Posted on 09/05/2014 8:14:58 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
(a) Except as provided by this section, no person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office may cause such person's name to be withdrawn from nomination after the day of the primary election.
(b) Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person's name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds
Interesting irony there. Their constant refrain during the primary was that if you didn't blindly support "Obama's cousin" over a proven conservative, you were part of the "liberal Republican establishment".
Yet now we have a general election campaign where the choice is between a proven Ted Cruz ally and a liberal RINO backed by the Democrats -- and some Milton Wolf fans in the primary are openly hoping the liberal RINO wins.
I'd say it says far more about them that it does about the candidates, IMO. Any "conservative" who WANTS a liberal RINO to defeat a Senator from the Ted Cruz wing of the GOP has far more in common with the Arlen Specter wing of the party than with Reagan Republicans, regardless of how loudly they declare themselves to be "Tea Party" people.
After all, the worst RINOs in government reached the exact same conclusion when they couldn't beat a proven conservative in the primary. Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Dede Scozzafava all said out flat that they were rooting for a leftist backed by the Democrats to win the general election, and gloated that they hoped the conservative Republican would lose so it would "teach the GOP a lesson".
Another "true conservative" on here defended the liberal voting record of an alleged "tea party" candidate and his response was "Damn right" on whether he agreed with Obama, Pelosi, etc., on closing gitmo. Again, it says far more about these "conservatives" than it does about the candidates they're opposing.
If it were up to me anyway, any freeper backing Orman over Roberts would be zotted. We didn't allow the Giuliani and Romney shrills on here to promote a "moderate" in bed with the Dems over a proven conservative Republican, so it shouldn't be allowed when it comes to the Kansas Senate race either. Any bitter Milton Wolf fan backing Orman has shown his or her true colors -- and they are indeed "red" and dedicated to making Kansas a "red state". They want the marxists to win.
Instead of complaining about it, how about pointing out where Kobach is not following the letter of the Kansas election law?
Of course you’ve failed to consider that conservatives favored Wolf in the primary, but now that the primary is over, they favor Roberts as the most conservative left in the race, and the only Republican. With many conservatives, exceptng some on this site, voting for a Democrat is out of the question.
Roberts would also help himself if he could manage to mount an actual campaign rather than just a Royal walkabout.
Now, now, you’re trying to have it both ways. You fellas went around saying that Wolf was the Conservative and Roberts was the establishment liberal. If that’s the case, Orman’s support would’ve been nil and “Moderates” would’ve endorsed Roberts in droves. That was never the case. This entire charade made my point from the get-go.
Hear, hear!
You are leaving out some important points in your citation of the law.
Like what? I didn't want to bore people with the complete law but I think I got the salient points when applied to this case.
The candidate must state, in writing, that the candidate is UNABLE to perform the duties of the office.
That was not done.
Roberts certainly is the establishment, given that he left Kansas when he graduated from college and never came back. But, I never called him a liberal.
The charade has been entirely from the McCaskill/Taylor/Orman conspiracy. I don’t think that they or anyone else paid any attention to Wolf and he certainly wasn’t part of any charade. It did annoy the Roberts supporters as they expected another annointment. Instead of just acting miffed and insulted, they might have used the opportunity to get their campaign act together. Unfortunately, campaigning may be beneath Roberts. It’s not too late for him to change, even though we know it will only be temporary, that will probably be good enough for a win.
Since when did McCaskill become an expert on all things Missoura?
“WAAAAAAAA! I WANNA DO-OVER!!!”
That was included in my post.
On all things Kansas, I meant (muttering to self and shaking head . . .)
I don’t know if Orman was ever a RINO or not (good chance he was) but he hasn’t been one recently, he’s a been a democrat since at least 2008.
As for Claire, imagine that, a democrat mad that the democrat party’s nominee is on the ballot.
BTW “recent polls” have not showed Orman leading Roberts. ONE poll has, an Orman internal poll.
Well, there MUST be a Democrat on the ballot. If they remove this guy, they have to put someone else on the D line.
>> Well, there MUST be a Democrat on the ballot. If they remove this guy, they have to put someone else on the D line. <<
Well, either way (whether Orman used to a RINO and whether there's another another RAT running), I think we can all agree he's a liberal, and he's the favored choice for Kansas liberals to rally around.
Just look at the positions this guy takes on his issues page, he tries to sound "centrist" but he's well to the left of Roberts:
http://www.ormanforsenate.com/issues
On illegal aliens, he repeats the leftist talking point that it's not practical to find and deport "11 million undocumented people", so he favors legislation to let them "get in line and apply for citizenship" if they "apologize" for breaking the law. (gosh Greg, can I get a "path to the bank vault" if I commit armed robbery but say I'm sorry and agree to pay a fine?)
On federal judges, he opposes the supreme court decisions on Hobby Lobby and Citizens United because they "made a mistake in giving corporations the same rights as people. "
Like most liberals, he claims he owns a gun and believes in second amendment rights, but supports "reasonable" gun control at the federal level.
He's "pro-women" because he supports woman's "reproductive rights" (I'm guessing he also thinks Kansas taxpayers need to pay for all of it).
Claims he's not happy with Obamacare, but doesn't favor repealing it. Doesn't mention any stance on marriage. (hmmm.) Ironically, this guy is also the very thing that Roberts was FALSELY accused of being during the primary: a go-along, get-along type who wants to "work with" Harry Reid and Obama to find "bipartisan" solutions. He boosts: "I will look at responsible leaders from both sides like Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Lisa Murkowski who are willing to cross party lines."
So one wonders why ANY Milton Wolf cheerleader would WANT this guy to win, since they claimed over and over again that the number one issue was purging professional politicians who are too cozy with Democrats and the Washington elite.
I asked a couple months back that if "anyone" is better than Roberts, would the Milton Wolf cheerleaders vote for Cindy Sheehan if he had moved to Kansas and run against him. Sadly, I think the answer is yes. Talk about cutting off your nose to spit in your face...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.