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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you ‘corrupted’.

Any more specifics available?
She wanted to focus only on legislators, correct?
Legislators are paid about 35k per year, including salary and per diem $, and work full time from Jan 2 to about June 1, and the veto session from Sept 1 to Sept 30 (thereabouts ?)
At other times, they do constituent work and meet voters and discuss issues, etc, and study or prepare new legislation, let us say ( and agree ) for an average of 4 hours a day from June 1 to Sept 1.

When you compare the hours worked and the pay received it ranks about 29/50 of states in the US for legislators, with NH paying 100$ and CA paying 70K.

Benefits are OK, but legislators pay in medical etc, so not ‘comfy ‘ in area of standard benefit package.

For this amount of work after 6 years they get a pension of what amount and for how long? Do they contribute any $? How does this compare to a similar state employee with 35K salary for that amount of hours for 6 years?

Just wondering. Thanks.

Sorry–additional thought — was her proposal to do this retroactively on legislators, eg on those currently serving or just retired, so that those who served with the expectation of pension assistance would not get it, or just to those newly elected after passage of her bill? The latter seems more reasonable. Additional thought: did her husband send back any pension money he received from the state, or did she, if they felt it was undjustified? Seems like this was something one would do if one felt very strongly about it.

Well, Mr. GOP I will try and round up that info as soon as possible, but insinuating that her husband AND her are the same person and think identically on every issue is ridiculous. Maybe her husband wanted to keep those pensions, but the voters didn’t elect her husband, they elected her, and she thought it was wrong that part time employees recieved better benefits in their pensions than full-time state employees.

RE: corrupted most recent post.

Sorry I misunderstood, in you initial post you referenced her filibuster to her husband’s forthcoming pension, and since you connected them, I logically followed suit. I understand, of course, they are not the same person and respect each individually.

Regarding you last point, that legislative ‘part time employees’ are paid at same rate as some full time employees, I placed the work schedule in previously to establish the facts, as I understand them to be, to see if you agree too, to test if your conclusion is correct. As of now, I think you will admit, we do not know it to be true.

Corrupted: 50-50? You must be on the Steelman dole. There were a few shots where Sarah thought she would get him and Sarah’s soft jab was met with a massive uppercut.

I’m intellectually honest enough to admit when my guy or girl gets beat. It’d be nice if ya’ll did the same.

Corrupted: I might have been wrong to insinuate a question about your intellectual honesty. After all, you said 50-50 up top, and then later came out and said that Steelman won outright. The same consistency of your chosen candidate’s campaign.

Like I said, I was wrong to insinuate a question. It is clear that you have absolutely zero.

If your going to call out someone for saying that their only attack is saying that another blogger is on the staff of their chosen candidate is bad, and then do it yourself- you don’t show much consistency. And then attack someone on not being consistent, come on now, at least be consistent on the issue of being consistent.
By the way did you catch the debate today? You said you have the intelligience to admit when your candidate gets defeated, so go ahead and do it. Kenny got slaughtered.

Corrupted:

I’ll admit that on the KY3 debate, Hulshof wasn’t as good as I expected, and Steelman performed OK. I think that it was either 50-50, or Kenny won by the skin of his teeth. On the KMOX debate that this post was talking about, though, I listened to it in my office with an equal amount of Steelman and Hulshof supporters, and the consensus was that Hulshof won it going away.

And, the reason I got onto you is because I see you on every single post on this blog relating to this race, and not once will you ever say anything positive about Hulshof. I’ve lived in the 9th for a few years, and followed it’s politics since before Kenny was the representative. Even the Dems here in the People’s Republic of Columbia don’t think he’s a bad guy, and the worst they can muster is a “rubber-stamp Republican”. So, when I see someone who parrots the talking points of the Steelman campaign, and takes on the same disgusting tactics of the Steelman campaign, I put two and two together.