We’ve received very slick and expensive right wingnut campaign mail pieces from republican U.S. Senate primary candidate John Brunner (r), all in anticipation of the August primary:

Oh, we get it – Todd Akin (r) is like President Obama (D) and Sarah Steelman (r) is like Senator Claire McCaskill (D). Really?

Interesting. Not [O]ne mention of John Brunner’s party affiliation [Oops, there was one there on the mail piece on the right, it just wasn’t very noticeable – the piece on the left has no mention of party affiliation]. That’s one thing you can expect from individuals with a bit business experience – they know a damaged brand when they see it and avoid it like the plague.

Previously: Signs: Party, what party? (July 14, 2012)  

Richard Posner, a conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagon, has decided that he’s less conservative “since the Republican party started becoming goofy.” After watching the primary debate this evening between the GOP contenders for Claire McCaskill’s senate seat, Rep. Todd Akin, Sarah Steelman, and John Brunner, I understand what he was getting at.

You want to know what the candidates had to say? I can boil it down for you to about three basic proposals that were essentially offered in response to all questions almost as articles of faith: Cut federal spending, stop with all the federal rules and regulations, cut taxes. This simple prescription will fix the economy, create scads of jobs, and save the middle class according to this trio. Of course, it’s also the formula – at least the lack of adequate financial regulation – that blew the economy to smithereens in the first place, but then I think we’re actually talking religion here, not economics.

Speaking of religion, they also all hate Obamacare. Akin really, really hates it (and he knows about using reconciliation to kill it). Brunner calls it ObamaClaire (get it?), because there’s nothing like a catchy slogan. Steelman’s pretty sure that Chief Justice Roberts was just interested in protecting politicians rather than upholding the Constitution when he upheld Obamacare – because we all know that Tea Party hacks have mystical constitutional knowledge not granted to highly-trained legal scholars.

As for what they’d put in place of the ACA, it all sounded a lot like the weak pablum John McCain promised to dish up if he were elected: tort reform, purchasing insurance from out-of-state insurers (in order to undermine consumer protections in states with a well-regulated insurance market, no doubt), all the old GOP standbys.  

Portable insurance policies that folks could take from job to job generated lots of enthusiasm from Steelman and Akin. No mention of who would supply those portable policies, whether folks would be expected to pony up out of their own pockets when they are no longer employed, and whether or not there’d be subsidies for low-income folks who are unemployed or whose employment doesn’t offer insurance. Todd Akin, for one, was sure that this prescription would take care of the uninsured, which is notable because a year or so ago, if I remember correctly, he seemed to think the uninsured poor should beg charities for care. If I were one of the 900,000 uninsured Missourians, I’d be very worried about now.

Who won? Who knows? Who cares? If this evening’s performance is any evidence, the three are basically interchangeable when it comes to substance. A few other takeaways:

–They’re all willing to compromise and work with Democrats as long as Democrats are willing to do just what Republicans want (Akin called it starting from the right principles).

–Todd Akin thinks that Obama is leading us from a recession into depression. And to think – most of the rest of us, including all those economists, are pretty sure we’ve been in a slow recovery for the past three years. Actually, some of us are pretty sure that it’s been the efforts of folks like Akin who are responsible for the slowing of the recovery.

–Akin doesn’t trust Romney’s “conservative” credentials. When asked if he supported the presumptive GOP candidate, Akin responded that he would have to wait to evaluate Romney’s actual performance as president. Goes to show that waffling, etch-a-sketching, and evading specifics doesn’t work with the wingers any more than it does with progressives.

–Brunner proves that practice pays off. He managed to spout a simple message – variations on the citizen politician vs. career politician theme – in a reasonably polished fashion.

–Does Sarah Steelman always seem so terrified when when she speaks in public? Or just when she’s on TV? She should get some pointers from John Brunner’s handlers.

–Finally, I can’t wait to see Claire McCaskill debate whichever of these dufuses wins the primary. As you might guess from the comments above, they all need some serious schooling and one thing about Claire – she can give it to them.

Over at the Turner Report you can read press releases (here and here) from Sarah Steelman and John Brunner, claiming the laurels from the last GOP senatorial primary debate. Todd Akin, at least as far as I can determine, seems to think that squabbling about who won after the fact is beneath his dignity. Given the arguments his rivals put forward, he may be right.

It’s hard to know what Akin could add since the debate showed him and his two rivals singing in more or less perfect harmony from the same hymnal – the one favored by today’s more extreme GOP. The debate established that they all want to, what else, eliminate Obamacare, and insure that if the Bush tax cuts are extended, they are extended for millionaires too. None of them made any bones abut their preference to privatize Social Security (along with cutting some benefits). The Democratic incumbent, Claire McCaskill, reminds us in her post- GOP debate press release that their willingness to sacrifice seniors doesn’t stop with Social Security:

Akin, Steelman, and Brunner’s insistence on privatizing Social Security tonight follows earlier debates in which all three emphatically endorsed dismantling Medicare and turning it, instead, into a private voucher program.

So no big differences where it counts. Which gets us back to the GOP candidates’ press releases noted above and raises the question about what could distinguish one from the others as a winner in the debate – or in the election itself, come to that.  

Steelman wants to set herself apart from the group by claiming that she alone has “a plan.” Her release proclaims that “she was the only candidate who provided specifics and plans of action.”

If you’re inclined to believe this, check out her Website where she lists her “Show-Me Solutions for the First 60 Days.” You won’t find much that’s new – “fight” for a balanced budget amendment, get rid of the President’s “czars” (i.e.,  administrative personal essential to run the executive branch), implement an optional flat tax, put a congressional bit and briddle on the Fed, term limits, yada, yada, yada.  As clever as Steelman obviously thinks she is, we’ve heard all these ideas ad nauseum since they comprise what amounts to Fox-inspired, GOP orthodoxy these days – Todd Akin in particular likes to drone on about the putative “czars” – and they are all still very bad ideas. Nor did I notice any specifics about how she plans to achieve these goals – apart from the rather spectacular implication that Sarah will get all this destruction done in the first 60 days after she takes office. Delusions of grandeur much?

John Brunner, on the other hand, thinks that the way to distinguish himself is to point out that he has no experience doing the job he wants to take on. He somehow thinks that it doesn’t matter that most of his policy prescription are identical to those of his rivals since he isn’t, like them, a “career politician.” There is a certain class of American, I suppose, who thinks that all politics – or at least politics in Washington D.C. – are so evil that we have to continually sacrifice political virgins to the process in order to get a few months of uncorrupted leadership, but experiments with this philosophy usually only prove that folks who vote according to this belief deserve the inept politicians they send to Washington to represent them.

For his part, although he has little to say about the debate as such, Todd Akin is trying to stand out as the most popular kid in class. He is touting the results of the recent PPP poll that showed him one point ahead of Claire McCaskill. Well and good, except that he he completely ignores the Rasmussen poll that shows Steel leading McCaskill by a much larger margin. Note that I’m not saying that I endorse the findings of the notoriously inaccurate Rasmussen polls, particularly as regards Claire McCaskill – just that it’s premature to crown oneself a front runner based on one poll out of several, especially this early in the game.  

Along U.S. Highway 50 in west central Missouri, a 4 x 8 sign, printed on both sides:

Ah, image bleed through in bright sunlight – the bane of cheap campaigns.

What, no party affiliation? The brand must not be doing very well.

Previously: Signs, signs, everywhere signs… (2012) (June 6, 2012)

Today, via Twitter:

Claire McCaskill ‏@clairecmc

While I disagree with @sarah_steelman on many things, @BrunnerForMo should be ashamed of the ridiculous lies in his ad against her. 1:39 PM – 7 Jun 12

Uh, Claire, think of it as a preview of coming attractions.

It’s way too early. In small town west central Missouri:

After spending a fortune on television ads apparently there was a little left over.

I’m absolutely certain Senator Claire McCaskill’s (D) campaign is now getting panicked phone calls asking, “where are your signs?”

Previously (2008):

Signs, signs, everywhere signs

Signs, signs, everywhere signs, part 2

Those damn signs: we need a better class of vandals

Previously: PPP: Claire McCaskill, not particularly liked (February 1, 2012)

But, then, neither are the republican candidates – when people even know who they are…

Public Policy Polling [pdf] conducted a surveyed of 602 Missouri voters between May 24th and 27th. The margin of error 4.0%:

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Claire McCaskill’s job performance?

Approve 40%

Disapprove 50%

Not sure 10%

Q2 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Todd Akin?

Favorable 21%

Unfavorable 21%

Not sure 57%

Q3 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of John Brunner?

Favorable 20%

Unfavorable 23%

Not sure 58%

Q4 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Sarah Steelman?

Favorable 30%

Unfavorable 26%

Not sure 45%

Karl Rove’s minions spent all that money and no one knows who their candidate is.

There’s an interesting crosstab:

McCaskill Approval

Approve 40%

Disapprove 50%

Not sure 10%

Democrat

Approve 74%

Disapprove 13%

Not sure 12%

Republican

Approve 9%

Disapprove 83%

Not sure 9%

Independent/Other

Approve 35%

Disapprove 57%

Not sure 7%

[emphasis added]

Interesting. One quarter of self described Democrats are not in the approval column.

Toss Up in Missouri

….There’s no more clarity for the general election than there is for the primary. Claire McCaskill is basically tied with all three of her competitors, leading Brunner 46-44, dead even with Steelman at 44, and down 45-44 to Akin. Little has changed since our last poll when all three match ups came down at 43-43….

So much for being in the center.

A video from American Bridge 21st Century PAC:

John Brunner (r): Every time the government gets involved and gets engaged, whether they’re picking winners or losers, they’re kicking the can down the road, they’re increasing the national debt, our spending is out of control. You just cannot throw stimulus packages out there.

Voice: Huh?

[Really Brunner? Let’s take a look at how much your company Vi-Jon took in government handouts]

[$317,023 2000 tax credit

$660,000 2010 tax credit

$5,500 2001 tax credit

$74,750 2011 grant

$65,000 2006 tax credit

$51,750 2010 grant

$46,000 2008 grant

$406,546 1991 tax credit

$40,250 2009 grant

$34,500 2006 grant]

[….]

John Brunner (r): Every time the government gets involved and gets engaged, whether they’re picking winners or losers, they’re kicking the can down the road, they’re increasing the national debt…

[Brunner’s company has received $1,934,976 in government funds]

[American Bridge 21st Century

americanbridgepac.org

@american_bridge]

Ah, a small government republican, for everyone else.

The Ryan Budget is a big gift to all of us, right and left, because it clearly shows us what the GOP stands for – nature red in tooth and claw where we struggle for survival of the fittest  – with a little extra help for our rich citizens who are probably considered to be the most fit because they can afford to pay Congress for the assistance.  This blatant embrace of the 1% is interesting because new research suggests that it does not really reflect the beliefs of the important if somewhat confused Tea Partiers who are popularly supposed to be playing an important role in the ever more rightward drift in the GOP itinerary.

Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, who have exhaustively researched the Tea Party phenomenon, have concluded that even those strident advocates for “liberty” from taxes, don’t really oppose government spending – as long as the spending is lavished on people they perceive as being like themselves. As Steven Teles summarizes it in The Washington Monthly:

In short, the fundamental principle of Tea Party activists is that government is fine when it’s helping people like them-hardworking, uncomplaining, non-mooching, self-restraining, religious (but not Muslim!), patriotic Americans-but it’s a threat when it’s helping people who are not like them. Screaming about the debt is really just the language Tea Party activists use to express their fear that the reins of government have been taken away from the people who actually make the society work, and given to a coalition of weirdos and parasites.

Which brings us to the three Republicans vying to represent their party in the race contesting Claire McCaskill’s Senate Seat. Their reactions to the Ryan budget provide a type of Rorschach test not only for the individuals involved, but for the degree to which they are actually attuned to attitudes that animate their base:

Todd Akin, a.k.a. Mr. Predictable, makes no bones about the fact that he wants to push even the lame, halt and starving little birdies out of what he views as a nest unfairly feathered by the  government at great cost to the rich:

This is a concrete plan that will put our economy back on track. Now is not a time to sit on the fence or to wait to see where the polls and political winds blow, it is time for action and leadership

Since almost no economists believe that the Ryan spending plan will do anything other than increase the deficit, gut the safety net and enrich the rich, this has to be a case of hard-core ideological blindness, disguised with the now cliched GOP efforts to paint Ryan as a bold thinker – or even as a thinker. Clearly, Akin would love to see the last of such programs as Medicare – and he might find that this attitude won’t endear him to the very folks he’s relying on to support him.

Sarah Steelman, the anointed candidate of the Tea Party Express if not all generic Tea Partiers in Missouri, is more in tune with the Tea Party mentality that Skocpol describes, albeit in a cautious fashion:

I would like to move towards a fairer flatter tax, shrink the size of government and balance the budget sooner. I am also taking a closer look at the Medicare revisions to make sure that Congress isn’t treated better than our seniors and that seniors have the option of staying with the current Medicare plan.

In other words, Steelman wants to deflect attention from the issue of privatizing Medicare, and tries to placate her Tea Party followers by reassuring them that if they suffer, she’ll make sure that Congress suffers too. Congress  is usually a fail-safe stalking horse. Notice that Steelman says nothing about making sure that the wealthy pick up their fair share of the load that the Ryan Budget foists off on the poor and middle class.

And John Brunner? Mr. No-Show does it again:

The third GOP candidate, St. Louis businessman John Brunner, said that Ryan showed “courage and leadership,” but declined to offer his views on the Wisconsin lawmaker’s proposed budget.

Interesting that Bruner chooses to emphasize “courage and leadership” while carefully showing neither. It seems that what he dubs the  “message of the citizen-senator against the career politician,” when speaking about his campaign, seems to be no more than an empty piece of paper.

No word yet about what the newest candidate, anti-stem cell guy Mark Memoly, thinks about budget priorities. I suspect it’ll be entertaining.

So there you have it. The old-line, crank right winger, Tea Party confusion and obfuscation, a corporate GOPer who stands for almost nothing but getting elected, and a cipher. And they want us to entrust them to watch out for programs like Medicare and Social Security that have sustained and built the middle classes, programs that even important segments of their own base support.    

It must all depend on when when is.

American Bridge 21st Century PAC issued a new video about U.S. Senate candidate John Brunner (r):

John Brunner (r): I’ve been a leader my whole life as a manufacturer and a job creator.

[Job creator?]

[buzzer]

Television News Anchor: A St. Louis area business formerly run by U.S. Senate candidate John Brunner is laying off some employees.

[static]

Television News Anchor #2:….a Republican U.S. Senate candidate, John Brunner, is laying off some of its employees.

[static]

Television News Anchor:….human resources director confirms the company is laying off workers but isn’t saying how many.

[static]

John Brunner (r): I’ve been a leader my whole life.

[As a job cutter.]

[buzzer]

[static]

[American Bridge 21st Century

americanbridgepac.org

@american_bridge]

And a press release from the Missouri Democratic Party:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 20, 2012

[….]

Out of Touch: Brunner’s New Ad Ignores Vi-Jon Lay-Offs

Ad Shot on Vi-Jon’s Factory Floor, Brunner Took $400,000 Salary While Laying Off Dozens of Missouri Workers

Jefferson City, Mo.-Just days after revealing he doesn’t know the minimum wage, John Brunner further underscored how out of touch he is by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on another misleading ad today, shot on the same factory floor where Brunner recently laid off dozens of Missouri workers while taking nearly $400,000 in salary.

“Just when you thought John Brunner couldn’t be more out of touch, he opens his mouth and says something even more offensive. John Brunner filmed another misleading ad on the same factory floor where he just laid off dozens of workers while taking a $400,000 salary,” said Caitlin Legacki, Missouri Democratic Party spokeswoman. “A real ‘citizen Senator’ would understand this ad is an insult to the men and women recently laid-off at Vi-Jon, but I guess that goes to show John Brunner is just too out of touch. You really have to wonder how many jobs could have been saved at Vi-Jon with the $1.1 million John Brunner’s spent on misleading attack ads.”

On Friday, Brunner told KMOX radio host Charlie Brennan he doesn’t know the current minimum wage, but does think it’s too high. Brunner, worth more than $100 million, has spent at least $2 million of his own money on this campaign, including $1.1 million in attack ads….

Ouch.

Brunner’s Business Record Under Scrutiny

By Sean Sullivan

October 27, 2011 | 5:32 PM

Once your campaign website dubs you “John the Job Creator,” the optics of your own company announcing a round of layoffs are not good….

….Brunner’s spokesman told the paper that the layoffs reflect the poor business atmosphere caused by over-regulation and too many taxes.

“….Brunner’s spokesman told the paper that the layoffs reflect the poor business atmosphere caused by over-regulation and too many taxes.”

Hmm. In a low tax state, no less. Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding a negative tax.

Ouch.

Previously: At a bare minimum…or not (March 16, 2012)