Huelskamp raises over quarter of a million in 3rd quarter

The Huelskamp campaign announced raising over one quarter of a million dollars during the third quarter, putting him in the drivers seat against his two lesser known opponents.

Over 850 individual donors contributed $268,000 to the Huelskamp campaign over the past three months. That's in comparison to only $30,000 in contributions Democrat Alan Jilka has received. More than likely Jilka's continued support of President Obama and his healthcare plan, and Jilka's silence on the re-election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, have hurt his fundraising chances.

Huelskamp continues to be the only candidate to have raised money from all 69 counties in the Big First District.

The fundraising advantage is beginning to become very apparent as the election nears. Just last night the Huelskamp campaign released a new ad for the general election highlighting his commitment to Kansas' number one industry, farming. I wasn't able to find it on YouTube just yet, hopefully it will be put up soon, and when it is, I'll try to remember to share it here.

Up 30 plus points in the polls and with ten times more cash on hand than his Democratic opponent, Huelskamp is clearly in the driver's seat as election day nears.

Huelskamp continues to hold commanding lead

A new Survey USA poll continues to show Sen. Tim Huelskamp with a commanding lead to replace Republican Jerry Moran in the Big First District of Kansas.

Of 541 likely voters, Huelskamp gained 63%, which is virtually unchanged from a month ago when the same poll was conducted. Jilka gained only 26%, a third party candidate gained 5% and 6% were undecided.

During the primary Jilka attempted to be the odd man out, refusing to criticize anyone. Now however, he has a very different attitude, make false accusations at any turn in an attempt to just get out of the low to middle 20's in the polls. It looks as if his pro-Obama message is falling very short.

Jilka goes soft on immigration while darting to the right on Holcomb

The Hays Daily News has an article up today on candidate Alan Jilka and his softening stance on immigration and a rather lame explanation of his opposition to the Holcomb power plant.

Jilka states that his stance on immigration has softened after a trip to the Mexican border this summer. Rather than looking at the problems illegal immigration causes in our country and state, Jilka has decided to look at the benefits, such as the myth of reduced labor costs and the like.

"And he (Huelskamp) is clearly oblivious to the economic effect that would have on the First District in general, and his state senate district in particular."

Jilka also contended that Huelskamp wants to simply deport every illegal immigrant. It's a position that apparently he's derived from Sen. Huelskamp's statement on his website regarding illegal immigration and his support for simply enforcing current laws.

It's interesting to note in that statement that the Huelskamp family has adopted two children from outside of the United States. It's outrageous for Jilka to say that Sen. Huelskamp simply hates immigrants, as he is implying, when they have personally taken it upon themselves to better the lives of children from outside the U.S.

My question is what has Mr. Jilka done in either his personal or professional life for immigrants in this country? Or is he only concerned with those that have chosen to break the law to be here? What does it say about someone wanting to represent the people, someone who will be sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of our great country, saying that they should simply be ignored because of perceived economic reasons? What kind of integrity does such a person possess?

Instead of choosing to ignore his potential oath of office, why doesn't Mr. Jilka simply propose changes in the law so that it isn't being broken anymore? Is that too much to ask? What kind of candidate chooses to break an oath before it's even taken rather than stand for what they clearly believe in?

Jilka finishes with a "My bad" apology for his opposition to the Holcomb power plant. Apparently even though he voted for a resolution opposing the plant, since other, more level heads on the Salina City Council prevailed, and the resolution failed to pass, he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions.

While his concerns over water usage and the like have been alleviated, Jilka still failed to express outright support for the project. The First District can not afford to have a Representative that will not promote private sector employment at every turn. Alan Jilka has clearly signaled that the only employment that is acceptable to him is what he deems appropriate and not what his constituency deems appropriate.

A candidate without integrity, a candidate without ideas. That's clearly what Mr. Jilka has become.

Post-primary poll shows Huelskamp with a 42 point lead

The latest Survey USA/KWCH poll shows state Sen. Tim Huelskamp with a commanding lead in the race for the Big First District.

Data collected from Aug. 5 to Aug. 8 shows voters favor Huelskamp by 42 points compared to Democrat Alan Jilka. An amazing 5% of voters say they are still undecided, a very low number considering the primary election was held just days before this poll was conducted. That's a tough environment for Jilka. He can't even come close to Huelskamp's commanding lead, even if he's given the benefit of lots of poll error, all the 5 points for undecideds and a lot of luck.

Huelskamp leads in all groups polled except for a notable few. Jilka wins with self described liberals, Democrats and voters who have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party. That's three groups I'm glad Jilka's winning. It just goes to show what kind of a candidate he is and where his priorities would be if he's elected.

Huelskamp leads self describes moderates by 13 points and Independents by 14 points. This goes to show that Jilka is going to have a hard time remaking himself into the election year "moderate" so many Democrats in Kansas like to call themselves. It never ceases to amaze me that of all the Democrats who are seeking office or have held office in Kansas, the media has yet to meet one of them that is a liberal. They are all, some how, some way, "moderate."

That little lie is a bit harder to pull off in the Big First, and nearly impossible with a candidate like Tim Huelskamp.

Erick Erickson: It's time for conservatives to get off the fence

Interesting piece on Red State today from Erick Erickson. Essentially, Erickson says it's time for every conservative to get behind Tim Huelskamp and stop messing around with that other guy.

This is one of those seats where if conservatives do not act immediately, a terrible Republican will get elected, serve forty years in Congress, and we will hate every minute of it. Tim Huelskamp is the conservative with the best chance of winning.

Read more at redstate.com.

Southwest Times: Huelskamp dominates fundraising

The Southwest Times has an article up on the domination of Sen. Huelskamp in fundraising. Click on over and take a look.

I found the graphic pretty interesting because it really makes Wasinger's spending stand out.

I also thought Barnett stonewalling the newspaper was interesting, especially after they went to the trouble to email the questions. Looks like Roe is scared to let his candidate speak off the cuff. Then again, if I had Barnett's record I'd be scared to speak without my teleprompter too.

Huelskamp moves to the airwaves with first TV ad

The Huelskamp campaign launched the first TV ad in the first district with a reminder of Sen. Huelskamp's record on taxes and fiscal responsibility. The ad, titled “Tax Day,” runs 30 seconds in length and is a positive, issue-oriented profile of Senator Huelskamp and his record of fighting for lower taxes.

"Other candidates talk about opposing taxes, but Tim Huelskamp has a proven track record of fighting tax increases to prove it,” said Huelskamp spokesman David Ray. “That's why he won numerous awards for keeping taxes low and why the Club for growth has endorsed him.

Huelskamp has been building a war chest for some time now and it's refreshing to see him spending his campaign resources so wisely. Huelskamp is correct to size up this contest as a clash of records, mainly that he has a record of fighting for the taxpayer while Barnett has a record of fighting for more government control.

This ad nails the sentiment of so many voters in the first. There's a lot of politicians that talk the talk, but there's only one candidate in this race with a record of walking the walk.

See also:

• Congressional candidate launches TV ad
• Huelskamp launches new TV ad today
• Huelskamp Goes On TV in Kansas' 1st District
• Huelskamp first on the air
• Huelskamp launches television ad
• Air war begins in Kansas first district GOP primary
• Huelskamp Launches First TV Ad
  

Huelskamp comes up big in fundraising

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.

Huelskamp boasts donors from all 69 first district counties

Ahead of the January finance reports from all federal candidates, Sen. Tim Huelskamp announced that he had garnered contributions from all 69 counties in the big first district.

“Reaching this critical milestone shows that our campaign has the most broad-based support of any candidate in this race,” said Huelskamp. “I’m very thankful for all the support I have received from across the First District.”

A truly impressive feat. Sen. Huelskamp has been leading the pack in not only total contributions, but donations from within the first district as well.

Wasinger uses not-so-anonymous surrogates for attacks

The Wasinger campaign once again is using their not-so-anonymous KSNBC-01 blog to attack Sen. Tim Huelskamp.

Entitled Huelskamp visits KS-01, touts experience in New Mexico, the Wasinger Ohio team selectively quotes a Great Bend Tribune article to meet the needs of their twisted view that Rob Wasinger is somehow not an DC insider and Tim Huelskamp is just a liberal in conservative clothing.

Unfortunately the Ohio team misunderstands that, by definition, it's impossible for Huelskamp to "visit" the first district; he lives there. Wasinger on the other hand, having moved to the first district with the explicit purpose of running for office, truly is "just visiting." It's sad the only line of attack the Wasinger camp has is to distract from the glaring truth that their candidate has moved back to Kansas for the sole purpose of regaining a paid trip back to DC. In the end all this really does is once again, highlight that Rob Wasinger is more a Virginian than he is a Kansan.

After all, when the election is over and Rob has lost, he'll return to Virginia or somewhere on the east coast. If that wasn't the plan, why still own a nearly three quarter of a million dollar home in Virginia?

The Wasinger campaign continues to point to county tours since Rob arrived in Kansas before the last election. This is a line we've all heard before. Remember that according to team Wasinger, he was the first to sign a no tax pledge. This of course, ignored the fact that Huelskamp took the same pledge when first elected in 1996.

When Rob constantly asserts that he's the first to visit with voters and the first to complete a tour of the district, he ignores two key facts. First, Huelskamp has been visiting with voters since, oh, 1996. So you might want to rethink using that "first" claim when, in fact, you were a distant second by more than a decade.

Further, while it's admirable the Rob made no bones about his desire to return to DC as soon as possible, constantly espousing that he is "visiting with voters" simply highlights the fact that he doesn't know any voters. After all, how else do you explain six months of absolutely no contributions from the district he wants to represent?

The fact of the matter is Rob Wasinger is a DC insider who can not win election in the first district. As many have said on other blogs, given any other year and no other qualified candidates, Rob would be someone that would warrant being considered. But with proven leadership like that of Tim Huelskamp in the race, there's little point entertaining a longtime DC insider with no voting record.

With all of that in mind, what really concerns me is the apparent apathy the Wasinger campaign is displaying towards Jim Barnett's candidacy. Everything coming out of the KSNBC-01 blog is critical of Huelskamp and raves of Wasinger but completely ignores the candidacy of liberal Jim Barnett. This combined with Wasinger's new push for "moderate" voters and his endorsement by John McCain makes me wonder just what is going on.

The fact is Wasinger can't win, but he can possibly split the vote enough to allow Barnett to win. And so far his campaign and Ohio surrogates seem either oblivious to this reality or in fact, are well aware of it, and would rather have Barnett in Congress than Huelskamp. Knowing Barnett's record, that is truly disturbing.

Wasinger needs to put aside his ego and recognize who the real threat is.

Happy Anniversary!

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!

And then there were two...

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.

Democratic candidate sued for sexual advances

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.

Huelskamp leads fundraising race; Barnett changes "requested" to "undisclosed"

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.

Huelskamp reports over $180K for third quarter

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."

FEC nails Barnett for "requested" occupations

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.

Video: Barnett, Sebelius and ObamaCare

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.

New resource for Barnett campaign

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.

Barnett forms coalition, but where are the solutions?

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.

Is new Barnett health plan really Sebelius-care II?

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.