Jim Barnett may be remembered by most Kansans as the Republican that took a 16-point beating from Kathleen Sebelius in the November 2006 gubernatorial election. Born in Emporia and raised on a farm in nearby Reading, the 55-year-old MD began his political career by being elected to Emporia’s Board of Education in 1991. He then went on to serve the past decade in the Kansas Senate, where he chaired the health committee and also served on the Ag, Banking and Insurance committees. Receiving his board certification in 1982 Barnett has practiced internal medicine in Emporia since, though he’s taken a leave from his practice for the current campaign to replace Jerry Moran as Representative of Kansas’ First District. Though Barnett was in Greensburg Wednesday to speak to the local Rotary Club before touring the new hospital and several local businesses, Signal Editor Mark Anderson was not able to make connections with Barnett. He and Barnett did, however, conduct a phone interview of slightly more than an hour Thursday morning. Following is the majority of that conversation:
Signal: Some pundits have opined that the reason you lost so badly to Sebelius four years ago is that moderate Republicans were frustrated the party had gone too far to the right and had defected to vote for her. What’s your take on the outcome?
Barnett: I think that 2006 was a terrible time for any Republican to be running for anything, just as 2010 is a terrible time for a Democrat to be running for office. I think it was a reflection of people’s frustration with their elected leaders failing to govern, a frustration even stronger today. But I’d point out I have a reputation in Topeka as a consensus builder, and that’s what’s needed in Washington.
Signal: How would the state of Kansas be different today if you’d won in that 2006 race for governor?
Barnett: First of all, I offered a four-year budget that would’ve meant a little less money overall for schools, but that their funding would’ve been affordable and more evenly spread out. Schools would’ve been funded within a budget that wouldn’t have had to be cut several times. I also would have cut the state income tax rate for middle-income families and would have pushed for a 10 percent investment tax credit for all businesses. The state would have been left with the funds needed for a real transportation program including a four-lane 54 Highway project fully funded.
Signal: And Sebelius’ opposition to the coal-fire plant in Holcomb?
Barnett: Wouldn’t have happened (the opposition) if I’d won. I was all for that project because of the jobs, tax base and energy production that would have resulted.
Signal: Taking a look at yourself, (Tracey) Mann, (Tim) Huelskamp and (Rob) Wasinger and you’re all pretty conservative on paper. What sets you apart?
Barnett: I have a background in Ag and healthcare and those seem to be the two major issues in this race in this part of the state. I have an ability to build consensus, to find solutions to problems. I support term limits.
Signal: Mann also supports limits and when asked he said 12 years is enough—two terms in the Senate and six in the House. That sound about right?
Barnett: I’d say that’s a good range. On the other hand, you need time to become a statesman. I also want to say that after the August 3 primary I plan to travel around the U.S. two days a week to help like-minded (read that conservative) candidates to develop a coalition of incoming Congressmen and women when we (GOP) begin running the House hopefully next January.
Signal: An effort to build a sort of conservative juggernaut like Gingrich was able to do in ’94?
Barnett: Yes, something like that so we won’t be fighting and bickering so much as having a common aim in tamping down spending and fixing healthcare.
Signal: Explain briefly if you can the so-called Huelskamp Amendment that was vetoed by Parkinson recently, and Rob Wasinger’s aggressive criticism of it and Huelskamp and you for your support of it.
Barnett: Yes, the EPA Amendment. I supported that resolution that would request the federal government not impose regulations on carbon dioxide, dust, water resources and so forth. I can’t speak for other candidates (read that, I don’t want to recognize Wasinger’s criticism of the resolution), but I don’t want to spend taxpayer money on regulating dust or carbon dioxide. I mean this whole issue of global warming is politicized and clouded by unclear science.
Signal: How do you respond to this statement released yesterday from your opponent Rob Wasinger in regard to your support of the statewide smoking ban that passed and was signed into law to go into effect next week? “Instead of focusing on solving the education funding crisis, Jim Barnett chose to support and actively promote a nanny-state law that hurts revenue for businesses and will likely lead to higher unemployment during tough economic times. Barnett’s smoking ban is a job-killer. Business owners can count on me as an ally in the fight to get big government out of our lives so they can grow, expand and prosper.”
Barnett: First of all, I’m concerned about the health of my fellow Kansans, especially the children of this state. My support of that ban is rooted in that concern. I’ve worked for years to help business grow by keeping taxes low and providing tax credits for various interests. I work to keep regulations under control.
Signal: But a libertarian or very conservative voter could be concerned by the apparent overreach of government in this measure; government as big brother trying to control behavior and limit liberty of individuals.
Barnett: I listened to constituents and such a ban is the preference of a majority of Kansans, which is why I think this measure passed. I’m sympathetic to the other side of this argument, but sometimes you have to cast a tough vote, just like there are going to be some tough votes that need to be cast next year in Washington.
Signal: You’re a declared pro-life politician. Is your pro-life position more like that of Jerry Moran or Todd Tiahrt? (Recounting of Tiahrt’s signing of letter signed by 32 GOP congressmen to Obama seeking his withdrawal of Sebelius as HHS Secretary because of her pro-abortion record and support of late-term abortionist George Tiller—a letter Moran did not sign. Moran later explained he didn’t sign the letter because of Senator Roberts and Brownback having already stated they’d vote for Sebelius, presumably out of loyalty to a fellow Kansan.)
Barnett: I can’t comment about other candidates’ actions, or lack of action. But I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record in the Kansas Senate and would have the same in Congress. I would not vote for that nomination if it were for such a person with such a pro-abortion record.
Signal: So is it fair to say Roberts and Brownback voted in a manner contrary to how you would have voted?
Barnett: Yes, that’s a fair statement.
Signal: Did Obama make the right call in accepting McChrystal’s resignation?
Barnett: Yes, I believe that we need to respect the civilian authority over our military. I’m afraid that McChrystal went over the line.
Signal: If not in what he actually said but in allowing a stringer from The Rolling Stone to hang around headquarters for a month?
Barnett: Right, and that’s not a magazine I read.
Signal: What grade would you give Obama on his handling of the Afghan War to date?
Barnett: I can’t give him a passing grade. Our troops are trained to fight a war to win it. I’m concerned over such limiting rules of engagement imposed on them. We’re so concerned over injuring others in Afghanistan but drones drop bombs all the time in Pakistan. I just don’t believe Barack Obama’s heart is behind achieving victory in this war. And if not, why be there?
Signal: How committed are you to overturning ObamaCare?
Barnett: Fully committed…one of my highest priorities. ObamaCare is going to raise taxes; will lead to rationing; it guts Medicare; and it fails to address root causes, such as implementing tort reform. ‘Do no harm’ is part of my pledge as a physician and that bill will do more harm than good. Look, I read the Arizona anti-illegal immigration bill, and it’s a good bill. Then you’ve got people like (Attorney General Eric) Holder and (Head of Homeland Security Janet) Napolitano saying they oppose it when they haven’t even read it. These people are in over their head. Obama and his people are in over their head. Sorry, I got a little off subject there but I feel strongly about these things.
Signal: Is overturning ObamaCare a realistic aim? Do you think he’s a one-term president?
Barnett: He’d better be. He has to be a one-term president. First thing we’ve got to do is win back control of the House this November and then take back the White House in 2012. That’s the only way we can repeal this thing. Until then, if we take back the House in November we (GOP controlled House) will de-fund ObamaCare until we get the right leadership in the White House in two years.
Signal: What grade do you give Obama for his handling of the oil spill crisis in the Gulf?
Barnett: Failing. Look, the first thing that should’ve happened was finding and bringing together the best resources for plugging the hole at the very beginning. Second, the clean up needs to be fully staffed and I would have put someone like Rudy Giuliani in charge of that—someone who’s done it before and knows what they’re doing. Third, there needs to be a complete and thorough investigation of what went wrong so we know how to prevent it from happening again. And lastly, we need to avoid a knee-jerk reaction so we don’t have the kind of burdensome regulations that can hurt us even here in Kansas.
Signal: Like the six-month drilling moratorium Obama put in place?
Barnett: Exactly.
Signal: At least a federal judge overruled it, and now the Obama Administration is going to fight that ruling.
Barnett: Let’s hope the wisdom of the federal judge is what prevails, though I gave up a long time ago predicting what the courts will do.
Signal: The oil spill disaster and now the McChrystal meltdown have more or less diverted attention from the Joe Sestak scandal. Do you think there’s any chance Holder appoints a special prosecutor to look into the matter?
Barnett: I don’t expect a special prosecutor to be appointed.
Signal: Do you think one should be appointed?
Barnett: Yes, and that’s one more reason I support term limits.
Signal: How many seats do you think the GOP picks up in the House this fall?
Barnett: I’m counting 40.
Signal: The chances of that happening?
Barnett: I think greater than 50 percent we do that.
Signal: If the GOP does regain control of the House, what are lessons they should have learned from their former control of that body from ’94-’06—a control they lost big time four years ago—lessons that would serve them well this time around. In other words, where did they lose their way previously and how can they avoid doing so again?
Barnett: Great question. We too often fail to find consensus solutions to problems facing America. For the U.S. to get back on track we need to build a consensus for sensible solutions. We failed to govern when we had all three—the House, Senate and White House. It all goes back to why we lost Congress in 2006, back when the public lost faith in us (GOP) governing the way we should as conservatives—that was, as I said earlier, a factor in my losing so badly to Sebelius. That would be a totally different race today.
Signal: One you win?
Barnett: Yes.
Signal: Does the GOP retake the Senate?
Barnett: That’s a steeper hill to climb. I’d like to see us get enough seats so the Democrats can’t continue with things like cap and trade.
Signal: The recent KWCH poll shows you leading Mann only 23 to 20 percent; so he seems to be surging lately. How confident are you of maintaining a lead heading into August 3?
Barnett: I’ve seen four polls and I was leading in all four, but I’m taking nothing for granted and will campaign like I’m in last place.
Signal: How are you doing as far as cash on hand?
Barnett: We’ve generally been in second place there and 96 to 97 percent of what we’ve raised has been from Kansas. The leader has taken in significant money from outside the state.
Signal: That would be Huelskamp?
Barnett: Yes. I’m not saying that to be derogatory, just factual.
Signal: You look at candidates who’ve won primaries recently, like Nikki Haley in South Carolina (for governor), Sharron Angle (to face Harry Reid in Nevada), and Meg Whitman (to face Jerry Brown for California Governor), candidates who were endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and you’ve got to think those endorsements made a difference. Does the other side discount the Tea Party and Palin at its own peril?
Barnett: Absolutely. Whether it’s the Tea Party or Governor Palin, the issues they care about are the issues the majority of Americans are concerned with right now and they’re both on the right side of those issues.
Signal: How would you feel about a Palin endorsement?
Barnett: I’d be honored. But I’m especially interested in the endorsement of voters August 3.
Signal: How was your visit to Greensburg yesterday?
Barnett: Great. You have a beautiful hospital and I enjoyed touring the town with your mayor. You’ve come a long ways.
