Of course, she really wants us to keep asking that question, doesn't she. Apparently, some of Steelman's allies didn't like the sound of the Hill interview that RBH referenced and sounded off about it. And Steelman herself sought to correct the impression that she had backed off a run for the Senate.
From an interview with Dave Catanese regarding the Hill article:
"I don't think Mr. Blake understood what I was trying to say," Steelman wrote back.
"I said I didn't want to be destructive and immediately he thought I was saying I didn't want to be in a primary because he assumed like all the insiders do, that all primaries are destructive. The Republican establishment thinks primaries are destructive. I don't believe primaries are destructive because they provide a healthy debate about ideas such as fiscal responsibility, ethanol mandates and government bailouts," she went on.
"However, the Republican establishment wants to hold on to power at all costs and a primary would force the establishment to admit they made mistakes and take responsibility. Anyone who challenges those ideas threatens their power and they view it as destructive to the party. I want to be constructive and build a bigger and better party based on good ideas. I mentioned "other outsiders" who may want to run because I don't presume to be the only one who can carry that message. However, I do believe that the messenger in order to be credible cannot be a part of the Washington establishment who lead us into the minority," Steelman wrote, signing off with "Funny the way it is."
I don't agree with Steelman on much, but I'll back her up 100% on this point. Primaries are there for a reason. They are not there so that the party rank-and-file get to rubber stamp the choices made by party leaders. They are there so that people can make choices as to which candidates are best to lead them. And as a practical matter, primaries prepare a candidate and his or her organization for the bigger fight in the general election, raise public awareness about the candidate, and help to prepare the nominee against possible attacks.
Now, I find it odd that Steelman seems to think the reason that Blunt and his fellow GOP leaders lost Congress because of insufficient commitment to true conservatism. But that's really not the point, is it?
RT @KatieFavazza In case you missed it: former Sen. Jack Danforth officially endorsed @royblunt for Senate yesterday. Come on, party unity! 11:02 AM Jun 12th from web
Rep. Roy Blunt's (R-Mo.) path in a Senate primary cleared after Washington University law Professor Thomas Schweich opted not to run and announced his support for Blunt.
Schweich was being promoted for the race by former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.). State Treasurer Sarah Steelman is still expected to enter the primary against Blunt, who has the unofficial backing of the GOP establishment for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.).
Schweich said in a statement: "I have met Republicans throughout the state to discuss the Senate race. These conversations were very helpful to me. However, as a result of these discussions, I have concluded that my entering the race would be divisive and probably lower the chances of keeping Sen. Bond's seat in Republican hands."
Schweich then went a step further, endorsing Blunt....
I really would like to know what Steelman means here:
Can you give us your thoughts on the current state of the Republican Party? "I think we need to take stock of where we are and look at how we got here. I think we need to be more principally
conservative, and reflect on just how we lost the House and Senate. The people do not trust us to be conservatives
because we were anything but conservative when we were in the majority. Jack Kemp knew how to do this, and we should learn from his example."
I don't think voters queueing up at the polls in November 2006 and again in November 2008 to vote Democrats in and Republicans out were checking their conservative checklist and found the incumbent Republicans wanting. They looked at an economy that was not working for them and a foreign policy that was not making them safer. They had eight years of tax cuts for the wealthy as the principal domestic policy instrument, and macho posturing and an Iraq misadventure abroad. Bonus points too for Steelman citing Jack Kemp as someone who knew how to be conservative in the majority. He was only part of the worst performing Republican ticket since Goldwater in 1964.
I'm curious. What specific policies would Steelman have changed if she were in the GOP majority from 1994-2006?
Also this:
Since you've been teaching a political science course at Missouri State University, we are going to
ask you to put on your political analyst cap and answer the question that several local Republicans have asked us, if two years ago a well-known and relatively well- liked Democrat faced off against a poor fund-raising, poor communicating, old white guy in a suit from Washington and get trounced by 20 points, why would this race be any different? "I am not sure that it will be, but I do think that the economy has changed since the last election. In two years, people may begin to see that President Obama's left wing policies are not the solutions America needs. A lot of what happens
in 2010 depends upon the economy.
Um, I don't know if the economy has changed wholesale since Obama took office so much as the economic crisis deepened in the months before Obama took office. He didn't cause the housing crisis, nor the willingness of banks to lend to anyone willing to take out a loan and sell the debt to investors who swarmed to make the silly bet that housing prices could never go down, nor could he do all that much to stop it as a lone senator.
That's a really good question. The chairman of the National Republican Senate Committee, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), just said he'd be proud to campaign with former VP Dick Cheney, anytime, anywhere, when asked if Cheney was an asset to the Republican Party's electoral chances in 2010.
Asked if Cheney would be a good surrogate for Senate Republican candidates, Cornyn said: "It think it depends on the circumstance on the race."
But Cornyn said, "I'd be proud to appear with the vice president anywhere, anytime."
I'm curious about what Republican candidates for Senate here in Missouri think. Is Cheney an asset to their party? Would they want to campaign with Cheney?
Democracy Corps (Carville and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner) released an 800 sample poll of likely voters for the 2010 Missouri U.S. Senate race (complete with analysis, report, and crosstabulations) taken from April 28 - 30, 2009. The poll was released on May 14th and has a margin of error of 3.5%.
The poll tested Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) against two possible republican opponents, Congressman Roy Blunt (r - lobbyists) and former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman (r).
...Q.18 And thinking about the November 2010 election for U.S. Senate, if the general election for U.S. Senate were held today, and the candidates were Democrat Robin Carnahan and Republican Roy Blunt, for whom would you vote -- Democrat Robin Carnahan or Republican Roy Blunt?
Robin Carnahan - 51%
Lean Robin Carnahan - 1%
Roy Blunt - 43%
Lean Roy - 15%
(Undecided) - 3%
(Refused) - 0%
Total Robin Carnahan - 53%
Total Roy Blunt - 44%
...Q.22 And thinking about the November 2010 election for U.S. Senate, if the general election for U.S. Senate were held today, and the candidates were Democrat Robin Carnahan and Republican Sarah Steelman, for whom would you vote -- Democrat Robin Carnahan or Republican Sarah Steelman?
Robin Carnahan - 52%
Lean Robin Carnahan - 2%
Sarah Steelman - 39%
Lean Sarah Steelman - 2%
(Undecided) - 3%
(Refused) - 1%
Total Robin Carnahan 54%
Total Sarah Steelman 42%
After saying nice and nasty things about each of the candidates, they ask the head to head questions again after the set of messages. The final results (after the nasty things):
Except they aren't saying that. What is it about"...In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened..." that Sarah Steelman doesn't quite understand?
Oh that's right, that's always way too much to ask of right wingnut political hacks.
The GOP primary for US Senate keeps getting weirder and weirder. Convinced that Roy Blunt isn't up to the challenge of taking on Robin Carnahan in the general election, and that a fresh face outside of Washington might do the trick, party elders like former Senator Jack Danforth turned to... Thomas Schweich.
Thomas who? Well, he's a visiting law professor and former Bush Administration official (which just screams fresh face for the GOP, I know) who apparently has a few friends in high places. Friends like Sam Fox, the big GOP donor who also helped fund Swiftboat ads with a $50,000 donation well after the ads had been discredited. Danforth, Fox & Co. must have agreed on "fresh face" as a talking point, because they used it several times during the course of their argument for an alternative to Blunt.
Meanwhile, Sarah Steelman, edging toward an official declaration for Senate herself, is loving it. She instantly sent out an e-mail welcoming the competition:
The US Senate is a very important office and I am glad to see Mr. Schweich taking an interest in it. I don't know what he stands for yet so I will be interested in learning his views about the role of government," said Steelman. "I think the Republican Party needs to embrace people who are willing to run for office instead of letting political power brokers who are more interested in profiting off of government and retaining their power hand pick someone for the job. Let's try having a little competition in the free market of ideas in the Republican Party instead of a monopoly," Steelman added.
Practically speaking, she's already the "fresh face" from outside Washington that Danforth & Co. are desperately looking for. I'm not saying that she really has any new ideas - her platform for governor was essentially boilerplate Republicanism - but she did run against virtually the entire GOP establishment and nearly pulled out a win. She's fresher than a former Bush official handpicked by establishment money men, in any case.
Former Missouri State Treasurer and probable candidate for the open U.S. Senate seat Sarah Steelman (r) posted on Twitter about a visit to a local business she arranged for a class she teaches in Springfield::
Took my class to Askinosie Chocolate Factory tonight. Shawn with great humility talked about his business and helping kids. 5:58 PM Apr 21st from web
He is changing his neighborhood, community and the world by the choices he makes. His Chocolate University is such a great! 6:00 PM Apr 21st from web
I think the students appreciated what he is doing. He is a capitalist who makes positive choice based on service not "greed". 6:02 PM Apr 21st from web
He has a new initiative to help unemployed people.Not relying on government - but each other. He is truly an inspiration to all who meet him 6:05 PM Apr 21st from web
The initiative of this one small business is a good thing. Let's ask Sarah Steelman to do the math and try to figure out how many small businesses it would take, choosing to do the right thing, to solve this problem in the entire United States:
Oh please, Sarah Steelman (r) is going to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
She's got a slick new look to her website. And it has cool features, not to mention excellent quotes on the front page:
Truth
The enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth-persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. JFK
There's nothing quite like reading quotes of Democratic Party icons on a "potential" republican candidate's website. Is she planning to challenge Robin Carnahan for the Democratic Party nomination instead of Roy (r - lobbyists) in the republican primary? Just asking. What, no Harry Truman quotes?
The website has a section for a blog (with a few posts) and a forum. The blog is apparently reserved for campaign principals and doesn't appear to allow comments. Forums are very nice campaign tools (and you can participate if you register as a user), but they demand intensive moderator attention and proactive action to keep trolls and other disruptive influences from destroying their effectiveness. It'll be interesting to see if Sarah Steelman's pseudo-populist rhetoric creates enough of a volunteer base to enable a sufficient number of community moderators (as opposed to paid campaign staff).
Congressman Roy Blunt (r - lobbyists) and former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman (r) wrote competing teabagger Twitter posts. First Sarah Steelman:
Looking forward to speaking at the Tea Party in Camdenton this evening! Power to the People! 7:30 AM Apr 15th from web
Speaking at the tea party in Camdenton was great fun last night! Lots of freedom loving peole who care about this country. 2:03 PM Apr 16th from mobile web
More like "broken record" for a Roy Blunt (r - lobbyists) Twitter entry:
They know what's at stake in this election and what will happen if the Washington Democrats get 60 seats in the U.S. Senate. 12:03 PM Mar 25th from mobile web
...Among government watchdog groups he is mainly known for his ties to lobbyists. In 2002 there was an uproar when Mr. Blunt tried to include a measure supported by the tobacco industry in the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security. The provision was aimed at restricting Web sales of tobacco. Representative Blunt, who was dating Abigail Perlman, the chief lobbyist for Philip Morris, agreed to remove the rider from the final bill. (The Senate later approved the same restrictions on tobacco Internet sales, and they became law.)
Mr. Blunt has continued to have ties to the tobacco industry. He divorced his wife of 35 years, Roseann Ray, to marry Ms. Perlman, who became chief lobbyist for Altria. (He famously cleared his second marriage with the House Ethics Committee to get "a waiver of the limitations of the gift rule to allow me to accept gifts in connection with my wedding.") Abigail Blunt now lobbies for Kraft Foods, which was spun off from Altria in 2007.
His son, Andrew has long lobbied for Altria subsidiaries, and his daughter Amy Blunt Mosby, a lawyer, has also represented tobacco interests...
...ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 03/20/1997 500.00 97032221285
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 08/27/1997 1000.00 98032700443
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 10/09/1998 2000.00 98033750051
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 10/15/1999 2000.00 20035094886
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 10/15/1999 2000.00 20035094886
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 06/15/2000 1000.00 20035920488
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 07/20/2000 -329.00 20035964094
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 06/18/2001 5000.00 21990199913
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 02/21/2002 5000.00 26940306381
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 07/17/2003 1000.00 23991734785
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 11/20/2003 2000.00 23992445717
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 05/20/2004 2000.00 24961598138
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 05/20/2004 3000.00 24961598138
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 01/27/2005 5000.00 25990050299
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 03/30/2006 5000.00 26940095112
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 02/22/2007 5000.00 27930267527
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 09/27/2007 1500.00 27931394340
ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC) 04/25/2008 3500.00 28931588902...
And Sarah Steelman weighs in on Twitter, after two weeks of silence:
Political fun - nice April Fools joke on fired up this morning! Too bad the financial mess created by Congress isn't an April Fool's joke! 7:31 AM Apr 1st from web
Congress? Congress? Oh yes, now I get it, Roy Blunt is in Congress. Sarah Steelman is a broken clock, she's correct twice a day.
Roy Blunt as an "outsider" and Sarah Steelman maneuvering to be a spokesperson against those Washington insiders? Now that's real irony impairment.
You'd think that "economist" (and possible U.S. Senate candidate) Sarah Steelman (r) would understand marginal tax rates. If you thought that you'd be wrong. Via Twitter:
The public is smart. Talked to Rick my pest control guy as he worked. He made case for lower taxes - the harder he works the less he makes. 10:48 AM Mar 18th from web
So, if he works harder and has more income he has less? I don't think so.
Let me explain marginal tax rates. The income in the top margin in the United States (for instance) is currently taxed at 35%. That means when you reach any amount above that margin you keep 65% of it. If you reach that.
The marginal tax rate is the rate on the last dollar of income earned. This is very different from the average tax rate, which is the total tax paid as a percentage of total income earned. In 2003, for example, the United States imposed a 35 percent tax on every dollar of taxable income above $155,975 earned by a married taxpayer filing separately. But that tax bracket applied only to earnings above that $155,975 threshold; income below that cutoff point would still be taxed at rates of 10 percent on the first $7,000, 15 percent on the next $14,400, and so on....
So, as you go beyond any marginal threshold, if you make it there, you'll still make more money. The rate of income increase is slower, but it sure does continue to go up. And at a greater rate than in the past.
Years ago I received a phone call from a relative, worried that another relative was going to have to pay $20,000 in tax on a capital gain of $100,000 (I can't quite remember the specific amounts, they were substantial from my frame of reference). I replied that this individual was still $80,000 ahead. "But, it's $20,000." "Uh, I had $12,000 in total income this year. They're still $80,000 ahead." "Oh..."
Then again, maybe that Twitter comment was a Mike Rowe kind of existential thing.
Expanding on Michael's previous diary about Steelman, it's worth noting just how insane the idea of using construction crane counts as an economic indicator. To refresh your memory, here's Steelman's tweet:
Wow just landed in dc counted 13 construction cranes around the capitol. No recession here - wonder why?
I suppose the point she's trying to make is that DC is sucking up your tax dollars so that they become recession proof while we all suffer, but that's silly. For one, doesn't she believe that the government cannot create growth? And further, the recovery package that just passed Congress is directing dollars all over the country, not just DC.
And finally, does a recession mean that all construction stops until it's over? Confining the topic of construction only to really tall buildings, just here in Missouri five of Kansas City's tallest buildings and two of St. Louis' tallest buildings were completed in the years 1929-1932, a time period in which the economy contracted by double digits every year. And three of New York City's five tallest buildings were completed in the same time period. Would Steelman argue that New York City, Kansas City, and St. Louis were all untouched by the Depression?
Sarah Steelman (r), kind of not quite yet candidate for the open 2010 Missouri U.S. Senate seat, had this to say today via Twitter:
Wow just landed in dc counted 13 construction cranes around the capitol. No recession here - wonder why? about 2 hours ago from web
I had no idea that anecdotal counts of construction cranes were a leading economic indicator. Let's see what the latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually show:
...Table 3. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and selected area, seasonally adjusted
A question for Sarah Steelman: If you think a place with 9.3% unemployment (Washington, D.C.) isn't in a recession do you think a place with 8.0% unemployment (Missouri) isn't in a recession, too? Just asking. After all, you're supposed to have a degree in economics:
Let me associate myself with Randy Turner's thoughts on the 2008 GOP primary. Steelman hurt Hulshof more in the general by her awkward endorsement than by anything she said or did in the primary. Hulshof was a bad candidate barely able to beat someone in the primary even with the support of the entire GOP establishment, and he didn't stand much of a chance in the general with or without a primary challenger.
And let me say that primary challenges are on the whole good for a party, not bad. The long battle between Obama and Clinton made Obama better able to take on McCain, a spirited fight in the VA Senate primary in 2006 gave Jim Webb the boost the Democrats needed to win the Senate in 2006, and so on. As long as two sides can come together to work for the greater good after the primary is over, a hard-fought primary is not a bad thing.
Via Randy Turner, Jim Talent has stated his distinct lack of interest in running for Senate in 2010.
I have decided to withdraw my name from consideration for the Senate in 2010, for several reasons. First, there are other qualified Republicans who are seriously investigating the race, and it is vital to prevent the kind of dissension that hurt my Party's ticket so greatly in 2008. In addition, I have family and public obligations which this unexpected race would disrupt. Chief among the latter is my work as Vice Chairman of the Commission on WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, which is working to prevent a nuclear or biological attack on the United States.
I am still very interested in serving the people of Missouri in elective office, but the considerations I have recited in this statement are more important than my personal goals."
My political priority in 2010 will be electing a strong and qualified Republican to replace my friend Kit Bond in the United States Senate.
Today swirled with speculation at who might jump into the 2010 race for Kit Bond's seat in the Senate. You might think Democrats would be lining up to take a shot at an open seat, but just as before Bond's surprise announcement, speculation pretty much begins and ends with Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.
Which makes sense, because she is one of only three Democrats elected statewide to state government since 2004, and one of the others, Jay Nixon, just got elected governor. The Democratic Party has been in the minority in the lege for awhile, so it's hard to see a Democrat coming from Jeff City claiming a solid legislative resume. The last Dem to try that lost badly in a primary. Jonathan Singer from MyDD puts in a plug for Jeff Smith (D-St. Louis), but seeing as he can't knock on every door in the state, and he's still not very well known outside of Saint Louis, that ain't gonna happen. (There's also the matter of the SDCC's performance last cycle, but that wasn't completely his fault.) On the Democratic side, it'll be Robin Carnahan.
Devilstower from Daily Kos and Dave Weigel run through some of the possibilities on the Republican side, Weigel implausibly making the case that Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder is the frontrunner. I can see Kinder running, and if he made it through the primary, even making a decent run for the seat. After all, he's the only statewide Republican to win in a huge Democratic year, and he has a safe seat he can return to if he loses the primary or the general. But I think he'll do what he did a year ago, which is bow out "for the good of the party" and side with the candidate who looks like a winner.
They might pull Jim Talent from the mothballs. But he lost ground to Claire McCaskill in the 'burbs, and in SW Missouri in 2006 (both crucial for GOP chances in 2010), and he already has the stink of a loser about him (He lost in 2000 against Bob Holden, as well.) Rep. Roy Blunt and former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman have talked about running, too. I don't see either of them able to take out Carnahan, or frankly take the nomination. With Steelman in particular, there's no love lost between her and much of the rest of the MO GOP.
My prediction is that we'll see the MO GOP coalescing around two candidates: US Attorney Catherine Hanaway and Rep. Sam Graves (R-Tarkio). Catherine Hanaway, because she's a Bond protege and former Speaker of the Missouri House, and Sam Graves, because he doesn't care who Bond might anoint and thinks he deserves a shot after his 2008 thrashing of Kay Barnes. Barnes was a top Democratic recruit last cycle, and despite good early fundraising, beacoup bucks from the DCCC, and a high profile from her days as KC Mayor, went nowhere in a really nasty campaign. If Hanaway should win the primary and face Carnahan, it would be a rematch from the 2004 race for Secretary of State.
I'm sure I'm missing a ton of possibilities, especially since so many legislators are termed out in 2010. What do you think?
Friday evening, I attended a campaign event for Sarah Steelman at a home in St. Charles. Attendance was sparse--12 or 13 of us plus Steelman herself and three or four of her people. Thursday afternoon, I had gotten an automated phone call from her (odd, since I'm not a Republican and don't live in St. Charles County), but I called and let the young man I talked to know that I wanted to attend.
Always one for transparency, I told him I was a Democratic blogger. He was less than pleased, but he didn't forbid me to come. I'm sure he worried that I would harangue his candidate and spoil the event. Not me. I was as quiet as a dormouse. I wanted to hear what Republicans say when they don't know there's a Democrat in the room.
Can't really say there were any surprises, though. Steelman presented herself as a populist. Indeed, she came dressed like one in high heeled sandals, a bright summer skirt, and tank top. She struck me as sweet natured and, at the same time, unafraid to assert herself. The bus also proclaimed her populist message: "Putting Missourians FIRST!" And the folks who were there considered her a populist. One gentleman said that where he works, he has discovered that people generally don't know who Hulshof is. When he tells them that Hulshof is a D.C. insider, that pretty much settles it for them. If they're Republicans, they decide to go for Steelman, said the man.
It's an odd feeling to be cheering Sarah Steelman for doing the right thing. (Though I still have a wary eye out for an ulterior motive in her announcement that she has changed her mind about the ethanol mandate in Missouri.) She now opposes it.
Missouri requires that 10 percent of all gasoline be ethanol, and Steelman chose "a busy Springfield street side for her announcement that 'within 100 days of being elected Governor, I will do everything in my power to repeal the ethanol mandate in Missouri.'"
She opposes the mandate because "it has produced higher food prices and higher costs for farmers since going into effect January 1."
The Missouri Corngrowers Association, predictably, disagrees, but let me just say, before I present their side of it, that Mark Twain's observation is particularly apt here: "Tell me where a man gets his corn pone, and I'll tell you what his 'pinions is." Anyway, here's the corn growers' spin:
"Removing the ethanol requirement in Missouri would only increase prices at the pump for already hurting consumers."
The corngrowers tell us that using ethanol will save Missourians $285 million this year and over $2 billion over the next ten years.
Can't really say there were any surprises, though. Steelman presented herself as a populist. Indeed, she came dressed like one in high heeled sandals, a bright summer skirt, and tank top. She struck me as sweet natured and, at the same time, unafraid to assert herself. The bus also proclaimed her populist message: "Putting Missourians FIRST!" And the folks who were there considered her a populist. One gentleman said that where he works, he has discovered that people generally don't know who Hulshof is. When he tells them that Hulshof is a D.C. insider, that pretty much settles it for them. If they're Republicans, they decide to go for Steelman, said the man.
