About six weeks ago I made a comment in which I suggested that I was considering running for Senate, both to beat up on Todd Tiahrt and to show people that liberals and progressives aren't wimps.
Last year, I said something to the effect of "There is no way I could possibly be worse at football than the Chiefs. I should try out." Given that I am not a professional football player (and, in fact, haven't played organized football since the fifth grade) the suggestion was hyperbolic and idle. My suggestion to run for the Senate was not, at the time, much more serious than my suggestion that I try out for the Chiefs. But a lot of people seemed to be enthusiastic about the idea, which got me thinking about it more seriously. I decided I'd make a final decision by October 1. That gives me about eight more hours on the clock.
Roughly half of my decision was based on whether a credible candidate for the seat surfaced by now. The other half was based on whether I thought I would be able to command an actual platform on which to speak, or if I'd be the liberal version of the fire and brimstone preacher who comes to the University of Kansas campus from time to time to call the female students "whores."
History would tell me that a Democrat has about as much chance of winning Kansas as I do of making the opening day roster for the Chiefs next year. The last time we elected a Democrat to the Senate was 1932. Last year, Jim Slattery lost by a 2-1 margin to Pat Roberts. My other handicaps include the fact that I'd be the youngest senator since Rush Holt was sworn in on his thirtieth birthday and the fact that I'm not a politician and before August 15 had no particular desire to be one.
Six weeks of mulling this over, and I haven't been able to decide yet. Bring back the old-school prairie populism, and show the nation that progressives can still be fiery speakers, or save myself the possible humiliation before a mercifully small audience? Six weeks of consideration, and I still haven't worked out the answer to that question, so I thought I'd turn it over to the Kossacks.
But before you answer the question, I want to make two points. The first is the one I made six weeks ago: I firmly believe that Kansans, and indeed Americans, will choose an honest man they disagree with over a liar who agrees with them. The second is from Harry Truman. "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time."
My name is Matt Baier, and I'm a proud Kansas liberal. What do you think?
Updated by request for the ten cent bio:
I'm a 28-year-old student at the University of Kansas. My political experience is limited to volunteering for Jim Slattery's successful 1992 congressional re-election campaign (by which I mean my brother was the campaign manager and he put me to work instead of babysitting) and his unsuccessful 2008 bid for the Senate. I worked for Verizon and AT&T for a few years before leaving to go back to college.
In short, I'm not a politician. Becoming one was never really part of my plan. And I'm good with that, because it's not like having better credentials make you more likely to win. In fact, nobody with better credentials is even running on our side.