So here's the question of the week: if Matt Blunt was willing to endorse one of the Republican candidates in the GOP gubernatorial primary, would either of them actually want him to?  Is the stamp of approval of the Least Popular Governor in the United States something that Kenny Hulshof or Sarah Steelman believes would be an asset to his or her campaign?

As we wrote last week:

Blunt was, after all, at a robust 56% disapproval [1] rating among Missouri voters back in the middle of April.   And that was before Blunt and his top aides were fingered as having directly ordered the destruction [1] of electronic backup tapes --a story which cannot have helped his numbers.

That's in addition to the fact that the state's economy has gotten very, very soft under Blunt's watch, with jobless numbers climbing [1] and revenue estimates appearing as though they'll fail to reach the levels planned [1] for by Blunt in upcoming budget years.  Accompanying those sad circumstances is the realization that Blunt's chief legislative accomplishment, the sale of MOHELA's assets, has left the loan agency teetering on the brink of insolvency [1] and forced to scale back its educational mission. 

Is Kenny Hulshof, for instance, ready to tour the state with Matt Blunt, touting the governor's support, while at every stop along the way reporters are asking whether he, like Blunt, would have ordered the destruction of embarrassing public records; whether he, like Blunt, agrees that cutting hundreds of thousands from health care is a good idea; and whether he, like Blunt, will continue the recent GOP tradition of selling license office to the highest campaign bidder?

What would a candidate who had accepted Blunt's support do?  Would he or she disavow all the terribly unpopular things the governor has done while he sits right there?  Or would he or she stand by Blunt, willing to take a few hits for endorsing his acts in return for some extra Republican support?