There\’s news on the Kansas Senatorial front.
The Kansas Supreme Court, which is “dominated by democratic appointees” (so says the New York Times) has voted that Chad Taylor, the Democrat primary winner, thus Senate candidate, can withdraw from the race – even though his withdrawal letter does not meet the legal criteria for doing so.
They must have learned their law from New Jersey where, in 2002, Robert Torricelli withdrew as the Democrats\’ senate candidate after the date he could legally be replaced on the ticket, and, as in Kansas, the Democrat-dominated State Supreme Court allowed Democrats to replace him anyway.
But that is not the end of it.
A petition was immediately filed to force Democrats to replace Taylor on the ballot (which, as of this date, is still legal in Kansas). But Democrats, who want “independent” Greg Orman (in reality, also a Democrat) to run, unopposed, against Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. They figure – probably correctly – that Roberts will win a three-way race with two opponents splitting the vote, but might lose one-on-one against Orman.
Roberts\’ Campaign Manager, Corry Bliss, had this to say about it:
“Ina bow to Senators Claire McCaskill and Harry Reid, liberal activistSupreme Court justices have decided that if you voted in the DemocratPrimary on August 5th, your vote does not matter, your voice does notmatter, and you have no say in who should be on the ballot onElection Day. This is not only a travesty toKansas voters, but it’s a travesty to the judicial system and ourelectoral process.”
Does the obviously self-serving Mr. Bliss have a point? You tell me.
This is getting more interesting by the minute. I\’ll keep watching and apprise you of new developments when they occur.
