Hmmm, why don’t you ask the people of his district, rather than taking a few votes out of context. Tom Coburn voted for the initial TARP program–should I take that to mean that Coburn thinks it’s the government’s role to bail out Wall Street and is another fat cat Republican?

By the way, you call me out for making it personal, and then ask if I love big-government Republicans…classy. And yet you never once have addressed the substance of this diary. Much like Sarah, you can’t defend your own actions or make your own case, but instead have to attack the other side. Typical Steelman.

Since you want my explanation, here goes-yes, it’s personal, to a certain degree, and I’ll explain why. When the primary season started last year, I could have went for either Hulshof or Steelman. My personal choice was Hulshof, simply because I know him better and know the kind of person he is. Either would have been an acceptable choice. Then came the primary and her actions–calling Hulshof corrupt (while her own deputy treasurer was campaigning for her on government time), saying Hulshof took questionable donations on stem-cell research (from a business-interest arm of two supporters of stem-cell research, as opposed to taking it directly from them and in larger amounts like Sarah did), using her son’s 13th birthday as a press availability, running some of the nastiest ads in Missouri campaign history from a man in Missouri politics who is like Karl Rove, only without the ethical concerns Karl carries–and by the time the primary was done, I was ready to vote for the libertarian if Sarah had won. But, my promise to myself was to keep it confined to 2008. If Sarah ran in the future, play it by ear.

Then she lost–and showed her true colors. She refused to endorse Hulshof. She made statements making it seem like she thought Jay Nixon would be a better choice. And then she decided to use her official office to take care of personal vendettas. Enough–she’s dead to me. It’s not that she decided to take on an “establishment” Republican or whatever you want to call Hulshof. It’s that, much like her state Senate race and her treasurer race, it’s all about what’s best for Sarah, and whether Sarah gets her way. She doesn’t give a flying fig about getting a better government in there–if you get in her way, she has no room or no respect for you.

Not to mention that, should she be the nominee, her personal life is, how shall I say, less than in fine and upstanding order. Oh, sure, Blunt has his issues. But he makes it known. I suspect very few non-insider types in Missouri know of Sarah’s personal pecadilloes.

And there we go…not to think that this will sway you or anything. You’re throwing around classic Steelman campaign terms, which makes me think that you might already be on the payroll of the ethically-challenged campaign manager I mentioned above.

My general impression is that Matt Blunt is much, much better than his father’s demonstrably lackluster track record on economic issues.

Might Matt Blunt run for his father’s open house seat? If he does he would be a dramatic improvement over his father, and I would wholeheartedly support him.

I clearly have pointed out elsewhere that Jim Talent and U.S. Rep. Todd Akin are other great Republicans from Missouri. I would wholeheartedly support either for this senate seat or for governor. I don’t call someone a big government Republican if there isn’t, unfortunately, quite a convincing track record to point to.

Hulshof and Roy Blunt are the epitome of what is wrong with the Republican party and need to be replaced with committed limited government types if the GOP is to ever regain its credibility on fiscal issues.

Knock off the accusations. You’ve hit two contributors, and that’s not good territory to be in.

The article that Kevin referred to do refer to Steelman. I have copies of them myself but chose not to front them.