Posted on 08/22/2007 6:06:30 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
Kansas state Sen. Nick Jordan said Tuesday that he would run for Congress next year, setting up a likely challenge to Democratic incumbent Dennis Moore.
“I’m in,” Jordan said.
The long-expected announcement presents Moore, the five-term 3rd District incumbent, a potentially formidable Republican challenger who has shown an ability to appeal to conservative and moderate Republicans.
Moore campaign manager Julie Merz said only that her boss would “continue to provide moderate, common-sense leadership and top-notch constituent services” to the district. “He looks forward to campaigning — next year.”
Jordan’s entry also sets up three pivotal congressional races in the Kansas City area. The two others are Kay Barnes-Sam Graves in Missouri’s 6th District and two Republicans —former U.S. Rep. Jim Ryun and Kansas Treasurer Lynn Jenkins — vying for the right to take on freshman Democrat Nancy Boyda in Kansas’ 2nd District.
The outcome of those races could begin to determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives, where Democrats hold a 231-202 edge with two vacancies.
Jordan, a 12-year state senator from Shawnee, said he would release a statement today about his intentions.
The Democratic-led Congress is taking the country the wrong way, Jordan said, citing Congress’ 18 percent approval rating, among the lowest in history.
He cited a Washington Post study showing that Moore had voted with his party at a 96 percent clip, higher than in recent terms.
“He’s now in the majority,” said Jordan, 57. “They’re certainly going to start counting on him to vote with leadership.”
Jordan could have one asset that other GOP challengers to Moore have lacked — a competition-free primary. As of now, no other Republican challengers have emerged.
The national Republican Party appears ready to give Jordan help. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is expected to drop by the 3rd District on Tuesday morning. (He’s also expected to meet with Graves.)
Lack of party support doomed other GOP challengers, particularly Adam Taff in 2002.
Kansas 2nd looks to be a cat-fight between Ryun and Jenkins. That only benefits Boyda.
Continue to ? He has yet to start. Time to dump the Kansas moonbats.
Average GOP KS legislator ACU rating = 93
Moore’s average ACU rating = 20
It may be an interesting race. Nick won his last two senate races handily, and if he can bring back the moderates who voted for Moore in the past then he’s got a shot. At the very worst it will make the race a whole lot more competative than it’s been for the last two elections.
Dennis Moore? He steals from the rich and gives to the poor - dumb dumb dumb ;)
Well, Nick Jordan has won the support of moderates in his past elections. So he is probably the best candidate the GOP can find, who can unite the conservative and RINO wings. The only possible stumbling block is whether he can raise sufficient funds.
Define a RINO as it applies in this case.
The pro-abort, gun-grabbing, country club establishment voters who have supported Dennis Moore in the past few elections.
So again we see that those who don't meet the abortion acid test, but are merely in favor of smaller and less intrusive government, lower taxes, reduced government spending, stuff like that are not really Republicans, much less conservative Republicans, but are merely RINOs. And are constantly told as much by those like fieldmarshaldj for whom abortion is the be-all and end-all of conservatism. And people wonder why Republicans are losing in a lot of local elections in this state. You have one wing of the party telling the other wing that they aren't Republicans, not really. And that other wing wondering how they can get hijacked out of the party when they still support what used to be core conservative values. Why is it surprising that they stay home or look elsewhere? Ronald Reagan used to say something to the effect that someone who disagreed with him on 5% of the issues, still agreed with him on 95%. But for all to many people that isn't true anymore. Unless they agree 100% then they're RINOs. Until we get back to that way of thinking the party will grow more and more divided and the Democrats will take advantage of that.
You have summed up the division among Republicans in Kansas. But there is reason to believe that Nick Jordan can bridge the schism, unlike the previous candidates.
I have never referred to someone with whom I agree on 19 out of 20 issues as a RINO. However, someone who is pro-abortion and pro-gun control disagrees with me (and the overwhelming majority of conservative Republicans) on far more than 5% of issues (especially since such social liberals also tend to disagree with conservatives on religious speech and a whole slew of environmental issues).
And what is that reason? Every one says he can do that, but Shawnee isn't a hotbed of liberalism. If anything it's more conservative that Leawood is. Nick hasn't had to run any close races where he needed every vote from all parts of the party.
You have to remember that a certain percentage of the moderate wing of the party have been comfortable voting for Moore following the contentious primaries we tend to have. If Jordan moves towards the center to attract them will the social conservatives abandon him and sit out the election rather than vote RINO? He he plays towards that wing of the party then why should the moderates jump onboard? I don't know Nick very well, he represents a district in a suburb north and west of me, so I don't know what kind of campaign he'll run. But if he can avoid a primary opponent then he has a better chance of winning because he won't have to pander to one wing or the other. No primary and then it boils down to money. So Nick had better hit the money tail for the rest of the year. I know Moore has been and will be. If next summer polls show that Nick has a chance of willing then the national party will open up the money tap. That will force the DNC to devote money to Moore. Best outcome is that Nick wins. But at worst every dollar that the DNC has to spend on Moore is a dollar that they can't spend on another close race.
Say for the sake of arguement a candidate outlines solid positions against big government, defines how he would limit the size of government, presents a plan to shrink government spending, and advocates strict constitutionalist judges but refuses to come out either for or against repealing Roe v. Wade and says that gun control is a state issue and not a federal one, do you support him?
NS, why do you insist on being so disingenuous in your arguments ? I've told you, to your chagrin, that while abortion is NOT the be all and end all of Conservatism, it does tell me basically about the character of the candidate. If they don't think 50 million hamburgerized since Roe is a biggie, their view on other issues is likely to be at greater chance of being similarly askew.
I don’t have a problem with a candidate appealing to RINOs, just as long as they don’t VOTE like one. I wish we could get Vince Snowbarger back.
It isn't I who is being disengenuous. You've stated for the record on more than one occasion that you will not vote for a candidate who doesn't share your views on abortion, regardless of what other positions you hold. You claim that abortion isn't your acid test yet you apply it as such.
And why should RINOs find such a candidate appealing to them? "You ain't really Republicans, regardless of what you think, but I'll let you vote for me anyway." Heck of an appeal there, DJ. What ever happened to the big tent? I'm not saying include everyone, but you've shrunk the size of the tent to such a ridiculously small size that you only let in those who side with you on a narrow set of issues, or even one single issue.
So tell me, in the scenario I outlined in message 13. Do you vote for the candidate or not?
Like I said, and you continue to distort, that it is one of MANY issues, only that it is a KEY indicator of how the candidate may likely lean or be moved toward on others. If a candidate has no beef with abortion, they’re likely not going to have much of a beef with issues such as taxes, expansionist government, and other liberal notions. Remember, the concept of “fiscal conservative, social liberal” is a bull$hit one, since it is a contradiction in terms as well as goals. You can, however (as we’ve seen with our previous Congresses) be “socially conservative and fiscally liberal.” Even pro-lifers can spend like drunken sailors.
NS,
Are you really promoting the idea that the division in the KS GOP is just one way?
In other words, are you oblivious to the fact that your argument can be reversed and remain accurate and valid?
Consider it a case of get with the program or get out of the party. If RINOs feel leftist Democrats more represent their views, why SHOULD they remain Republicans ? It seems the only reason why they stay is because they wish to wreak havoc and move the GOP in the wrong direction -- the direction that has led to near moribund status in far too many states.
"What ever happened to the big tent? I'm not saying include everyone, but you've shrunk the size of the tent to such a ridiculously small size that you only let in those who side with you on a narrow set of issues, or even one single issue."
As I wrote the other day, the big tent is baloney. The only thing under a big tent is hot air and clowns. A party that stands for everything stands for nothing. A good part of the reason why voter turnout is often so low in so many places is because the view is that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. This like of yours of including all these leftist RINOs does little to either move our party or our agenda forward. It's interesting that in the last election, the Democrats took exactly the tack of appealing to and talking Conservative positions, but, of course, they never had any intention of voting that way. So why not take a similar course with RINOs. If they enjoy being deceived so much, give the audience what they want.
"So tell me, in the scenario I outlined in message 13. Do you vote for the candidate or not?"
With respect to Roe and gun rights, that sounds like way too many weasel words for a candidate in a GOP-leaning district. The 2nd Amendment makes "gun rights" a national, not a state, issue (although anti-gun types CAN make the argument that the way it is written, that only those in a well-regulated militia can unquestionably bear arms -- I'm one who has always been for specifically revising and clarifying that language in the Amendment). Roe is just plain bad law, period, and never met Constitutional muster (there IS no Constitutional right to privacy, although it is something that could, and probably should, be clarified via Amendment, spelling out specific points). If a candidate can't recognize Constitutionally dubious laws, once again, it's going to be hard to trust their judgment on other issues, be they fiscal, social, or whatever.
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.