07.22.2008 3:37 pm

DEBATE: Steelman strategy forces Hulshof to offense

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

While there were no big zingers or mistakes in the just completed KMOX Republican gubernatorial debate between U.S. Kenny Hulshof and Treasurer Sarah Steelman, the hour-long exchange on Mark Reardon’s show did highlight some differences between the candidates.

As has been her campaign strategy, Steelman labeled Hulshof as a big spender from Washington. Hulshof responded in some of his strongest campaign rhetoric yet:

“It’s easy to mislead voters and unfortunately that’s all Miss Steelman has to offer,” Hulshof said.

The debate was moderated by Reardon and questions were asked by my colleague Jo Mannies and KMOX reporter Megan Lynch.

In their opening statements, Hulshof focused on Attorney General Jay Nixon, the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, but Steelman went right after Hulshof.

“I’m a little rough around the edges,” she said. “He’s a smooth talker.”

Then she went after her top campaign strategy: focusing on Hulshof’s support for Congressional earmarks.

“He has supported literally billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” she said.

That’s when Hulshof accused Steelman of distorting his record.

In the end, Hulshof offered the clearest distinction between the candidates. In response to a question about who would be better to face Nixon, Hulshof pointed to four areas where he disagreed with Nixon and Steelman agreed with him:

*tort reform (Hulshof’s in favor; Steelman is backed by trial attorneys)

*collective bargaining (Hulshof says he’s against it for state employees and that Steelman and Nixon are in favor).

*Second Injury Fund (Hulshof says it’s going broke and blames it on Nixon and Steelman)

*Missouri Housing Development Commission. (Hulshof wants to get elected officials off the commission — which hands out tax credits to developers. Steelman and Nixon, who are on the commission, favor keeping elected officials on the commission.)

I’ll follow up this report with a few more blog items on specific topics of the debate …

18 comments

Comments are closed.

Blog Comments: Rules of the Road

There sure were a lot of shots fired at each other during that debate, just enough to keep it entertaining!

— Nick

3:42 pm July 22nd, 2008

Well done by boh parties, I would say it was 50-50, thats bad news for the great orator Hulshof. Sarah Steelman stood toe to toe with him. No big wins for either side is a win for Sarah, and would someone inform me how an up-and-down vote can be mis-represented.

— corrupted

4:00 pm July 22nd, 2008

I worked for the state at UMSL we were in a union and it sucked. One year we got a $100 meal card for the lunch room as our raise. Another year they increased our medical about $100 dollars more than the $.50 raise we got. Hulsholf is the type of politician that cares about know one except of course himself and his buddies.

— brian hunsperger

4:17 pm July 22nd, 2008

Jay Nixon has failed to go after corrupt Judges (St. Charles)and Police (Talbott and Mokwa) as well as officers. I would not vote for him if he was the only politician running. He could not even get a conviction for stock fraud against the Shanahans. Pathetic

— steve

4:27 pm July 22nd, 2008

I think Kenny did a wonderful job. Since he expected to perform so much better than Steelman they are calling it a draw. I think Kenny gotto the point and Steelman danced around her answers. I can’t believe that Kenny could be so gracious to someone who has downed his political record and personal record just to gain votes. Go Kenny…I hope they see through your opponent and vote for the best candidate. You have my vote Kenny!

— jsure

9:05 pm July 22nd, 2008

That was definitely highly entertaining. I’d say it was definitely a win, albeit a narrow one, for Hulshof, and I say that for no reason other than he differentiated himself between Steelman and Nixon and really hit her hard on her ties to trial lawyers and how she basically funneled money to her husband’s company’s or business interests as Treasurer. It was particularly how Steelman didn’t name one accomplishment she was particularly proud of even though that was the specific question asked of her. I think this showed, without a doubt, that Hulshof is the only one of these two who can actually withstand the scrutiny of a campaign, and look put together doing it. It seemed like Sarah’s economic plan would be to do away with federal earmarks, which I don’t think a governor of a state has any control over (though Steelman might know something that I don’t) and to get rid of ethanol. I think Hulshof finally articulated a good answer on ethanol today too so he won that round as well.

— Rhonda

9:12 pm July 22nd, 2008

Steelman clearly won this debate. Hulshof was Jay Nixon’s footstool and the there is no difference between the two of them. Hulsof gets rich out off everytime we buy gas at the pump but doesn’t like to admit that.

He would do well do just say what he wants to do: put cornfarmers ahead of all others and push the livestock farmers out of business.

— corrupted

11:45 pm July 22nd, 2008

Caveat: committed Hulshoff supporter.

Agree with jsure and Rhonda.
Win for Hulshof on points, clear win.
Kenny avoided overly aggressive posture, and was reasonable, balanced and forthright, and specific on policy.
Sarah was a bit to general in responses, and seemed uncertain and tentative on some issues, although some of her ideas are appealing and attractive from a conservatives view point.
Some questions a bit long.
Format excellent. KUDOS to the station and moderator, enjoyed the debate and appreciated commmercial free format.

— MOactiveGOP

9:09 am July 23rd, 2008

Informational question: Sarah wanted to eliminate legislator pensions? Please help me out on that. Do they get a pension after service, and if so what amount and what is vesting period? What is state and what is employee contribution percentage?
I suspect they are claffified as state employees and have the same system as other employees, without special provisions, which places all state employees under the same rules based on salary and length of service, but I need more facts. Did she wish to eliminate all pensions for all political based state employees, e.g. senators/representatives/governor/treasurer/sec of state/auditor/AG and so on based on the supposition that they exert too much control over benefits and this is a conflict of interest?

She mentioned this last night and during her provided info to Kim Stroessel of WSJ for piece strongly slanted to Sarah recently in which Storessel described these pensions as ‘comfy pensions’. What does comfy mean in this regard?

thanks for any info.

— MOactiveGOP

9:15 am July 23rd, 2008

Mr. GOP,
That is a good question that I will try to clarify for you. First off, it is my understanding that Sarah led the filibuster of a pension bill that would have put more money directly into her husbands(former legislator) own pocket. That is what I call leadership. While Kenny is voting for subsidies into his own pocket, Sarah is fighting the good fight and trying to stop abusive power in government. And of course legislator pensions have their own special provisions. The vesting period is 6 years, and their benefits are better than state employees, AND THEY ARE PART TIME! Who ever heard of a vesting period of 6 years on a pension plan for a part time employee? That is why all the establishment republicans are on Kenny’s side, they want as much tax-payer dollars as they can get, while Sarah wants it to be used responsibly.

— corrupted

9:54 am July 23rd, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 Show All

DEBATE: Steelman strategy forces Hulshof to offense

Blogroll

P-D political blogs & columns