One says goodbye, another hello

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.

BREAKING: Barker to withdraw tomorrow

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.

As dealine passes, many wonder if Wasinger will get any first district money

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!

Which Barnett will be on the ballot?

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?

Barker's lawyer used to work for Wasinger's fund raising firm

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.

Barker answers the $22,000 question

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.

Where's Rob? And Sue and Tracey and Tim...

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?

Motive behind Barker loan will dictate its importance

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.

BREAKING: Wasinger contributions fall by nearly half, still no contributions from the first district

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.

Barker caught funneling campaign donations

Mary Clarkin from the Hutch News has another interesting article up about the funneling of funds by Tim Barker's parents.

The Barker for Kansas campaign report showing money raised and spent during 2008 revealed the campaign returned $1,840 apiece to the candidate's parents, Patrick and Ann Barker, Pratt, because their donations exceeded federal limits.

The problem appeared to be triggered by campaign donations given by three Barker family-related firms, Barker Brothers LLC, Greengroup Ethanol LLC and Greengroup LLC. The report showed those donations in turn were reattributed to family members, so the donations were not actually given by the companies but by the family.

A corporation cannot give a campaign donation from its treasury, but must have a separate segregated fund for such donations, according to Mary Brandenberger, spokeswoman for the Federal Election Commission.

Reassigning the companies' donations to family members put Barker's parents over the $2,300 individual limit in 2008 per election cycle, thus prompting the return of excess donations.

I'm unsure why a lawyer and businessman would not be aware of the restrictions on corporate donations to his campaign.

I've been pondering over the past few weeks if Democrats would actually get a candidate for the first. I really began to wonder if they wouldn't just be happy enough with Barker. I mean, he hasn't even been a "Republican" for a year. He has a 24 year old Democrat as his Treasurer. And I've noticed comments on liberal blogs that supported him (kind of.) One was even from Bordonaro, Moran's last "challenge" in the first.

I'd have to say now though, that they will either have to find a Steve Morris to run or an actual registered Democrat.

The article also covered the other guys in the race:

Most of Wasinger's donations came from outside Kansas, while Huelskamp drew on in-state contributors

Of course I've already pointed out that Wasinger was only able to raise 3.4% of all contributions from Kansas, with nothing from the first district. That's a very sad state of affairs, although not as juicy I guess as campaign donation fraud.

Wasinger raises 3.4% from Kansas, nothing from 1st district - Huelskamp 95.6% from Kansas, 62% from 1st district

In what can only be described as expected, Rob Wasinger raised just under 3.4% of total itemized contributions from within Kansas.

What is somewhat unexpected is his inability to itemize a single contributor from within the district he hopes to represent.

As the charts above demonstrate, Huelskamp is the clear winner in raising funds where it matters.

A state to state analysis shows Virginia to be the #1 battleground for fund raising with the Wasinger campaign. Just over 25% of total itemized contributions come from Wasinger's current home state. Second is New York at 18.5% and "home" to our new Secretary of State and, I might add, one of the best carpetbaggers around. Third is Wasinger's old stomping ground and home to the first gay marriages performed in the US, Massachusetts. Just over 14% raised there.

Kansas came in #7 with a mere 3.4% of total itemized contributions. Three contributors accounted for the Kansas slice, two from the second congressional district and the third from Wichita.

It's rather inexplicable how a candidate for Congress is unable to find a single large donor from within his "home territory" while the frontrunner is able to gain over 60% of his itemized contributions from within his home district, and over 95% from within Kansas.

Huelskamp reported more un-itemized contributions than Wasinger. I can only speculate that the vast majority of those came from hard working Kansans who gave what they could while itemized reports would seem to indicate Wasinger's came from out-of-state.

Barker raised just over $26,000 and only has $2,200 on hand, which combined with his business in bankruptcy and poor personal voting record, effectively eliminates him from the race.

It's also interesting to note that with all the star power Wasinger supposedly has that he was only able to raise $26,000 more than Huelskamp by going nearly exclusively to old friends in Virginia, New York and Massachusetts. Meanwhile Huelskamp stayed competitive with over 95% of contributions from Kansas.

It seems voters in the first district are voting with their wallets so far. It will be interesting to see if Washington insider cash will influence decision makers here in Kansas in the coming months. With the connections Wasinger has, it's certainly surprising he wasn't able to raise twice as much.

On the other hand, the numbers highlight the most difficult problem for the Wasinger campaign... they just don't know anybody in the first district.

I can't take it anymore...Why Barker will never win a primary

I simply can't take it anymore. Even though the batty Barker people have decided to stop their illogical posting about how wonderful he is, I've pretty much decided that the real reason he doesn't have a chance needs to come out.

Simply put... Republican primary voters won't vote for a guy who's never gone to the trouble of voting in a primary election himself.

That's right my friend, Mr. Tim "Think I'll run for Congress today" Barker has never voted in a primary election, Democrat, Republican or otherwise.

Of course, it would have been very difficult for him to vote in a Republican primary election since he just changed his registration from Democrat to Republican on August 15, a couple weeks after our most recent primary.

Still, there were competitive races among Democrats, like Jones and professional lobbyist Jim Slattery for who would get beat down by Pat Roberts. I guess Tim just didn't care...

Is it too much to ask that the guy who wants to represent Kansans in Congress bother to vote himself? He's 30 years old, it's not like he hasn't had the opportunity to get it done. According to the Secretary of State's website, he's even figured the last two times (of four???) that he can vote absentee. Why couldn't you get it done this August Tim?

Primary voters are the most reliable kind of voter. They believe it's a responsibility to vote, not just a right. They tend to come from the ends of the political spectrum versus the "middle."

Further, only Republicans can vote in the primary for Republican candidates so things didn't look too good for Barker to begin with. Tell them the guy they may be casting their vote for has never bothered to vote in a primary election himself... well... I don't think they'll look kindly on the situation.

So whine on batty Barker people. Say what you want, but when it comes down to it, Republican primary voters simply won't vote for a guy who doesn't care enough to vote in a primary himself!

Concerned Women of America PAC goes with Huelskamp

When it comes to tangible pro-life endorsements that translate into votes rather than anonymous blog comments, Tim Huelskamp seems to be way ahead (although he gets a lot of anonymous comments too.)

Concerned Women of America PAC today endorsed Tim Huelskamp for Congress over Rob Wasinger of Virginia/Washington/Boston..........and Hays (kind of sort of not really), and no name "Think I'll run for Congress today" Tim Barker.

Now, for Wasinger supporter(s) [in parenthesis because I'm not quite sure there's more than one yet], this is what a real endorsement looks like:

"Tim was already well known to Concerned Women PAC long before he decided to run for Congress. Not only has Senator Huelskamp been a solid vote on pro-life and pro-family issues, he has been a leader," said Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman of Concerned Women PAC.

Unlike with individuals, there's more that figures into an endorsement than just knowing a guy when organizations are concerned.

They look at, oh, I don't know, a voting record, which no other candidate has in this race. They look at leadership...not the "behind the scenes have nothing to loose" kind of leadership, but the up front, in the public eye, actually accomplished something kind of leadership that, again, no other candidate has in this race besides frontrunner Tim Huelskamp.

LaHaye continued:

"This is exactly the type of candidate we look for; Tim's a proven legislator who led the effort to pass a marriage amendment in his state, and has shown time and time again that he will do whatever it takes to protect the unborn. What touched my heart the most about Tim however was his personal story. He has lived in the first district all his life, as a farmer, a legislator and a good husband to his wife Angela and four adopted children. I couldn't be more pleased to endorse Tim Huelskamp for Congress."

So while it's interesting to read individual testimonials posted here anonymously from people who have never been to Kansas, not gonna come to Kansas and probably wouldn't even like to look at photographs of Kansas, it's really more pertinent and refreshing to hear that the organizations and people who will actually influence voters in the first district have already decided who has the record and leadership capabilities to get their support.

You can read the full press release below.

Washington, D.C. - Concerned Women Political Action Committee (CWPAC) announced its endorsement of Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp in his campaign for Congress in Kansas First District.

Concerned Women PAC is affiliated with Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, the nation's largest public policy women's organization with more than 500,000 grassroots members nationwide.

The First Congressional district became an open seat when current Congressman Jerry Moran announced he would be running for the U.S. Senate in 2010 for the open seat created by pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, who is running for Governor.

"Tim was already well known to Concerned Women PAC long before he decided to run for Congress. Not only has Senator Huelskamp been a solid vote on pro-life and pro-family issues, he has been a leader," said Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman of Concerned Women PAC. "This is exactly the type of candidate we look for; Tim's a proven legislator who led the effort to pass a marriage amendment in his state, and has shown time and time again that he will do whatever it takes to protect the unborn. What touched my heart the most about Tim however was his personal story. He has lived in the first district all his life, as a farmer, a legislator and a good husband to his wife Angela and four adopted children. I couldn't be more pleased to endorse Tim Huelskamp for Congress."

Concerned Women Political Action Committee was started in 2002 to help elect solid pro-family, pro-life conservatives to Congress. Concerned Women PAC sends out a monthly letter to members encouraging them to financially support candidates like Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp. For more information on this race, please contact Mike Mears at 202-408-4941.

Been there, done that

I was checking out Rob's website this evening to see if he had been able to produce anymore photo's of himself (none so far), when instead I was greeted with this headline: "Rob first to sign Taxpayer Protection Pledge"

Now, I'm not the hottest french fry in the happy meal, but this struck me as rather odd considering Sen. Huelskamp has been in office since January of 1997 and has voted on countless budgets, tax increases and cuts.

How disingenuous, no, I'm sorry, how deceitful of Mr. Wasinger to say that he is the first to sign the taxpayer pledge knowing that not only did Sen. Huelskamp sign a taxpayer pledge when taking office, but being fully aware of all he has done for the hardworking taxpayers of Kansas. And how did Rob vote? Oh, that's right, he has no record!

So not only was Sen. Huelskamp the absolute first to sign a pledge to protect the Kansas taxpayer (unlike the lie Mr. Wasinger is peddling on his website), he's met and exceeded the expectations of voters.

Sen. Huelskamp scored a 100% during the 2008 legislative session with the Kansas Taxpayers Network and has a lifetime rating of 98.1%, the highest of any state Senator! And Mr. Wasinger's rating? Oh, that's right, he has no record!

So while Rob may think voters will find it impressive he can sign his name on a piece of paper, I have complete faith knowing that Republican voters know the difference between wannabe's and the real deal.

PS - In fairness to those rabid Barker people who seem to think a former Democrat is the same thing as a lifelong conservative Republican like Pat Roberts, he also has no record, other than being a Democrat for years.

PSS - Many thanks to Dirt Diver Kansas for the photo. I'm just a little upset I didn't think of it first.

Hutch News nails Wasinger, Barker

I couldn't help but laugh out loud as I scanned the headline.

"Pair vying for Moran seat must boost ties" the headline proclaimed.

Uhhh, yea think McFly?

Well, apparently one out of the "pair" doesn't.

Wasinger pointed out that Kansas has a history of sending people to Congress who have gained experience on Capitol Hill and then have run for office. He cited the example of U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan, who was an aide before representing the 1st Congressional District.

Okay, wait, just hold up a second. So, Rob, you're telling me that Pat Roberts played musical chairs with his voter registration right up to the time he filed to run for office? And that voters were okay with that?

How about we try putting some truth on, hmmmm? I know that'd be a change for you. Roberts has always been a life long Kansan and traveled back whenever possible.

Now, let's take a look at you. You've traveled back long enough to register to vote in Hays, at your aunt's house, who, by the way, just happens to be a Democrat. But you didn't bother to bring along your wife and nine kids?

I've always been told home is where the heart is. Is your heart in Washington Rob or in Kansas? Or is it in Kansas just long enough to get a meal ticket back to Washington where it'll reside permanently?

As much as I enjoyed that, I think my favorite part was this:

Barker, 30, of Pratt, was a registered Democrat before switching parties on Aug. 15, four months before his campaign filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission.

Oh come on. Is this guy serious? Sometimes I look at politicians and wonder if they just woke up one day and said, "You know, I think I'll run for office!" But I actually think that's what this guy did!

Okay, okay, to be fair, the guy saw the light and became a Republican. I've got to give him credit for that. But to then turn around and decide to run for Congress in the big first district? Oh come on! And as much as it blew me away that a reporter actually did Research (with a capital R), the guy got off easy. (More on that later.)

Let's face it, in a general election, being a Republican isn't going to win you the election. But in a primary? Well, it does help a little.

And before Wasinger and Barker start whining, let's point out that Huelskamp got mentioned once, at the very end, with nothing about his ties to Kansas (which when compared to Wasinger and Barker would be like comparing the "M" volume of the encyclopedia to a Dr. Seuss book.)

562 days til primary election day. I can't wait!