Steelman: Brunner is Trying to Buy the Election

Whoa! I actually agreed with Sarah Steelman on something! Here's what she had to say at the GOP Senate primary debate that John Brunner was afraid to attend:

Oh well I say it’s due to his tv ads and the fact that he’s basically trying to buy this election. The 30 second ads or he’d be here tonight participating in a debate where he could actually get questions from the audience and share his views of the country’s problems are. I also note that he’s got a lot of money to spend. He made the decision he wants to invest a lot of his money in buying this race. The way I look at it, that’s what’s wrong with politics today.

h/t Caitlin Legacki

John Brunner Listened To The Debate He Was Too Scared To Attend

Todd Akin and Sarah Steelman debated today in the contest for the GOP nomination for the Senate race. I really don't know what crazy things they said, because the real action was over at the Twitter hashtag #wheresbrunner, which was making fun of the fact that St. Louis businessman John Brunner was skipping yet another debate. The guy is pretty clearly not yet ready for primetime, and he prefers to spend boatloads of money on advertisements versus having to talk to germy people.

There were a lot of funny tweets, but this one was my favorite:



To make matters worse, it turns out that Brunner was actually listening to the debate while it was going on! Here's a message from Monte Schisler, the News Director at KRZK/KOMC in Branson:


In other words, it's not like he had something better to do; he really was just afraid to be subjected to the questions! How in the world does this guy expect to be a Senator?

Update: Confirmation that Brunner listened online to the debate:

He said he couldn’t attend the Conversation with the Candidates due to his schedule, but HometownDailyNews.com has confirmed that St. Louis businessman John Brunner listened to the event online.

Wheel of Cuts at Emerson: No Takers at Lunchtime "Fundraiser" for Rep. Todd Akin

If you've read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch coverage of the Missouri Senate race, you've heard about the appalling letter from Emerson Electric Co. CEO David Farr to his employees, 'encouraging' them to give generously to the campaign coffers of Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO).

Since tonight is the night of the big fundraising shindig, it seemed like a great day to go to Emerson's Headquarters in North County and talk with workers there directly. As reported in Political Fix, CEO David Farr will be rewarding Emerson employees that write a hefty check to the Akin campaign ($5000 or more!) with an intimate dinner with the boss after the event.

When he wrote the letter, he may not have expected as much attention to the offer. But for a group of St. Louis activists, reading about it wasn't enough. This morning, they sent over a tongue-in-cheek invitation to Farr, offering to lend a helping hand to the collection efforts:

With 2010 earnings such as yours, it is understandable why you're so committed to putting Todd Akin in the U.S. Senate. His positions have reliably favored CEOs over the interests of middle class workers and the poor. CEOs and Wall Street bankers can sleep a little easier knowing that Todd Akin is in their corner, even if it means the vast majority of his constituents get left behind.

Many of your employees are probably busy this week getting their kids ready for back to school and may have run short of time before tonight's Ladue fundraiser. So to help ensure that as many Emerson workers as possible are able to chip in to Todd Akin's election war-chest, a group of volunteers will come by at lunch time to help personally collect funds for the Senate race.

A collection box was set up so that workers could donate their paychecks to Todd Akin, but there weren't any takers. Instead, workers on their lunch hour just stopped to take a flyer for more information. One put it this way: "I'll take your flyer but I'm not giving him my paycheck!" For Emerson employees concerned about a long record of policies that hurt middle-class workers, including Rep. Akin's outspoken support for Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare, the group brought a special carnival game.

The "Wheel of Cuts" lets the player spin to select just one of the critical public services that would be slashed if Akin has his way. But just like in the Ryan budget, CEOs' pay are bonus spaces--Akin is, after all, working for the David Farr's of the world, not the middle- class voters of Missouri's Second District.

Despite What His Spokesperson Says, Todd Akin Has Previously Made Similar Attacks On Liberals' Religious Beliefs

Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin has been getting slammed by religious leaders for making the following offensive comments:

I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God. And so they’ve had a long history of not being at all favorable toward many of things that have been such a blessing to our country.

Akin's spokesperson claimed that these remarks were "off-the-cuff" and that Akin didn't have sufficient time to explain his allegedly less-offensive point:

Akin Communications Director Steve Taylor said the point Akin was trying to make was that there is a basic difference between the tenets of liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives believe rights are granted by God and it is the responsibility of government to aid in protecting them, Taylor said.

“Liberals believe rights are granted by government,” he said. “Congressman Akin believes those two concepts define the basic debate between the two ideologies.”

Akin’s comments were off the cuff, Taylor said, and with more time to articulate his point he could have “provided a more artful answer.” But he wasn’t talking about anyone’s individual relationship with God, Taylor said, only the “defining principles of two political ideologies.”

Unfortunately for Akin, however, Gloria at ForwardSTL has unearthed some screen shots from Akin's 2010 website that show that, when he had all the time in the world to articulate his position, he said much the same thing:

True Conservatives believe that their Creator granted them certain unalienable rights, and this freedom has its origin in the heart of the citizens. This conviction works from the bottom up, moving from self-government to family-government to church-government and eventually to civil-government. Liberals instinctively seek to make civil government their god, and force everyone else to become their slaves through big government takeovers. They wish to control what you own, but also what you think.

In other words, even with all of the time in the world to craft his message, Akin still clearly is claiming that liberalism is in opposition to belief in God.

In Defense of McCaskill on Health Care Reform

There's been a lot of criticism of Senator McCaskill's recent statements about health care reform suggesting that she's "moving to the center" or "selling out" by saying that she's looking for alternatives to the invindual mandate. In fact, Rachel Maddow has now promised to mail a cardboard cutout of Blanche Lincoln to McCaskill to remind her of the futility of Democrats trying to pretend they are Republicans.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is clever and fun, but I actually disagree with Maddow's reading of McCaskill's statements. What Claire has said is that she would look to see if there are other alternatives to the mandate that would accomplish the things she wants accomplished in the health care bill. Here's a specific quote from Politico:

In an interview, McCaskill said she’d “love to” modify the mandate and is “looking at different ways to try to” extend coverage without a mandate.

“We’re running numbers to see how many new people we can get into the pool with something less than a mandate, something that would be more limited enrollment periods with severe financial penalties for not signing up.”

McCaskill added that an alternative “may not be workable; it may be that the mandate is the only way we can do it. But I think we should explore it.”

She also was quoted as follows:

“I’m not worried about the politics of this; I’m worried about the substance of it,” McCaskill said. “My goal has always been pretty simple: affordable, accessible, private-market insurance for people in America who want insurance. The politics of this are hard; it’s just easier to stay focused on the substance because that’s what matters.”

So the real question is, what are the good things about the health care bill that she's trying to protect while "looking into" other options? I think, as she's stated many many times, those good things include expanding insurance coverage to the people who need it and making sure that people with preexisting conditions can get coverage. And remember, the point of the mandate is to have enough people buying insurance that the insurance companies can afford to cover others, including people with preexisting conditions:

Senator McCaskill: Uh, I mean, the mandate obviously is the most unpopular part, but, um, when you ask people if they want to do away with preexisting conditions they say, well of course, that's so unfair. Well, who's gonna buy insurance before they're sick. You can't do away with preexisting conditions unless you set up an environment where everyone has insurance.

So McCaskill has always expressed reservations about the mandate, but has stated that it appears to be necessary for protecting the good parts of the bill that outweigh the negatives of the mandate.

And let's be honest: the mandate does suck when considered by itself. The idea that we have to pay the same greedy insurance companies who screwed us in the first place is pretty disturbing. In fact, it was so disturbing that progressives like Markos Moulitsas and Howard Dean were originally against the health care reform bill that featured a mandate without a public option. But they eventually relented for the same reasons Claire and pretty much everyone else who supports the current bill signed on: the bill, which ultimately is an extremely positive step, would not be able to accomplish the good things without the minor annoyance of the mandate.

So now what is McCaskill saying? She's saying she's looking into ways of accomplishing the good things without the negative of the individual mandate. And if we're being honest, I think many people would agree that if we could have the good things without the mandate, the health care bill would be better overall. However, most of us just question whether it's actually possible to take care of preexisting conditions without the mandate (at least, in this system where there are not public options available). So McCaskill says she's looking into other options, and that there might not actually be any other options to accomplish the good things, and I think she's right. But most of the other criticism on this issue, in my opinion, is simply reading too much into her words.

However, if Maddow would like to mail Claire the Blanche Lincoln cutout because of her spending cap suggestions, I'm all for it!

2012 Senate Race Shaping Up in Favor of McCaskill

(L-R Jim Talent, Sam Graves, Ann Wagner, Jo Ann Emerson, Sarah Steelemen, Ed Martin)

In spite of my last two posts, and opportunistic attacks from Tea Party Republicans over the convention flap, the 2012 senate race is shaping up to look favorably for Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). In the months after the 2010 midterms conventional wisdom in Washington held that McCaskill was endangered. Robin Carnahan had lost her bid for Missouri's other senate seat by thirteen points against Roy Blunt and Obama's sub par approval ratings where predicted to hang like an albatross around McCaskill. While McCaskill is still vulnerable, the dynamics of the race have shifted in her favor: the strongest Republican candidates have declined to run while the remaining Republicans, Sarah Steeleman, Ed Martin among others, will likely wage a destructive primary campaign for the right to challenge McCaskill.

Last month former Senator Jim Talent (R-MO), who McCaskill defeated in 2006, declined to seek a rematch against her and this week Representative Sam Graves also decided not to run. Both candidates were thought of as strong opponents for McCaskill. A PPP poll shows Steelman performing worst against McCaskill (44-45) compared to Talent (47-45). Even before Graves dropped out Survey USA released an interesting poll showing McCaskill leading Graves 48-44. Although Graves is out of the race the poll provides a good baseline for McCaskill as he serves as a generic Republican and Democrats and Republicans who were polled line up with their respective candidates while independents split between the two. Surprisingly the poll found Graves capturing 21 percent of the African American vote, and 46 percent of voters between the ages of 18-29, numbers that are likely to fall considerably with President Obama on the ballot.

Several media outlets are in a tizzy about the latest fund raising numbers, noting Sarah Steeleman out raised McCaskill. However McCaskill still has $900,000 cash on hand, far more than Steeleman, and the Senator has only just began to aggressively fund raise. Martin was stuck at an anemic $40,000 and left without a campaign treasurer, worse yet the St. Louis lawyer, may have lied about his fund raising haul to lessen the political damage.

The Hill reports Republicans are working overtime to avoid an acrimonious primary:

...Lloyd Smith, the executive director of the state GOP, said he’s been in conversations with several candidates in order to express the party’s desire to avoid an “intense primary."

But these efforts are likely to fail. So far Steeleman is recognized as the Republican front runner, and national Republicans reportedly encouraged her to run. But if the 2010 congressional campaign was any indication, Steeleman will face a difficult challenge from Martin. His lack of funds probably won't stop him from practicing scorch and burn politics which will fracture the Republican base and badly damage the eventual Republican nominee. If Martin somehow manages to win the nomination his extreme views would easily make him the Sharon Angle/Christine O'Donnell of 2012 and give McCaskill a path to a decisive victory.

As for Steeleman her penchant for incoherent babble matches Sara Palin. Sean at FiredUp Missouri, caught a hilarious interview where Steeleman struggles to answer questions ranging from defunding Medicare to the date of the Republican Primary. Steeleman would likely flounder against the sharp articulate style of McCaskill.

Other potential challengers include Representative Jo Ann Emerson, though she would have to contend with her moderate reputation and chargers she would be willing to compromise with Democrats--high treason in the lizard brain of Republican rank-and-file.

Ann Wagner, former Ambassador to Luxembourg and consummate Republican Party insider, is also considering a bid. Wagner remains politically untested as she has never sought elective office, and despite this she will still carry the baggage of being an "insider" which would hobble her in both the primary and general election.

As of February 1st, Cook Political Report, projects Democrats are "likely"to win the Missouri Senate race and though election day is twenty months away at this point McCaskill is in a strong position to be re-elected.

Rough Start for Steelman

Sarah Steelman announced she was running for Senate against Claire McCaskill way back on December 1. She proceeded to waste four weeks of time where she could have gotten as much free press coverage as she wanted as the only official Republican candidate (Jim Talent had said he would wait until after the holidays to decide). She then "officially" declared and launched her website on the week between Christmas and New Years, generally a bad idea for someone trying to maximize coverage. And now, as pointed out by intrepid twitterer Arthur Nunn, her website seems more than a little vulnerable for chicanery:

Steelman had set up her page so that it would automatically display tweets with certain hash tags. For example (click the photo for a larger view):

Of course, there's nothing wrong with her ad appearing on Grindr (though I suppose it could be a weapon that could be used to drive social conservatives away from her campaign), and Steelman was lucky that Nunn was pretty benign in illustrating his point. But it seems like a site flaw that could easily be used against her campaign for much more nefarious purposes.