« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Running Sarah Steeleman

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 24th, 2009 at 11:32 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Sarah Steeleman is thinking of getting into the Missouri Senate race against Roy Blunt. Those two do not like each other one bit.

Steeleman ran for Missouri Governor and lost in the primary. Her opponent went down in flames in the general election.

Steeleman is making the rounds to all the conservative groups trying to line up support. It is no secret that Roy Blunt, while a conservative standard bearer on social issues, is squishy on fiscal issues. He has been a porker and recalcitrant on many reform issues.

So here is where we find ourselves: Roy Blunt is an extraordinarily nice guy. It’s no secret I have not been a fan of his leadership in the House Republican Conference, but I like him and his staff a great deal.

I don’t know Sarah Steeleman. Looking at her record and her positions running for Governor, I’d say she’d be my ideological pick. But more and more people tell me she’s a jerk. And these are not the types of people who view self-starting conservative women as jerks. These are people who supported her for Governor. They tell me they are deeply fearful that were she to lose the nomination to Roy Blunt that she’d run a behind the scenes slash and burn campaign, which would only help Carnahan.

We cannot afford to lose Missouri in 2010. If Steeleman wants in, I’ve got no problem. But I am deeply, deeply concerned that even a number of her supporters from her last race are concerned about her entry and attitude.

I hope she thinks carefully before pulling the trigger on a run.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bs
  • Kyle-MI

    If we want to attract better candidates for these offices, we should change the GOP primary system. One of the problems is, if you have 3 conservatives and 1 moderate running, the conservative vote gets split and lets the moderate win the nomination. If Steeleman runs and a more solid conservative joins the race, then Blunt will slip through. (He might anyway because of name recognition.)

    We need preference voting in the primaries. We would end up with more consensus candidate that better reflect the values of the average GOP voter.

  • rblack198

    He’s already calling for early debates with Carnahan as though the primaries are over. I’d like to see Steelman get in the fray, but if she does she needs to get off the stick. Maybe she is a jerk as some seem to be saying, but her treatment in the last primary was a good reason to be a jerk. Hard to help the guys who helped destory your chances as the MO GOP did in my opinion. Understandably that’s part of the game when you lose, but it wasn’t handled well the last go around by either side.

  • bs

    I hardly think it was unidirectional. She threw some serious mud.

    Blunt sent a Twitter this AM that stated that he did NOT ask for a “debate,” as Carnahan stated. He offered to meet her in a discussion forum.

    She got in the gubernatorial campaign. She is the one who decided to run. She threw the mud. She paid the price.

    If she runs and pulls another stunt like she did against Hulshof, we lose the Senate

  • bs

    I wasn’t done typing the last sentence.

    I was saying “we lose the Senate seat that Bond holds”

  • rblack198

    this was her campaigns doing, or is she really the mud slinging type? Not questioning I really have no clue.

    I don’t think Blunt gets the job done against a Carnahan, I doubt Steelman does either in all honestly, but I see a repeat of the Governors race with the Dems energized and the GOP with lackluster support outside of the SW corner of the state if Blunt gets the nod. I’d have preferred Talent but he’s made up his mind it seems.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/ Brian Simpson

    I supported Steelman in the Gov primary. She is ideologically the better candidate.

    I too have this nagging feeling that she would not make a good candidate for Senator against Carnahan.

  • bs

    …set up primarily by a contentious, nasty GOP primary campaign – which did NOT have to happen (:peers towards Steelman again:). Jay Nixon was a well-known pol with excellent name reco. Jay Nixon did not have to deal with a primary challenger. The GOP primary was one of the nastiest in recent memory – I cannot remember two Republicans going after each other in that manner. Nixon simply had to sit back and look regal and governor-like. Hulshof also didn’t have the greatest name reco (nor Steelman, for that matter)…Hulshof was a U.S. Rep, but in a mid-MO district that isn’t well-known in the big metro areas.

    Not to mention the Obama coattails, despite the fact that The O didn’t win Missouri. But that carried a few extra D votes with it nonetheless.

    If the economy remains lackluster for the next 12-18 months, there is no telling who will be “energized”. The GOP candidate has a LOT of time to frame themselves between now and then, AND to portray Robin Carnahan in the light that she deserves – as a far-left extreme liberal who does NOT represent the values of the majority of Missourians. Remember – the demographics in MO still leave the non-urban areas with HUGE influence, and the bulk of those folks will never vote for a leftist like Robin Carnahan.

    (Oh, and I’m with you – I’m a big Talent fan myself. He used to be my rep. But if you can’t tell, I think Blunt can do a fine job as well. I think he needs to counteract some of the bad vibes that some folks around here seem to have about him being a Bush shill. He began that effort in KC last weekend)

  • Younce

    Imagine the mud if Steelman gets in this race. Steelman is not afraid to throw it. And as BS alluded to, Missouri has not had a nasty GOP primary in years. The last was 1992 when then Secretary of State Roy Blunt lost to then Attorney General Bill Webster. That primary was so nasty, it hurt the party for years.

    As bad as last years primary was, it was not as bad as 92. If Steelman gets into the Senate race, I think we could see a flashback to Blunt-Webster

  • stldave

    I know she isn’t particularly well liked by many insiders. The Governor primary was very divisive. However there is a lot to be said for having no big name support, only a few months to get your name out there, and getting a near draw against the candidate with stronger backing.

    I think a lot of bad feelings come from her willingness to act against misdeeds on her own side, and her strong stance against earmarks and waste. Missouri republicans generally vote the right ways, but like to play Washington game and do it well. Blunt is no different.

    With Blunt you have to take the good with the bad. He’s going to vote with the party, but he is in as deep as anyone with lobbyists and is going to shove earmarks through. That’s going to be a problem in the general, and I’ll be glad if there is an alternative in the primary.

    She showed leadership on divestment with terrorist countries. She holds her own party to the same standard of ethics as she does the other party. She has a strong economic background. She is conservative fiscally and socially. She can be credible when she rails against spending.

    There’s a lot to like. With Blunt, I’ll have to hold my nose while I vote for him. I’d rather not have to do that.

    It will be a tough primary. In theory it might be better to run in 2012. But she’s not going to be the establishment’s choice then either. She never will be. If she decides the time is now, then I’m getting behind her and not thinking twice about it.