Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Blunt v. Steelman

SLC has been VERY busy lately and has missed several items in the news.  But one story (at least) deserves mention . . . Sarah Steelman's single-handed effort to destroy the Missouri Republican Party.  Thanks to a regular reader who e-mailed me this story from The Politico back on February 19.  Steelman is already taking pot-shots at Roy Blunt and setting the stage for a bloody primary race for the GOP senate nomination in 2010.  

Steelman - who will lose that race - seems unfazed by history and unabashedly selfish.  Last year she destroyed whatever chance Kenny Hulshof had of upsetting Jay Nixon in the race for governor.  Now she's primed to go negative on Blunt and save Robin Carnahan the effort - and the money - while forcing Blunt to spend money on the primary battle instead of the general election.

Sarah, at the risk of sounding like Dr. Phil, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!  Get over yourself already and think about what's best for the Republican Party and for the country.  Back off and wait your turn.  In 2012, you might just be the ideal choice to challenge Claire McCaskill.  


Dameon said...

I'll bet she's got a better shot than you think!

Matt Blunt never would have won relection as governor, which is why he dropped out, no matter what he says. Roy's got that name association there. And he's a relatively unknown quantity in the St. Louis Metro. Steelman, on the other hand, just coming of the governor's race, has state wide recognition, just as much, if not more than Roy Blunt. People are sick of the status quo in Washington and Blunt is part of that. Steelman is a new face and will use that to her advantage.

Hulshof had the same problem as Roy Blunt will - a was a regional politition, not well know state wide. He'd have never beat Nixon anyway, coming off a bad Republican governor, whom Nixon fought tooth & nail. You can blame the election on Steelman, but Nixon would still be our governor, regardless.

If the Steelman/Blunt primary gets bloody, and Blunt wins, you're right - he'll come into the general in a bad posisition. On the other hand, if Steelman wins the primary, as the underdog, she'll be coming in on a high and pick up steam for the general.

Additionally, I think women have the advantage in a race between two well known names like Blunt and Carnahan. If Steelman is the Rebublican nominee, you take that advantage away.

If it's Carnahan/Blunt, I think Carnahan will take the general with little problem. Carnahan is the name in Missouri right now, while Blunt has a negative conotation and Roy is a member of the good ol' boys network.

If it's Carnahan/Steelman, at least she's a fresh face on the block. I think I'd still put my money on Carnahan, but I think it will be a closer race.

Anyway, she's got the cojones to get in there and try to change the party from the inside.

St. Louis Conservative said...

Sorry Dameon, I couldn't disagree with you more. Roy Blunt is not a regional politician. He was a statewide office holder for years. He's enormously popular in the southwestern and highly republican part of the state but, he's also the one person who was running ahead of Carnahan in the polls when I last checked - though I admit it wasn't recently that I did check. Steelman was not. Matt Blunt was not a popular governor but I think that was because he got the big job too soon in his political career. Roy is a veteran and a big player. Steelman can not and will not win the primary. If she couldn't beat Kenny Hulshof in a primary, there's no chance she'll beat Blunt. It simply won't happen. Cajones or not. Running a primary race will do NOTHING but guarantee a Carnahan victory. Steelman may not like it but if she needs to wait her turn. If she doesn't, she'll hurt the party, the state, and the country.