« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A brief Missouri Senate 2010 update

By: Bill S (Diary)  |  April 17th, 2009 at 12:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

A couple of items on the forthcoming US Senate race in MO for retiring Senator Kit Bond’s seat

  • Sarah Steelman filed her 1Q2009 disclosure report for the Missouri Ethics Commission this week.  There’s a big glaring number in there:  a $770,000 debt from the 2008 gubernatorial race.  That is one whopping big hole to start with if/when she decides whether or not to run.  But even with that debt, she apparently thought it appropriate to spend over $100,000 on consulting and polling.

(Pollster Chris) Wilson said the poll was taken as a feasibility study for a potential Steelman U.S. Senate candidacy. But Steelman did not pay for the poll. Wilson said because of his company’s confidentiality clause, he could only say that a third party unaffiliated with Steelman paid for the data.

The Blunt campaign’s response to the poll was short but pointed: “Push polling is a nasty tactic and these tactics do not merit a response from the campaign,” said Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer.

  • The latest fundraising numbers for Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan were released this week as well.  According to press reports, Democrat candidate Carnahan out-raised Blunt by a significant amount.  Carnahan reported fundraising of a bit more than $1M, whereas Blunt raised approximately $550K…although Blunt was able to transfer approx. $340,000 from his House campaign account.  A Missouri State University political scientist today expressed little doubt that Blunt will catch up on the fundraising, but showed some skepticism about his ability to defeat Carnahan.  For some odd reason, Chris Cillizza seems to think this is proof positive that Steelman will oppose Blunt in the primary.  Given her current money & debt issues, I wouldn’t be so sure.
Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Dan McLaughlin

    So, let’s say Steelman raises enough money to retire her old debts, and once she crosses that threshold, the party bigs sit down with her and make a deal that involves dropping out….

    I’m just wondering if there’s some posturing going on here.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    If Sarah Steelman jumps in, I suspect that Club for Growth will be lining up behind her but wanted to poll it first to see if she would be competitive (and it showed that she would be.) The Club for Growth’s support and Sarah Steelman’s economics background would pose significant obstacles for Roy Blunt (R-Big Government).

    Run Sarah Run!

  • itrytobenice

    and I’ve always supported him in the past, but I’ve got a bone stuck in my craw that won’t come loose.

    When Kit Bond announced his retirement, he took his mask off and has voted as a straight liberal on every major piece of legislation since then. I have determined that all we conservatives have up there in DC are a bunch of moles. They are like KGB agents working for the CIA.

    I’m truly ready to shake the monkeys out of the trees and start over with a whole new crop. And Roy has never even done a good job of pretending to respect taxpayer dollars. It’s always about power, pork and re-election.

    And I don’t like it. Not one little bit.

  • bs

    I think a deal would be in both parties’ best interest, especially if Steelman runs for a House seat or waits on the McCaskill seat in 2012.

  • bs

    and yet I see statistics from source like National Journal that show an economic conservatism rating of 97%. I think we need to stop generalizing and start objecting to specifics. If there are particular votes that Blunt (or anyone else) has taken that are objectionable, then I’d like to hear about them and hear his reasoning. Sometimes things that look questionable on the surface have an explanation that we might not see. I see this “fiscal squish” thing about Blunt as a long-developed meme that has little documentation behind it.

  • mas1916

    Early polls really don’t mean much. This may have been to test the waters before people start investing real money in a candidacy.

    It is also too early to shape the race. Obama’s inflation hasn’t hit the middle classes yet but should appear in early 2010. Inflation – due to the outrageous expansion of the US money supply – will get worse as Obama’s spending increases. It should reach a peak in Q3 next year – just in time for the election.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    Out of the 49 anti-pork amendments that the Club for Growth scored, Roy Blunt voted the wrong way on 38, giving him a score of 22% on the Club’s Re-Pork Card.

    He scored an 87% across all economic issues scored by the Club in 2007 placing him 65th out of 435 house members, but 65% in 2006, placing him in 86th.

    Citizens Against Government Waste gave him a 57% score in 2007, lifetime 67%.

    According to Cato’s free trade ratings, he has only opposed trade subsidies a mere 15% of the time while voting against trade barriers 68% of the time. That’s more respectable but still leaves a lot to be desired.

    To his credit, he did score 100% with the Americans for Tax Reform in 2007, but I have no concerns that Sarah Steelman wouldn’t score likewise while boasting much better scores in other economic areas, also.

    So, is Roy Blunt one of the very worst congressmen in the country? No. But he’s not exactly a shining example of the type of leadership we need in Washington, either. In fact, he doesn’t even score in the top half of the Republican caucus. Given how embarrassing the GOP’s representation of its constituents has been, that’s not exactly anything to get very excited about.

    Sarah Steelman on the other hand sounds like she understands the economic issues much better than Roy Blunt ever has, and I like that she’s a trained economist.

    There really is no question in my mind that Sarah Steelman would be a far better senator than Roy Blunt. That’s just the bottom line.

  • bs

    “sounds”

    She has no record beyond treasurer, which is hardly a weather vane that indicates what direction she blows.

    “trained”

    Book learning ain’t policy making. Frankly, I’m more impressed by someone with experience than degrees.

    I have a *big* question in my mind. She has other things in her past, such as associations with union leaders and her behavior in the 2008 gubernatorial primary that make me question her credentials and ability.

    I look at Blunt’s record as a whole. I am not simply focusing on the economic aspects. Would Steelman be bad? Perhaps not. I don’t write off either one, but I particularly do not write off Roy Blunt, which a number here have, and I feel wrongly.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    Well, unlike you, I’m quite unimpressed by the rather uninspiring track record developed by Roy Blunt’s “experience” in government.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    Well, unlike you, I’m quite unimpressed by the rather uninspiring track record developed by Roy Blunt’s “experience” in government.

    In fact, when I think about what went wrong with the GOP, I think of the House leadership post-Gingrich and post-Armey ? and there is Roy Blunt along with Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay.

    Roy Blunt has had his chance ? not just as any member of the House but as a member of the House Republican leadership. His failure as a part of the house GOP leadership was in part evidenced by a lost majority. The scores that Blunt has raked up from Club for Growth, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Cato are a big part of why many conservatives became disillusioned with the GOP and then became disengaged and abandoned the party as unworthy of supporting.

    If we want to get our credibility back, we need to turn away from the politicians who led us down that road ? not promote them to higher office.

    And while you’re correct that actions are better than words, quite unfortunately Roy Blunt’s track record in congress sets a very low bar that I think no one doubts Sarah Steelman could easily clear if elected to the U.S. Senate.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    For the full post, see below. :-)

  • bs

    …on Roy Blunt. I am far, far more willing to put the failure of the GOP on the back of George W. Bush. I think that the public’s response to the Iraq war (which I personally support) and W’s other issues were much more responsible than GOP leadership in either the Senate or the House.

    If Steelman ran in the primary, at this point I’d probably not support her. If she beat Blunt, I would most certainly support her against Robin Carnahan, who would make Claire McCaskill look like a right-wing extremist.

  • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

    Steelman’s website: http://www.sarahsteelman.com is set to relaunch soon.

    I’m interested to see what she does.

  • IJB

    As pointed out in another diary, Steelman was a fairly recent supporter of Big Labor.

    If that doesn’t fly in the face of what CfG is supposed to stand for, I don’t know what does.

    If I were CfG, I’d tread *very careful* before putting down markers in this race.

    Whatever Roy Blunt’s problems, Steelman looks to me like a disaster waiting to happen.

  • BlueLandRed

    Missouri is a purple state. McCain only won just over 4,000 votes out of 3 million. Given the the soon to be 59/41 split in the Senate, I really think we need to back a Republican that can win. And I caution you, with an Obama DOJ and Dem control of the Congress, expect some serious “election reform” to take place before Nov 2010… reform that could easily add up to additional point or two in the wrong column. If Steelman has got a shot, ok, I’d rather have a a less than perfect Republican then another Dem.

  • DONTREADONME

    the purple state issue. VA and NC went purple this year along with many others, my hope (for lack of a better term) that the election was just a fleeting moment of enthusiasm for a candidate that no one knew. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2010 and 2012, but if you are right about the “purple” the damage may be complete for the next two to three generations if not permanent. If the elections of 2008 were purely an American public on a temper tantrum or a fancy whim to get rid of the Republicans due to the economy and Bush fatique, then their is hope to reverse the tide. Again, as you would probably agree, I hope you are wrong, but if not we can say we saw this coming.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    ….about all the money that congress was wasting and that even his own staffers were stuffing into bills under his name, he would have stopped it all! LOL

    Roy Blunt was in the GOP leadership under fellow big government Republican Tom DeLay and incompetent big government Republican Denny Hastert.

    As a fellow Texan, I have to say that I was just excited about DeLay being so high up in leadership for a long time and far too forgiving of his big government excesses. But the scales have been taken away and I see the Republican caucus much more clearly now. Perhaps you’re still in the “too forgiving” stage as I once was.

    Was Dubya’s big government “compassionate conservatism” a bigger problem than Blunt’s willingness to just rubber-stamp whatever spending priorities the president passed down (as long as Blunt got a good amount of pork for himself?) Sure. But the fact of the matter is that Roy Blunt witnessed levels of spending that ? although they pale in comparison to what we’re spending this year ? should have made any good conservative cringe ? like it did Jeff Flake, Mike Pence, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint.

    But Blunt was nowhere to be found except quite happily whipping up votes for the GOP leadership’s big government agenda. So if he’s looking for help from me, I’m going to be nowhere to be found, too.

    Maybe he can get John Cornyn’s NRSC to help him out. It doesn’t seem to have a problem backing big government Republican senators. They’re backing Arlen Specter, too, after all.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    I believe that they supported her in the gubernatorial primary against Blunt’s fellow big government Republican then-congressman Hulshof. So, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they backed her again this time around.

  • EzOnTheEyez

    If Sarah Steelman is a Club for Growth type of Republican, we need her to run now ? not in 2012.

    We need to get these big government Republicans out of office and replace them with great limited government, free trader Republicans like I believe Steelman to be.

    If she’s not that type of candidate, then I stand open to be corrected. It will simply leave me without a candidate to really support for the Missouri senate race this year.

  • itrytobenice

    I’ll tell you where I got my ideas re: Blunt. He travels around the district and sends out a periodic newsletter letting us all know what pork he managed to bring home. He has voted on the wrong side of most of the Eliminate Pork proposals.

    I know that pork is not a big percentage of the budget, but I truly believe it is the avenue of most of the bribery and corruption we see in Congress today. Campaign contributions are funded by pork (back door of course) and the war chests built by those contributions keep other viable challengers from even trying.

    There are no primary challengers to any of our elected thugs these days because who could take on a $4 million dollar head start? Nobody. So the same old bunch gets re-elected time after time after time after time.

    Then they’re up there together and pretty soon we have back scratching comity and the people are screwed once again.

    And I’m not saying that Roy is all bad. He did yeoman’s work promoting the Social Security reform of the early Bush years, but was shut down by a dishonest media and AARP.

    But I think he’s been swimming in the cesspool so long he no longer recognizes that the same early money that he gets from local beneficiaries of pork is the same early money that gets John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, etc. re-elected over and over even though they aren’t any good.