Paul Curtman for US Senate?

Bungalow Bill is asking why the Missouri GOP keeps running candidates that have lost when conservatives and Tea Partiers have a great candidate in Paul Curtman:

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.

Related articles

• Dirty Anonymous Tricks Start Early In 2012 Senate Race (24thstate.com)
• Missouri GOP Prefers Talent Against McCaskill (politicalwire.com)

US Senate Race and Unity Candidates

The 2012 US Senate race in Missouri is already heating up. Senator Claire McCaskill's comment over the weekend that it may really be time for Americans to take up pitchforks is an early indication that the battle lines are drawn. And it looks to be a closely fought race. Public Policy Polling has found the Missouri Senate Race to be within a point or two:

McCaskill leads Sarah Steelman by 1 point (45-44) in a hypothetical match up and trails Jim Talent and Peter Kinder each by 2 points in them (47-45 and 46-44 respectively,) all results well within the poll’s margin of error.

As of today, Steelman is the only candidate that's announced that she's running. She's trying to position herself as the Tea Party candidate; however, as I wrote last Friday, Sarah Steelman has not yet earned the title. I like the fact that she's not hand-picked by the party, but she hasn't earned my vote yet.

With the election behind us and the next one almost two years away, Steelman will be a popular guest on political radio shows across Missouri. She made two appearances on St. Louis stations today. Both Mark Reardon and Dana Loesch interviewed her (audio at the links). Reardon offered a post interview commentary that was pretty harsh. In my opinion, too harsh. Steelman's radio interview skills are weak. I think it's that the cadence of her responses are slower than a radio audience expects, so I think Reardon was being unkind in saying that she lacked substance. Yes, it was boilerplate conservative talking points, but do you really expect actionable policy recommendations two years out? That said, Reardon's point that "the quality of your candidate matters," is absolutely correct.

Jeremy Jacobs of the National Journal's Hotline on Call thinks that Steelman will need Tea Partiers in a primary battle with Talent:

Garnering Tea Party support will be crucial for Steelman, if she faces a primary against Talent. And it's clear she is courting them. Steelman spokesman Jeff Layman pointed to Steelman's history of opposing earmarks and said that Steelman "is one of the early heroes of the Tea Party movement."

While I appreciate the link and reference to my first article on Steelman, again, what has she done that's made her a hero of the Tea Party? What I see happening here is the Tea Party (ostensibly Steelman) being pitted against the establishment GOP (ostensibly Talent). Since Talent has taken a four year hiatus from running for office, he still has a reasonable shot to be the Tea Party candidate if he plays his cards right.

Returning to the poll above. PPP also polled a Peter Kinder vs. Claire McCaskill race. While everyone's assuming (rightly, I believe) that Kinder will run for governor, I think he'd be an interesting candidate for US Senate. Peter Kinder is a hero of the Missouri Tea Party movement because he brought a law suite against the federal government over the new healthcare law. In other words, Kinder draws his base of support from both the establishment GOP and the Tea Party movement. He's a sort of unity candidate. Again, I think he'll run for governor, but it's an interesting idea.

While the St. Louis Tea Party has the glamor of a major American city, the workhorses of the movement include the Tea Parties in neighboring counties. Two such Tea Parties are the Franklin County Patriots and the Jefferson County Tea Party. Jeremy Jacobs in that National Journal article mentioned above recognizes the importance of these other Tea Party groups:

James Harris, a Missouri Republican consultant who has worked for Steelman in the past, said the Tea Party movement could make the difference for Steelman both in the primary and the general election race with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D).

"We have a very strong and vibrant Tea Party movement in St. Louis and the collar counties," said Harris. "Jefferson County, for example, swung to the Republican side this year because of that movement."

Jefferson, the sixth largest county in the state, has been a traditional swing area where Republicans have to perform well to win statewide. Pres. Bush carried it by 600 votes in 2004 and Pres. Obama carried it by two percentage points in 2008.

What I think Jacobs (and Harris) are discounting is the contributions of GOP volunteers. Ed Martin got out 40 volunteers in Arnold (Jefferson County) on a rainy Saturday in early October. During the closing weeks of the campaign, Martin had a contingent of volunteers manning the phones from dawn til dusk.

The point being that the turn around in Jefferson County came about because of the work of both Tea Party and GOP volunteers. And that brings me to another unity candidate: Ed Martin. If he were to step into the US Senate race he would be the only candidate running that was endorsed by the St. Louis Tea Party. I think he'll run for Secretary of State, but we've got lots of time to speculate about the US Senate race against Claire McCaskill, so why not do just that?

Update: It's early in this US Senate race. Best of luck to all the candidates mentioned above as well as Chuck Purgason and Kristi Nichols (if they decide to run again).

Related:

• Sarah Steelman: Tea Party Candidate or Establishment Candidate?
• Sarah Steelman is Not Establishment?: Give it up Sarah!

Sarah Steelman: Tea Party Candidate?

Earlier this week, Sarah Steelman filed to run for US Senate in 2012 against Democrat Claire McCaskill. There's a strong presumption that former Senator Jim Talent—the man who lost to McCaskill in 2006—will also run for the Republican nomination. Talent is seen as the party favorite.

Steelman served as Missouri's Treasurer from 2005 to 2009. In 2008 she made a bid for the Governors office, but lost in the Republican primary. In a Talent v Steelman race for Republican nominee for US Senate, she would be seen as an outsider.

With that background, it's interesting to learn that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has apparently promised Steelman that it would not endorse Talent. Dave at Missouri Scout reports on the NRSC and Sarah Steelman (paid subscription):

The NRSC was burned last year in primaries across the country. In Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, and Maryland [I think he means Delaware - ed.], its anointed candidates lost in each primary and the eventual nominee lost each general election. In other words, the NRSC’s miscalculations (and spending on losing primary candidates) may have cost them control of the Senate.

In short, the NRSC lost money on several primary races so it looks like they plan to keep their money out of Missouri's primary in 2012. I hope they stick with that plan. You might encourage them to do the same in your state.

That said, I have to take exception with Dave for referring to Steelman as the "Tea Party favorite". Dave isn't the only reporter to do that. Jeremy Jacobs of National Journal reported on Steelman's announcement earlier this week this way:

Second, the NRSC is showing a newfound interest in Steelman, a Tea Party favorite, who it shunned last year in favor of Roy Blunt.

Since Steelman did not run in the 2010 Missouri Republican primary for US Senate, it's odd to say that the NRSC shunned her. They certainly anointed Roy, but Steelman wasn't among the candidates that were shunned. Those would be Chuck Purgason (2nd in the primary, 13%), Kristi Nichols (3rd in the primary, 7%), and several others.

I don't understand why Sarah Steelman is being referred to as the Tea Party favorite. She's not. She may be by the time the election is here, but she's not the favorite yet.

There are basically two paths to becoming a Tea Party candidate. The first path is to show up, maybe speak at events, maybe lead a local Tea Party group, recruit others, and just generally participate in the Tea Party. That's the path that Ed Martin and Gary Fuhr followed. The other path is to do something heroic, something exceptional that clearly indicates your commitment to Tea Party values. Once you've done that, you probably need to do some of the things on the first path: speak, lead, recruit, and participate. Paul Curtman followed the second path. I also think that Lt Gov Peter Kinder went above and beyond the call of duty when he brought suite against the federal government over the healthcare law.

Those are the paths to becoming a Tea Party favorite. As of today, there are no Tea Party favorites for US Senate in Missouri. I look forward to learning more about all the candidates. For now, best wishes for a successful campaign to Sarah Steelman, Jim Talent, Chuck Purgason, and Kristi Nichols (assuming the last three decide to run).