In the most brilliant political move of the week, Kevin Yoder's campaign rolled-out www.stephenemoore.com, a satirical and critical website that places Stephene Moore and Nancy Pelosi side-by-side, marked with a "stamp of approval" from Nancy Pelosi herself. The site features a creative video that showcases Moore's DC townhouse (just mere blocks from the Capitol building) and paints her as a Washington insider. The site also chronicles Moore's exotic travel with her congressman husband on the taxpayer's dime--a total of $50,000--while turning each itemized expense as an opportunity to give a similar amount to Yoder's campaign for congress.
Perhaps most hilarious is the video of a Yoder staffer following Moore to numerous events over the course of the campaign and questioning her over whether she'd vote for Pelosi as speaker and receiving no answer again and again.
Yoder's campaign displayed savvy campaign skill in buying the domain early. Moore's campaign proved to be inept and just politically ignorant in failing to purchase the domain name of THEIR OWN CANDIDATE and prevent this type of scenario from occuring.
The Moore campaign only compounded their problems by attempting to shut down the site on a legal technicality involving the seller's right to sell the domain. Message to the Moore campaign: freedom of speech is non-negotiable. You failed to act early, now deal with the consequences.
The bright spot for Yoder in all of this: his campaign has raised 23K in online donations in the few days since the rollout and release of the mock-website was publicized, which will only help him in a race already leaning his way and that shows him with a 9-point polling lead.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Myth of Obamacare: Healthcare Reform vs. Insurance Reform and Lessons Learned from Our Neighbors across the Atlantic and Pacific
To hear Obamacare supporters and some folks who are just ignorant of the law itself tout the new healthcare law as healthcare reform only infuriates those of us who know what it truly is: it may be referred to as health insurance reform (although, reform in a positive sense is not what the law does at all) but the law is certainly not reform of the healthcare industry.
The law's provisions deal exclusively with health insurance: the mandate to purchase insurance, the requirement that insurance providers cover pre-existing conditions, new regulations mandating that employers provide health insurance or pay a fine--the list continues. The law, however, does not address the immediate and worsening crises within the healthcare industry itself: exponentially-increasing costs for healthcare goods and services; the shortage of qualified doctors and nurses to meet the growing demand of the American population, especially as baby boomers retire; the lack of portability of insurance coverage across state lines; barriers to entry and stifled competition for the emergence of new insurance carriers willing to compete for consumers; the lack of standardization and centralization of medical records; and the roadblocks to implementing new technologies for patient records and streamlining treatments.
Most believe this watered-down takeover of the health insurance industry is only a first step towards a government-run, single-payer system. If so, we could learn much from other countries dealing with the consequences of government-run, single-payer care.
I recently visited Sydney, Australia earlier this year and had the opportunity to witness a session of the New South Wales Parliament, the state legislative body governing Australia's largest state and most populous city. The main issue being debated: access to healthcare. Australia has a hybrid public-private healthcare system. Free healthcare is guaranteed for all 20 million Australians through a government-run scheme, but private healthcare facilities are also allowed to operate, and Australians can patronize these physicians and facilities at their own expense.
The parliamentary session was led by Premier (similar to the governor of a U.S. state) Kristina Keneally of Australia's leftist Labor Party, who acknowledged the federal government had not followed through on its promises to the states regarding healthcare funding, and as a result, New South Wales was experiencing critical shortages of hospital beds, vaccines, and medical equipment, along with complaints from citizens about long wait times for procedures and appointments. Leaders of Australia's right-leaning Liberal Party in the Parliament argued for decentralization of healthcare decision-making and allowing individual states and cities to allocate budget dollars for healthcare, shifting decision-making to doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators rather than bureaucrats in Canberra, Australia's capital city.
Keneally, alarmed that New South Wales residents may be inclined to support some of these common-sense policies in light of the failure of the leftist, federal leadership on the issue, immediately accused her political opponents of favoring--wait for it--privatization. She also said that New South Wales "would not return to the big business, privatization schemes of the Howard government." John Howard was the former prime minister, a conservative member of the Liberal Party and the favorite boogeyman of Australia's left since he lost his last election. Sound familiar?
The session quickly turned cantankerous as members of parliament shouted each other down and personally attacked one another over this extremely intense and volatile issue. The barrister had to quiet down the legislators several times for being out of line.
I find it ironic and revealing that the disastrous realities of centralized, government-run healthcare in Australia , Canada, and the United Kingdom are largely ignored by the U.S. media, but incite fierce debate in those countries over whether policy should move towards privatization and local control. The United Kingdom has already taken the first step: under Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, Britain's National Health Service will be downsized with most authority and decision-making devolved to the level of town councils and similar bodies.
Even in Australia, healthcare was a major issue in their most recent elections a few weeks ago. Labor lost their majority in the federal parliament and suffered major losses in New South Wales, home to Sydney and Australia's most populous state, a left-leaning bellweather for the entire country. Pundits down-under are now predicting that Keneally will lose her premiership in the upcoming state spring elections and that the conservative Liberal Party may gain control of the New South Wales Parliament for the first time in decades.
The irony of all ironies is that as Europeans move away from their socialized healthcare schemes to patient-centered healthcare with an emphasis on choice and access, the United States, long the world's leading bastion of individual freedom and liberty, will be moving further away from its own ideals and towards the failed trends of European social democracies.
The law's provisions deal exclusively with health insurance: the mandate to purchase insurance, the requirement that insurance providers cover pre-existing conditions, new regulations mandating that employers provide health insurance or pay a fine--the list continues. The law, however, does not address the immediate and worsening crises within the healthcare industry itself: exponentially-increasing costs for healthcare goods and services; the shortage of qualified doctors and nurses to meet the growing demand of the American population, especially as baby boomers retire; the lack of portability of insurance coverage across state lines; barriers to entry and stifled competition for the emergence of new insurance carriers willing to compete for consumers; the lack of standardization and centralization of medical records; and the roadblocks to implementing new technologies for patient records and streamlining treatments.
Most believe this watered-down takeover of the health insurance industry is only a first step towards a government-run, single-payer system. If so, we could learn much from other countries dealing with the consequences of government-run, single-payer care.
I recently visited Sydney, Australia earlier this year and had the opportunity to witness a session of the New South Wales Parliament, the state legislative body governing Australia's largest state and most populous city. The main issue being debated: access to healthcare. Australia has a hybrid public-private healthcare system. Free healthcare is guaranteed for all 20 million Australians through a government-run scheme, but private healthcare facilities are also allowed to operate, and Australians can patronize these physicians and facilities at their own expense.
The parliamentary session was led by Premier (similar to the governor of a U.S. state) Kristina Keneally of Australia's leftist Labor Party, who acknowledged the federal government had not followed through on its promises to the states regarding healthcare funding, and as a result, New South Wales was experiencing critical shortages of hospital beds, vaccines, and medical equipment, along with complaints from citizens about long wait times for procedures and appointments. Leaders of Australia's right-leaning Liberal Party in the Parliament argued for decentralization of healthcare decision-making and allowing individual states and cities to allocate budget dollars for healthcare, shifting decision-making to doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators rather than bureaucrats in Canberra, Australia's capital city.
Keneally, alarmed that New South Wales residents may be inclined to support some of these common-sense policies in light of the failure of the leftist, federal leadership on the issue, immediately accused her political opponents of favoring--wait for it--privatization. She also said that New South Wales "would not return to the big business, privatization schemes of the Howard government." John Howard was the former prime minister, a conservative member of the Liberal Party and the favorite boogeyman of Australia's left since he lost his last election. Sound familiar?
The session quickly turned cantankerous as members of parliament shouted each other down and personally attacked one another over this extremely intense and volatile issue. The barrister had to quiet down the legislators several times for being out of line.
I find it ironic and revealing that the disastrous realities of centralized, government-run healthcare in Australia , Canada, and the United Kingdom are largely ignored by the U.S. media, but incite fierce debate in those countries over whether policy should move towards privatization and local control. The United Kingdom has already taken the first step: under Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, Britain's National Health Service will be downsized with most authority and decision-making devolved to the level of town councils and similar bodies.
Even in Australia, healthcare was a major issue in their most recent elections a few weeks ago. Labor lost their majority in the federal parliament and suffered major losses in New South Wales, home to Sydney and Australia's most populous state, a left-leaning bellweather for the entire country. Pundits down-under are now predicting that Keneally will lose her premiership in the upcoming state spring elections and that the conservative Liberal Party may gain control of the New South Wales Parliament for the first time in decades.
The irony of all ironies is that as Europeans move away from their socialized healthcare schemes to patient-centered healthcare with an emphasis on choice and access, the United States, long the world's leading bastion of individual freedom and liberty, will be moving further away from its own ideals and towards the failed trends of European social democracies.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Political Shocker: Yoder wins Olathe Straw Poll
Calling it a political upset would be an understatement. A political earthquake or watershed moment in the Kansas 3rd District congressional race is a more accurate description of what unfolded this past Saturday.
The annual straw poll, conducted during the last weekend of June at the Olathe Republican picnic, doesn't tend to be a very accurate barometer of campaign strength or electoral outcomes, only because it skews heavily conservative. In fact, the event is usually only attended by a handful of political insiders and candidates.
The Yoder campaign knew they had an uphill battle and privately conceded that the best outcome would be a very narrow margin between Kevin Yoder and Patricia Lightner in the results. Yet the eventual outcome, a 39 vote margin (156 votes to 117 for Lightner) is a testament to the strength and energy behind the Yoder campaign and their grassroots strategy. For the last week prior to the picnic, Yoder staffers canvassed neighborhoods in Olathe, notifying supporters of the straw poll and giving them coupons allowing them to vote in the poll and enter the picnic free of charge courtesy of the campaign. Yoder staffers also peppered the entrance to the picnic and the surrounding area with yard signs and Kevin Yoder himself greeted attendees as they entered the event, providing them with information and that personal connection that voters--especially undecided voters--crave.
This aggressive and intense strategy netted the campaign a plurality of votes in the poll and a win no one saw coming. And the message is that if Kevin can win an extremely conservative straw poll in the heart of Johnson County's bastion of conservatism, Olathe, then Yoder's campaign is in position for a resounding victory at the polls on August 3rd.
Some opponents have already countered with accusations of vote-buying and the lack of representation of the poll results due to the tactics used. Apparently, they have been MIA the last several years, as buying supporters' way into the picnic and steering them to the poll is a longstanding practice that has been done by many campaigns--maybe not as overtly as Yoder's campaign and others did this year, but nonetheless, it's common practice and no one has ever claimed that this straw poll is representative. On the contrary, past election results indicate that the poll is nothing more than a barometer of which campaign has grassroots support and a good organization in place to round up supporters for the vote. Tiahrt's campaign bused in supporters from Wichita, just as they did last year, so whether a campaign buys tickets for their supporters to vote in the poll or pays for supporters from out of town to vote in a poll that is supposed to be test of local support, it is to be expected and is par for the course when it comes to straw polls. Yet I don't hear these same opponents complaining that Tiahrt's people circumvented the process by buying votes.
At any rate, this poll does indicate momentum, the intensity of Yoder's support, and the efficacy of the Yoder campaign's grassroots mobilization--all necessary components to ensure a victory on August 3rd and ultimate victory on November 2nd.
The annual straw poll, conducted during the last weekend of June at the Olathe Republican picnic, doesn't tend to be a very accurate barometer of campaign strength or electoral outcomes, only because it skews heavily conservative. In fact, the event is usually only attended by a handful of political insiders and candidates.
The Yoder campaign knew they had an uphill battle and privately conceded that the best outcome would be a very narrow margin between Kevin Yoder and Patricia Lightner in the results. Yet the eventual outcome, a 39 vote margin (156 votes to 117 for Lightner) is a testament to the strength and energy behind the Yoder campaign and their grassroots strategy. For the last week prior to the picnic, Yoder staffers canvassed neighborhoods in Olathe, notifying supporters of the straw poll and giving them coupons allowing them to vote in the poll and enter the picnic free of charge courtesy of the campaign. Yoder staffers also peppered the entrance to the picnic and the surrounding area with yard signs and Kevin Yoder himself greeted attendees as they entered the event, providing them with information and that personal connection that voters--especially undecided voters--crave.
This aggressive and intense strategy netted the campaign a plurality of votes in the poll and a win no one saw coming. And the message is that if Kevin can win an extremely conservative straw poll in the heart of Johnson County's bastion of conservatism, Olathe, then Yoder's campaign is in position for a resounding victory at the polls on August 3rd.
Some opponents have already countered with accusations of vote-buying and the lack of representation of the poll results due to the tactics used. Apparently, they have been MIA the last several years, as buying supporters' way into the picnic and steering them to the poll is a longstanding practice that has been done by many campaigns--maybe not as overtly as Yoder's campaign and others did this year, but nonetheless, it's common practice and no one has ever claimed that this straw poll is representative. On the contrary, past election results indicate that the poll is nothing more than a barometer of which campaign has grassroots support and a good organization in place to round up supporters for the vote. Tiahrt's campaign bused in supporters from Wichita, just as they did last year, so whether a campaign buys tickets for their supporters to vote in the poll or pays for supporters from out of town to vote in a poll that is supposed to be test of local support, it is to be expected and is par for the course when it comes to straw polls. Yet I don't hear these same opponents complaining that Tiahrt's people circumvented the process by buying votes.
At any rate, this poll does indicate momentum, the intensity of Yoder's support, and the efficacy of the Yoder campaign's grassroots mobilization--all necessary components to ensure a victory on August 3rd and ultimate victory on November 2nd.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
There's Something Rotten in Johnson County...
Johnson County Community College rightfully boasts of its well-deserved reputation as one of the nation's leading community colleges and most affordable choice for students seeking a variety of career and degree-focused programs, but a recent controversy over free speech threatens to tarnish that legacy.
Kathy Brown, a professional attorney, nurse, and student at JCCC in early 2009 alleges that the college violated her First Amendment rights and has stonewalled an internal investigation into the matter.
Brown says she was told by one professor she could not criticize Islam, and she was reprimanded by another professor for arguing her opposition to gay marriage in a private conversation with another student.
The response from college administration officials? The "Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion" (which aptly reeks of political correctness run amok) informed Brown of the unwritten and informal (but apparently, enforced) "Discomfort Policy" at JCCC, which bars any speech that could be construed as offensive or cause someone to feel uncomfortable.
After met with such ridiculous free speech restrictions and justification, Brown took her case to the JCCC Board of Trustees, but in the 15 months since she launched her complaint, but strangely, the Board has offered no details for the delay and stonewalling, and no hints that a resolution is even near.
Brown gave a detailed and impassioned account of her story and determination to achieve a just resolution and acknowledgment of wrongdoing at last month's Board of Trustees meeting, but the Board was strangely tight-lipped on the matter.
It's difficult to prove discrimination, bias, and violation of one's rights if you are not of a protected or favored class in today's society, and that challenge is compounded by
a policy that is unwritten but very much enforced.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. I have information from a current student who was belittled and asked by JCCC officials to change her shirt on two different occasions: once, when she was wearing a College Republicans shirt and on another occasion where she wore a shirt commemorating our troops' sacrifice in Iraq.
Kansas Watchdog, Kansas Reform, and Ben Hodge have reported on this local controversy. Now we at the Kenig Konnection call on JCCC and the Board of Trustees to respond to Brown's complaints, provide a resolution, hold the offending parties responsible, and end this "Discomfort Policy" once and for all.
Video courtesty of KansasWatchdog.org
Kathy Brown, a professional attorney, nurse, and student at JCCC in early 2009 alleges that the college violated her First Amendment rights and has stonewalled an internal investigation into the matter.
Brown says she was told by one professor she could not criticize Islam, and she was reprimanded by another professor for arguing her opposition to gay marriage in a private conversation with another student.
The response from college administration officials? The "Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion" (which aptly reeks of political correctness run amok) informed Brown of the unwritten and informal (but apparently, enforced) "Discomfort Policy" at JCCC, which bars any speech that could be construed as offensive or cause someone to feel uncomfortable.
After met with such ridiculous free speech restrictions and justification, Brown took her case to the JCCC Board of Trustees, but in the 15 months since she launched her complaint, but strangely, the Board has offered no details for the delay and stonewalling, and no hints that a resolution is even near.
Brown gave a detailed and impassioned account of her story and determination to achieve a just resolution and acknowledgment of wrongdoing at last month's Board of Trustees meeting, but the Board was strangely tight-lipped on the matter.
It's difficult to prove discrimination, bias, and violation of one's rights if you are not of a protected or favored class in today's society, and that challenge is compounded by
a policy that is unwritten but very much enforced.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. I have information from a current student who was belittled and asked by JCCC officials to change her shirt on two different occasions: once, when she was wearing a College Republicans shirt and on another occasion where she wore a shirt commemorating our troops' sacrifice in Iraq.
Kansas Watchdog, Kansas Reform, and Ben Hodge have reported on this local controversy. Now we at the Kenig Konnection call on JCCC and the Board of Trustees to respond to Brown's complaints, provide a resolution, hold the offending parties responsible, and end this "Discomfort Policy" once and for all.
Video courtesty of KansasWatchdog.org
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
2nd District: Sen. Pyle faces state investigation over improper use of campaign funds
Dennis Pyle has some explaining to do. Pyle, the Hiawatha state senator mounting a challenge against incumbent Republican Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins (the only house incumbent in KS facing a primary challenge--an unusual move) is being investigated by the state Ethics Commission for allegedly using funds from his state senate campaign to finance a trip to Washington, D.C. to meet with campaign consultants for his congressional bid. Using funds raised for a state race for federal campaign activities is a violation of campaign finance law and could carry a heavy fine, and possibly cripple Pyle's campaign before it has the chance to gain any traction.
Pyle's response? According to KC PrimeBuzz:
Pyle's response? According to KC PrimeBuzz:
News to Sen. Pyle: if you made a mistake, man up to it. This has nothing to do with being a conservative and your "conservatism" should not provide cover for breaking the law. A lapse in judgment or oversight can happen without any malicious intent--especially with the myriad of rules and regulations in Kansas campaign finance law. However, it is better to admit the mistake and move on then to feign innocence and presume that your ideology trumps violating the law.“I expect the left to resort to these tactics,” Pyle said. “The people of
the 2nd District deserve a true conservative.”
Monday, May 24, 2010
Major GOP win in Hawaii
The GOP is on a roll. After winning the governorship of New Jersey, Republicans rocked the political establishment by winning Ted Kennedy's seat in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts.
Now, Republican can add Hawaii's 1st congressional district to their list. Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou won the special election this past Saturday to succeed Neil Abercrombie, who resigned to run for Governor. Due to the special circumstances of this race (two Democrats--Colleen Hanabusa and Ed Case--ran in this open, free-for-all, winner-take-all election), Djou did the impossible and won with 40 percent of the vote, compared to 31 percent for Hanabusa and 28 percent for Ed Case. Djou won't have much time to rest though, as he will be defending his newly-won seat in congress this November.
Hawaii's first congressional district is its most urban, and includes all of Honolulu. The win is a major victory for Republicans--not only did Djou run as a fiscal conservative opposing Obama on healthcare, Cap-and-Trade and other initiatives, his win represents the first time Hawaii will be represented by a Republican in more than 2 decades and only the second Republican to represent the islands on Capitol Hill since statewood.
And let's not forget that this district is Obama's childhood home and gave him 70 percent of the vote in 2008. Will it be difficult for Djou to retain this seat? Yes, but not impossible: George Bush garnered 47 percent of the vote here in 2008.
Here's a visual breakdown of the district's vote. Notice the sea of red!
Which state will be the next to turn from blue to red? Republicans can't take anything for granted--as the Democratic retention of Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district proved last week. But with the right candidates, the right message, and the right ground game, Republicans can continue to pile up wins in blue states.
Friday, May 07, 2010
And the Winner Is...
Yesterday, UK voters came out in droves to vote in their first national elections since 2005 and the winner is...
Well, let's just say that the British Elections are like our 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Redux. It's like deja vu all over again. The Conservative Party needs to gain an absolute majority in Parliament (326 seats) to form a government on their own. The vote counting lasted long into the night, along with reports and complaints of long lines at polling places and masses of people being turned away (again, similar to our 2000 election).
Check out the BBC's live feed for the latest results, vote count, and news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/liveevent/
Most recent estimates have the Conservatives at 305 seats, Labour at 258, and the Liberal Democrats (a third, center-left party) at 57 seats. The Conservatives are just shy of a majority, and will need the support of the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government, a phenomenon that Britain (a country that prides itself on stable governance unlike its neighbors in Europe that often see coalitions form and governments fail routinely) has not witnessed in several decades.
It is disappointing that the Conservatives under-performed considering the weakness of the British economy, the unpopularity of Gordon Brown, and a wave of scandals that have plagued the Labour party, but it is worth noting that Labour suffered it's worse showing since 1931. Based on current estimates, Labour ranks in the House of Commons will be reduced from 341 to 258, a net loss of 83 seats, while the Conservatives will increase their share from 193 to 305-307 seats, a net gain of 112-114 seats. And despite the buzz over Liberal Democrat candidate for Prime Minister Nick Clegg's performance at the debates and the possibility that his party would make its strongest showing ever, the final results demonstrated that the opinion polls were not to be trusted: the Liberal Democrats will actually lose 6 seats in Parliament, falling from 63 seats to 57.
Despite the outcome of a hung Parliament, the shift to the right in the UK in in line with recent shifts to the right throughout Europe. Add Great Britain to the list of western nations with center-right governments amidst discontent with the European social democracy-style welfare states and the high taxes, massive deficits, high unemployment, and stagnant GDP growth. France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, and now Great Britain, among many others, are trending rightward.
Barring any major surprises, it is safe to say that David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the first Conservative to hold the nation's highest office in more than 13 years.
Well, let's just say that the British Elections are like our 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Redux. It's like deja vu all over again. The Conservative Party needs to gain an absolute majority in Parliament (326 seats) to form a government on their own. The vote counting lasted long into the night, along with reports and complaints of long lines at polling places and masses of people being turned away (again, similar to our 2000 election).
Check out the BBC's live feed for the latest results, vote count, and news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/liveevent/
Most recent estimates have the Conservatives at 305 seats, Labour at 258, and the Liberal Democrats (a third, center-left party) at 57 seats. The Conservatives are just shy of a majority, and will need the support of the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government, a phenomenon that Britain (a country that prides itself on stable governance unlike its neighbors in Europe that often see coalitions form and governments fail routinely) has not witnessed in several decades.
It is disappointing that the Conservatives under-performed considering the weakness of the British economy, the unpopularity of Gordon Brown, and a wave of scandals that have plagued the Labour party, but it is worth noting that Labour suffered it's worse showing since 1931. Based on current estimates, Labour ranks in the House of Commons will be reduced from 341 to 258, a net loss of 83 seats, while the Conservatives will increase their share from 193 to 305-307 seats, a net gain of 112-114 seats. And despite the buzz over Liberal Democrat candidate for Prime Minister Nick Clegg's performance at the debates and the possibility that his party would make its strongest showing ever, the final results demonstrated that the opinion polls were not to be trusted: the Liberal Democrats will actually lose 6 seats in Parliament, falling from 63 seats to 57.
Despite the outcome of a hung Parliament, the shift to the right in the UK in in line with recent shifts to the right throughout Europe. Add Great Britain to the list of western nations with center-right governments amidst discontent with the European social democracy-style welfare states and the high taxes, massive deficits, high unemployment, and stagnant GDP growth. France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, and now Great Britain, among many others, are trending rightward.
Barring any major surprises, it is safe to say that David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the first Conservative to hold the nation's highest office in more than 13 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
