Sarah Steelman is one of the candidates running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Missouri – which is, of course, a prime nomination to have, considering that sitting Senate Claire McCaskill is widely expected to be a prominent member of the next wave of Democratic politicians slated to die the political True Death for the greater glory of Obamacare.  We spoke for a bit at CPAC about the race, and about the fact that it was Sarah’s first CPAC:

Sarah’s site is here.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Sarah Steelman is one of the candidates running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Missouri – which is, of course, a prime nomination to have, considering that sitting Senate Claire McCaskill is widely expected to be a prominent member of the next wave of Democratic politicians slated to die the political True Death for the greater glory of Obamacare.  We spoke for a bit at CPAC about the race, and about the fact that it was Sarah’s first CPAC:

Sarah’s site is here.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

The political scene is packed with pundits and predictors who despite being wrong most of the time don’t pause their endless flow of predictions across the media waves, which unfortunately influence the votes of many Americans who tune in to the news for a couple of minutes a day and form their decision based on their meaningless gibberish.

An overwhelming majority of these pundits have pounced upon Rick Santorum as incapable of going forward immediately after his stunning Iowa victory. Did their declarations come after having foretold the Santorum victory for months and weeks prior to the Iowa caucus? Quite the contrary; these political pundits actually foretold Santorum would come in somewhere towards the bottom and would drop out right after Iowa. Despite the results having been the polar opposite of their punditry, they continued to spew their worthless predictions.

Overblown egos had led to bold-faced demands to Santorum he should drop out of the race in the hope it would boost Newt’s campaign, despite no proof that such action would yield their wished-for results. To their utter disappointment Senator Santorum hadn’t accepted their lovely advice and just look at the mess they have now landed in, face-down! Rick Santorum has won Minnesota and Missouri with landslide victories!

In Missouri, Santorum won with 55.2% while Romney came in a full thirty points behind Rick at 25.3%. In Minnesota, a state Romney won in 2008, with 88% precincts counted, Santorum won with 45%, Paul came in a distant second with 27.1% while Romney squeaked in at third with merely 16.9% of the votes. To top off the night-turned-morning, Santorum surprised everyone with an unexpected sweep in Colorado, another state Romney had won in 2008 and which he was expected to win once again. Santorum won with 40.2% while Romney received 34.9%. His victory in Colorado has brought the total states he’s won to four out of eight, while Romney won three and Newt won one.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum grew up near the coal mines in Pennsylvania where his grandfather was a miner and understands the struggles of the everyday American. He served in the Congress for a total of 16 years, first two terms in the House and then twelve years as a Senator. As a freshman Congressman, Santorum was shocked at the level of corruption amongst both parties specifically in relation to the housing market, and together with six other Congressman, brought the information out to the public. They were dubbed the “Gang of Seven” for their courage, honesty, and refusal to let matters continue to slide downhill.

Rick Santorum is the only one, of the candidates left standing, who can and does provide a clear contrast to Barack Obama on all the major issues.

He has never bought into the nonsense named Global Warming. Despite having hailed from a liberal state, he opposed overbearing government regulation and intervention which were deemed crucial to the safety of the planet based on those bogus facts. He has also opposed government bailouts including TARP from the very beginning, and not simply when campaigning as a Tea Party Conservative. During the 1990’s, when many conservatives including Newt and Romney championed for health care mandates, Rick Santorum had stood up in Congress and denounced the concept of government mandates, arguing for the rights of each individual to make their own decisions.

Santorum is also the only candidate who has never wavered on family values no matter who the audience was or what was at stake. He had his very name disgraced because of his strong conservative social views and risked his career defending the lives of the unborn. One can actually credit his fearless defense of conservatism for causing his loss in 2006 since the Democrat’s turned their entire arsenal at him precisely because of his constant outspoken championship of conservatism. Yet, he hasn’t backed down or regretted taking a stand for conservatism. Quite the contrary, he continues to do so with his head held high.

In short, Rick Santorum is a proud representative of the conservative viewpoint on all major issues we wish to challenge Barack Obama including Obama’s trademark legislations – Obamacare, government bailouts, government takeovers, and Cap & Trade. Santorum also provides a clear contrast to Obama’s endless choking environmental regulation, stifling energy policies including the denial for the Keystone Pipeline, first-class insulter of our allies and apologist to our enemies.

This is the case, and would be so, even if he wouldn’t have won with landslide victories this night. His victories, though, highlight the strong positives he brings to the table, since he focused throughout his campaign strictly on substance and the issues.

It just so happens to be that Rick Santorum is also the only candidate currently in this race who is a conservative and has remained staunchly loyal to conservatism during his representation of the purple/blue state of Pennsylvania. We can therefore be confident with a President Santorum that he won’t engage in any rash moves which will contradict conservative principles even if he will come under extreme pressure and badmouthing of the Democrats. He’s already been there and remained rock strong in defense of conservative values.

Obama’s entire three years has been an endless play of pitting poor against rich, ethnic groups against one another and so forth. With Rick Santorum on the Republican ballot, his fight against the rich will fall flat, for Obama’s income exceeds that of Rick Santorum’s. Additionally, Santorum’s amazing ability to unite with average blue-collar hardworking Americans, as he’s proven repeatedly in liberal Pennsylvania, will help him carry the crucial swing-states one must win in a presidential election. He’s won Iowa in the primary and can carry it in the general, and is polling best against Obama in the important swing-state Ohio. He is also the only one on the Republican side who can make Pennsylvania turn red again after having gone blue in every election since 1988. He is also polling extremely well in many other crucial swing states.

Yes, Santorum has lost his reelection in 2006 in Pennsylvania, but he has also won two statewide elections, in 1994 and 2000, despite PA having gone blue in every presidential contest since 1988. Santorum’s strong support for Bush’s War on Terror was a major cause for his loss, for anti-war protests were reaching its peak.

There’s still a long road ahead, although a clear shift has taken place this night. Santorum ran on a conservative platform and has shown that conservatism is quite popular amongst Americans across all spectrums. He has also proven capable of winning the heartland of America including swing states which are crucial in the general election. We may still look back at this night as the turning point in the primary in more ways than just one.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

Newt Gingrich has been strutting across town with an over-sized ego ever since his rise in the polls in December. He had declared himself the definite winner of  the GOP primary and the only one who can defeat Obama before the primaries had even begun! Despite having come in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich and his team have demanded conservatives to unite around his campaign since he was the only one who could beat Romney and Obama. This was prior to having won a single victory!

Here’s the question for Newt Gingrich; if he would truly want to promote conservatism, why hasn’t he acted upon his words after the first two states had voted, in which he came in below Santorum?

Hot Air has done a great job highlight the hollowness and falsehood of Gingrich for pretending to seek a united front for the sake of conservatism when he’s obviously demanding it solely to benefit himself:

Oddly, Gingrich didn’t appear as principled on the subject of conservative consolidation when Santorum won Iowa and Gingrich finished fourth, nor when Santorum narrowly edged Gingrich for fourth place in New Hampshire.  If he was concerned about a conservative sacrificing to make sure a conservative alternative had the strength to beat Mitt Romney at that time, Gingrich didn’t pull a muscle leaping out of his chair to volunteer.  Needless to say, neither has Santorum, who told Gingrich in response to run his own campaign.

After his desperately-needed victory in South Carolina, Newt sharply increased his descending tone to Rick Santorum despite Santorum having also won an equal number of states so far; 1. He then floated into Florida after his South Carolina victory promising a “final knockout.” We now know how that turned out, and who was the recipient of a “knockout.”

Newt though hasn’t acknowledged his own weaknesses which have led to his loss. Instead, he upped the heat against Santorum an additional notch higher and blamed Santorum for his own failure! Additionally, Newt couldn’t bring himself to congratulate Romney in his concession speech(repeating from actions in Iowa) while pretended Santorum was now out of the picture, although he couldn’t be any further than the truth.

“It is now clear that this will be a two-person race between the conservative leader, Newt Gingrich, and the Massachusetts moderate, and the voters of Florida made that clear,” Gingrich said following his landslide loss in Florida. Gingrich ignored the fact that the other two candidates in the race – Ron Paul and Rick Santorum – chose not to run aggressive campaigns in the state.

Newt has also failed to recognize that while he has come out ahead of Santorum in Florida, Santorum came out ahead of Newt in New Hampshire. They’ve thus both won one state and come out higher than each other in one other state. Coming out stronger than Santorum in Florida has made Newt equal, not greater than, Santorum.

Although Newt is desperate for Santorum to back out of the race and for Santorum supporters to throw their support behind his campaign, neither of the above will happen in the near future, and his repeated aggressive requests for both won’t change the facts.

Firstly, Santorum has never made winning Florida a goal, as Newt had, since it’s a winner-take-all and knew he won’t win. Instead, he’s focusing on the upcoming elections where he’s polling extremely well. He’s already been to several states in the last few days and he’s got a full schedule today in Colorado.

Secondly, the claims that Santorum’s broke it utterly false; the Santorum campaign confirms it raised $4.2M in January and unlike the Newt campaign, has no debt. Additionally,  Foster Freiss is supporting Santorum and plans on giving him significant help moving forward. “I believe Rick Santorum will become one of the front-runners very soon,” Foster Friess, a major donor to the Red White and Blue Fund, said during his interview with Bloomberg Television.

Furthermore, a new PPP poll had been released yesterday, and the results are quite astounding. Although Newt pretends that if Santorum backs out then Newt has got the nomination in his pocket, the results are pretty shaky. If Gigrich himself backs out though, the nomination does seem to go pretty strongly for Santorum. Santorum polls far  stronger against Romney in a two man race than does Newt solely against Romney. The reason this is so, is because Santorum is the second choice for an overwhelming majority of Newt supporters (and also for Romney supporters) while the reverse is not the case.

Here’s the info directly from the PPP poll.

In Missouri, held a week from today, Santorum has a 63-21 favorability spread to Gingrich’s 52-32, Romney’s 46-36, and Paul’s 28-57.  On the actual primary ballot, for which Gingrich did not qualify, Santorum leads with 45% to Romney’s 34% and Paul’s 13%.  In the caucus, in which Gingrich can compete, Santorum falls to second at 28% behind the former speaker’s 30% and ahead of Romney’s 24% and Paul’s 11%.   Head-to-head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37. That is because Santorum’s supporters only go for Gingrich by eight points over Romney, but Gingrich’s vote for Santorum by 28 points. In Ohio, which will be held on Super Tuesday (March 6th), Santorum’s favorability rating is 59-24, compared to Romney’s and Gingrich’s 47-37 and Paul’s 31-52.  The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%.  Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.

In other words, here’s how the two different two-man races would look like:

-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.

-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.

And remember that Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot in Missouri.

Can anyone remind me again which candidate is demanding the other to bow out of the race and which one says that everyone has a right to run?

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

The state of Missouri is shaping up as a very interesting state politically in 2012. Besides the Presidential election, there is a Senate race and Governor’s race, redistricting to reflect the loss of a House seat and lots of drama over those redistricting plans and the plans of incumbents. All of this occurs in a political vacuum until the courts decide the fate of the plans. In 2008, McCain won the state by less than 4000 votes which is dangerously close to recount territory. Had the national race been closer, there is no doubt that an army of lawyers would have descended on Missouri in 2008. In 2012, the race will definitely NOT be that close. Still, the most recent polling out of Missouri indicate that Obama has an approval rating of 45%. From everything I have read, those figures may be suspect and a bit too optimistic. Obama cannot and will not win this state in 2012 and the margin of victory will be nowhere near 4000. Their ten electoral votes go to the GOP nominee.
In 2008, Jay Nixon won the Governor’s race with over 58% of the vote and faces reelection this year. Three of the best GOP candidates in hypothetical polling- John Danforth, Peter Kinder, and Sarah Steelman- have all declined a run at Nixon in 2012. Instead, that “honor” will fall to businessman Dave Spence who intends to use his “novice” status to run as an outsider. Nixon will win reelection by about the same margin as he did in 2008.

Missouri lost a House seat. The legislature drew a new map that basically drew incumbent Democrat and a big name in Missouri politics, Russ Carnahan, out of his 3rd District by splitting it apart into other redrawn districts. This did not sit well with Nixon who vetoed the plan. However, with the help of two Democrats, the legislature over rode the veto only to have the plan land in the Missouri courts. Admittedly, by drawing the 3rd out of existence, it created some interesting looking districts to which Missouri politicians have attached some interesting names. While this legal mess is being settled, potential candidates are not sure where they will run. Assuming the courts eventually uphold the plan, there are some options available. Compounding the problem is the fact that no incumbents are retiring except Todd Akin in the 2nd and that is to run for the Senate. We do know that Carnahan, the most endangered incumbent Democrat, will run for reelection, but where we do not know at this point.
Besides the morass over redistricting, the GOP is finding it difficult to find candidates to run in certain state level races like Attorney General. But as bad as that is, the Missouri Democratic Party is essentially bankrupt with loads of debt. This disarray only confuses the situation even further on both sides but for different reasons. Before looking at the House races, perhaps it would be better to look where there is more certainty- the Senate race. Incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill faces re-election and she was targeted by the GOP almost as soon as the votes were counted in 2010. In fact, this is shaping up as a very important race in control for the Senate. What probably worries Democrats the most is the fact that their experimentation with almost voting Democratic in 2008 is a thing of the past and that Missouri will likely resort to its traditional red status (a situation evident in Indiana also) and that Obama’s lack of popularity will hurt McCaskill.
Her most likely opponent will be Rep. Todd Akin. However, before he can lay claim to the nomination, he will first face a primary channel from former state treasurer Sarah Steelman. Thus far, if fund raising is an indication, it would be a close race. Akin, working from a position of incumbency, has raised $1.2 million while Steelman has raised $1.1 million. Most polls have an Akin-McCaskill race as almost dead even and McCaskill beating Steelman. Much of that could possibly be attributable to statewide name recognition. Admittedly, McCaskill’s positions on certain issues could help portray her as a moderate Democrat. However, all Akin has to do is cite her 94% rating from the AFL-CIO, her 100% ratings from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and 87% rating from the ACLU as evidence of her liberal tendencies and being outside the mainstream of Missouri. Likewise, McCaskill can paint Akin as a conservative demagogue, especially some of his stances in the House. Also, expect the now-settled Akin residency issue to be resurrected and played for more than it is worth. This will be a close one to call. There is no doubt that McCaskill has a large war chest ($5.9 million) and does not face a primary challenge and the double edged sword of incumbency. At this point, despite a lot of eyes focused on this race and probably a lot of money, assuming Obama stays out of Misoouri, at this point I would call this one for McCaskill.
As mentioned earlier, Missouri loses a seat in the House. Naturally, that creates problems for incumbents. There is only one incumbent retirement- Todd Akin in the 2nd. the legislature disbanded Carnahan’s 3d District and drew him into the 1st District in direct conflict with fellow Democratic incumbent William Clay. In order to avoid what would be a bloody primary fight, Carnahan will most likely run in the new 2nd District. Of the eight new districts, five are no-brainers for incumbents: Democrats William Clay in the 1st and Emmanuel Cleaver in the 5th and Republicans Blaine Leutkemeyer in the 3rd, Vicki Hartzler in the 4th and Jo Ann Emerson in the 8th. Conceivably, Carnahan could run in the 3rd, but that would pit him against a popular, established Republican incumbent.
Two other most likely Republican retentions are the 6th held by Sam Graves who will likely face a rematch against 2010 nominee Clint Hylton and Billy Long in the 7th where he will also most likely face 2010 Democratic nominee Nick Ladedorf and independent candidate Dean Moore.
This then leaves the highly contested 2nd District and the most likely landing space for Russ Carnahan. If he runs here, it is difficult to see any other Democrat challenging him in a primary. And given the name, recognition should be no problem, nor should fund raising. However, before the Democrats in Missouri pop the cork on the champagne bottle, he will face some serious competition. The first is Ed Martin ho originally decided on a Senate run before deciding on this race. But interestingly, there are now rumors that Martin will consider a run for Governor This may produce the perception of political opportunism and turn off Missouri voters. In all probability, the GOP will field a better candidate in Ann Wagner, a former Ambassador and Vice Chair of the National GOP. Those credentials grant her access to money and connections and, in fact, she has $1.1 million in the bank (Martin has half that amount) while Carnahan has $721,000. Perhaps, it would be better for Martin to enter the Governor’s race and create a more clear path for Wagner. The cleaner Wagner comes out of a primary, the stronger an opponent she will be. Given the lack of approval for Obama in Missouri and some down ticket effect, I would have to call this race for the GOP at this point although it could change on a dime.
In conclusion, their ten electoral votes go to the GOP nominee in a not-as-close-as-2008 race while McCaskill wins a razor thin victory over Todd Akin. After this election, it will be 6-2 Republican, representing a one seat loss for the Democrats (or one seat gain for the GOP).

Running totals thus far:
Obama with 99 electoral votes to 117 for the GOP;
Net gain of 2 governors;
Net gain of 3 Senate seats;
Net loss of 6 House seats.

Next: Arkansas

Read my recent Email as a Web page, here.

The vote is expected tonight at Overland Park City Hall.  It impacts everyone in Kansas City.

Benjamin B. Hodge

- Chair, State & Local Reform Educational Group of Kansas
- State Representative (Overland Park and Olathe), 2007-’08
- Johnson County Community College Trustee, 2005-’09

Monday, August 15, 2011

TONIGHT, OVERLAND PARK LIKELY TO INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES BY
ALMOST 50%

Poll: 80% of likely 2012 Overland Park voters oppose
the planned 46% increase in property taxes

70% of Overland Park voters want spending cuts instead of tax increases.
A strong majority are OK with cuts to services.

Read below for more details on poll.

Greetings:

Tonight, the Overland Park City Council is expected to vote unanimously to approve a 46% property tax increase.  This, despite only one public hearing after the budget was announced, and despite this public hearing occurring after the Council had already unanimously voted to tentatively approve the 46% tax increase.

But 80% of likely 2012 voters in Overland Park oppose this tax increase, according to a scientific poll performed by the State and Local Educational Group of Kansas.  Click here for detailed results to this poll, including survey wording.

The poll was conducted Tuesday, August 9, and Wednesday, August 10.  The margin of error is +/-5.4%.  Poll demographics were 55% female, and 45% male.  50% over the age of 50, and 50% under the age of 50.  By party affiliation:  51% Republican, 29% Unaffiliated, and 20% Democratic.

Here are some of the results:

Question: Now I’m going to ask you some questions about your city government in Overland Park. Like many governments, the Overland Park city government faces budget shortfalls. Going forward, how should Overland Park balance its budget? Should the city government increase taxes, or cut spending?

To balance budget,
increase taxes or cut spending?    Count             Percent

Cut spending:                             227                66.8%
Increase taxes:                            79                 23.2%
Undecided:                                   34                 10.0%

Total:                                            340                 100%

Question: Asked a different way… by how much should city spending be decreased? Not at all?  1-5%?  6-10%  Or 10% or more?

Spending cuts?  By how much?    Count             Percent

Not at all:                                      46                13.5%
1-5% in cuts:                             134                39.4%
6-10% in cuts:                           100                29.4%
10% or more in cuts:                 38                 11.2%
Undecided:                                  22                   6.5%

Total:                                          340                 100%

Read More →

My name is Russ Carnahan (D, MO-03), and I’m lost:

(via Dana Loesch. Also note: Ed Martin is running against this guy.)

I was last seen a week or so ago, hiding in a garage after a get-together I threw ended with some people that I invited beating up a guy. I’ve dropped off the face of the earth since then.  No Twitter*, no blogging, nothing from work… I’m just gone.  Now, I’ve had a bit of a sheltered life, and I’m not used to it when things go bad: so I may in a bad place right now.  If you see me, please let Ed Martin (R) know; he thinks that I need to take a break anyway, and he’d like to talk to me about it.

I may be with one or more friends, who are also missing:

Read More →

My name is Russ Carnahan (D, MO-03), and I’m lost:

(via Dana Loesch. Also note: Ed Martin is running against this guy.)

I was last seen a week or so ago, hiding in a garage after a get-together I threw ended with some people that I invited beating up a guy. I’ve dropped off the face of the earth since then.  No Twitter*, no blogging, nothing from work… I’m just gone.  Now, I’ve had a bit of a sheltered life, and I’m not used to it when things go bad: so I may in a bad place right now.  If you see me, please let Ed Martin (R) know; he thinks that I need to take a break anyway, and he’d like to talk to me about it.

I may be with one or more friends, who are also missing:

Read More →