been in effect, he said.
Wasinger said that state leaders should have focused on solving budget problems.
“Instead of doing that, they pass all these moral issues,” he said.
Wasinger said he believes that government intrudes too far into citizens’ lives when it withholds federal highway funds for states that do not enact certain laws, such as seat belt use, drinking age and speed limits.
“And the federal government is routinely tying up all these things,” Wasinger said, explaining that the monies withheld have been paid in by American taxpayers. “We pay every time we pump gas.”
Wasinger said he believes that decisions should be left to the smallest basic unit of government, and that taxpayers are tiring of Democrats and Republicans who use “every excuse” to manipulate the people. He is encouraged that some incumbents already are going down to defeat in primary elections.
“I think there’s a real chance to send that limited government message across the country,” he said. “… That’s not what government’s there for.”
Doug White, among those who attended, told Wasinger, “It’s déjà vu all over again. We hear this every four years, every six years.”
Wasinger said that people are paying more attention to the actions of Congress and that that elections are showing the actions have consequences.
Patriot Act
White asked Wasinger’s opinion of the Patriot Act, approved on a 99-1 vote soon after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Wasinger said he had been in Washington, D.C., when the attacks occurred and had seen the jet gliding into the Pentagon.
“(There were) some good ideas in it, but I think it went too far, in terms of civil surveillance,” Wasinger said.
He said he favored scaling back the Act.
Immigration
Wasinger predicted that the immigration issue could come up before the elections later this year. He said that President Ronald Reagan’s amnesty policy for immigrants in the 1980s did not work, nor was the Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration proposal workable.
He said the first stage to resolving the illegal immigration problem would be to secure the borders and reconfigure the entire visa process. He would support allowing enough agriculture and other necessary workers to fulfill the needs of the country.
He estimated that about 500,000 seasonal farm workers are needed annually by farmers. He would require the workers to return to their homes when the work is done.
Full resolution would be more difficult.
“At the end of the day, it’s impossible to put people on the plane and send them back,” he said.
Wasinger did not object to a law recently passed in Arizona to ferret out illegal immigrants by checking documentation.
“All they’re doing is enforcing laws already on the books,” Wasinger said. “We’ve got to get serious about securing the borders.”
Wasinger also took time to explain some of the differences between his views and those of Emporian Jim Barnett, a state senator who ran for governor in the last gubernatorial election and who also is campaigning for Moran’s seat.
“He’s kind of a big-government liberal Republican who tries to regulate every part of our lives,” Wasinger said. “… That’s not what we send people to Washington to do.”
More information about Wasinger and his policy statements may be had by calling (620) 273-8400 or visiting www.RobWasinger.com.
“If there’s something you care about you don’t see, just give me a call,” Wasinger said.
shalomselah (anonymous) says...
Glad to see in this article that...
1. Someone actually reporting that a smoking ban has been detrimental to a business
2. Another conservative Republican to add to the list of fresh faces standing up and speaking out on classic 'conservative Republican' issues (not just fake blue-blood baby kissers who feign conservative values while subtley undermining them)
3. A funny comment by a guy who seems to recognize the two-party political system seems to have become a 'Good Cop - Bad Cop' routine.
One of the most central problems to the American crises is that big business is so invasive into government.
They employ the illegal immigrants and deportations of a few are just a facade because its really a gigantic fascist racket. They feed the cows GM corn and alter tobacco so much it could barely be called a tobacco cigarette anymore then pretend like its no big deal.
Im glad that there is still a lot of great businesses providing solutions to these problems.
We can still get meat from farmers who have common sense.
If you smoke tobacco leaves itll still be harmful I suppose. But there is things like vapor cigs you can get now which can help smokers and also let them get the nicotine craving in a satisfying way while in 'no smoking areas'.
The vapor is harmless, but it looks like real smoke. Has nicotine in it and is flavored. I think theyll be 'the next big thing' because itll be sought after by smokers who want a decent alternative when at bars and casinos and such.
A website with info about them, like legal and safety issues is thevapormaster.com
Thanks for the article and keep up the good reporting.
May 14, 2010 at 6:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the article. Now I know not to vote for this shmuck. 9 children? He must be one of those "Quiverfull" religious kooks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
If Bruff's "fired" 7 employees it means the employees did something wrong. You don't "fire" someone because you're not making enough money to pay them. Sales were down during the first year of the smoking ban? You don't suppose that has anything to do with the poor economy? Nah, must be solely caused by the smoking ban. Yeah, that's it...
I had to laugh at shalomselah's comment, "The vapor is harmless, but it looks like real smoke." Because LOOKS are the most important thing when it comes to smoking. LOL... Silly smokers, smoking doesn't make you look cool anymore!
Somebody needs to ask these candidates the important questions. For instance, how does this chump feel about our local ban on Sunday liquor sales?
'enry
May 14, 2010 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
"You don't fire someone because you don't have enough money to pay them." !!!!!!!!!!!
Is it something in the water or what? On the Dingbat scale, from 1 to 10, Henry is NOT an 8, he is a definite 12! I think that the OWNER of a business will know what the heck is hurting business, without some airheads' opinion. The State lost $24,000 in Liquor Excise Tax last year from one business.
May 14, 2010 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"The vapor is harmless, but it looks like real smoke. "
I'm pretty sure what was meant by this sentence could have been better expressed this way - "While the vapor looks like smoke it is harmless." I don't think the writer was saying that smokers smoke because it "looks cool." I think the writer was reassuring the folks that are scared of a little smoke that they have nothing to fear with the vapor. Sorry, shalomselah, if I misrepresented what you were saying but that's how I understood it and 'enry twisted it(I thought).
May 14, 2010 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
driveonby,
Why is that statement so outlandish? When you are "fired" it has a negative impact on the employee's record because that person has to go tell the next employer that he or she was "fired". Why not just "let them go" or "lay them off" or even say "your position is no longer needed"? Why did Bruff's allegedly have to "fire" these poor employees? If they were truly "fired" they probably deserved it.
Without doing any research, I'll assume your $24,000 statistic is correct. How do you know the smoking ban is to blame for this amount? As far as I know, sales dropped in smoking establishments across the state too. Did the Emporia smoking ban somehow influence their sales too? Now who's the "dingbat"? Why is everything the smoking ban's fault? I guess it's because smoking is all a smoker has to live for... Is that really a life worth living?
'enry
May 14, 2010 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Why is everything the Sunday liquor sales ban's fault? I guess it's because getting lit on Sunday is all a drunk has to live for... Is that really a life worth living?
May 14, 2010 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
Yep, livin' the dream, my friend. Livin' the dream...
Your new avatar is quite funny:
http://emporia.media.clients.ellingto...
'enry
May 14, 2010 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Henry
Yes people do get laid of or fired because there isn't enough money to pay them. Ask a few newly unempolyed teachers for next year.
What's the difference whether they were fired or laid off? If Gary said it was because of a loss of revenue, then it must be because of a loss of revenue!!!!
As far as the guy being a shmuck for having kids you need to look in the mirror so you know what a shmuck looks like.
Shalomselah
What in the hell does feeding cows GM corn, as you call it, got to do with this guy running for office?
GMO crops have been around for years.
The only difference was that a plant breader would cross polinate different varieties to eliminate or add genes that he/she thought they wanted and it would take years to do it. Now it can be done much faster in a lab.
Same end result, just faster.
Besides, maybe you ought to buy a beef from a stear or a heifer instead of a cow, then it would taste better no matter how you fed it.
May 14, 2010 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Doug White, among those who attended, told Wasinger, “It’s déjà vu all over again. We hear this every four years, every six years.”"
Bravo, this guy wins the prize. Most informative piece of the whole argument.
May 14, 2010 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Henry- Since you're such a genius, go buy a bar. Then throw everyone out, and fire the help. See how well that works for you. You're not just a dingbat, you're a dingbatasaurousrex! Busybodies make me sick!
May 14, 2010 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
driveonby,
We've made it through these tough economic times by cutting expenses; not salaries. I'll admit, it would probably be easier to let our valued employees suffer and just blame it on the smoking ban. Some of us just have more class than that I guess.
'enry
May 14, 2010 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
What difference does it make Henry? Seven people are no longer working at Bruff's and the state lost tax revenue on 240 K?
Now the fact is that Gary has been in the hospitality business for longer than anyone else in Emporia, (other than me), and if he says the smoking ban has hurt his business then I would tend to believe him. Sure the economy is down and that could be part of it, but don't you think the guys knows his regulars and their habits and knows that a good part of it IS due to the city ban.
As far as your statement
"Somebody needs to ask these candidates the important questions. For instance, how does this chump feel about our local ban on Sunday liquor sales?"
I think he answered that with the old mantra of less federal and state laws and leaving it up to local government and the people.
So I guess the candidate is telling you, Henry, to get up off your duff and petition the city to change the Sunday sales laws.
If all you want to do is complain and argue endlessly about it than you are in the right place.
May 14, 2010 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Besides Henry,
80% of businesses in Emporia are IGNORING the city smoking ban now.
Are you upset that the Sunday liquor sales ban is enforced while the smoking ban isn't?
May 14, 2010 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Henry, says, "We've made it through these tough economic times by cutting expenses; not salaries. "
Isn' t it a fact that when you pay someone's salary or several someone's salary, that salary is an expense ?
Therefore isn' t laying off or firing a person or persons' and not having to pay their salaries, in fact cutting expenses ?
May 14, 2010 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Steve,
If what you say is true, I trust you'll be alerting the authorities and naming the offenders. I know if I saw someone disobeying the law and putting others in danger I would do my part to protect my fellow citizens.
I, however, haven't noticed this to be a problem anymore and I would know cuz I get around...on that you can trust me... ;)
'enry
May 14, 2010 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says...
Henry, you wrote, "Sales were down during the first year of the smoking ban? You don't suppose that has anything to do with the poor economy...."
Actually Henry, if you look just about ANYWHERE with bans you find the same thing if the stats aren't doctored. In England pubs were closing at a rate of 3 per week in the two years prior to their ban. In the first year of the ban that closure rate shot up to 27 per week: a NINE HUNDRED PERCENT INCREASE! And that was back in 2005 - BEFORE "the economy" had problems. The closures went up to 36 per week by early 2008 and then increased by only 45% (to 52 per week) after the "WorldWide Economic Meltdown" hit in late 2008-2009.
You can check out what the bans did to statewide hospitality industries and state pull-tab/gambling receipts in the New Stiletto at:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/2...
and if you want to see just HOW and WHY they juggle the statistics to make bans look harmless check out my AfterComments to Jacob Grier's column at:
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archiv...
(Hint: Think million dollar grant-grubbing)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
May 14, 2010 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Hey! My favorite Internet troll is back! How have you been, McFadden? Still trying to sell your little book whenever your online search returns a new discussion on smoking bans?
Still not buying! No soliciting here please! Some of us care about the health of our neighbors and not just the green in our wallet.
'enry
May 14, 2010 at 7:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says...
Still no substantive criticisms of anything I say, eh Henry?
Sad.
- MJM
May 14, 2010 at 10:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Henry i have read your statements over and over on several different topics. Why are Sunday liquor sales so important? As I remember it has been up for vote several times and everytime it has been shot down. The smoking ban was voted on and it passed. Leave enough alone. And the guy has nine children, where does religion come into play anywhere with that. I have one child, does that make me anti-religious?
I think this guy makes sense and would be a good canidate to research. That he is taking time to just talk us "lowly" voters is a good thing I think. Also, he asked how the smoking ban has impacted businesses in Emporia, that was just one of the many questions he asked. Could the Business Owners that read these forums answer that? Just the owners of a business please though, I would like to hear their take on the subject and smoking always makes for good and heated discussion in here. ha ha. bye folks!
Anthony Romano
May 20, 2010 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
romano1784,
I know that the option to buy/sell booze on Sunday isn't that critical. I bring it up a lot because it is a clear-cut example of unnecessary government intervention. I haven't been given one good reason why we can't sell/buy booze on Sunday. With no reason for it, why do we need a law banning it? I don't think state or city governments should have the power to impose warrantless laws that rob citizens of their freedom. The smoking ban I can understand. I witnessed first-hand the problem smoking in public caused and I have seen numerous studies showing how SHS is harmful. A public smoking ban makes sense to protect the public. I support government intervention when it has the best interests of the public in mind and can be backed-up with facts proving the law will be beneficial to the public.
Again, I just use the Sunday sales ban as a talking point because it's easy to take a side on and is completely unnecessary. If a candidate like Wasinger can't make a sound decision on something as clear-cut as the Sunday sales ban, they aren't worth voting for.
As far as me pointing out he has a lot of kids...I'm not sure where I was going with that one... I guess I'm just leery of religious conservatives. When I see a person with a ton of kids, I assume they are selfish, crazy, religiously motivated, or just prone to making poor decisions. I don't want someone with any of those traits representing me in a government role.
'enry
May 20, 2010 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
How do we know the decline in business is a result of the smoking ban and not the economy, or some combination?
Mr. McFadden, can you site some unbiased, objective sources that back your position?
It is interesting to me that people are up in arms about the smoking ban, but don't seem to mind that government bans the sale of liquor on Sunday.
May 20, 2010 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Henry. Yes there are multiple surveys, sites, and facts to prove that SHS is a real danger. There are however the exact same sites, surveys, and fact to disprove the threat. Problem is that neither you, me, or any other ordinary person will ever know the truth because the special interest groups only tell you what you want to hear not what you need. Im not trying to reinstitutes the smoking ban debate again. I was just curious to hear it from the business owners point of view, as they in my opinion, would know their customers enough to give an informed opinion.
Also Henry I believe i read about a couple liquor store owners saying they did not want to be open sundays, as they would have to pay more operating expenses for little or no extra profit on sundays. But i could be mistaken, its happened before.
Anthony Romano- Its a Wet day in Emporia!
May 20, 2010 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
romano1784,
You said, "i read about a couple liquor store owners saying they did not want to be open sundays..."
What's your point? Nobody would force them to be open. Wouldn't it be nice to have the option though? What if owner #3 is struggling to make ends meet and sees Sunday sales as his chance to stay in business. Are you telling me he shouldn't have the right to sell on a particular day just because his competition doesn't want to be open? Since when do other businesses get to tell you how you run yours? What's next? Are we going to allow Country Mart to create a law that forces Walmart not sell groceries after 10pm?
'enry
May 20, 2010 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
HenryVIII says....
"I bring it up a lot because it is a clear-cut example of unnecessary government intervention. I haven't been given one good reason why we can't sell/buy booze on Sunday. With no reason for it, why do we need a law banning it?"
On Friday Thoughts, May 18, 2010 at 4:01 p.m. Steve_Corbin says......
"Let's go on to the constitution.
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively,
or to the people.
So by reading this amendment of
OUR constitution it would seem pretty
clear to me that the state
or the people, (the city)
can make laws that
regulate our rights."
In short, we don't have Sunday liquor sales because the people to whom our Federal Constitution entrusted the decision, decided against it. They don't owe you their reasons why. The people did it, not the "government," so it isn't "unnecessary government intervention."
Nope, not a "good talking point" at all.
May 20, 2010 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Oops! Let me change that to Ratfinkasaurusrex! If you were protecting your neighbors, you would be working to ban the selling of all tobacco products. I highly doubt your neighbors only smoke in bars. Small business people BUILT this country with their hard work, time, and tears. Let THEM decide what they want to provide to customers, and then let the customers decide where they want to go. No healthy person has EVER taken one whiff of second hand smoke and fallen over dead. NO heart attack drop in communities with tavern smoking bans. No one says this trash except the paid off flunkies of the drug companies who sell nicotine replacement, who, by the way, paid for all the full paid ads in the paper, and provide grants to professional grant spongers. Top of the morning.
May 25, 2010 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Since some of us are too stupid to know what to eat or where to go drink a beer and avoid smoke, perhaps the government should take care of us. Ban meat, ban sugar, ban fake sugar, ban fast food, ban buffets, ban hugs (germs), ban guns, ban baseball bats, ban car racing (uses too much gas), roll up the sidewalks at dark, no one out after curfew, ban reading books about freedom, ban computers, ban cell phones, ban cars that go over 35 miles per hour. Welcome to the brave new world of government nannism, brought to you by drug and insurance companies, who own our government, and several of our local politicos. (No need to mention their names, it's pretty obvious)
May 25, 2010 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
driveonby,
Smoking wasn't banned, you silly person. Smoking is still legal, but regulated so that it doesn't harm OTHERS. Your examples of other things we should ban just don't hold water. How does me eating meat, sugar, fast food, etc... harm you? Who cares if I harm myself? Smokers can still smoke, so nobody is stopping them from hurting themselves. The smoking ban helps prevent smokers from hurting OTHERS; not themselves.
As for guns, bats, cars, and other things that can be dangerous when used improperly, we already have laws that prevent a person from using those products in a way that could harm others. (laws against assault, speed limits, etc) If you hurt someone with one of those things, you are already breaking an existing law.
In my opinion, smokers were breaking existing assault laws, but they didn't realize it so we had to spell it out for them with a new law specific to SHS.
'enry
May 25, 2010 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )