Missouri Governor Matt Blunt announced earlier this year that he will not seek a second term in office. Hoping to take his place are Republican candidates Kenny Hulshof (US Congressman) and Sarah Steelman (State Treasurer).
The Relevant Elephant interviewed Congressman Hulshof on June 6. Today we’ll hear State Treasurer Sarah Steelman’s thoughts on conservatism, Missouri, and young voters.
The Relevant Elephant: What does it mean to be a conservative?
Sarah Steelman: It means to believe very strongly in the values that have made this country the greatest in the world - faith, family and freedom. These are the traditional Missouri values passed on from generation to generation. David and I have raised our sons on these values and as public servant I keep them in mind every day.
TRE: As recent polls suggest, young voters are increasingly aligning with liberals. Why is this? What would make the Republican Party more relevant?
SS: I think all voters are turned off by the lack of concern shown by Washington politicians on issues that impact their lives like high gas prices, high food prices, record federal deficits and wasteful pork barrel spending.
I have traveled our state extensively talking about my plan to deliver $200 million of tax relief for working Missourians and to combat illegal immigration and I am encouraged by the response and enthusiasm my plans have received.
I believe we can make a difference in Missouri to eliminate the cynicism in government created in Washington.
TRE: Who has been most influential in shaping your political views? Why?
SS: Ronald Reagan. I first heard him speak in 1976 at the Missouri Republican Convention in Springfield. President Reagan always had an optimistic vision for our country and his optimism was contagious. There were a few who opposed Reagan early on but those of us who believed in him always knew he had the potential of being the revered American hero he became.
TRE: Why should a young voter in Missouri vote for someone with conservative ideals? Specifically, why should they vote for you?
SS: Because I am the only candidate in this race with Missouri experience meeting challenges that affect our lives head on. I have proposed a plan to cut taxes by $200 million, to fight illegal immigration and to protect the sanctity of human life.
I want our young people to have a government they can take pride in and that has their best interests at heart. I can understand why they would be turned off by reckless, irresponsible spending in Washington and the callous lack of concern about passing on trillions of dollars in debt to them, their children and grandchildren.
I will fight for a state government that lives within its means and protects the values we cherish.
TRE: As it relates to the issues, why should a young conservative choose to vote for you over Kenny Hulshof?
SS: Voters couldn’t have a clearer choice in this election. Congressman Hulshof voted for 11,000 earmarks last year including the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ and has been an integral part of the record budget deficits our country will sadly pass along to future generations. He has neglected his duty as a Congressman by skipping more than 400 votes in his 12-year career in Washington including a vote to provide $162 billion for troops fighting the war on terror.
My record is different. As Missouri’s treasurer I put $1 billion back into our state’s economy. I wrote the amendment to our state’s constitution defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
I will give all Missourians a government they can be proud of and I will fight against imposing Washington ways on Missouri.
Visit Sarah’s website to see where she stands on the issues and come back to our Election 2008 page where you can rate Steelman on her relevance to young voters.
We also want to hear your thoughts after hearing from both of the candidates. Leave a comment to let us know who you think is most relevant to young voters and conservatism. Who is best able to lead Missouri?
Once again, Steelman shows why I will not cast a vote for her if she wins. When Hulshof was asked the same question on ‘why should we vote for you over the other person’, he kept it focused on his record, and didn’t mention Steelman once. When Steelman was asked that question, as well as others in the interview, she couldn’t help but throw more misleading attacks out there.
She says she’s tired of Washington politicians. Well, let me say two things: 1.) Hulshof isn’t your typical Washington politician; and 2.) I’m tired of candidates using the Jeff Roe school of politics, trying to tear down everyone and everything rather than highlighting your own record and your own plans for the future.
If Steelman wins in August, the Libertarian candidate for governor will get my vote.
Spot on Nick. It’s an ugly thing over at the Steelman Ranch, and I’m afraid it’s gonna get worse. Some folks didn’t learn anything in 1992. But I will NOT waste a vote against Jay Nixon on a L.
I would have to agree with what most of Nick said. I really did not like how she attacked Hulshof’s flaws instead of focusing on her own strengths.
I’m still looking for Ronald Reagan’s influence of optimistic vision in her campaign…
Don’t be quick to jump on the “Kenny is my man and I’m going to support him blindly b/c he probably is going to win and that is more important than issues” train that Republicans usually run to.
True he had a great answer to the same question as why we should vote for him over her; however, SS brought up some great points. TRE asked why we should vote for her over Kenny. She pointed out direct reasons. Why criticize her for answering the question as asked. Who was being more political typical in their response? Avoiding direct answers and leaving room for “interpertation” is the usual way of our politicians. What a politician has done is far more important than what they say they can do.
These Hulshof supporters are a bunch of prisses. Their idea of robust political debate is to make sure you do not criticize your opponent. Elections are about drawing distinctions. If you can’t identify differences from your opponent why bother to run. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would be shocked at the delicate political sensibilities of the “politically correct” Hulshof gang.
I agree with you Churchill, elections should be about drawing distinctions. But saying “Hulshof voted for bills with earmarks in them” and “I have Missouri experience” isn’t drawing a distinction. It’s rhetoric, and what’s worse, she can’t pull off rhetoric because people know she is a terrible public speaker so the little voice in their head that they put to a SS quote is that of a person who is not well versed on any issues and who just sounds like she would be a disaster if given any real authority. It’s getting to the point where a lot of Republicans are starting to think she would set our party back so far that a Nixon governorship would bet better for us, as a party. At least with him in there, when things go bad, we won’t have to look at ourselves in the mirror and think that we were a party to it. I used to be on the fence, but Kenny gets my vote, if for no other reason then because Jeff Roe is trying to kill our state party. It’s like he saw a Kay Barnes ad being run against Sam Graves, another of his clients, and decided that he could run it against Hulshof.
Sarah will actually have to put forth some proactive ideas if she hopes to avoid getting crushed in August.
I agree with Jimmy C. Sarah doesn’t have any great ideas. In fact, i don’t know where she stands on most issues.
I looked at the issues she has listed on her website, and there’s only 3.
Kenny, on the other hand, has a lot more vision for the state of Missouri in my opinion. I was very impressed with his website and the issues he told his stance on.
Dear Jimmy C:
Hulshof’s ideas? His advertising tells us he and/or his family were farmers and he was a prosecutor. He does not mention what he has done for the last 12 years. There is a reason for his failure to tout his congressional experience- earmarks, big spending, and a failure to lead the Republican party away from big government control reminiscent of any good Democrat.
Also, as it relates to Steelman’s speaking, Hulhof got waxed in the Missouri Press Association debate by the non-lawyer. He got that Dan Quale “deer in the headlights” look in a lame attempt to defend his 11000 earmarks. Ultimately he said Steelman did not “understand” the legislative process which forced him to vote for great “ideas” like the bridge to nowhere.
It sounds like Churchill is grasping at straws here, trying to defend his boss. Kenny put out a crime plan, a pro-life plan, an ethics reform plan and an economic development plan. I’m assuming that’s probably just the bare bones. Everyone knows Kenny likes cutting taxes so I bet that’s coming up too.
Sarah, on the other hand, has a tax plan, which I honestly like. But I remember her immigration plan as being extremely half-baked, and her campaign is being run by a guy who is admitedly very smart and good at getting his people re-elected, but also a bunch of retreads like Spence Jackson who couldn’t find a real job I’m assuming. I just wish that, for the good of our party, she’d be pro-active and actually talk about her own ideas.
I don’t pretend to know how Congress works, but I don’t remember Kenny ever having to defend one of his earmarks that he requested. If the only way to attack him is to attack another Congressman’s earmarks that were included in the big bill that included his too then I just think Sarah needs to take a step back and say to herself that maybe playing semantics is exactly the type of politics that we shouldn’t be playing anymore.
There is a little too much Hulshof love going on here. I am not a great orator but i think the above article gives a good viewpoint from another angle.
this was the article i actually meant to refer to my bad.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121633819842163855.html?mod=todays_columnists