skip to main |
skip to sidebar
New but not at all surprising, Americans for Prosperity-Kansas gave Sen. Tim Huelskamp's record this past session in the Senate as 100% perfect. Huelskamp was one of only seven Senators to receive a perfect score from AFP. Until the Kansas Taxpayers Network merged with AFP-Kansas, Huelskamp also had the highest lifetime rating of any sitting State Senator as well.
Clearly when it comes to advocating for the taxpayer, Sen. Huelskamp has the record to back up the rhetoric.
"It's always an honor to be recognized by AFP as one of the conservative leaders in the state senate," Huelskamp said. "As a state senator, I have always been willing to take up the cause of fighting for lower taxes and limited government, and that is something I will continue as Congressman for the Big First."
Jim Barnett didn't even come close to scoring 100% in the key limited government test. As of 2007, Barnett had a lifetime taxpayer rating of 44.7% from the Kansas Taxpayer's Network. That's lower than Democrat David Haley.
Barnett's voting record and thus his numbers, have improved as his aspirations for higher office has been made more clear."Conservatives would be hard-pressed to find a stronger and more consistent voice in the Kansas Senate than Sen. Tim Huelskamp," Derrick Sontag, the state director for AFP-Kansas, said. "We want to thank Tim for his hard work on behalf of limited government, lower taxes and less wasteful spending."
Congratulations Senator! It's certainly no surprise to anyone familiar with Kansas politics, but we thank you for your efforts just the same.
A Happy Anniversary is due to Rob Wasinger today.
November 4, 2008 was the first day Rob Wasinger voted in the first district of Kansas! If Rob had been just a little bit quicker coming back to Kansas to run for office, he could have voted in the Republican primary as well. So next year will not only be Rob's first time voting in a Kansas Republican primary, but it'll be his first time on the ballot too!
During Rob's first year, he's managed to go two full reporting cycles without a single itemized contribution from the first district, the area he wants to represent in Congress. Since then, Wasinger has only been able to gain 33 contributors. That's in comparison to 209 for Tim Huelskamp. This of course is all the more puzzling since the Wasinger for Congress campaign continues to send out emails claiming over 100 first district supporters. Are these supporters in name only?
Either way, congratulations to Rob Wasinger for making it one full year of voting in Kansas. I'm sure lifelong voters in Kansas will look favorably on the only voting record you have!
Last week's Hutchinson News article nicely defined where the first district race is to this point with first, second and third tier candidates. Now, I don't believe a campaign can be judged solely on fundraising as there are a lot of factors that play into a successful campaign. (And you know I really mean that since my guy is pretty much mopping the floor in that area.) But I do think in an off election year (yes, this is an off election year, despite what you've heard in the news), fundraising is the only tangible measurement of a candidates potential success.
As the Hutch News article points out, the race is quickly becoming a two man battle between moderate backed Jim Barnett and conservative Tim Huelskamp. This shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone since they are the only two in the race with a voting record to back up their rhetoric (or lack thereof in Barnett's case), and the local connections needed to compete. What has been surprising is the failure of the second and third tier candidates.
Tracey Mann looked somewhat promising as a new moderate contender. This is looking less and less likely with Jim Barnett in the picture, backed by Morris, Vratil and Schmidt. I think originally Tim Barker was the mods guy, but with him out and Barnett in, there just isn't much room for Mann campaign. It also appears this past quarter that his fundraising is beginning to suffer after tapping out his family connections. Further, I'm sure endorsing Jim Slattery over Pat Roberts will certainly be noted by the Barnett campaign if the situation should warrant it.
Rob Wasinger continues to sputter in first district support. After two consecutive quarterly reports without a single itemized contribution from the first district, (a stretch that has to be unprecedented, although I know of no way to verify this), his October finance report showed he actually took in less in first district and Kansas contributions than last quarter. Only 5.9% of his total contributions have come from the district he wants to represent.
As What's Right With Kansas pointed out, Dennis Moore seems to be having local support problems, relying heavily on D.C. PAC contributions and receiving less and less individual contributions from everyday Kansans. Wasinger doesn't seem able to shake this problem either. I wholeheartedly agree with RWKS that voters seem to be following the DC insider money and voting with their pocketbook. And of course, a $2,500 contribution from John McCain's PAC certainly doesn't help the conservative cred, so it looks as though this will keep the first district in a two man race.
Huelskamp continues to build support. Most notable to is the endorsement by Club for Growth, one of the nation's premiere fiscal conservative organizations. Interestingly, Club for Growth has been a major force in New York's 23rd congressional district's special election, supporting the Conservative Party's nominee over the liberal GOP nominee. More on the similarities between NY-23 and KS-01 later.
Now, there's certainly still time for another candidate to get into the race, although by this time any Republican who announces is just looking for a meal ticket. With the mod squad behind Barnett, I'm sure the other mods in the race will be spoken with and quietly asked to exit stage left. There will be more than two names on the ballot come August, but for all intensive purposes, this has become a two man race.
Other than not knowing it's Senator Tim Huelskamp and not Representative, give this Kiowa County Signal reporter a gold star for being willing to ask the right questions.
An article published Monday in the Hutchinson News highlights Sen. Tim Huelskamp's success in fundraising this quarter.
When quarterly campaign finance reports appeared last week on the U.S. Federal Election Commission's Web site, state Sen. Tim Huelskamp, Fowler, led the pack in the six-candidate Republican race in the 1st District's August 2010 primary.
Also noted is the difficult environment candidates find themselves in trying to raise funds with several major congressional races occurring across the state.
Complicating fundraising for the six Republicans jockeying to succeed U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Hays, is Moran's own race for the U.S. Senate. He and U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, are locked in a contest and also seeking funds from Kansas Republicans. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., is running for governor in 2010, and he's competing for donations, too, as well as other Republicans running for statewide offices.
And of course the Barnett campaign notes that they just can't seem to get that finance report right.By the weekend, representatives for state Sen. Jim Barnett, Emporia, were pointing out that a glitch in the electronic filing had created the wrong impression about Barnett's fundraising efforts.
You know, it's funny you would mention that and yet ignore the horde of "undisclosed" employers and occupations you listed after getting your hand slapped by the FEC for doing the exact same thing last quarter. Or was that an FEC "glitch" too?
Really, how hard is it to get that information? How much longer is Jim Barnett going to break the law?
I personally have no interest in a Congressman wanna be who thinks he's above the law.
In the big first district there's little reason to discuss the Democratic candidate because, well, let's be honest, whoever it is doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. But I did run across an interesting story in the Salina Journal that outlines a federal lawsuit against the only Democrat running in the big first so far, Alan Jilka, that I thought should be mentioned.
The lawsuit alleges that Jilka fired the former director of the Salina Housing Authority because she refused Jilka's sexual advances. Also named in the suit are the Housing Authority, the city of Salina and board members of the Housing Authority.
I don't know if there is any substance to this suit at all. It's odd that most everyone who's getting sued acted as if they didn't have a clue they might be drug into court, especially since there were also complaints filed with the Kansas Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And I'll certainly be the first to say there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits out there.
But I do remember a certain Attorney General who Democrats actively recruited to run in the last statewide AG race. And I remember his opponent bringing up a very old sexual harassment lawsuit. And I remember that opponent getting pummeled for even mentioning it. And, of course, I remember little more than a year going by before the entire state learned what a creep the AG was.
So I guess I'm not sure what to think other than wondering if the Democrats have found themselves another Paul Morrison. Will Kansas Democrats rabidly defend Jilka after spending weeks on the blogs calling Republicans rapists?
I don't know, but it'll be interesting to watch.
What is happening in the Barnett campaign? Is he using so much brain power to keep track of which position he's flipped to that he's forgotten how to file a campaign finance report?I know I said that the campaign might have problems providing the information requested by the Federal Elections Commission, but I honestly thought that even if they didn't have the information that they would get it by the October 15 deadline to avoid a possible FEC audit.
I apparently was wrong.
Jim Barnett filed an amended campaign finance report for July but still failed to supply specific information requested by the FEC. Some occupation information is listed but employer data is still largely absent from the report. But instead of "requested" appearing where an employer should be, "undisclosed" appears instead.
Does this mean the FEC will audit the Barnett campaign to ensure they have made a good faith effort to obtain the missing information? Remember, the FEC notified the campaign that, "if the information is not provided, you must make one follow-up, stand alone effort to obtain this information, regardless of whether the contribution(s) was solicited or not. This effort must occur no later than 30 days after receipt of the contribution."
Of course, the story wouldn't be complete without noting that Barnett filed an October report with the exact same errors. Multiple donors have either "undisclosed" for employers information or "requested" for both occupation and employer info. And if an occupation is identified, the Barnett campaign has apparently decided that's good enough to list as an employer as well. Don't you know you can be a "physician" and be employed by "physician?"
Again, so many of these just don't make sense. David Wysong is listed as a $500 donor but has "requested" in both fields. Really, the Barnett campaign can't figure out what state Senator David Wysong does and who he works for? Is the public supposed to buy that?
The Barnett campaign's blatant disregard for public disclosure laws is mind-boggling. The FEC should launch an immediate investigation.
Huelskamp was the run away winner in the total contributions race with over $181,000 raised in the third quarter. Barnett reported $105,000, although exactly where that cash came from nobody has a clue. Rob Wasinger raised $106,000 mostly from, surprise surprise, the east coast. Tracey Mann and Monte Shadwick brought up the rear with $60,000 and $26,000 respectively.
Huelskamp was also the winner in cash on hand at the end of the third quarter with $379,000 left. Next was Barnett at $300,000, even though he once again messed up his summary report. Tracey Mann, still holding on to a lot of family cash was at $198,000. Rob Wasinger was at $194,000 and finally Shadwick clocked in at $18,000.
One final observation; my favorite contributor.
That would be former Kansas Republican Party National Committeeman, and liberal Republican's favorite son, Steve Cloud. He was a $1,000 donor to the conservative Barnett campaign.
Oh yea, he's an "Executive" and is employed by "Requested." That's the large firm that seems to employ many of Barnett's donors in Kansas.
Looks like the pay isn't too shabby at "Requested." I think I'll apply.
Sen. Tim Huelskamp posted significant fundraising numbers for the third quarter. In an email from the campaign Huelskamp reported receiving over $181,000 in contributions in the third quarter alone. Huelskamp showed just under $400,000 in cash on hand, putting him the drivers seat for the 2010 primary election.
Results from other candidates haven't been posted yet and no announcements from the campaigns have been made. Some of the questions to be answered later tonight are:
- Will Jim Barnett correct his July quarterly report? The FEC reprimand cites an October 15 deadline.
- Will Barnett lend himself substantial cash once again?
- Will Rob Wasinger post any significant numbers? Will he once again falter in first district contributions?
According to the candidate himself, “How much money you can raise is not an indication of what kind of campaign you will run, or what kind of Congressman you will be, but it is a measurement of how hard the candidate is working. These numbers show we’re taking this race seriously."
Jim Barnett received three serious citations from the Federal Elections Commission regarding his July 2009 campaign finance report.
The letter, dated September 9, shows that just a "preliminary review" of his report turned up multiple errors. The letter continues, "Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above (October 15) could result in an audit or enforcement action."
As noted before (here and here), Barnett failed to list a single occupation or employer for his donors. This is a serious oversight and it's hard to understand how a seasoned politician like Barnett allowed this to happen.
The FEC outlined three separate steps the campaign must take to obtain the missing occupation and employer information. Several of these may be a problem for the Barnett campaign should the FEC decide to audit their records.
According to the letter, Barnett must, "include a clear and conspicuous request for the contributor information and must inform the contributor of the requirements of federal law for the reporting of such information," in the original solicitation for funds. I have no idea if the Barnett campaign has been doing this, but I would imagine they haven't otherwise the information would have been included on the original report.
The FEC continues that, "if the information is not provided, you must make one follow-up, stand alone effort to obtain this information, regardless of whether the contribution(s) was solicited or not. This effort must occur no later than 30 days after receipt of the contribution."
This may be a problem for the Barnett campaign. Clearly we're several months out from any contributions that would have been included in a July 2009 finance report.
The FEC also notes Barnett's failure to provide all information regarding LLC and partnership business contributions. There's not even a "requested" in the occupation/employer fields for these donors.
Barnett also failed to list whether his $100K "loan" was from his personal funds or a bank. I'm pretty sure I could answer that one for the FEC, but I think I'll let the Barnett campaign handle it since they seem to have so many other items that need clarification as well.
I'm really shocked that the Barnett campaign didn't go ahead and file an amended report a few days after July 15. It isn't like the FEC isn't going to notice you haven't reported all information as required by law. The fact the campaign waited for a notice from the FEC rather than being proactive about fixing the problem only provides further evidence the campaign is deliberately withholding information.
If Barnett won't comply with simple campaign finance laws, how will he act if elected to Congress and in a position of considerable power? His intentional omission of required information raises serious questions about his trust with the public.
Missing employer and occupation information may seem trivial, but the fact the campaign has yet to report this information, knowing full well what the law requires and having received a serious notice from the FEC, speaks volumes about the attitude of Jim Barnett.
The conscience of the fiscally conservative has entered the first district race in Kansas behind Sen. Tim Huelskamp.
The Club for Growth is well known to be willing to fight for the real fiscal conservative in Republican primaries including former U.S. Rep Pat Toomey who ran against now Democrat Arlen Specter and Stephen Laffey against RINO Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island.
The Club's involvement in the first district is the most significant endorsement to date for several reasons. First, the Club has shown an aptitude in the past at raising large amounts of money for their chosen candidate. Even though Sen. Huelskamp has been more than competitive in fund raising, the Club's support will put the Huelskamp campaign over the top against self funded Jim Barnett.
Further, the first district is almost the perfect place for the fiscally conservative group to get involved. As each day passes, it looks as though the primary will be the only election, with no Democratic candidate to show any interest. The Club for Growth has shown a keen eye in picking primary winners, or in the case of the Big First, probably the winner.
The Club's endorsement hit the national news sites quickly, (much quicker than I was able to post here), so here is a round up.Townhall.com"Huelskamp has previously received a ton of endorsements from individuals and groups like Kansans for Life, Concerned Women PAC, and the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. The Club for Growth endorsement is, without a doubt, the largest and most significant endorsement a conservative Congressional candidate can receive."
My guess is that this Club for Growth endorsement will finally push national conservatives to fully coalesce around Huelskamp, just as Kansas conservatives already have. You see, while Huelskamp has received overwhelming backing from a diverse collection of conservative groups, ranging from Kansans for Life and the Club for Growth, a few DC conservative 'insiders' have been working against him.
CQ PoliticsThe political action committee for the conservative Club for Growth on Monday endorsed two 2010 House candidates who are each competing against multiple Republicans in open seat races: State Sen. Tim Huelskamp in Kansas' 1st District; and state Rep. Tom Graves in Georgia's 9th District.
RollCall
The political action committee for the anti-tax group Club for Growth on Monday endorsed two fiscally conservative state legislators in a pair of open-seat House races.
State Sen. Tim Huelskamp is one of several prominent Republicans hoping to replace Rep. Jerry Moran (R) in Kansas’ conservative 1st district. Moran is running for Senate this cycle.
"Tim Huelskamp stands out as a champion of limited government and economic freedom,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said in a release. “Unlike some of the other Republicans in this race, Tim has compiled an impressive record and demonstrated the leadership skills necessary to fight for free-market policies in Congress."
American SpectatorKudos to the Club for Growth for endorsing conservative leader Tim Huelskamp for Congress in KS-1. The Club for Growth is the most effective organization on the right when it comes to winning GOP primaries. Hence the Club for Growth endorsement is arguably the most important one a conservative candidate can receive. If there was any doubt before, Tim Huelskamp is now the clear front runner in this important race.
The lines have been clearly drawn and Jim Barnett can no longer hide behind a fiscal converative lie. And now with the Club for Growth in the race, the cash will most certainly be there to expose him for the tax and spender he really is.
More on Barnett's previous fiscal ideas and votes later...
This is one of those videos I wish I could take credit for creating, but alas all I can do is pass it along after finding it in my google search.
Jim Barnett's "prescription for prosperity" and his prescribing past in the Kansas Senate seem to be two different things, and I don't think the first district is interested in voting for either one of them. That of course, assumes he'll eventually discover where the district is to try and sell it.
I've noticed lately that the Barnett campaign has been confused about which congressional district they're in, so I thought I'd put up a helpful resource for them, a first congressional district map. Just as a reminder to the Barnett campaign, you're running in the first district, highlighted in yellow below.
Feel free to check this page as much as you need to see where you need to go.
Jim Barnett continues to travel across the state promoting his "health care coalition" which so far seems to have produced very few "health care solutions."
Barnett held a press conference in Wichita with a group of health care professionals saying they would produce ideas for his campaign to promote. I was certainly confused by the whole situation since Barnett has worked in health care all his life and has failed many times in the past to "fix" it. Perhaps that the reasoning behind his "coalition." Maybe he really needs the ideas.
When his campaign consultant spoke to Kansas Liberty, he seemed to have a healthy helping of criticism for Huelskamp and little to no plan for Barnett.
Barnett’s campaign consultant, Jeff Roe, didn't comment on Weber's statement other than to say the Barnett campaign was “anxiously awaiting” Huelskamp’s own plan to provide health-care solutions.
Roe said there was no current timeline of when Barnett’s reform plan would surface.
Even though Barnett isn't able to annouce a plan just yet, it's certainly interesting to examine his previous plans. The Kansas Liberty article focused on many different plans of Barnett's over the years, but the one that caught my eye was the 21 point plan produced by the Kansas Health Policy Authority and marketed by both Barnett and current HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
The report really speaks for itself:
Aggressive targeting and enrollment of children eligible for Medicaid and HealthWave. Include specific targets and timelines for improved enrollment. Inability to meet targets will “trigger” additional action by the KHPA, to include the consideration of mandating that all children in Kansas have health insurance.
Barnett says he doesn't agree with Obama's health plan, and yet just over a year ago he supported government action that is nearly identical to Obama's plan; government mandated care for every child.
Barnett says he favors market solutions for our health problems, but just like any other issue Barnett discusses, his current opinion certainly doesn't match with his previous actions.
Jim Barnett hit the campaign trail today to unveil his new health plan. Unfortunately he didn't get the memo that Wichita is in the fourth district, not the first which he says he wants to represent. Maybe he should have called campaign headquarters in Missouri for directions.
A press release today from the Huelskamp campaign beautifully highlights the misplaced priorities of Jim Barnett. "We are disappointed to see the Wichita Eagle reporting that Senator Barnett has chosen to unveil his first major issue coalition outside The Big First District. We hope this story is not accurate."
"Fundraising outside the district is one thing -- but I've never seen a candidate campaign outside the district before. Ultimately, citizens of The Big First deserve a Congressman who will think of them first, not merely as an afterthought. We are curious to see if this decision means he may be considering another run for governor instead of Congress."
Maybe he should have checked in with his old rival/buddy Sebelius for some instructions on where he should go and what he should say.
Nothing yet on what exactly was in the plan announced at 1pm today in Wichita other than other "health care professionals to help advise his campaign" on what to say and do. I have a feeling there's going to be an awful lot of Sebelius-care redux in his plan, along with a healthy helping of government intervention and funding.
Health plan aside, somebody needs to send Barnett a memo that 1) Wichita isn't in his district and 2) Area code 816 is Kansas City, Missouri, not Kansas. It's usually not such a brilliant idea to have your campaign headquarters in Missouri when you're running for a western Kansas district.
However I would have expected nothing less from the Barnett campaign. It's about the power, not the people, when Jim Barnett is running.
Governor Mike Huckabee came to Hutchinson Wednesday for a fundraiser for Sen. Tim Huelskamp. At a press conference before the dinner, Huckabee explained why he's supporting Huelskamp over the plethora of other candidates in the race. Huckabee praised Huelskamp's stands, which he described as pro-life, supportive of Second Amendment rights, and as favoring less government and lower taxes.
The consistency between what Huelskamp says and how he votes "appeals to me," Huckabee said.
A voting record is a very important aspect of the first district race. Only two candidates in the race have a voting record, and only Sen. Huelskamp's has been consistently conservative, regardless of the next election.
Huckabee endorsed Huelskamp in February. But since then, other Republicans - Sue Boldra, Tracey Mann, State Sen. Jim Barnett and Monte Shadwick - have entered a race that also includes Rob Wasinger.
Huckabee, however, stood by his picks, saying there was no doubt where Huelskamp stood on issues and calling him "the real deal."
Turnout was apparently maxed out.Tickets to the fundraiser ranged from $100 to $2,000, and the dining room was filled to "fire capacity," according to one worker.
Rob Wasinger posted his numbers late tonight with some noticeable first district contributions. A quick glance though still shows a lot of Virginia's, Washington's and even a Hawaii. But it looks like the first district curse is finally over.
Total raised around $67,000 but spent a noticable $54,000. That would seem to be rather unsustainable, but perhaps there's other sources yet to be tapped.
Charts, other stuff in a day or two.
Sen. Tim Huelskamp reported nearly $80,000 in contributions this quarter. That's a rather healthy amount, but no where close to the amounts raised by Mann and Barnett. He has around $235,000 on hand, which still competes with any candidate in the race. The number isn't shocking and is rather expected, right in line with his last report.
The number of unitemized contributions continues to be quite impressive at over $25,000. Those are folks that he can continue to tap again and again for contributions. Most itemized contributions came from Kansas, although I didn't look at it that closely. The amount of money he's been able to raise from the first district is just simply amazing. I'm shocked there's that much out there.
The big news is former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee coming to Kansas to headline a fundraiser for Huelskamp at Hutchinson. You can see some coverage here, here and here. Huckabee overwhelmingly won the Kansas Presidential caucus and will be a big name event for Huelskamp. That's in addition to endorsements from two former Kansas gubernatorial candidates. More on that later.
Still nothing from Wasinger. I'll put up the pie charts later this week along with some cash on hand and other analysis from this quarter and totals to date.
Tracey Mann clocked in today with a notable $157,000 in individual contributions. That doesn't include nearly $14,000 of in-kind donations. It did look as though there were a lot of family names listed, but that is negligible. It looks as though the Johnson County transplant had a very good quarter raising more in individual contributions than former GOP candidate Jim Barnett.
And to follow up on Barnett as noted last night, every donor has "requested" list for an employer and occupation. I'm still curious what the FEC is going to think of that. I have no idea if there are any repercussions to filling a report without required information, but it is pretty clear that the Barnett campaign had plenty of time to compile the info. In fact, they still have time to file their quarterly report. Huelskamp and Wasinger still haven't filed theirs, so why the Barnett campaign would choose to file early and potentially run aground with the FEC with their very first report is a bit interesting.
More tomorrow.
A quick check of the FEC website shows Jim Barnett has loaned himself $100,000. This was an expected move on his part, with more to come almost a certainty. No results yet from Huelskamp, Mann or Wasinger.
Boldra reported just under $2,000 raised, with just over $6,000 on hand. Looks like Bolrda will remain a minor candidate.
Barnett also took in a handsome amount of contributions, just under $150,000. And I see a lot of Kansas addresses. However, I also see he's listed "requested" for occupation for every single contribution. That's not going to fly with the FEC and it makes no sense at all why he's done it, especially since some of them wouldn't be hard to figure out. State Rep. Don Hill for example donated. Why list "requested" for his occupation? It's not like it's a big secret.
That's all for tonight. More tomorrow or Thursday as more reports come online.
Exciting news from the Huelskamp for Congress campaign! Sen. Huelskamp announced tonight that they've met their June fundraising goal, making it the best month ever for the campaign!
This is such an important announcement from the campaign. With hundreds of thousands of dollars of out-of-state money financing opponents campaigns, it's essential that Huelskamp be able to rely on the citizens of the first district and Kansas to show who the proven conservative is in this race. It looks like Sen. Huelskamp has once again accomplished that.
Sen. Huelskamp is also leading in the endorsements race. This is important of course, but money raised from the first district and Kansas is essentially like a vote from the people. Anyone who is unable to raise money from the district they want to represent has a significant problem trying to get someone to vote for them.
The fight certainly isn't over. There are many more quarterly reports to go. In addition to significant out-of-state funding, there is also the possibility of candidates using their own personal wealth to finance their campaigns. But with continued generosity by everyday Kansans to the Huelskamp campaign, it looks like they'll be able to go toe to toe with anyone in the race.
Quarterly reports should begin to be available Tuesday night into Wednesday and Thursday. I'll be out of town but will try to have a breakdown of the numbers as quickly as possible. With the announcement today from the Huelskamp campaign, I'm excited to see how everyone else performed.
Mr. Conservative Rob Wasinger was missing in action in tonight's article in Kansas Liberty about the first district endorsement race. Kansas Liberty summarized the endorsement race in light of former Congressman Jim Ryun's endorsement of Sen. Tim Huelskamp today.
Liberty also interviewed Tracey Mann and the newest candidate, Monte Shadwick. Say what you will about the Salina guys, but at least they have the decency to speak to the press. Barnett, Bolrda and Wasinger apparently don't believe the public has a right to know what they think.
I expect this kind of stuff from Barnett and Boldra. After all, they are the farthest left of the six candidates. Barnett in particular now needs to focus on hiding his record from the public to have a better chance at election. But Wasinger's decision to avoid a reporter, especially one that is actually fair and factual, is down right inexcusable.
Even though Tim Huelskamp is the only well rounded conservative in the race with a stellar record to back it up, at least all of the other candidates recognize that they have to appear like a well rounded conservative to get elected. Everyone but Rob Wasinger it would appear.
While everyone else has been trying to convince the public they're the best candidate by treading to the right of where they naturally are, Rob Wasinger storms into town (sorry, storms into the state) and goes distinctly left, hiring Washington D.C. lawyers who do work for stem cell research initiatives in California and raise money for candidates like Rudy Giuliani.
And in light of not getting a single dime out of the first district in campaign contributions, he heads west to find someone, anyone to endorse him. And who does he decide would make a good endorsement? An independent who's only endorsements in the past have been for two Democrats and a liberal Republican.
And now Rob isn't even willing to speak to the press to pretend he's a conservative. It's downright shameful.
Tim Barker left the first district race yesterday with little more fanfare than a Google News Alert from the Pratt newspaper. Barker said that family obligations had become too much for him to effectively campaign. According to the Pratt Tribune article, Barker isn't endorsing anyone else in the race just yet.
As Barker says goodbye, another guy says hello. Monte Shadwick of Salina entered the race with even less fanfare than Barker left. Shadwick is a former mayor of Salina and city commissioner. He is a self described former field representative for Rep. Jerry Moran and says he want to see as little government as possible. Although the salina.com article doesn't come right out and say so, it appears he is describing himself as a conservative. Gee, not enough of those in the race, right?
More on Monte as I come across it.
Big political news in the first district today as it was learned Tim Barker is set to withdraw from the first district congressional race tomorrow. Tim Huelskamp apparently spoke with Barker earlier today and has the following statement posted on his website.
Earlier today, I spoke with Tim on the phone and he shared with me the news that he was exiting the Congressional race, and that his mother was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.
Tim was a worthy opponent, and I congratulate him for his willingness to enter the arena and to be a participant in the political process. And he also brought something important to this race which I wish more political leaders shared with Tim and I -- small business experience.
Our prayers are with Tim and Kelli as they go through this difficult time.
I'm truly sorry to hear of Barker's mother's disease. I have experienced family with Alzheimer's before and it's a horrible disease. Perhaps there's nothing worse that loosing your very memories of years past and failing to recognize those who are closest to you.
I'm sure there will be more news tomorrow.
Sen. Tim Huelskamp was endorsed by the influential group Gun Owners of America earlier today. The group cited Huelskamp's strong second amendment record in the Kansas Senate as it's basis for making the endorsement.
“With the anti-gun forces on the march, it is more important than ever to elect Congressmen who have a proven track record of voting to defend the Second Amendment,” said Tim Macy, Vice Chairman of the Gun Owners of America. “Time and again, Senator Huelskamp has shown by his votes and his leadership that he is willing to take tough stands in defense of our Second Amendment right to bear arms. On behalf of Gun Owners of America, I am honored to make this endorsement.”
It's just another impressive endorsement from a wide range of conservative personalities and organizations that have lined up behind Sen. Huelskamp. In addition to support from national names like Mike Huckabee and Ken Blackwell, Huelskamp has also gained endorsements from former Kansas Speaker of the House Robin Jennison, former Kansas Gubernatorial candidate Ken Canfield, Kansans for Life, pro-marriage forces and taxpayer advocates. Today's GOA endorsement adds second amendment rights supporters to his repertoire.
GOA also highlights the most glaring difference among the six candidates in the first district race: a consistently conservative voting record. I'm sure it was refreshing for GOA to see a candidate running to his voting record rather than away from it. Or in the case of some first district candidates, trying to fabricate a 'voting record' out of thin air vis-a-vis their old job.
With such a broad coalition of supporters, Sen. Huelskamp's campaign looks stronger by the day.
Tonight is the final deadline for contributions to first district candidates and we'll know in a few weeks how everyone made out. This will be the first reporting period for Tracey Mann. Mann recently moved from Johnson County to Salina to run for the first district seat. Not much has been heard from the Mann campaign except a few Hutch News articles on his support for Democrat Jim Slattery against stalwart Republican Pat Roberts.
Rob Wasinger will be turning in another interesting report. In the past two cycles Wasinger hasn't been able to itemize a single contribution from the fist district. I haven't been able to find any news articles or data as to how many candidates for federal office have gone two consecutive reporting cycles without even a single contribution from the district they want to represent, but I'd be willing to say three in a row just might be a record.
Wasinger will also be trying to play catch up with Sen. Huelskamp in the overall tally. Even with Wasinger's nearly complete out-of-state financing, he still wasn't able to even be competitive with Huelskamp in overall numbers. In fact, in the last reporting period Huelskamp raised more from the first district alone than Wasinger was able to raise from the rest of the country. That is highly impressive in this economy and in a district that is considered economically depressed in comparison to the rest of the state.
Also keep an eye on Wasinger's expenditures. It was just last February when Wasinger told Roll Call that all of his campaign contributions would be spent in the first district.
"I look at all the money that I've raised, all that money is going to be spent in the district," Wasinger said. "It's my very own contribution to economic growth."
After saying that, Rob went on to file a quarterly report where he spent just over $1,000 out of over $25,000 in expenditures in the first district. That's quite a promise to be breaking. We'll find out in a few weeks if Rob is doing any better on his promise to bring economic growth to the first district.
And then there's Sue Boldra. Her last report was hardly impressive, but she had just jumped into the race. Will her numbers be any better? This one is a make it or break it report for her with six candidates in the race.
Jim Barnett will certainly have some cash on hand. The question is how much of her personal fortune is he willing to invest this time. During the governor's race he pitched in quite a bit of his own cash. There's no indications that he isn't willing to do it one more time.
And finally there's Tim Barker. He's already coughed up $100K of his own money in the last reporting period. Will this one see another cool self contribution?
The next few weeks will be telling. By the way, online contributions given now will be counted toward the next reporting period. However, if you write a check with a June date on it and mail it in right now, I understand it will still be counted toward this just expired reporting period. So be sure and mail out that handsome check to your favorite candidate before time runs out!
About a week ago Rob Wasinger announced additional names to his "leadership team." As I've become accustomed to doing, I ran a quick search on some of the names that I recognized or I thought held some significance. One quickly got my attention, Troy Hickman of Hays.
Hickman is a current City Commissioner for Hays. He is a registered independent, something I find rather refreshing. I've found many registered independents in Kansas tend to be very conservative. So conservative in fact that they register independent because they don't believe the Republican Party represents their values. Lately on the national level, I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. Hence the need for a strong conservative voice in Washington like Tim Huelskamp.
However, it was a Newsbank search that piqued my interest. Hickman wrote a letter to the editor in 2004 endorsing Democrat state Senator Janis Lee for re-election.
2004 was the first election for state Senators after redrawing district lines in 2000. Lee ran against Larry Salmans, a conservative Republican legislator who had represented District 37, but after new district lines were drawn lived in the same district as Janis Lee. So an unusual election was set up where both candidates were incumbents.
That is what troubles me about Hickman's very public endorsement of Lee over Salmans. Salmans was a proven Republican and conservative and yet he found it necessary to publicly support the Democrat in the race. Perhaps that is why he's registered as an independent.
Hickman goes even further at the end of his letter to compliment Eber Phelps and Dan Johnson, State Representatives from Hays. Phelps is a rather liberal Democrat and Johnson is no friend of conservatives, fiscal or otherwise. So in one letter Hickman chose the establishment over principles.
Of course Hickman is free to endorse whomever he wants. What is concerning is his new support for Rob Wasinger, and Wasinger welcoming him with open arms.
Again, Rob is free to accept support from whoever he chooses. But how long will he continue to wear a "conservative" label while seeking support from those who clearly have had no interest in electing conservative candidates in the past, and have even gone out of their way to publicly endorse known liberal Democrats?
With no voting record and a long history of insider Washington politics, keeping company with supporters of liberal Democrats would seem to be a move a "conservative" candidate would want to avoid.
Here's Hickman's letter of endorsement of Lee.
Janis Lee deserving of your vote for 36th Senate seat
How fortunate we are to have Janis Lee as our state senator. She has been a stalwart ally of Hays and Russell in our efforts to gain water independence for the next 50 years.
Whenever Hays has needed her assistance, Janis Lee has been there to help, even before Hays was added to her district.
As a city commissioner of Hays and a former member of the Water District in which Hays and Russell are partners, I can unequivocally tell you that we should all vote for Janis Lee for 36th District Senate this year. Please help our communities continue to succeed in reaching an equitable settlement with the State of Kansas and ensure that our children, grandchildren and their descendants never have to beg for water for our city again.
In my opinion, we can have a strong leadership team in Topeka with Janis Lee, Eber Phelps and Dan Johnson representing Hays. Please support Janis Lee with your vote.
Troy Hickman
Hays city commissioner
You can find a very well written piece about the first district congressional race at the blog Kaw and Border. In Win in '10: Wanting a big bat from the big first, they detail the first district race and why Tim Huelskamp should be the pick for any experienced, principled conservative.
First they take a look at Jim Barnett and see right through that conservative costume he's been wearing since his election announcement.When he decided he wanted to run for Governor, his record and rhetoric took a sharp right turn and he started to sound and vote like a conservative. He also picked well-known conservative Susan Wagle as his running mate.
...he had a chance to pick a side in the Senate leadership elections when his former running mate, Susan Wagle, was running for Senate President against the liberal Steve Morris. Though the final vote was 18-13, his vote was critical in terms of conservatives getting to the magical 16 number. Barnett chose Morris and with it, threw away any remaining loyalty he had built with the conservatives who put their sweat and tears on the line for him in 2006.
And they detailed what everyone's been thinking about Rob Wasinger.So, essentially, Rob Wasinger has been in Washington D.C. for the past 15 years, until now, when he has decided to run for Congress. While his resume is indeed impressive and might provide a great deal of insight into the workings of Congress and inside-baseball politics, we have a lack of real knowledge of how Wasinger would approach the job as a Congressman, individual issues, constituent work, and even subjects such as basic representation. How much time will he really spend in the district? How much of a fighter will he really be for the conservative cause? Is he just wanting to be a Congressman now because he's used to Washington and wants to stay there and wants a nice politically career?
And finally we get to the Kaw and Border pick, Tim Huelskamp. I'll share just a bit of what they had to say.
Senator Tim Huelskamp is one of the leading conservative voices in Kansas. For the last 13 years, he has been one of a few lonely reasoned voices in a body -- the Kansas Senate -- lacking in them. He's fought not just on one or two pet issues, but has consistently fought the good fight on a myriad of issue battlefields, from the sanctity of life to fiscal responsibility to low taxes to the size of government. The list goes on and on.
You can read the entire post here.
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, did the tree really fall?
If Rob Wasinger endorses someone and there's only one candidate left, did he really endorse him?
Granted, at the time Rob thought he was just what Brownback needed to scare off that pesky Ron Thornburgh. Never mind that 50 point deficit in the polls. I'm sure Thornburgh dropped out of the race because Rob threw his political might behind his old boss. I'm rather shocked Wasinger's campaign hasn't tried to claim credit for Thornburgh's demise.
But I can't help but laugh at Wasinger "endorsing" any candidate, for governor or otherwise. Does Rob really think that one single person in Kansas cares that he thinks Brownback would make a good governor? Um, no. I'm pretty sure they have to know who you are first to care.
So while it was cute to try and (again) use your old boss to further your own political ambitions, it just further proves that your willing to throw anyone, and I mean anyone, under the bus to get yourself back to Wasington. I mean Washington. Wow, Freudian slip.
Wasinger's "endorsement" of Brownback is yet another cry for help. One that I doubt will be answered.
With the entry of state Sen. Jim Barnett, the race for the big first just got a bit more interesting. Barnett is a known entity in Kansas politics as he was the GOP nominee for governor in 2006, loosing quite badly to Sebelius.
His '06 run was one of the more remarkable political makeovers in the state, going from a staunch "moderate" to a conservative in just one short voting cycle. And then back again for his Senate re-election in '08 and now back to "conservative" for a Congressional run in '10. John Kerry has nothing on this guy.
Barnett's first political snafu was in 2004 when he couldn't decide if he was for gay marriage or not. It turns out that when he thinks he might not get re-elected, he's against gay marriage. Nice to know he can at least be pressured into doing the right thing.
In '06 he runs as a conservative with state Sen. Susan Wagle only to reject her as Senate President two years later. Not only did he not vote for her, but according to Wichita Liberty he actively encouraged others to vote for Morris et company. So the Senate leadership team that got the state into its current financial mess is the leadership we should be looking at to help us get out? I don't think so. Welcome back liberal Barnett.
Now it would seem he's back to being conservative, talking about fiscal responsibility, blah blah blah. That's going to be hard to sell to voters with a taxpayer friendliness rating of less than 50% from the former Kansas Taxpayers Network. Why buy Barnett when you can get the real thing with Huelskamp?
Taking a look at the last governor's race, Barnett lost 46 of the 69 counties in the first district in the Republican primary. Canfield and Jennison carried a majority of the first district, and both have already endorsed Tim Huelskamp. It will be interesting to see how Barnett attempts to reshape his image in the big first to try and correct his '06 primary loss. A blog post at townhall.com is an interesting read.
Barnett adds a lot of questions to the already crowded race. What does this mean for "moderates" like Tracey Mann and Tim Barker? Is Barnett the new Morris/Vratil pick? Will Barnett use his considerable personal wealth to try and buy the race?
For me, the most interesting is which Barnett will be running? "Conservative" Jim or "moderate" Barnett?
I'm running out of headlines that say Sen. Huelskamp has gained yet more endorsements, but it looks like I'll have to get creative as a blast email from the Senator's campaign says more are on the way.
A blast email from the campaign says that Sen. Huelskamp has picked up the endorsements of five Kansas legislators. State Senator Ralph Ostmeyer (R-40) and State Representatives Jim Morrison (R-121), Owen Donahue (R-39), Mario Goico (R-100), and Don Schroeder (R-74) all outlined why they support Sen. Huelskamp for Congress.
"I've served with Tim Huelskamp in the Kansas Legislature for nine years, and I have never seen a more dedicated public servant -- or a more effective conservative leader," said Sen. Ostmeyer.
Endorsements from key legislators this early in the race is quite telling of the strong campaign Sen. Huelskamp is running.
Oh how far Rob Wasinger has fallen when wonce he wearned to tell a widdle white wie.
It looks like Steve Kupka, the fellow who hosted a fund raiser for Rob Wasinger in their D.C. lobbyist offices, also used to work for some other Republican candidates. Kupka works for the D.C. lobbying firm of Husch Blackwell Sanders LLC, who also happen to do work for the California Stem Cell Initiative. If you're like me, you found that to be a little troubling given Wasinger has tried to present himself as "the" conservative candidate in the first district race.
Whitehouseforsale.org has Kupka listed as a "bundler" for Rudy Giuliani's campaign during the 2008 Presidential race. The site defines a "bundler" as someone who uses their influence, either as a private citizen or a lobbyist, to channel money to a candidate. The site is run by Public Citizen, which is Ralph Nader's public watchdog group. Let's just say I'm not a big fan of them or Nader but the info got me curious. However I certainly wasn't going to take it at face value given the source.
A search for "steve kupka, rudy giuliani" returned another site that listed Kupka as being Giuliani's Nebraska finance chair. That would explain why he was listed as a bundler for Giuliani and yet Whitehouseforsale.org has no information on how much money he actually channeled to him.
Why would Rob feel the need to use a D.C. lobbyist who works for a firm that does work for stem cell research and who on the side, tries to help the most liberal Republican Presidential candidate in history? Didn't Rob try to get Sam Brownback elected as President?
Goodness, what other "conservative" help does Rob have on his team?
Kansas Meadowlark recently published an article about documents he discovered during a trip to Washington D.C. One of those was a financial disclosure form filed by Rob Wasinger where he shows $92,000 in salary from a Magellan Group LLC in Hays, Kansas.
Magellan Group is registered with the Kansas Secretary of State whose website lists Rob's aunt, Marilyn Wasinger, as the Resident Agent. The site also lists her address as the contact address for the Magellan Group. This is the same home address that Rob used to register to vote in November 2008. It was the first time Rob had voted in Kansas.
What kind of business is Rob's aunt running out of her home that they can afford to pay Rob $92,000 salary? What kind of work is Rob doing to draw so much money in addition to his salary as Sen. Brownback's Presidential campaign manager and Chief of Staff? Maybe Rob did some yard work for his aunt while staying with her and using her address to vote in Kansas for the first time? I don't know if that's a $92,000 job though.
The Magellan Group has no website and there's absolutely no mention of them in the Yellow Pages. What exactly do they do that they're able to pay Rob so well?
And it looks like that $92,000 isn't even for a full years work. The company just registered with the Kansas Secretary of State on August 7th of last year. So it looks like Rob got a cool $92,000 for just under five months of "work."
Was Magellan Group set up as a shell corporation so Rob could skim money off the top somewhere else and pay his bills? After all, what small start up company run out of someone's home can afford to pay an employee $92,000 for five months worth of work? And from what his campaign is putting out, he's not doing much else these days.
Whatever the Magellan Group does or sells I don't think I'm buying. With that kind of salary over five months I doubt I could afford their product.
The Kansas Meadowlark has a post up about financial disclosure statements he's investigating in Washington D.C. One of them is for Rob Wasinger for $92,000 from a Magellan Group LLC in Hays.
Kansas Secretary of State records has the company registered to Marilyn Wasinger, Rob's aunt and is registered at the same address as the contact for his campaign listed with the FEC. Why isn't Rob being open and honest about the three different salaries he's been drawing, from Brownback for President to Chief of Staff and now $92,000 from a shady corporation registered in his aunt's name?
Read the Kansas Meadowlark story for more information. According to that site, the records are only in Washington D.C., so we'll have to wait and see what more they bear.
It doesn't mean a thing when it comes to politics, but what a twist!
I'm sure many of you were wondering after the last post if Amy Blunt, Tim Barker's new lawyer, was related in any way to former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt. He's listed as a candidate she did work for on the Lanthrop and Gage website. Well, as it turns out, she and Matt are brother and sister.
Of course, that little article really got me interested. The firm she registered to lobby for in 2005 was Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin. Doesn't that name sound familiar? Well, it should! Husch Blackwell Sanders was the law firm that just recently hosted a D.C. fund raiser for "conservative" Rob Wasinger! It also happened to be a firm that does work for the California Stem Cell Initiative, but you can read more about that here.
It looks as though the firm merged at some point into Husch Blackwell Sanders even though their new website doesn't say so. If you do a google search for "peper martin, kansas city" it returns a Google Map address for Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin which is the same as the Kansas City offices of Husch Blackwell Sanders.
It looks like Amy Blunt wasn't a lobbyist for long. After registering on 4/20/2005 she was terminated on 5/2/2006. But the good news is she's back, and now lobbying under the firm of Lanthrop and Gage as of 3/19/2008. She currently only has two clients.
What a twist that the lawyer Barker's now using used to do work for the same firm that's now doing D.C. fund raisers for Wasinger.
FEC reports show that Tim Barker has a bit of a problem keeping track of all that cash that is flowing into his campaign account. On May 8 he had to answer the $22,000 question to the FEC.
It looks as though Barker finally had to report to the FEC for his rather large disbursement that he later took back. The large disbursement was quite a mistake (maybe?) on his part that showed he only had around $2,200 in the bank in his January 09 report. I can't quite figure out what happened other than he probably has an inexperienced treasurer and what should have been a funds transfer ended up as a disbursement. A sign of how things will work in the campaign? Who knows.
The FEC filing is interesting, but it's not as interesting as the amended organization statement filed in February. The FEC, in all its glorious government efficiency, posted the cover letter with instructions to Barker's treasurer on what to do with the amended statement. Looks as though the amended filing was because his treasurer (who's a registered Democrat by the way) changed her last name.
The cover letter, which wasn't included in the original filing, is from a Donna Labayen at Lanthrop and Gage. Lanthrop and Gage, you'll recall, is the law firm where Kansas Senate Vice President (and VP of the mods) John Vratil is partner. Labayen is an assistant to C. David Barrier, an attorney in the Kansas City, Missouri office, although it appears Barker's actual attorney is Amy Blunt. The instructions and amended statement of organization was cc'd to Blunt, a governmental affairs lawyer. Her bio lists work done for former Gov. Matt Blunt of Missouri.
I can't hardly believe the firm of Lanthrop and Gage was chosen by accident. It looks like the mods have picked their candidate, so Mann and Boldra might want to look out. Should we be at all surprised that Vratil helped out a former Democrat who's decided to be a Republican to get elected to office? Hardly.
With his business dealings and change of heart, it looks to be right on target if you ask me.
Yesterday congressional candidate Rob Wasinger hosted a D.C. fund raiser for his campaign that is beginning to see signs of significant weakening. Wasinger was the candidate that ran out as quickly as he could to national pro-life leaders, seeking their endorsement as a way to marginalize his opponent and define himself as the only pro-life conservative.
So imagine my surprise when I got an email invitation to his D.C. fund raiser with an address listed for a lobbying firm that does work for the California Stem Cell Initiative. Of course, the invite didn't say that, several Google and opensecrets.org searches told me that.
One of the hosts listed on the invitation is Steve Kupka. A quick search told me he was a lobbyist with Husch Blackwell Sanders LLC. Even though I wasn't able to find an address on the firm's website, a Google Map search of the firms name returned the same address as listed on Wasinger's invitation.
Another Google search revealed that the law firm had many clients, one of which was California Stem Cell Inc. On it's website it proudly proclaims it's mission.
California Stem Cell is focused on the production and supply of clinically relevant human cell populations, and their therapeutic application to human disease and injury.
Wow. The production and supply of human cell populations. How is this accomplished? What cells are being harvested? Embryonic cells? What kind of pro-life advocate is Wasinger, holding a fund raiser at a D.C. lobbying firm that helps the California Stem Cell initiative?
And let's not forget that Rob's for the little guy, the average Kansan. Because he understands us and what we need, after years on the east coast. And holding a D.C. fund raiser with D.C. lobbyists who advocate for embryonic stem cell research is what conservative Kansans in the first district want, right Rob?
It turns out Husch Blackwell Sanders LLC has also given heavily to federal candidates in the Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska area, including Democrats Emanuel Cleaver, Dennis Moore, Nancy Boyda, Claire McCaskill and Dick Durbin. And on the flip side they've funded Sam Graves, Roy Blunt and other Republicans.
Why would a firm like that be interested in Rob? What could a firm that gives to both Democrats and Republicans want from a politician? Political favors? Is that what Rob meant when he said, "as a former legislative assistant, legislative director, and chief-of-staff to Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), I know how to get things done in Congress." Is that how you get things done Rob?
I think Kansans are tired of the way you "get things done" Rob.
Does this mean Rob isn't pro-life? No, I'm not going to go that far. But as I've noted before, I don't believe conservatives will look to someone like D.C. Rob instead of the real McCoy Huelskamp. Just today Sen. Huelskamp was successful in passing through the House and Senate legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood. What has Rob done lately?
It's not about this particular incident, but the pattern that Rob has established of being a D.C. insider who is more interested in D.C. power than he is of furthering the interests of everyday, ordinary Kansans. That is the tragic story here.
In all the interesting details I've been reviewing about the House concurring with the Senate's budget plan (or rather lack thereof), I failed to realize that this means Sen. Huelskamp was successful in defunding Planned Parenthood in Kansas. From an email blast I just got from Sen. Huelskamp:
“I am excited that both chambers of the Kansas Legislature have approved my amendment to remove taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. With Kansas facing a budget crunch, this would be a big victory for the taxpayers.”
If the bill is signed by Governor Mark Parkinson, Kansas will join six other states in the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
So it looks like the budget debate in the governor's office will be mighty interesting indeed.
It looks as though the House has concurred on the Senate's plan to cut 2.75% of the budget. That means the hole isn't really fixed as the Senate plan didn't fix the entire deficit. That also means there will be no conference committee between the House and the Senate. Basically House liberals decided no input into the Senate's budget was better than allowing any conservative input in the House.
How the rest of the hole will be filled isn't hard to figure out. Tax increases that everyone will scream are "revenue enhancements."
Hey, when the Wichita Eagle and KC Star both say the Democrats bench is empty, it's gotta be so, right?
The Eagle's editorial board notes that Sebelius' party building was exaggerated if one looks at registration numbers where Republicans still dominate Democrat's numbers. Of course, this is absolutely no surprise to any conservative Republican. Not the numbers but the fact that Democrats and liberals in general are just now starting to realize Sebelius could have cared less about Kansas or her party. Kathleen was in it for Kathleen and she was willing to throw anyone else around her under the bus to get what she wanted.
House Minority Leader Paul Davis still hasn't come to this realization yet. He still thinks the party's limited success in '06 wasn't because of Sebelius.
"I don’t think the success of the party is just about her.”
Well if it isn't about her then who was it about? And why do things look so bleak for you guys now that she's gone? Kathleen had her own people so scared even now that she's in Washington they still won't fess up to reality.
