So why is the GOP keeps retreading the same losers over and over thinking they deserve shot after shot? Why not bring up some fresh talent that has a real backbone, will be honest with voters (something both Martin and Steelman have lost credibility over), and is a true conservative? There are others in the state of Missouri that would do a far better job at defending the Constitution in the United States Senate than Ed Martin and Sarah Steelman would, both who have records of looking out for their own interests in Missouri government.Ed Martin has only ever run for office once. It's delusional to paint him has a perennial loser. To the best of my knowledge, Steelman has only lost one race as well (the 2008 GOP primary for Governor). Again, it's unfair to characterize her this way. However, I find it odd to suggest that the GOP is driving the candidate selection. Running for office is a personal decision. The party can lean on the scales, but in the Senate race the NRSC has said that it wont as I reported earlier. I guess MOGOP could, but I think they'll follow the lead of the NRSC. Back to Bill:
Why not encourage someone like Jefferson County's Paul Curtman to run for the United States Senate? It's been said Curtman doesn't just know the Constitution, he is fluent in the Constitution. How many politicians can you make that claim for? Not many.Oh, it's better than that. Paul Curtman has written a book on the Constitution. You can buy it on his website. It's a good read. Bungalow Bill continues:
A true political outsider and tea partier, Curtman proven record of leadership in the Marine Corps and a proven record in government as an independent conservative thinker, we need to bring up candidates who aren't retreads election after election like Martin and Steelman, we need to bring up candidates like Curtman who truly believe in the Constitution and won't be easily influenced by the sins of Washington DC.Paul's 29 years old (I think). He would meet the Constitutional requirement of being 30 before the election, but he's still going to look young and I think that hurts in a Senate race. Furthermore, he's only just been elected to the the state house. Yes, I think he has great opportunities ahead of him. I think it's likely that he'll hold statewide office someday. I also think that day could be ten or more years from now.
I think Paul will stick to his convictions, but I worry that doing so will marginalize him in the legislature. Compromise is a fundamental part of what happens in legislatures. So certain compromises may look as though he's sold out on some core issue. Curtman will figure out how to play this game.
The biggest barrier to a Curtman for Senate in 2012 campaign is the fact that such a campaign has to start now. It takes a lot of money to run for statewide office, so those planning to do so are already filling their coffers for the fight. The Democrat's likely gubernatorial candidate, Jay Nixon, is approaching $2 million dollars. A likely Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. Steve Tilley, has at least $750,000 on hand. Curtman needs to focus on the business of legislating and does not need the distraction of dialing for dollars.
Posts
4 comments:
The statement that Ed martin has lost credibility, ???? That really is a stretch. Give me some facts or reasoning.
He lost a campaign by less than 5,000 votes. But there is nothing that shows me that he has lost credibility!!!
Yeah. Ed's got a bright future. I like him for Robin Carnahan's job--Secretary of State--or maybe AG. He certainly has work to do if he's going to run statewide.
I should have been more precise in that statement. I was referring to Martin's days as chief of staff and his days covering up e-mails. Politics as usual compared to Curtman's character.
@Bungalow Bill,
First, thanks for embedding my video in your post about Curtman. That guy's awesome and we need to get him out of the minor leagues and into the majors. I just think you're jumping the gun on that.
Ed Martin emails... All of the emails have been released. Did you see something in them that you didn't like? If what really bothers you is his (and Matt Blunt's) assertion of executive privilege or whatever, well, I can understand that. Sill, it seems to me that you bought the Dem talking point and now you carry water for them by parroting their "cover up" garbage.
Look, transparency is crucial. I agree with you on that, but as we strive for more transparent government we're going to hit edge cases (around privacy and security) that will be litigated.
Post a Comment