Since Archpundit inexplicably covers only one race in Missouri, I figured I'd take up the slack for the rest of the state.
First up is St. Louis County executive. I’m limiting the choices to the big three: Charlie Dooley (D), Gene McNary (R), and Kurt Odenwald (R). All three strike me as nice men who mean well, and in the interest of full disclosure I’ll point out that in the distant past I have been to Gene McNary’s house where I was supplied with free food and drink. But for me, the race is pretty simple. I can’t tell the difference between Charlie at the helm of state and Buzz when he was secretly in the hospital, only Buzz got a lot more attention. Gene’s platform, near as I can tell, is the county was great when I ran it 50 years ago, and it will be great if you just put me back in charge. And Kurt’s centerpiece is a “redevelopment fund.” In other words, this race just makes you want to jangle your keys and chant “boring.” But I know who I’m voting for. Both Charlie and Gene strike me as the kind of guys who never had to worry about their weight one day of their lives. So I’m voting for the stout guy, yep, short and plump Kurt is my man.
For governor, the field is crowded, but again the reality is that only three have a shot: Matt Blunt (R), Claire McCaskill (D), and Bob Holden (D) the incumbent otherwise known as “one term Bob” – even by Democrats. Bob has all the charisma of a dead mackeral, and Claire apparently can be bought for $10,000 and a case of beer. All Matt has to do is sit back, watch Bob and Claire claw each other's eyes out, run the same ads they're running against each other, and coast to victory. OK, maybe people will vote for Karen Dee Lee Skelton-Memhardt on the theory that's really two people, but I think people with hyphenated last names are at a disadvantage in Missouri.
Kit Bond is up for re-election as senator this year. In the interest of full disclosure, I have an aunt who claims to have been Kit's nanny a long, long time ago. Sensing blood in the water, the democrats are running everybody, but the favorite to win the primary is Nancy Farmer. I always confuse her for Jill Farmer, a blonde babe who was a local TV consumer reporter before she retired to raise a family and appear in TV commercials. Jill replaced Mandy Murphey as the consumer reporter for Fox 2, another blonde babe but one who I dislike for two reasons - Mandy had a perpetually big smile which got in the way of stories where a big smile wasn't called for, and she misspelled "Murphy" so now I'm constantly encountering her fans who want to stick an 'e' in Murphy. If enough people confuse Nancy with Jill, she has a shot. Otherwise, Missourians will vote their interest - no other senator is as entertaining as Kit Bond, and he is ruthless in looking out for our local interests, the rest of the country can go hang.
Jay Nixon should win as Attorney General again - he's done a fine job and with challengers with names like Dewey Crepeau I don't see much danger for him.
The race for state treasurer is crowded - both because the current governor used the office as a stepping stone and the incumbent is running for an office without term limits. I have no idea who'll win nominations in this race. State Senator Anita Yeckel complained in a letter to the editor at the Post today because they described her legislative record as lackluster (I wonder what they called Russ Carnahan's?) by pointing out her many accomplishments as a legislator. What she misses is that the Post editorial board only cares about guns (against), gays (for), abortion (for), and God (against). Since her legislation had to do with overhauling banking and small business regulation, stamping out Meth labs, and brownfield development -- important stuff but not what they care about -- her record is "lackluster." My favorite, Al "convicted felon" Hanson is running for treasure instead of auditor. He'll probably get my vote again, but since it wasn't enough for a victory last time, I doubt it will be enough this time.
I expect Todd Akin to cruise to victory in the 2nd district as Gephardt and Clay swiped a lot of Democratic voters from the district during the 2000 redistricting to keep themselves from falling below 60% in their elections.
And now we come to the third district where the scramble is on to fill Dick Gephardt's old slot. I don't think a Republican could win in the district (see above paragraph). So Steve Stoll is my man in this race. Archpundit loves Jeff Smith. Frankly, I'm not impressed. Here's a guy who teaches political science at Washington University and what are the quotes he gets in the paper -- "Bush is a complete moron" and "Somewhere a village in Texas is missing it's idiot" (which is a Molly Ivins line). Impressive analysis, Professor. What's his big policy idea -- universal healthcare. Maybe he's brilliant and that's what it takes to win in the third. But for a guy of youth, intellegence, and boundless energy, it seems an old, stupid, and tired platform to run on.
There are two constitutional amendments on the primary ballot. The first is an amendment for the gambling industry (again) so that Rockaway Beach can have a casino. While I'm personally tired of amending the Missouri constitution every couple of years to extend gambling (first we had riverboat gambling, then slots, then boats in moats), they've all passed so I guess this one will pass too. Then every dried up old town will be asking for an amendment so they can have a casino. I guess this way some of the gambling money stays here in Missouri to pay for all the ads the industry floods us with to get the amendments.
The second amendment is to define marriage to be between a man and a women. I think it will pass in socially conservative Missouri. There was a big fight earlier between Holden and Blunt as to whether the vote should be held during the primary or the election - Holden hoping to get his base out for the primary and Blunt his base out for the election. Holden won in the Missouri Supreme court, so we'll be voting on it in the primary. Since I'm all for enshrining discrimination in the Constitution, I'm all for the amendment. If it pases, all the dowdy gays will move to Massachusetts or California while all the swinging gays will come here and gamble in Rockaway beach.
not exactly the target audience for Jeff. ;)
I do talk about the Governors race, and I'd talk about the County exec race, but everytime I say Gene McNary, I start laughing uncontrollably.
And well, I'm at many of the 3rd races so that's the coverage. It's a vanity site after all.
You cover the 3rd district so exhaustively the average reader doesn't notice the other races (which you've posted about more than I have). And it has so many candidates.
Yeah, I'm not the target demographic. But what the Democrats need now are new ideas, not rigid defense. The Democratic slogan of the day seems to be "more of the same!" Are there problems with public schools? You bet. Who opposes any and all attempts at reform -- Democrats with the NEA. And on down the list.
So what is Jeff's response - call the President a moron. Inarticulate, clearly. Moron - no. If he truly believes it, he's a fool. If he doesn't, he's a dishonest panderer. Maybe I'd feel different if I knew the guy like you, but all I have to go on is what's in print.
It's funny--having been there the follow-up by Jeff was probably the most substantive--but the red meat works in the primary.
The other funny thing is Jeff gets flack from Teachers unions over his support and founding of the Confluence Academy Charter.
The grassroots anger at the President is incredibly strong right now amongst Democrats. Is Jeff pandering? Not as much as others actually--largely because he actually has more to it--but hell if anyone can get Jo Mannies to cover that.
Obviously, the rhetoric changes in the general.
And I know it is a bit narrowcast, but most of my time is on it so the blog follows. Except Ditka!
Why worry about the general - the Republicans could run Mother Theresa and the candidate with (D) after their name would win. Of course, the Democrats could run Mahatma Gandhi in the 2nd and the candidate with (R) after their name would win.
Relying on the Post is inherently unreliable. Still, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm not so sure that Allman or Yates couldn't have made it a decent race. Federer--well that is a different story. Have you seen the 2nd District's Dem candidate? He's hysterical. A bit loony, but hysterical. Federer isn't even that funny for comic relief. ;)
I address the County Council race over at BSL.
Allmen might have been able to get traction based on name recognition, but the way they've apportioned the districts I don't think a Republican can win in the third or a Democrat can win in the second.
I can see that a significant section of Democrats are hopping mad at Bush -- care to psycho-analyze the reasons why?
I think the definition of marriage should say that it's between ONE man and ONE woman. If you read the Old Testament that polygamy stuff never did work out very well.
My brother Michael in Utah reports that a similar bill came before the Utah state legislature, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The lone Democrat in the assembly proposed to modify the bill to read that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. There were a lot of flustered Republicans, and I think the bill died in committee after that.
Heh.