Watch the KY3 News @ 10 report HERESteelman gets 3 minutes in A block for profile
Kenny Hulshof profile runs Tuesday @ 10
My analysis: Steelman's message is to reign in spending, clean up ethical conflicts in Jefferson City and repeal the ethanol mandate. Her theme is to change the status quo. Her success or failure next Tuesday will be a true political barometer -- measuring how much discontent and angst there is within the Republican Party.
***
NOT SEEN ON T.V.
BELOW, WATCH CLIPS FROM OUR EXTENDED INTERVIEW WITH STEELMAN ON HER CAMPAIGN RV AS IT ROLLS THROUGH SOUTHWEST MISSOURI
In the first clip, Steelman addresses why she's made a tough web ad (and possibly a spot that could hit T.V.) that takes aim at Hulshof's prosecutorial record in handling convicted rapist Vance Roy Clark.
In the second clip, Steelman answers criticism from the Hulshof campaign and some voters that her television advertisements have been too negative. Does it mean she's trailing?
In the third clip, Steelman explains why she pushed for a $133 million dollar provision to be included in a nursing home reform bill while she was a State Senator. Congressman Hulshof has criticized Steelman for the move -- saying it's an example showing she's been hypocritical on the issue of wasteful spending.
5 comments:
Steelman is not bucking the establishment, she's blowing in the wind. Read the BidForGreen piece to see what I mean.
Well, Dave Wiley, your opinion is noted, but I am hesitant to accept it because of your obvious bias. It is true that ethanol appears to lower gas prices at the pump, but no one ever accounts for the loss in B.T.U.s which translates into less miles per gallon. That means the consumer is filling up more often, and spending more money. Triple A's study (no vested interest on either side, and totally objective) shows e-85 as more expensive than everything but premium gas. And I agree with you that competition lowers prices, but mandating something takes away all competition. The free-market works best when we let it work, centralized markets have never worked, just ask the Soviets, and I really don't think we need that here in the U.S. at a time of economic hardship, or ever. Let the free market work and lets have government stop subsidizing markets to prop them up. It is driving farms and Missourians into the ground.
What's my bias? I am not an corn-based ethanol lover. But I really dislike someone taking a hot-button issue, dumbing it down, and reaping rewards from it. She supported it when it helped her, now she doesn't when she thinks that will help her.
Any "free market" discussion is moot considering the number of incentives the oil industry gets. This is not a "free market" discussion, but whether Missouri farmers and small businesses get the same break as Exxon. If you want to take away all of their tax breaks, then I'll happily talk to you about free markets.
Compare the amount of corn that goes to ethanol to the amount that goes to foreign aid. Why don't we take our foreign aid dollars and teach people around the world to farm sustainably? Then we could leave that corn in Missouri, and we would have more than what ethanol uses. Because right now, when we go to foreign countries, we DISINCENTIVIZE them to plant, because our food is free. Let's buy their food to help them, and take all that corn and put it back to work here.
But that's not a good sound bite, is it?
Ethanol is already subsidized. Why would we need to mandate it if it works? The point is ethanol can’t work on it’s own merit, so the government has to mandate it to keep the corn lobby happy. Tax-payers are already losing money because of federal subsidies for corn, then they added subsidies to mix ethanol and gasoline, then they mandate it? If people are serious about reducing the need of foreign oil, lets take all the money going to subsidize corn based ethanol, and use it for development of cellulosic ethanol. Or maybe if we are serious about reducing the need of oil from the middle-east we could lift the 51 cent per gallon tariff on sugar cane ethanol. The fact is she is the only one who is not in the pocket of the corn lobby, and I have repeatedly heard her say she is not against bio-fuels, only altering the marketplace and not giving the consumer the decision.
I agree with everything you said. But Sarah says in her ads that the ethanol mandate raises gas prices. And that's just not true.
That was my only point. If she said she was against the ethanol mandate, I would think she was wrong, but I wouldn't be mad about it. But when she blatantly misrepresents facts in a hot-button issue, that is completely against everything I thought she stood for.
I came into this race hoping Steelman would win by a mile. Her demeanor has been a great disappointment to me.
Post a Comment