One might look at the latest PPP polling data that shows Roy Blunt down by one point to Robin Carnahan and think “oooh, Roy’s not looking so good”.  But a quick peek beneath the results shows otherwise.

Back in January, when PPP first surveyed Missouri voters about a potential Blunt/Carnahan race, the numbers came out 45/44 Carnahan over Blunt.  Now?  The latest shows Carnahan up 43/42 over Blunt.  Of course this is well within the MOE of 3.6%.  But consider the environment that exists today in Missouri.  The “League of Conservation Voters” has been conducting an extensive ad campaign criticizing Rep. Blunt’s stand against  “cap-and-trade” legislation.  Blunt has made his opposition to cap-and-trade well-known, pointing out the huge utility bill increases that such a bill would foist upon Missourians and the rest of the country.  But despite this effort by the Carnahan-supporting group, Blunt’s numbers have barely budged.

It appears that the negative opinion of Barack Obama’s policies, the Democrat-controlled Congress and the general economic conditions have also impacted the polling data.  According to the PPP numbers, Blunt leads Carnahan 44-32% with independent voters.  As PPP points out, this is a very similar situation to what occurred in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections.  PPP’s numbers also show strong disapproval for Barack Obama’s performance (-9 pts) and a 21-point disapproval gap for PelosiObamaReidCare.

Read More →

The fact that Roy Blunt had raised 200K more than Robin Carnahan in the Senate race was already known - but 24thstate is now reporting that Ed Martin has also raised 40K more than Russ Carnahan for the MO-03 race. Which is interesting, as Martin only declared around the end of July. Guess when they say “Show-Me” in Missouri, they mean it.

But that’s not even the most interesting thing coming from 24thstate.com.  The most interesting thing right now is his evidence that someone in Robin Carnahan’s office is violating Sunshine/election/ethics laws by funneling documents to attack blogs…

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

As Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan seeks a promotion to the US Senate, she has to expect a few questions about her past dealings with ACORN. After all, the Secretary of State ‘administers all statewide elections for both candidates and issues,’ as well as promulgates rules and guidelines, handles ballots and pollworkers, and generally oversees everything having to do with elections in the state.

When a group like ACORN racks up more than a dozen convictions in the state, and submits tens of thousands of questionable or false voter registration forms, you have to expect that the Secretary of State is going to have the chance to explain what she did to fight corruption.

Read More →

Some points of interest, for various campaigns:

• AR-01: Rick Crawford - who is running against Marion Berry, AKA The Guy Who Can’t Remember That He’s Not Supposed to Be Taken Farm Subsidies - has a revamped website.  It’s a definite improvement over the old version, and should allow for more and better networking.  AR-01 is a R+8 district, and long overdue for a Congressman not as ready to ‘forget’ about his income (both agricultural and residential) as Berry is.  Check Rick out.

Read More →

Today Rasmussen Reports issued their first Election 2010 survey of Missouri’s U.S. Senate race that will most likely be between Rep. Roy Blunt (MO-7) and Sec’y of State Robin Carnahan (D-we don’t know where she is). The Rasmussen poll shows a dead heat - 46-46 between Blunt and Carnahan. Both of these candidates are well-known names in Missouri, and earlier polls by other polling firms had shown Carnahan with a statistically insignificant one or two-point lead a few months ago.

Rasmussen breaks down the numbers:

Nearly all the numbers in this early survey show an uncommonly close match between two members of well-known Missouri political families. Blunt, for example, leads by 17 points among men, but Carnahan has a 13-point lead among female voters.

Carnahan captures 84% of the state’s Democratic vote, while Blunt nets 85% of the GOP vote. Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Blunt by eight points.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Missouri voters have a favorable view of Blunt, with 18% whose opinion of him is very favorable. Thirty-three percent (33%) view him unfavorably, including 15% with a very unfavorable view. Only 10% have no opinion of the Republican hopeful.

Carnahan has 52% favorables and 42% unfavorables. Twenty-three percent (23%) regard her very favorably and 22% very unfavorably. Just six percent (6%) aren’t sure what they think of Carnahan.

The one number that seemed to stand out, as indicated in bold, was the unaffiliated number, which showed an 8-point lead for Blunt.  This may be a “coal mine canary” indicator of the public’s dissatisfaction with the Dems.

Read More →

Roy Blunt has worked his way into the top ranks of Republican leadership in Congress. He has been trusted by Republican Presidents for many years with candid advice. He is relied on even now by Republicans in Congress as they struggle to keep the team together in opposition to the siren calls of compromise with the Democrats.

More critically, Congressman Blunt is now seeking to become the next United States Senator from Missouri. As we fight to take back Congress, we need men like Roy Blunt on our side. Winning the open senate race in Missouri is necessary should we want to take back the Senate and, at a minimum, prevent the Democrats from having a filibuster proof Senate.

Today RedState is pleased to endorse Congressman Roy Blunt for the United States Senate.

RedState has an interesting relationship with Congressman Roy Blunt (R-MO). There are many times we find ourselves on opposite sides of issues, generally fiscal and earmarks related. There are many other times we find ourselves standing shoulder to shoulder with Congressman Blunt — supporting our soldiers, defending life, and opposing President Obama’s ridiculous healthcare scheme.

Roy Blunt is a good friend of this site. We have passionate disagreements on issues, but our friendship is unwavering. We can agree to disagree on issues because we know that in the grand scheme of things, we are with each other in the fight for freedom. We hope that as Congressman Blunt speaks with the voters of Missouri, he realizes the importance of ongoing work to reduce the size and influence of the federal bureaucracy. The Senate needs more reformers; Congressman Blunt can only benefit if he decides to be one of them.

In the particular race at hand, the contrast between Congressman Blunt and his opponent, Robin Carnahan, could not be more striking. Congressman Blunt opposes the Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan. Ms. Carnahan supports it. Congressman Blunt opposes the Democrats’ healthcare plans. Ms. Carnahan supports those plans. Conversely, Congressman Blunt supports regulator reforms that will allow people greater access at lower price to private health insurance. Ms. Carnahan opposes that. Congressman Blunt supports a strong military. Ms. Carnahan opposes that. Congressman Blunt supports letting every person decide their destiny. Ms. Carnahan believes the government should play a critical role in how you live your life.

Please join us in supporting our friend Congressman Roy Blunt as the next United States Senator from Missouri. Winning Missouri must be a priority for us in 2010 and with your help Roy Blunt will win.

Is it really helpful for the leader of the Republican National Committee to say “I agree with you. And when stuff gets in the crapper, you gotta clean it out” after the host of the radio show he is on just spent a few minutes bashing the presumptive Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Missouri, Roy Blunt?

The radio host, Vincent David Jericho, wet on a tirade against both Matt and Roy Blunt. According to the News-Leader,

Steele, who was in Springfield for a fundraiser on Friday, tried to interrupt Jericho, but the host pressed on.

“Behave like a man – not like, not like little boys who are running around with their little toy and can’t behave themselves,” Jericho said.

Steele responded: “Look, now don’t, don’t – I mean, I agree with you. And when stuff gets in the crapper, you gotta clean it out.”

Sigh.

This weekend, 200 RedStaters gathered together in Atlanta to hear from real conservative leaders and candidates.

We were specific in our invitations — we wanted conservatives, not just Republicans. The message was phenomenal. The time shared was outstanding.

But now we have work to do. We cannot return to our former ways. We must commit to continuous activity on behalf of these outstanding men and women.

If you live in their area, help them. Volunteer. If you don’t live near them, consider opening your checkbook or pulling out your credit card.

We can take back the GOP. We can win on a message of small government. But we have to step up and help.

Each person listed below paid their own way to spend time with RedState activists in Atlanta. This was not a gathering for you to hear from them, but for them to hear from you. And they did hear from you.

Now let them hear from you again — volunteer, talk to your friends, donate, do whatever you can to help them in their elections.

• Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) Candidate for the United States Senate
• Former Congressman Pat Toomey (R-PA) Candidate for the United States Senate
• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX)
• Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) Chairman, Republican Study Committee
• Hon. Karen Handel (R-GA) Georgia’s Secretary of State & Candidate for Governor
• Liz Cheney (okay, she’s not a candidate, but she should be)
• Ken Cuccinelli (R-VA) Virginia State Senator & Candidate for Virginia Attorney General
• Michael Williams (R-TX) Texas Railroad Commissioner, Candidate for the United States Senate
• Marco Rubio (R-FL) Former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Candidate for the United States Senate
• Ted Cruz (R-TX) Texas Solicitor General, Candidate for Texas Attorney General
• Nikki Haley (R-SC) Member, South Carolina House of Representatives, Candidate for Governor

Imagine a United States Senate with Michael Williams, Pat Toomey, and Marco Rubio. Imagine a Supreme Court hearing from Ken Cuccinelli and Ted Cruz on states’ rights. And imagine having two ladies like Karen Handel and Nikki Haley slashing goverment bugets and taxes from their respective Governors’ Mansions.

We can make all that a reality.

As you can tell, we’ve been away and busy at the RedState Gathering.

Liz Cheney spoke. She was amazing.

“America needs a commander in chief,” she said, ” not a global community organizer.”

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Michael Williams, Ken Cuccinelli, Karen Handel, Tom Price, Pat Toomey, Roy Blunt, Jim DeMint, and Rick Perry all joined us in person or via video.

It was an amazing time. Stand by for lots of video and pictures.

Bringing the Public’s Coverage to the Congressional Level

House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats voted 31-28 to reject an amendment from Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), and Lee Terry (R-NE) that would have opened up the multiple-plan health coverage options available to Members of Congress to the public at large.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who spoke at length yesterday about the need to ensure Americans have access to the same quality health coverage that Congress gets, came out against the measure when the Republican trio offered him a chance to put his vote where his mouth was.

“People will say to us, ‘Why can’t we have the same thing you guys have?’” said Gingrey. “We ought to give everybody in this country an opportunity to get this.”

E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) responded that, in his view, opening up the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to the general public was unacceptable “because it strikes the public plan.” E&C Health Subcommittee Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said the proposal to let the public into Congress’ health plan was based on “a false assumption” that the result “is going to be somehow better” than segregating Congress’ health care from that of the great unwashed.

Bringing Congress’ Coverage to the Public Level

A separate amendment sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt would have put all members of the committee on the record about the desirability of the Democrats’ “public option” by forcing them to vote for or against the automatic enrollment of all federal elected officials from Congress to the President in that public health coverage plan.

“We’ve been challenged by many constituents that ‘if there’s going to be this government plan, shouldn’t you be a part of it?’ I agree with my constituents that if were going to pass this plan, we ought to put ourselves in it,” said Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE). North Carolina Republican Sue Myrick concurred, saying, “If this is a good plan for them, it ought to be good enough for us.”

With its mandatory subjection of Washington officials to the same health coverage those officials have been working to force the American public into, Blunt’s proposal was indeed, as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) put it, “a put-up-or-shut-up amendment.”

Rather than either put up or shut up, though, Waxman saved his fellow pro-government health insurance colleagues (and his endangered Blue Dog coalition) from having to go on the record about their willingness to accept the same health coverage they are offering the rest of America by dismissing the amendment on procedural grounds without holding a vote.

In an ultimate CYA cop-out move, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) argued that the amendment was outside the jurisdiction of the committee because it would affect the benefits of members of Congress. Waxman upheld her with a ruling of the chair, and the amendment was dismissed.

Read More →

Tonight’s presser was simply more of the same from the self-styled “agent of change” and “post-partisan politician”: Pure politics, unwavering liberal ideology, appallingly transparent scare tactics, demonization of a nameless opposition, and an argument so thick with straw men that the President had better wait until he’s several hundred meters away to light his next cigarette, lest the entire building go up in flames.

Obama’s declaration tonight that the health care overhaul debate is “not about [him],” because he has “great health insurance, and so does every member of Congress” is pure canned comedy.

First of all, the claim that this is “not about” him is laughable on its face, given his accusation that those in his own party who don’t drop their objections to the fact the health overhaul bills currently in Congress will cause costs and deficits to skyrocket while utterly failing to improve coverage and care are “going to destroy [his] presidency.”

Second, everybody knows Obama and Congress have, as the President put it, “great health insurance.” The problem is that the coverage he and his Congressional allies are attempting to foist on the rest of us is far from “great.” If it were on par with what he and Congress are receiving now, then neither Obama nor his Congressional allies would object to Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Fleming’s (R-LA) amendments that would automatically disenroll all federal elected officials from the President on down from their current “great health insurance” and replace that insurance with the Democrats’ proposed “public option” — government-run insurance plan — as their sole source of health coverage.

Like the failed “stimulus package,” President Obama is set on imposing his will on both Congress and the American people by ramming through a thousand-plus page bill that would be transformational to our economic system before any — including those expected to vote on it — have had a chance to read through it, let alone assess the proposal’s short- and long-term consequences (both intended and unintended).

The reason for this is clear. Unlike the “stimulus,” the health care overhaul isn’t a case of “not wasting a crisis,” as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel so bluntly framed the “stimulus” debate earlier this year. Rather, Obama is seeking to shove his health care overhaul through Congress, and to impose it on the American people, as quickly as possible because every day that goes by it — like him — becomes less popular with those who will have to deal with its rules, regulations, and intended and unintended effects.

The fact that a majority of Americans don’t want any part of Obama’s government-centric health care overhaul masquerading as “reform” hasn’t stopped this elected executive or his allies among those who supposedly represent the will of their constituents. Instead, it has made the thin-skinned, hyper-partisan President Obama ratchet up his rhetoric even higher, taking on a full blown “You’re Either With Us or Against America” stance that cannot help but remind Americans of what he really (amazingly) is: the living embodiment of the left’s hated caricature of his predecessor.

After Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)’s exasperated halting of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s health overhaul bill markup — done because of problems in negotiations that Waxman insists are going “well” — Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) took to the House floor to make his one-minute address.

In a departure from the GOP theme of today’s minute speeches — “finding the jobs” — Blunt used his time to propose an amendment to the health overhaul bill that would force federal officials from the President to Congress to put their health care money where their mouths are, and to accept the Democrats’ proposed “public option” — or government-run insurance plan — as their sole source of health coverage.

Blunt said:

Mr. Speaker, if the Energy and Commerce Committee had continued to work today, I would have introduced an amendment to require all federal elected officials, including the President and Vice President, to set aside our health care benefits and enroll in their new idea of a government-run health care system. If the majority is really so confident that their plan will provide the very best health care for the people we represent, we ought to demonstrate that confidence by enrolling ourselves.

I, for one, don’t believe a government-run health care plan will be the best for the people we represent, but a government competitor will soon be all that is left.

A government competitor, Mr. Speaker, would be like an elephant in a room full of mice. The fast mice get out of the room as quick as they can, the slow mice get crushed, and only the elephant is left.

That’s a great proposal. Naturally, it won’t make it anywhere in this “One Set Of Rules For Me, Another For Thee” Congress, but the fact they keep shooting down such proposals should make clear to the American people just how little elected Democrats think of the “options” they present their constituents in such vital areas as health care.

The Hill is reporting tonight that it is looking more and more like Sarah Steelman may decide to forego a challenge to MO Rep. Roy Blunt in the primary for Kit Bond’s Senate seat.  Instead she may try to run for Blunt’s current 7th District House seat in Missouri.

Former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman appears increasingly less likely to run against Blunt, and she acknowledged Monday that she is looking at a possible campaign for Blunt’s open House seat as an alternative.

Steelman said shortly after Sen. Kit Bond’s (R-Mo.) retirement announcement in January that she was leaning toward entering the Senate race, and for a while, it was a foregone conclusion.

But after unleashing a string of Blunt criticisms and opening an exploratory committee in April, she has grown quieter and begun evaluating other options.

She was still largely quiet last week when potential Blunt challenger Tom Schweich and the man who had been promoting him, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), both changed course and announced their support for Blunt.

Though rarely afraid of ruffling feathers in the GOP establishment — including in a pitched gubernatorial primary with former Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) in 2008 — Steelman told The Hill on Monday that she is worried about hurting the GOP.

Read More →

Several sources are reporting today that a new name has emerged on the Republican side of the quest to replace Christopher “Kit” Bond in the U.S. Senate.  Thomas Schweich, a law school professor at St. Louis’s Washington University and an attorney with Bryan Cave, is apparently being recruited by former MO Senator John C. Danforth, former Hungary ambassador and Bush cousin Bert Walker, and former Belgium ambassador Sam Fox.

My immediate reaction to this news was “if he’s coming from Danforth, I gotta be concerned.”  While Danforth served as a Republican, he has made it a habit in recent years of stabbing Christian conservatives with pointy sticks, despite his credentials as an Episcopalian priest.  Danforth was at the head of the wave of GOP “moderates” blaming social conservatives for the ills of the GOP.  Sound familiar?  And now he’s promoting a candidate for Senate.  Tell me I shouldn’t be suspicious.

But there’s another, more significant reason to be concerned about Schweich.

Read More →

Sarah Steelman is one of two contenders for the Republican nomination to face Democrat Robin Carnahan in Missouri’s open Senate seat next year. (Roy Blunt is the other.) To the surprise of absolutely no one, Jimmy Hoffa was in Missouri today to endorse the Democrat Carnahan:

Robin Carnahan appeared with Teamsters president Jim Hoffa in KC this afternoon after picking up the union’s endorsement for the Senate seat being vacated by Kit Bond.

Does this seem like a complete non-story? It would be, except for one thing. Sarah Steelman used to be a supporter of the labor movement. In her 2002 Senate race, she was endorsed by the UAW, the SEIU, and other unions. She received multiple donations from union leaders. And prior to that - in March, 2000 - she appeared at an event with Jimmy Hoffa and then-Governor Mel Carnahan (Jean Carnahan’s father). By the time of this rally, Carnahan had long since declared his campaign against incumbent John Ashcroft, so Steelman was appearing with Jimmy Hoffa and the Democrat Senate candidate. From Westlaw:

Read More →

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.

• A recent poll showed a very close race more than 18 months before the election.  From the KY3 TV report:

(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.

Read More →

Just got off the phone with Roy Blunt. He was calling about the Department of Homeland Security report and called it “stupid.”

He said he is pretty offended by it and we “cannot let the government get away without paying a price in public opinion,” which, he said, is really about all the Obama administration cares about right now.

He said Missouri made the same mistake claiming that Ron Paul and Bob Barr supporters, among others, needed to be monitored. Then, he said, “the feds have now madd the same stupid mistake.”

Missouri’s Governor, like the Obama administration, tried to blame the outgoing Republican administration in Missouri, but just as Congressman Blunt’s son noted, neither he nor George Bush would ever have let something like that get out of government.

This is all the Obama administration.

“People protesting taxing and spending is offensive to taxers and spenders. But it is really outrageous that the taxers and spenders would put people on a watch list because they want to restrain government spending,” Congressman Blunt said.

I totally agree and hope we continuously remind people that the Obama administration believes that people who want the government to operate within the parameters of the constitution are considered extremists.

Last Friday, ten House Republican leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama. In it, they offered to work across party lines and Congressional divisions with the new president to achieve the latter’s stated commitment “to fiscal transparency and accountability and ensuring that [all] spending commitments are paid for without burdening our children and grandchildren with excessive debt,” and to “slash[ing] earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensur[ing] all spending decisions are open to the public.”

The Republican leaders wrote:

In keeping with these pledges to the American people, we urge you to veto the so-called “omnibus” spending bill passed this week if the Senate fails to reject it.

Like the trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill that was rushed through Congress without any Member having read it, the $410 billion legislation passed this week openly defies your commendable objectives of fiscal transparency and accountability. It contains nearly 9,000 “airdropped” earmarks, most of which were not even considered in committee let alone on the House floor as is routine — compared to roughly 4,000 in 1994. …

Read More →

At 2:45, the Congressman from Mizzurruh has some pointed, and accurate, words for the President whose bailouts and budgets are assaults on capitalism, productivity, and responsibility, and whose every action has served to abort recovery, instead driving our economy further into a hole.

We are all aware that Barack Obama is on the path to move the USA towards his vision of a socialist paradise.  Hidden in Obama’s budget proposal is another plan to raise taxes - but this time it’s being done on the backs of those who are trying to help the needy and unfortunate:  charities.  His budget proposal calls for reducing the deductibility of charitable contributions for high-income taxpayers (> $250K/yr).  The deduction would be limited to 28% instead of the 35% in place today.

The leftists who are in favor of this measure -  yet another soak-the-rich strategy - piously claim that “they should give out of the goodness of their hearts and not for the deduction”.  This is true, but it’s not reality and it’s not relevant.  In reality, many give not only to benefit the charity, but also to get the writeoff.  No matter what the motivation to give, this will inevitably impact charities by reducing that motivation.  And this impacts not only the giver, but the charities that receive the donations.

Read More →