We know that Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, pumped gas at an Overland Park convenience store Tuesday because the Kansas City Star caught it on video. Tiahrt was stumping for 3rd Congressional District candidate Nick Jordan, who blamed high gas prices on a partisan Congress that can’t find a solution to our energy crisis.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/8
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- JWink on Everything really should be on the budget table
- JWink on Death penalty review promised
- HLP on Open thread 11/8
- Hud on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Everything really should be on the budget table
101 Comments
Nick Jordan = a proud wingnut in the kansas taliban.
Just what we need in congress. Another pandering wingnut who never met an oil company or a coal plant he didnt love.
“who blamed high gas prices on a partisan Congress that can’t find a solution to our energy crisis.”
high gas prices are caused by worldwide demand (and projected demand) outpacing worldwide supply (and projected supply).
Unfortunately, this root cause cannot be fixed, because by the time any new supply from new drilling makes it to market, the demand will already have grown greater than the added production capacity.
The US government can keep prices at the pump low by subsidising fuel prices for consumers, producers, or both (but that would not be capitalism would it?) but that would be very expensive to the US taxpayer.
Ultimately, it will be impossible to ever see sub-$3 gas again.
There’s Tiahrt, working on behalf of the oil companies, in a different district. As always, working for someone else other than the people in the 4th district. I wonder if Tiahrt told people how he voted against research and investment in alternative energy, and for preserving tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies?
Or maybe he was in Johnson County just to avoid having to debate Senator Betts.
why is this news? Who gives a damn
Since Tiahrt was elected to Congress in 1995, and supports a 12 year term limit, can any Republican explain why he is running again?
Follow the money…
He never found monetary success in a job until he got himself elected and into a position where he doesn’t need do anything but sell his vote and his soul.
Sounds like just another job working for the oil companies in one capacity or another! Vote Tiahrt.
“can any Republican explain why he is running again?”
Well, I’m not a republican, but I’m betting it’s because it beats the hell outa working for a living!
“Since Tiahrt was elected to Congress in 1995, and supports a 12 year term limit, can any Republican explain why he is running again?”
He’s just being consistent. He promised a balanced budget, economic conservatism, opposition to outsourcing as well as term limits. It’s Tiahrt, he just makes promises but never plans on keeping them.
The moment he gets offered a sweet lobbyist job for Airbus, Boeing or Koch he’ll leave his job in a second.
$165K+ is a pretty good gig, even for D.C.’s cost of living…
I do not think politics should be a career for anyone, though.
Something I have posted before is that each Congressperson’s pay should be the median income of the district(s) they represent.
Here comes the term limits again….
Tiahrt voted for term limits and the Democrats blocked the Republicans from passing them.
Why should Tiahrt hold himself to some artificial time restraint while the Democrats do not?
It is absurd and achieves nothing.
Only the liberals who wouldn’t support a Republican anyway, are the ones crying about his term limits. He has nothing to gain by holding himself to something that the liberals expect him to and he never said he would.
It’s called personal integrity Nathan, the Republicans should look it up. Truth is the term limits was just a gimmick to get votes to oppose the Democratic party. When the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House there was never a mention of a Balanced Budget Amendment or a bill to support term limits. Tiahrt had the opportunity to promote such a bill when his party was in the majority but remained quiet. The Republicans only made noise when they knew such a bill would end in defeat.
Compare that to the constant attempt to ban late term abortions or flag burning. They constantly try to pass such bills, but term limits? They never really wanted that but they figured the voters were dumb enough to believe that they honestly did.
Here’s something Tiahrt should do. Since he’s an advocate of fiscal conservatism (despite watching over the Republican party doubling the national debt) how about proposing a bill that all Congressmen have to be paid minimum wage if there isn’t a balanced budget? Republicans are in favor of low wages so that shouldn’t be a problem for them.
No, Republicans love their taxpayer provided transportation, housing and health care along with their big taxpayer financed paychecks, but they hate socialism. The whole lot are hypocritical.
Maggotpunk,
How is holding yourself to a standard that you never said you would, but the liberals demand you dod, personal integrity?
Tiahrt said he would, it was his campaign promise. I know promises don’t mean much to Republicans, and you have just proven that it means nothing to you. Tiahrt was a supporter of the Contract on America. Tiahrt had no problem following through on the numerous tax cuts for the rich and corporations in the Contract, but when it came to affecting his job, he was as stalwart as a snowman in a desert.
Maggotpunk,
Show me where Tiahrt said any such thing.
He never promised to hold himself to term limits. He said that he would support them and he did.
The Contract with America was a list of things that the Republicans said they would try to do. If you are so upset with the Contract not being completely passed in Congress, perhaps you should talk to the Democrats that are still around that were there blocking it.
*yawn*. All Republicans are evil. All Democrats are saints. yadda yadda yadda.
There are good and bad in both parties. Anyone who claims otherwise has partisan blinders on and cannot see the facts.
It really is a shame that he probably won’t be the candidate I run against in the primaries when I am ready. I would tear him apart and show just how far he has strayed from the Constitution of the United States.
I will be devoting the next ten years to studying history, economics, the Constitution, and Philosophy. Hopefully that is enough to prepare myself for my congressional seat run. You guys be sure to vote for me when I make my move.
You’ll know who I am because I will be the one preaching smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, no IRS, no Income tax, Individualism, personal liberty, sound money, and free markets.
The neo-conservatives days are numbered. I implore all of you to learn more about what I am talking about. I bid all of you a good day.
Join http://www.campaignforliberty.com
“Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds”
Nathan, Democrats are under no obligation to fulfill campaign promises made by Republicans.
The Republicans knew passing a new Amendment would fail, but they knew their supporters were stupid enough to believe it, as you have. Tiahrt was a signer of the contract, it was his campaign promise. If he can’t hold himself to his own promises then he has no integrity. Kinda like making New Year’s resolutions and breaking them, but the Republican party is full of empty promises.
Maggotpunk,
No where in the Contract did it say that the Republicans would hold themself to the term limits.
It is political suicide. And of course, only the most absurd liberals here would say with a straight face that they expected Tihart to do just that.
No where did Tiahrt ever say he would hold himself to term limits.
He said he would support them and he did.
That’s right Nathan, Republicans are all talk and no action.
Good GOD! That post has got to be the most convoluted piece of gymnastics ever blogged here. And that’s goin’ some as we say in Texas.
If ever there was an example of what voting republican gets you, nathan just illustrated it.
Could you split those hairs any finer? Could you be more hypocritical than to say you support something but wont abide by what you say you support.
Jesus WEPT! I’m tellin’ ya, you just cant make this stuff up!
While promising hope and change, The astute Democrats are spinning the foreseeable reality of stagnant economic growth and unfufilled promises by stating that “we have a lot of work to do to undo the Bush years”.
Translation: Vote for Hope and Change but don’t expect us to actually accomplish anything. Blame all lack of progress on Bush.
Supporting Term limits and holding yourself to them are two different things.
We are not splitting hairs when it comes to political suicide.
Could you imagine the stupidity of the entire Republican Congress stepping down and allowing the Democrats to come into power?
Of course only the most ardent liberals here would demand such stupidity from the Republicans and Tiahrt. You don’t see the Republicans making such absurd comments.
If you care so much about damn term limits, you should have been out there rallying against the Democrats who blocked them.
Maggotpunk,
Just like how the Democrats were all talk before 2006 and no action after?
Right?
Brian,
“Something I have posted before is that each Congressperson’s pay should be the median income of the district(s) they represent.”
I’ll go you one better; every congressman should have to live only on his own state’s welfare for the first year of each term he’s elected to. After that he can get a raise to his district’s median income. He should also have to sign an agreement not to work or consult for any company who contributed to his campaigns or whose lobbyist bought him anything, for a period of five years after leaving office.
Maybe Tiahrt is just dedicating his lifelong career as a congressman to make sure the term limits gets passed someday?
Nathan,
Tiarht ran on a promise of term limits, which he hasn’t kept. He needs to be held to his own word, simple as that! All that would be necessary would be for the ‘publicans to field another candidate rather than enable this congressional addict.
“Supporting Term limits and holding yourself to them are two different things.”
Uh no. Not for someone with integrity. Splintered personalities maybe, but someone who is integreous would not have that problem.”
“We are not splitting hairs when it comes to political suicide.
“Could you imagine the stupidity of the entire Republican Congress stepping down and allowing the Democrats to come into power?”
WTF? There’s only ONE republican in each district who could win? Anyone other than the incumbent would automatically lose to a democrat?
jesus WEPT! If that’s the case, your party has the shallowest bench ever imagined.
heheheheh. Spin on boy. We need the humor.
Tiahrt: “I’m for term limits for everyone but myself and other republicans”. WTF?
Why didnt he run on “I’m for term limits but have no intention of honoring them for myself”?
No integrity? He could only win by misleading a clearly stupid voting public?
heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh.HEEHEEEHEEEE.
Like I said, you just cant make this stuff up…
Nathan, why are the Democrats responsible for the promises of the Republicans?
Was Tiahrt wearing a shirt with ‘Drill here, Drill Now!’ while he pumped gas?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Still laughing at nathan’s convoluted defense of the indefensible. heheheheheh.
But you get style points for gymnastic contortions and degree of difficulty. You lose points, however, on originality.
Jed,
Where did that “promise” involve holding himself to term limits?
I have asked several times this thread for people to show me. Can you?
This is probably the 10th time this discussion has come up. Everytime, no one can show me where Tiahrt ever promised to hold himself to term limits.
The Contract with America said that they would support an Amendment to the Constitution to enact term limits.
No where did or has Tiahrt ever said that he would hold himself to term limits. That was never part of the Contract nor did the Republicans ever say or indicate that regardless of the Amendment passing or not, that they would hold themselves to it.
The idea of doing so, when it was the Democrats blocking the term limits and the Democrats who would be at a political advantage, is absurd.
KFG,
That is all you can do, is laugh. You don’t bother to offer anything else to the discussion.
You don’t like Tiahrt. You want him out of office. Of course you will be absurd and say that Tiahrt should remove himself.
The reason all you can do is laugh, is because you know you have no argument.
Tiahrt is not looking out for all Wichitans. He is only looking out for certain groups. Those group are a large voter base though. You have to reach out to all Wichitans. How do you do that? You have to realize that you cannot take care of everyone. You have to allow individual freedom. Freedom is a popular message that every single Wichitan can get behind and understand.
Help promote that message and not the one that looks out for one group at the expense of another.
#
ksfarmgrrl
Posted August 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Still laughing at nathan’s convoluted defense of the indefensible. heheheheheh.
But you get style points for gymnastic contortions and degree of difficulty. You lose points, however, on originality.
———————
Welcome to Consas. You’re in my world now. :D
“The Contract with America said that they would support an Amendment to the Constitution to enact term limits.
No where did or has Tiahrt ever said that he would hold himself to term limits.”
Nathan, pul-eeeze. Have some self respect man. Do you not see that posting such nonsense makes you appear like the dumbest human on earth?
And I know you are not.
Maggotpunk,
They are responsible for the Amendment not being passed.
Where did Tiahrt promise to hold himself to term limits?
“You don’t like Tiahrt. You want him out of office. Of course you will be absurd and say that Tiahrt should remove himself.”
So… thanks for admiting that republicans in your neck of the woods are in so much trouble that ONLY tiahrt could hold that seat for your party.
Deliberately obtuse is not an attractive trait. Which explains why you are still single…
KFG,
How does that make me look dumb? Please explain. Please do anything to offer a real argument other than mere heckling from the sidelines.
KFG,
Now you resort to the personal attacks?
What have you offered in this discussion so far: Laughing and personal insults.
What an intellectual you are. Please tell me you can do more at that political fountain you go to?
Nathan, KFG isn’t insulting you, you do just fine by yourself.
Yep, Kansans keep voting Tiahrt into office and the Democrats want him to quit since they can’t actually get enough support to vote him out.
Democracy at work here Folks. Contrary to the Democrat’s wishes! Gotta love it!
Maggotpunk,
Still waiting for you to show me that promise Tiahrt made to hold himself to term limits.
Brownback making Tiahrt look bad.
“While still weighing a bid for president in 2008, Sen. Sam Brownback said Monday he would stick by a pledge not to run for another term in the Senate.
“That’s what I said when I first ran, and I intend to stick to that,” he said.
That means Brownback will be out of the Senate by 2010 at the latest.
Nathan whines:
“Still waiting for you to show me that promise Tiahrt made to hold himself to term limits.”
As I’ve said before, Tiahrt was a signer to the Contract With America. How many times do I have to repeat myself? How about this, I pledge to no longer insult Nathan. How do you like that dumbass?
It’s called principals, if you stand for something, run on it to get elected, and then don’t practice it, what does that make you? ans.(Republican aka Hypocrite)
Maggotpunk,
Ok. Now show me where as a signer to the Contract with America Tiahrt was pledging to hold himself to term limits or that the Contract with America said that the Republicans would hold themselves to term limits?
principles.
Phantom,
Show me where the “principle” was that Tiahrt would hold himself to term limits?
Anything. Does anyone have anything Tiahrt has said showing that he was holding himself to term limits?
Republicans just like to tell the other guy how to live, when it comes to practicing it themselves, no way.
Heheheheh Phantom. Sounds like Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, and the list could go on. Do as I say, but not as I do.
I am still waiting for anyone to show me where Tiahrt said ANYTHING about the principle of holding one’s self to term limits.
It is you liberals who keep calling it a principle and keep saying that Tiahrt has said he would hold himself to this principle.
I have yet to see you offer me one piece of evidence for any such nonsense.
KFG,
Where is Tihart “saying” anything about holding himself to term limits?
“Phantom
Posted August 27, 2008 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
Was Tiahrt wearing a shirt with ‘Drill here, Drill Now!’ while he pumped gas?”
No, it was written on the back of his boxers….
“Nathaniel
Posted August 27, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
KFG,
Where is Tihart “saying” anything about holding himself to term limits?”
Huh. Well I guess all of those who assumed when he said he supported term limits it meant that he supported them for himself as well as for others got fooled didn’t we?
Brian,
He did support term limits for everyone. An amendment which would put them in place for all. It doesn’t do any good to simply hold yourself to them when 400 plus and especially all the Democrats never would.
The point is that if all were bound by them it would be fair. There is nothing fair about holding yourself to term limits while those that you are fighting against do not.
It is like showing up to a gun fight with a water pistol.
It makes no sense. The only people who seemed to “assume” that Tiahrt would hold himself to term limits are liberals that don’t vote for Tiahrt, don’t support Tiahrt, and wan’t Tiahrt out of office.
I don’t see any Republicans running around crying about how Tiahrt is not holding himself to term limits.
I support term limits as well. I just don’t support my Congressman being the only one holding himself to them.
I would like to see ALL of Congress held to term limits.
That is not going to happen when the very people supporting term limits keep quiting to support term limits.
Can anyone offer a logical rationale AGAINST term limits for all of congress?
It’s like running on say a cc gun ban, then when the ban fails to get the votes, you apply for a cc permit.
So Nathaniel, what you are saying is that Tiahrt is a flip-flopper?
Or saying that you are against alcohol and that it should be illegal….
then drinking, with the excuse that it is not illegal yet and you are not going to hold yourself to that standard because no one else has to.
It’s like advocating elimination of Greenhouse Gas emissions and when that fails, continue Fly jets and drive your SUV to the latest Climate Change Summit.
kind of like that RFL
(except “elimination of Greenhouse Gas emissions” would be impossible without eliminating all plant and animal life on earth so that would be a pretty silly thing to eliminate)
“Can anyone offer a logical rationale AGAINST term limits for all of congress?”
At least a question. If there are strict term limits, who gets the leadership positions? How about all the committees, the subcommittees etc… Would they spend all their time trying to get that established?
or maybe its like ra-ain on your wedding day.
A free ride when you’ve already paid.
Actually, I’m ambivalent toward term limits, even if it’s the other party that’s served multiple terms. Something I don’t approve of is hyprocisy.
“At least a question. If there are strict term limits, who gets the leadership positions? How about all the committees, the subcommittees etc… Would they spend all their time trying to get that established?”
3 day rock-paper-scissor tournament at the start of each congressional term to determine majority and minority leaders and subcommittee seats.
Don’t know how logical this is, but a rationale against Congressional term limits is the fact that there are elections, and the vote of the constituents in favor of the opponent is the most effective term limit there is. Of course, this ignores the power of the incumbency.
On committee membership, etc., seems to me that the appointment of members to a committee is controlled in large part by the leadership of the respective parties, a procedure that seemingly would not change. Now, being elected to the leadership; aye, that would be a constant thing, more than it seems now, IMHO.
Brian, Phantom, etc…
Term limits as presented in the Contract with America was an idea to better all of Congress. The only way it would work is if all of Congress was effected by term limits.
Term limits do not work when only a few are holding themselves to it.
The idea of term limits and making a better Congress doesn’t happen when only a few are doing it.
There is no Hypocrisy or flip flopping in supporting term limits for Congress but not placing them upon yourself.
The point was to improve congress, not that term limits in themselves was some principled idea that must be adhered to regardless.
WHile emotionally I like the idea of term limits, it is not very practical in this sense. It would only give MORE power to the parties. To hand out committee assignments, to control legislators, etc. Something we do not need.
“Nathaniel” offers this logic –
“[Term limits are] …not going to happen when the very people supporting term limits keep quiting to support term limits.”
Yeah, boy. We can’t have public officials actually believing in the issues they run on.
MonekyHawk,
Tiahrt ran on supportin term limits for everyone, not just himself.
Seems like he actually believes in the issues he ran on to me.
Nathan, it’s called leading by example, something you and your fellow neo-cons wouldn’t understand. But thanks for making the point that Tiahrt has no principles and will make empty promises and nobody can believe anything he says.
Maggotpunk,
I am still waiting for you to show me this “principle” he had and didn’t follow, where he made a “promise” that he didn’t keep, or where he said anything that wasn’t true.
Sorry, you must be ethics challenged.
Phantom,
Wow! You found a new word, ethics!
Ok, now tell me where not holding yourself to term limits is not ethical?
I think everyone has already explained it to you Nathan. Thanks for amusing everyone for displaying the lengths you’ll go to to remain in denial.
Fred says he is against alcohol and it should be illegal.
Fred is found to be drinking and asked why. His response is that when alcohol is illegal he will not drink, but even though he is still against alcohol and thinks it should be illegal he can drink because it is not yet illegal.
Is Fred a hypocrite?
If he made a specific promise to hold to one or two election cycles, or whatever, then he should have done so. If he didn;t it would be good to lead by example, but not necessary. Or, wouild you care for me to go thru each and every campaign issue that some scmuch, (republican or democrat, ran on and it didn;t pass, so they didn;t abide by it? I don;t have that much time, neither do you. You all know it’s true. Pretending otherwise is just wrong.
Maggotpunk,
No one has explained anything here. I keep asking, but no explanations yet.
I honestly don’t think it really matters anyhow. The only ones who care are a bunch of liberals who never voted for Tiahrt, will not vote for Tiahrt, and don’t support Tiahrt.
No loss.
Last example, it’s like a representative of congress persecuting/denouncing another member of govt. for extramarital affairs, while engaged in one himself.
Phantom,
How is it like that at all?
Tiahrt is not out denouncing anyone for not holding themselves to term limits.
Nathan’s excuses are like Ted Haggard. Ted said he was not opposed to gay sex, just gay marriage therefore him getting buggered by a male prostitute was perfectly acceptable. Now Nathan is trying to bugger us with the stupid excuse that Tiahrt wanted to hold everyone to term limits, except for himself.
Maggotpunk,
Tiahrt supported an amendment holding everyone, inculding himself, to term limits.
It didn’t happen.
Now, some liberals, who don’t support Tiahrt, would never vote for him, and didn’t support or vote for him, are sitting here saying Tiahrt should have held himself to term limits anyhow.
Absurd.
Nathan: This is just my opinion, but who cares what these guys think? You gave a perfectly good defense of Tiahrt’s decision to run for an additional term(s). Responding to their idiocy just encourages more of the same.
If they don’t like it, let them go hang.
I believe Glickman was the entrenched incumbent 18 yr. incumbent that term limits was aimed at in tiahrt’s first successful election to congress.
But, everyone should do as I say, not as I do, but I’m not going to do it if everyone else doesn’t. Do you think that’s what his supporters expected?
I expect that the Tiahrt is going to be contacting Nathaniel to hire him on as campain something-or-other, with such good, reasonable, and logical explanations as Nathaniel has provided here today
Phantom,
Figuring that Tiahrt is still getting elected, and as one of his supporters, he has done far more than we expected from him.
The Contract with America was about enacting term limits for all of congress. It is pointless to then limit yourself when those who opposed the term limits would then have even more power and benefit to you handicapping yourself.
The problem which term limits was meant to help with, would not be fixed by then enacting said term limits only upon yourself.
Where did Tiahrt say he was going to enact term limits on himself regardless? Where did he say that his goal was term limits on himself no matter what happened?
Brian,
Does that mean you are concedeing the argument then?
So now, the shoes on the other foot,not so comfortable is it.
Or, practice what you preach. If Betts had poor ethics and he believed term limits was the way it should be, he could use that in his campaign, then in 12 yrs. decide, maybe that’s not such a good thing.
I would not doubt he made such statements buy the info. just doesn’t seem to be available. Too long ago.
Nathaniel
Posted August 27, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
Could you imagine the stupidity of the entire Republican Congress stepping down and allowing the Democrats to come into power?
___
Isn’t this pretty much what the Republicans did in 2006 by getting the majority of their Contract on America hypocrits booted out of office?
The Republicans lost that year due to their corruption, greed, trolling for young male pages and sex scandals. And these are only the things the public knows about. Wait until the Bush Administration’s secret records are unsealed and then we will know more of the truth of the good and moral Republicans.
“I expect that the Tiahrt is going to be contacting Nathaniel to hire him on as campain something-or-other”
God I hope so, Brian. Betts needs a jump start.
#
KSGolfnut
Posted August 27, 2008 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
Can anyone offer a logical rationale AGAINST term limits for all of congress?
________________________________________________________
Sure, term limits are incredibly stupid. When you elect a congressman it takes a while for them to build up seniority and experience to become an effective legislator.
The shorter the the term limits, the more a legislator would have to depend on staff and career bureaucrats thereby taking control further and further from the voters.
Don’t like your legislator? Take your case to the voters and run against him. Todd Tiahrt is one of the hardest working legislators in Washington from Kansas. I’m sure that wen he decides to run for governor he’ll turn the office over to another good conservative!
I don’t care for brownback, but if the reason he’s not going for a 3rd term is because he said he wouldn’t when he got elected, I have to respect his doing what he said.
“Todd Tiahrt is one of the hardest working legislators in Washington from Kansas. I’m sure that wen he decides to run for governor he’ll turn the office over to another good conservative!”
God, let’s hope not…haven’t we suffered enough?
Mary,
Who is this “we” that has suffered?
Last I checked, you have built an extra bedroom, are building a bigger deck, have a new ariplane hanger, live on a lake, and those are only the things I see.
Where are you suffering and how is it Tiahrt’s fault?
Nathaniel – why are you keeping inventory on Mary’s life? Why don’t you take care of yourself and she will take care of herself.
Pmom is suffering.
It’s obvious from her writing.
Mom,
I drive by Mary’s home at least once a week for the past 8 years.
If she is suffering it is news to me and even then, how is it Tiahrt’s fault?
“Nathaniel
Posted August 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
Brian,
Does that mean you are concedeing the argument then?”
Not concedeing, just realizing the futility of further debate on the topic and moving on….