skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Susan Wagle, Jim Barnett's running mate during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, endorsed Tim Huelskamp for Congress today.
"If Republicans in the First District want to be a part of the National revolution against Obama and his liberal policies, I ask them to join me in supporting Senator Tim Huelskamp for Congress. They should reject the last minute deceitful attacks that have been flooding the First District and distort the Huelskamp record. They should send Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp, a strong conservative, to Congress. I am confident Senator Huelskamp will dedicate his energy and his political expertise to taking back our Country."
Barnett's choice of Wagle was one of the primary reasons he was able to win a crowded GOP field. Barnett didn't have the conservative credentials needed to win the primary, so his choice of Wagle, and her stamp of approval, was instrumental in his win. Much like McCain's loss would have been much worse without Sarah Palin, Jim Barnett doesn't win a primary with Susan Wagle. But now the tables have turned on a candidate that has yet to break out of his polling numbers from over five months ago.
On election eve I'm feeling optimistic for the Huelskamp campaign. He's now riding a significant endorsement, just one more on top of so many he's received so far. Barnett's last minute attack on Mann and Huelskamp seems to have backfired to a certain extent. The fact that Barnett has been unable to pick up any additional support over a five month period doesn't bode well for his chances where 6-10% of voters are still making up their minds.
The fact is there were more undecided voters polled in February than those who supported Jim Barnett. And in the last poll virtually the same number of people support Jim Barnett while nearly a third of voters have made up their minds, and clearly haven't decided to vote for Barnett.
Tracey Mann has billed himself a conservative but was clearly splitting some of the moderate vote with Barnett. His ill received remarks over Obama's birth certificate cause him to drop several points in the polls, most obviously because those moderate voters are now having second thoughts about their guy. That leaves undecided voters with several names to pick from, and even if they split between Mann and Huelskamp, Huelskamp comes out on top.
In addition, while Rob Wasinger has had ads up for a little over a week now they seem to have been too little too late. The number of undecided voters splitting to Wasinger over the other candidates are not significant. Further hurting Wasinger is the simple fact that his ads just aren't that good. The patronizing tone that he's taken isn't going over well, and running as the "outside" candidate but then promoting his "experience" is a contradiction anyone can get.
In what seems to be a bit of irony, with Barnett stagnant and Mann falling, it seems Huelskamp has become the default "go to" candidate. And any vote that he loses to a Wasinger, Boldra or Cobb is simply helping him and not Barnett or Mann. Either way, I think Huelskamp comes out a winner.
It will certainly be a close election and even tonight, things could change, but Huelskamp has the edge and position to pull out a win.
UPDATED BELOW
Sen. Tim Huelskamp topped the field in fundraising in the first district once again, new FEC reports show.
With almost $129,000 in contributions in the first quarter of 2010, Huelskamp ended with over half a million dollars in the bank. Of his nearly $130K raised, nearly $20K was from unitemized contributions.
Jim Barnett was second at $107,000 raised but with almost $100,000 spent, he was only able to bank $382,000 at the end of the quarter. The bigger surprise here is that I only saw one "Requested" in his contributors employment information. That's be good and bad for the Barnett campaign. Good in that they have apparently figured out that you have to ask folks giving to your campaign lawfully required information. Bad in that they've now demonstrated they can competently file a campaign finance report and so now the public is left wondering what happened during all of the previous quarters.
Barnett's large expenditures include one for over $16,000 to Axiom Strategies (a la Jeff Roe) and $23,000 to Wilson Research in Oklahoma for, "Campaign Research and Strategies." Well, I guess Barnett never promised to be the economic engine of the Big First.
Speaking of which, no report yet from the Wasinger campaign.
Tracey Mann tanked, and that's putting it lightly. With just over $65,000 raised and almost $45,000 spent, he ended the quarter with just over $261,000 in the bank. Shadwick came in a very distant fourth (so far) at $22,800 raised, $18,600 spent and $23,400 in the bank. Sue Boldra almost raised $15,000 and has $17,200 cash on hand.
All in all, looks like a great quarter for the Huelskamp campaign. I'll update later with more information about interesting contributors and expenditures, and I'll let you know how the Wasinger campaign made out when they get around to filing.
UPDATE:
Wasinger looks like he just filed, and not too many surprises here. $111K in contributions, $102K in expenditures means only $213K in the bank. Lots of Virginia, lots of Massachusetts, lots of out of state contributors. And despite assurances that his campaign would be the economic powerhouse the Big First, he seems to be quite enthralled with spending large sums on media in Virginia. So Wasinger squeaks into a second place in contributions raised, but fourth in cash on hand.
On the back of gaining donations from every county in the big First District, Tim Huelskamp announced today that he had outraised all other candidates and had more than $100K in cash on hand than his nearest challenger.
Huelskamp reported raising over $136,000 during the fourth quarter. That was followed by $123,000 by Jim Barnett and barely over $100,000 by Rob Wasinger. Tracey Mann raised nearly $72,000 with Monte Shadwick and Sue Boldra both raising less than $20,000.
So far no other candidate has had the ability to gain contributions from every county in the district. It's really easy to talk a talk. Send out some emails, roll into town and spend 15 minutes for a quick photo op.
It's an entirely different game to get a contribution when there. The fact is so far the people of the first district have been voting; voting with their hard earned money. And clearly the winner of those votes has been Tim Huelskamp.
And while Huelskamp continues to shine in funds raised, he's also leading the pack in cash on hand. Huelskamp is way out front with nearly half a million on hand, followed distantly by Barnett with $374,000 on hand. Of course that includes a $100,000 loan Barnett made to himself.
Barnett has once again turned in a year end report with spotty information. "Requested" and "undisclosed" appear less than in previous reports, but are still there. When will Jim Barnett hire competent staff that can track down basic, required FEC information? When will Jim Barnett finally show some respect for the people of Kansas and their right to know?
Recent filings suggest not anytime soon. Barnett choose to wait until two days before a filing deadline to fix employer and occupation information in his third quarter report. That's of course more than two months after filing an amendment to show they had more cash on hand than reported earlier. It looks like when it might make him look bad, they can act quickly. When it comes to the public's right to know... well... that can take a back seat to getting elected, right Jim???
Now, want to know the sad part? It took me only a few pages before I found "undisclosed" on his amended third quarter report. And who didn't disclose the name of their employer? Uh, an ophthalmologist in Emporia. You know, a doctor that Barnett has worked with for years. It's so ridiculous it's unbelievable.
And that's the amended report.
So, I'm sure you'll be hearing about another request for information from the FEC. I personally wonder when the FEC will stop asking the Barnett campaign to please obey the law and start slapping on some fines. They're clearly asking for it.
Then again, this thumbing his nose at the law doesn't seem to be helping. Huelskamp is still the front runner in funds raised, cash on hand, and clearly with the wallets of First District voters.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Sen. Huelskamp was able to attend four TEA parties this past Wednesday, an impressive amount considering the size of the first district. Now I'm trying to figure out where the rest of the first district candidates were?
Rob Wasinger wasn't able to attend any events, even in Emporia where I assume he's still living. Why? What's the hold up? You praise those that turned out but couldn't be bothered to show up yourself?
What about the other candidates. Tracey Mann lives in Salina now. Why couldn't he show up? He's the "conservative, but not ideologic" candidate. TEA parties are about fiscal conservatism, the "non-ideologic" part of conservative. Where was he?
What about Sue Boldra? She could sure use a boost. What about Tim Barker? Tim's a businessman and just recently decided to become a Republican. It would seem to me that fiscal restraint would be one of the hallmarks of the party that would bring him over. Where was he?
So, which one plans to show up in Washington and practice fiscal responsibility when none of them seem to be able to show up for little TEA party?
I've finally gotten to take a few minutes to look at Tim Barker's campaign finance reports and there's a few things that I think can be deduced.
First, the timing of the loan seems somewhat important to me. The loan itself is interesting, but the motive behind it I think is more important. Did he loan himself $100,000 because he plans on self-financing his campaign or did he do it to inflate his numbers so that he can continue trying to raise money?
I personally think it's the latter. If he planned to self finance he would have made a large donation to himself in the last reporting period and made a splash. And I'd think it would have been larger than $100K. Also, as I alluded above, the loan is dated 3/31/09, the last day of reporting. That seems to indicate to me that he needed to shore up his numbers for this period.
However, if I'm wrong and he plans to just pay for everything himself, then yea, $100K is a big deal. But it's not enough by itself, it'll take at least nine more of those, if not more. The question then becomes, how much does the guy have? I don't think he has that much. Which brings me back to the motivation behind the loan.
I've only checked a few of Barker's donors, and only the ones without a Pratt address, as I'm going to assume a lot of those are personal contacts not based on political views. However, those I did check either have no prior information or are tied to moderate Republicans or Democrats in some way. A few have given to Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, so somewhere along the line Barker knows a few people. Either that or he's getting his money's worth out of his consulting firm, Dublin Group. Will he be able to convince donors he has a chance now that both Tracey Mann and Sue Boldra are in the race?
Only time and several more finance reports will tell.
I've been nearly shocked to my core. FEC reports are slowly trickling in and Rob Wasinger's has finally been posted. It shows only $55,000 in contributions this quarter, which is only about half of what he reported to have raised last quarter.
More shocking, still no contributions from the first district. That makes two reports in a row that Rob has been unable to find a single person in the district he wants to represent to contribute to his campaign.
I've only given his report a cursory glance as well as Barker and Boldra, but here's what I've noted so far that I'll expand on over the next few days:- The word Virginia appears way too many times in Wasinger's itemized contributions. I'll have a geographical breakdown later.
- Barker only brought in around $23,000 but loaned his campaign $100,000. I guess it pays to be CEO of a bankrupt ethanol plant.
- Boldra reported only $9000, but all but two contributions were from the first district. Somebody send Wasinger a memo that fundraising in western Kansas is possible.
- Wasinger reported spending just over $3,000 for fund raising letters. HSP Direct isn't the name on the expenditure but the address is the exact same. Hmmm...
- Three expenditures from Wasinger's campaign were spent in the first district for a grand total of $1033.64 out of over $25,000 spent. So much for first district "economic development."
- A Google Alert turned up a letter to the editor from Tim Huelskamp to the Hutchinson News clarifying a contribution from "AIG." Turns out it was from an agent who used to sell insurance for AIG, who also happens to live in the first district. I wonder if KSNBC-01 will be printing a retraction to their previous post? I won't hold my breath.
As of right now, Huelskamp's report isn't up. Tracey Mann won't have a report as he didn't file until after April 1.
I'll have more over the next few days.
The Wichita Eagle editorial blog noted today Sen. Huelskamp's opposition to a plan that would consolidate Kansas counties into 13 versus the 105 the state currently has. “Wouldn’t we just save a lot more if we eliminate them all?” — Sen. Tim Huelskamp (in photo), R-Fowler, on the proposal by Sen. Chris Steineger, D-Kansas City, to consolidate Kansas’ 105 counties into 13 supercounties
The rhetorical question highlighted the question of how far politicians should go in considering government consolidation. The only state in the union that is not further organized into counties is Alaska.
KSNBC-01, in their usual fair handed fashion, believed this to be a quote of support of eliminating all counties in Kansas. Of course, the author doesn't seem to understand that the outrageous nature of this claim not only reflects poorly on the author, but it also provides further evidence the author of KS-01 is also behind the new Sue Boldra hit blog.
The Hutchinson news has more on the Boldra blog flap.
Goodness, I step away from the computer for a couple days and everything breaks loose.Well, there's now four people who want to replace Jerry Moran. I'm sure that's just the start. I really wouldn't be surprised to see eight or nine different candidates either get in or out by the time it's all said and done.In any case, it would seem Team Wassyngton has learned their lesson well and put out a hit site on Sue Boldra before she ever even announced her candidacy. I'm not really sure what to make of the blog or the comments. There are a few that seem to be from Boldra supporters that say the site is a fake but they don't ever say that the claims in the post are factually wrong, so that's a little troubling.Of course, the more posts that are put up on the blog with the same tired picture, the more it becomes obvious it's a hit blog and nothing else. I, of all people, can understand refuting something to a point and then just saying, you know, if folks can't figure out the truth from that then common sense really is dead. So maybe the Boldra people got to that point quicker than I did.
I've never been good at pretending to be something I'm not, so no liberal masquerade blogs from me. Sorry to disappoint you. (And I know there are some of you that really are disappointed!!!)Then again, it seems Team Wassyngton isn't very good at masquerading as a liberal either... or acting like they're from Kansas for that matter.So while I'll give dirty politics credit where it's due, I'll also note that Team Wassyngton hasn't exactly figured out that over-the-top stuff doesn't go over in Kansas, even in the blogosphere. If they would have just stopped with their first post, it might have passed by under the radar, but in typical Wassyngton fashion, they just can't help themselves. (Can you say 300 million comments in 3 minutes???)
But, I will say that at least they started the blog late Sunday night and then posted a link on KSNBC-01 early Monday morning, a whole eight hours later. They can't pretend to be a gay marriage lover, they can't seem to lose that pesky eastern accent (in writing no less), but by golly, they sure have good timing, don't they?!
