I think a lot of bad feelings come from her willingness to act against misdeeds on her own side, and her strong stance against earmarks and waste. Missouri republicans generally vote the right ways, but like to play Washington game and do it well. Blunt is no different.

With Blunt you have to take the good with the bad. He’s going to vote with the party, but he is in as deep as anyone with lobbyists and is going to shove earmarks through. That’s going to be a problem in the general, and I’ll be glad if there is an alternative in the primary.

She showed leadership on divestment with terrorist countries. She holds her own party to the same standard of ethics as she does the other party. She has a strong economic background. She is conservative fiscally and socially. She can be credible when she rails against spending.

There’s a lot to like. With Blunt, I’ll have to hold my nose while I vote for him. I’d rather not have to do that.

It will be a tough primary. In theory it might be better to run in 2012. But she’s not going to be the establishment’s choice then either. She never will be. If she decides the time is now, then I’m getting behind her and not thinking twice about it.

As bad as last years primary was, it was not as bad as 92. If Steelman gets into the Senate race, I think we could see a flashback to Blunt-Webster

Not to mention the Obama coattails, despite the fact that The O didn’t win Missouri. But that carried a few extra D votes with it nonetheless.

If the economy remains lackluster for the next 12-18 months, there is no telling who will be “energized”. The GOP candidate has a LOT of time to frame themselves between now and then, AND to portray Robin Carnahan in the light that she deserves – as a far-left extreme liberal who does NOT represent the values of the majority of Missourians. Remember – the demographics in MO still leave the non-urban areas with HUGE influence, and the bulk of those folks will never vote for a leftist like Robin Carnahan.

(Oh, and I’m with you – I’m a big Talent fan myself. He used to be my rep. But if you can’t tell, I think Blunt can do a fine job as well. I think he needs to counteract some of the bad vibes that some folks around here seem to have about him being a Bush shill. He began that effort in KC last weekend)

I too have this nagging feeling that she would not make a good candidate for Senator against Carnahan.

I don’t think Blunt gets the job done against a Carnahan, I doubt Steelman does either in all honestly, but I see a repeat of the Governors race with the Dems energized and the GOP with lackluster support outside of the SW corner of the state if Blunt gets the nod. I’d have preferred Talent but he’s made up his mind it seems.

I was saying “we lose the Senate seat that Bond holds”

Blunt sent a Twitter this AM that stated that he did NOT ask for a “debate,” as Carnahan stated. He offered to meet her in a discussion forum.

She got in the gubernatorial campaign. She is the one who decided to run. She threw the mud. She paid the price.

If she runs and pulls another stunt like she did against Hulshof, we lose the Senate

We need preference voting in the primaries. We would end up with more consensus candidate that better reflect the values of the average GOP voter.