Sarah Steelman is a loser who will say anything for a vote. Too bad Congressman Hulshoff has to waste money beating her in August - that money would be better spent in the general election.

First off Nick, if you are going to support someone, make sure you can spell his name right, second, you brought up the question yourself that if ethanol really was cheaper why would we need a mandate? Well, I guess you probably know why Kenny supports the mandate( he is a corn farmer and has a financial interest), and Mrs. Steelman has admitted that she was wrong when she first supported it, and after seeing it’s effects she is now opposed to it. It is not all that often when we cone across politicians who are willing to admit their mistakes, and take a different course of action, I think we should applaud Mrs. Steelman for her efforts, and not chastise her.

While Hulshof is still pushing the IOWA study (Iowa’s main crop is corn), Steelman had the good sense to evaluate an un-biased study performed by the Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute study,(linked) was released on June 18th.

It makes sense that Steelman would change her mind after being informed of the truth about the effects of the E-10 Mandate.

Hulshof is still sticking with his story because he has a financial interest in supporting the flawed mandate.

I’m confused as to why Rupert’s rag would single out Steelman for praise, while denouncing the MO GOP. Talk about a back handed compliment…

CHUCKtheFED,

I guess they feel as do, that Steelman is cut from a different cloth than the rest of the status-quo GOP. That is unique for any politician, Republican or Democrat.

All the campaign ads in the world won’t get the majority to vote for a republican in the next election.

Corrupted - I will confess to having a compulsion to spell Hulshof’s name incorrectly. But it’s his fault - he spells it funny. Something that is pronounced “off” should be spelled off.

Anyway, as it happens, I disagree with Congressman Hulshof about the ethanol mandate. Regardless of the prices of gas and beef, I’m against it as a matter of principle. But the fact that Steelman is right on one issue, and one she happens to have recently changed her position on, still doesn’t make her the best person for the job. I had a rare weekend where I actually watched a little television, and saw the latest campaign ads. Steelman looked frumpy, sounded whiny, and did little but sling mud. Hulshof continued to demonstrate that he has what it takes to beat Jay Nixon, while Steelman would go down to a tearful and stinging defeat.

Mr. Kasoff everything about Congressman Hulshof is a little funny, not just his name. I think it is rather comic that the Congressman continues to claim that he is a fiscal conservative yet he is part of the broken Washington establishment that ran up record deficits, and it is not as if he tried stop the wasteful spending, he voted for 11,000 earmarks. The Club for Growth and Citizens Against Wasteful Spending both gave Congressman HulshOFF a failing grade. The rating systems that the Congressman continues to tout take into account social issues, which the Congressman and Mrs. Steelman are almost in total agreement on. Since you are misinformed, here is a link to one of the most respected journalists in the world working for the most repspected paper in the world, maybe she can clear up some issues for you. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121633819842163855.html

Agree that Kenny Hulshof will be the stronger candidate in Nov. vs Nixon.

Sarah Steelman has raised important issues in this campaign, and we, as Republicans must have the integrity and strength to oppose all earmarks, and the process of inserting earmarks. We have to be ’squeeky clean’ as the electorate expects this of us, the Democrats are expected to be filled with actions such as exhibited by Chris Dodd with his housing loans, just to name one. He and other Dems are getting a pass on this by the MSM.

For those independents out there, the best hope we have for better government in DC is to elect chastised Republicans back into office who have the courage to stop overspending and corruption, and to oppose the possible one party rule looming on the horizon in the House, Senate, and White House by the Democrats unbridled by a strong opposition party. The liberal interest groups will run unbridled throught congress and the administation, and a divided government with at least one section of government in Republican hands is the best antidote to overspending and a violent lurch to the left.

There are other reasons to support Hulshof over Steelman besides those offered by Kim Stroessel in the WSJ article. She has erred by assuming only one reason for opposing Sarah. For one, Kenny is a better speaker and communicator/debater and can match up better against Nixon. He can beat Nixon.

Also, Steelman will receive lukewarm support from rank and file republicans after her tactics this primary season, further weakening her chances in Nov. She will see all her financial support from the trail lawyers shift to Nixon in Nov. The Trial lawyers will have selected our candidate in the primary.

Again, there are the trial lawyers, the only interest group she has not singled out for criticism. She will not strongly protect the tort reforms put into place over the last 3 years, and will likely dismantle them. Her husband is a trial lawyer and much of her support comes from them. If she is truly passionate about attacking conflicts of interest, she must come out and criticize them.

Otherwise, on the predominance of issues important to the GOP, we will vote for Kenny Hulshof for Governor.

Mr. MOactiveGOP, a.k.a Mr. Hulshof Cronie

First off, I am not sure either Republican candidate has a chance of beating the Attorney General in the general, but if either of them could do it, it is Mrs. Steelman. Mr. Nixon has been campaigning against Gov. Blunt for four years, and his approval ratings show that he probably would have got his tail kicked. If the Congressman gets the nomination, all they have to do is erase Blunt’s name, and substitute Hulshof on most issues. Sarah Steelman actually wants change. She wants to end corruption, and she has a strong record to prove that is true. Mr. Hulshof is part of the corruption, (let’s not kid ourselves, earmarks are a “I’ll scratch your back, if you’ll scratch mine” deal, or maybe he just wanted to be liked, either way it is bad for taxpayers. We need a leader in the Executive Office, not a bobble-head. By the way, your idea of sending chastized Representatives back to Congress so they can stop corruption and over-spending is a little, actually, completely naive. This proves to me you are probably on a Congressional staff, because if Congress wasn’t chastized last election when we Republicans got our tails handed to us, nothing will. The only way to fix the problem is get the establishment guys out of there.