Kansas Senate Rivals Feud Over Medical Debt Ad and Endorsements
Left 67%
Center 0%
Right 33%
2 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Republican groups have publicly highlighted past sermons and comments on Christianity by Democratic pastor-candidates, including Texas U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico, Kansas U.S. Senate nominee Adam Hamilton, and two Democratic U.S. House nominees in Iowa. In the Kansas Senate race, Kansans for Marshall, which supports Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, paid for RealAdamHamilton.com, a site that states it is not affiliated with Hamilton or his campaign and targets Hamilton, founding senior pastor of the Church of the Resurrection. The site organizes criticism around a January 2020 climate sermon in which Hamilton discussed cattle’s carbon footprint and defined repentance as changed behavior; sermon clips it says show he believes Kansas “has too many white and beige people”; his church’s listed 2025 Kansas City PrideFest sponsorship and Youth & Teen Tents advertising, which the site calls “Church-Sponsored Drag Queen Story Time”; his role in United Methodist LGBT-clergy debates that the site says “caused a million members of the denomination to leave”; his listing on a September 16 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reception invitation with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic senators; and a sermon excerpt in which he said he could not think of Islamic terrorist acts in Kansas City but could think of killings by people who were “either Christians or at least somehow shaped by Christianity.” Hamilton asked in 2015, of biblical interpretation, “Where can we say, you know, here I think Paul’s wrong?”; has preached that Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and others will see Jesus in Heaven; and in 2018 applied Jesus’s millstone warning about harming children to reports of migrant families being separated at the southern border.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 3 articles
1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 5 hours later.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Sen. Roger Marshall
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: on-record letter
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 21:45 UTC by Breitbart, with no named source. First named source 5 hours later, from The Hill. First document 5 hours later, from The Hill (on-record letter).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The left reports a GOP campaign against pastors' faith talk without quoting it, while the right quotes Hamilton and drops the other races. Left-leaning coverage, in Politico, says Democratic pastors running for Senate in Texas and Kansas and for the House in Iowa are having their Christianity remarks picked over, then supplies no excerpt. Right-leaning coverage, in Breitbart, details Hamilton's climate sermon, PrideFest role, and comments on violence by Christians through an opposition website, and never mentions James Talarico.
Left-leaning coverage casts the GOP push as an attack on "religious comments." Right-leaning coverage instead catalogs climate sermons, a PrideFest sponsorship, and a Schumer reception invite as the actual fight.
What did James Talarico preach that Republicans are circulating against him?
Bottom line
Politico reports a three-state GOP attack on Democratic pastors' faith remarks and quotes none of them. Breitbart quotes Hamilton on climate and PrideFest and never puts James Talarico in the story.
The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
- A Marshall-aligned website section says Hamilton believes Kansas has too many white and beige people
- The opposition site says Hamilton forced the United Methodist Church to ordain LGBT clergy, causing a million members to leave
- In a 2018 sermon Hamilton said Jesus's warning about harming children should frame news of migrant families being separated at the border
The Left View
Politico frames the story as Democrats running pastors for office and Republicans attacking those candidates’ religious comments. It reports that the nominees are seeing their remarks on Christianity “picked over by the GOP,” presenting the Republican effort as an attack on faith-related speech by Democratic clergy.
The Right View
Breitbart frames the Marshall-aligned site as exposing Hamilton’s sermons, LGBT record, and national-Democrat ties rather than as an attack on religion. It treats the climate-repentance language, the “too white” characterization, PrideFest and drag-queen story-time sponsorship, the Methodist split and the 2015 “Paul’s wrong” question, the DSCC invitation the site labels “Schumer’s Rubber Stamp,” and the comparison of Christian-shaped violence with Islamic terrorism as evidence of progressive politics and theology, and it flags his teaching that other faiths will meet Jesus in Heaven and his millstone application to border family separations as part of the same record.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that Republicans are “picking over” Democratic pastors’ remarks on Christianity, turning sermons into campaign attacks after Democrats nominated clergy. The right’s strongest argument is that Hamilton’s own public words—tying greenhouse-gas behavior to repentance, asking whether “Paul’s wrong,” his church’s PrideFest role, the DSCC invitation, and the comparison of Christian-shaped killings with Islamic terrorism—are fair evidence of a Senate candidate’s worldview and associations. The central unresolved tension is whether circulating a pastor-candidate’s sermons is illegitimate religious targeting or ordinary scrutiny of beliefs he chose to preach.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.