As you may have noticed, Missouri’s 8th district is about to have a special election. Jo Ann Emerson is following up being elected to her 9th term by resigning early and taking a new job. The date of her resignation is up in the air (turns out resigning in February might postpone a special election for way too long) and thus the date of the special election is up in the air, with the hope that the election will be held in April.

So with an impending election, the candidates are popping up. Wendall Bailey emerged from wherever he’s been to run for office on a “I will not seek re-election and allow for a hilarious primary” platform. Speaking of hilarious primaries, Sarah Steelman is also running!.

But there’s one man who stands above the rest. A man not afraid to tweet his mind (at least until he got some people to tell him to stop retweeting embarrassing things). That man is Missouri’s Lt. Governor, Peter Kinder and he is running reports Eli Yokley.

Peter Kinder held a few jobs before beginning his career in elective office in 1993. He was a campaign manager for Bill Emerson. He even worked in Washington DC. But years after coming home from DC, Peter Kinder was an editorial writer for the Southeast Missourian.

For the younger readers who may not remember newspapers or editorial pages. It’s where people would kind of blog. Only without links and within a set amount of space. Some of them even had editors too.

Since the search powers of Google’s newspaper archive are a bit limited (Sadly, Google has deemphasized their newspaper archive in recent years). I feel it would be informative to bring you a look into the Peter Kinder Southeast Missourian files.

It was 1988. Rust Communications had just bought the Southeast Missourian two years earlier* and the Southeast Missourian editorial page was diverse. The editorial page displayed a split between conservative and really conservative. A place where you could peacefully read Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, or George Will while grousing over the changes in the times.

(* – Rust Communications now owns 15 newspapers in the 8th Congressional District, with newspapers in Advance/Bloomfield, Cape Girardeau, Caruthersville, Chaffee, Dexter, Doniphan, Kennett, Malden/Campbell, Marble Hill, Poplar Bluff, Portageville, Puxico, Sikeston, Steele, and Thayer)

On right wing editorial pages, 1988 was a year with an extraordinary interest in Jesse Jackson, fading into the fall as they focused on Michael Dukakis’ ACLU army of darkness matching over the countryside. The Peter Kinder column covered those general topics. But he also hit on his notes of importance. Such as editorializing against 8th district Congressional candidate Wayne Cryts (a habit he kept alive for several years after the final Cryts campaign in 1988).

Referring to Cryts’ support by Congressman Lane Evans of Illinois, Kinder declared Evans to be “easily one of the two-dozen most ultra liberal members of Congress”, “as close as you can get in American politics to being an out-and-out socialist without declaring himself as such” and “a male version of Harriett Woods”.

After thwarting Michael Dukakis’ and Lane Evans’ plans to implement the socialist state, Peter the editorializer got to spread his wings and display all the right-wing bombast you could fit into an assigned portion of the Southeast Missourian from Sunday to Friday (never on Saturdays, the Southeast Missourian takes their Saturdays off). It was a time for Peter Kinder to go at all foes in his vicinity. Sure, he would devote a random paragraph to local events from time to time, but in the Kinder column, it was no holds barred.

So now, the very quotable Editorial Kinder (all emphasis’ added):

On Feminists (and anybody he’d categorize as such):

“All the dreadful gasbags who lead the militant Feminist movement were in DC on Sunday, leading 300,000 marchers down Constitution Avenue to try and frighten and intimidate the United States Supreme Court. There was Betty Friedan and Eleanor Smeal; the twin Glorias, Steinem and Allred; Phil Donahue and Jane Fonda, countless other movie stars, and of course the ever-truculent and depressingly masculine Molly (“I am outraged!) Yard, the current president of the National Organization for Women (NOW)”

On the rise in Gender-discrimination based abortions:

“There is growing evidence across the country that couples are increasingly choosing abortion when the gender of the fetus is determined to be female. That’s right: couples are choosing to abort entirely healthy girl babies in order to try again to conceive a male baby”

“Feminists bring a sad hardness to our lives“ (actual column title!)

“The billboard advertises a florist’s business and features a very fine looking pair of women’s legs covered at the top by a mini-skirt. The caption on the board next to the Town and Country Florist’s logo says, “We Have the Best Stems in Town!”

Such a delightfully effective manner of communicating is an unspeakable outrage for some people. It simply cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Sure enough, the Feminist Thought Police have strapped on their jackboots; that tramp-tramp-tramp you hear is their battalions marching in to express their fury. To the barricades!”

“The bad news is that they’re bringing into St. Louis this weekend the perfectly dreadful Molly Yard, national president of NOW. (Ms. Yard has of course distinguished herself as one of the leading Harpies of our time)”

“The Goddess of Militant Feminist Equality is a harridan, a sterile creature. She is an ugly, shrill and jealous deity, before which the spirit of our age commands us to bow down. She is as crabbed, as dreadfully serious and as narrow as the leveling spirit that animates her desire to control literally every institution in our society. Even ones that do no harm and which don’t need changing.”

“George Patton, meet Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. Stonewall Jackson, meet Bella Abzug. George Marshall, meet Molly Yard and her storm troopers at the National Organization for Women. It’s enough to drive a man to drink“

On Joe Biden, activities of:

Actual column title: Plantation beckons: Who is next for Joe Biden to lynch?

“The Liberal Plantation is headquartered in the Big House up on Capitol Hill. From there the plantation masters – Senators such as Massa Kennedy, Massa Biden and Massa Metzenbaum – control their subjects”

“The slavery that existed under force of law during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries was America’s shame, to be sure. Its legacy still hurts, and hurts badly. Still, that tragic legacy could hardly be more degrading than the state of dependency foisted on Black America during this country through the Liberal Plantation, by their Massas in the Big House up on the Hill”

“For Massas Biden, Kennedy, and Metzenbaum, [Clarence] Thomas is sufficiently uppity that he cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Because, you see, he could rip away the veil that hides the Plantation, the Massas, and all their overseers, thereby exposing their massive fraud for the scam that it is”

On visions of Clarence Thomas’ Judiciary Committee hearings (a year before his nomination):

“It would be sweet to see Senators Biden, Kennedy and Metzenbaum squirm as a self-confident black man turned the tables on their pious bombast, riveting the nation with an explanation of these senators’ betrayal of true civil rights.”

On the campaign to stop Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork:

“The Goebbels-like attack by liberals against Bork featured intentional distortions, shrill personal attacks, blatant intellectual dishonesty, witness intimidation, demagoguery, and lies”

On Judges, activities to engage them in:

After describing two amendments he supported to limit the powers of judges: “I say it’s time for a little public horsewhipping of a few judges. Mr. Justice Brennan for example.“

On Methodists:

“I was raised in the Methodist church. Lengthy, hand-wringing thought-pieces in its church publications about massive membership decline have long been commonplace. But the next time somebody wants to convene a conference to discuss these massive losses (now approaching their fourth straight decade) of mainline Protestant denominations, I would send them instead to the encyclopedia. Look under “Protestant Churches, Mainline Denominations”, sub-heading, “Continuing Membership losses… Cause(s):… Smug Political, Social, and Economic Sermonizing Dressed Up As Christianity… (Liberals preferred, moderates tolerated, conservatives need never apply).“”

On Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day and related issues:

“No doubt there are more of your tax dollars at work here, folks. But after all, what are hardworking taxpayers for? What, indeed, if not: to have our money confiscated; our society trashed; our moral and ethical values trampled; our religions blasphemed; our sensible outrage sneered at; our families threatened and yes, our children and other innocents among us placed at deadly risk? And all it accompanied and enabled by compulsory, tax-paid subsidies, complete with cries of Nazi! and censorship! for anybody with the temerity to express disgust.”

On the Spread of AIDS (column on page 14 of page, displayed sideways):

“The euology [evology? ecology? – RBH] of this horrible affliction is one that continues to confound medical researchers the world over. But there can be no doubt that it was spread here by fantastically, almost unimaginably promiscuous male homosexuals”

On activities which take no skin off of Peter Kinder’s nose (same source):

“I repeat, no argument is advanced here for gay-bashing, My own attitude can be summarized:

If two guys and a chicken want to rent a room somewhere and have a go at each other, it’s no skin off my nose, and I suppose it’s none of the government’s business, as long as they’re consenting adults. (Recruitment and pedophilia are other, highly troubling issues). Whether in doing so our two guys display sufficient sensitivity to the rights of the chicken is another matter indeed. This must surely be the subject of the next Awareness Day, supervised by the Animal Rights people, Poultry Division. I’m sure there are student funds available.”

Reading the Southeast Missourian columns of Peter Kinder make the Tweets seem drab and predictable by comparison. But the years 1988 through 1991 were one heck of a time to be alive, especially on the editorial pages. Don’t let the militant feminists in Peter Kinder’s nightmares tell you any differently. It was a time to go after the boogeyman of the day, or in the case of writers like Kinder, a time to gradually get more and more disappointed with the first President Bush after his 1990 tax hike.

But Peter Kinder’s public life escaped the editorial pages when State Senator John Dennis chose not to seek re-election in 1992, Peter Kinder moved to run for the State Senate. He defeated former First Lady/former State Representative Betty Hearnes by a 55-45 margin, and the rest was history.

Now he’s eying a way to Washington DC. So let’s reflect on his thoughts on Washington DC from a simpler time (column titled: “D.C. A parasite that threatens your health“):

“Make no mistake, Washington is a lovely city, especially in the spring. It is one of the world’s most beautiful cities, full of interesting educational opportunities and stimulating adventures.

For me, however, it will always be Alien Territory”

Well, we’ll see which Republican gets a chance to invade that Alien Territory in a few months, won’t we?

Spending eight million dollars on your primary election doesn’t always work. Via the Missouri Secretary of State:

U. S. Senator (3,400 of 3,428 Precincts Reported)

Claire McCaskill DEM 286,721

Todd Akin REP 214,360

Jerry Beck REP 9,730

Sarah Steelman REP 175,087

John G. Brunner REP 179,001

Mark Memoly REP 3,182

Mark Patrick Lodes REP 2,273

Robert (Bob) Poole REP 6,073

Hector Maldonado REP 7,382

Jonathan Dine LIB 2,448

Total Votes 886,257

[emphasis added]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) gets to run against the most awesome right wingnut opponent in the general election:

GOP rep questions Medicare constitutionality, global warming

By Justin Sink – 09/06/11 10:39 AM ET

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said Saturday that he believes Medicare might be unconstitutional, and that climate change science is “highly suspect….”

For GOP U.S. Senate candidates, Ryan budget doesn’t go far enough

By Jo Mannies, Beacon political reporter

3:18 pm on Fri, 03.30.12

….Akin was the most blunt: “Back off of the ‘red tape,’ back off of the taxes, stop the regulation of the banks.”

“We’ve created a toxic atmosphere for business,” the congressman continued, adding that it stemmed in part because the federal government  has “promised too much stuff.”

He singled out Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP (the health care plan for children) and food stamps, saying all consume way too much in federal resources.

“We’re overtaxing the people who work and overpaying the people who don’t work,” Akin said….

Evita Mooselini couldn’t help Sarah Steelman (r) – so, can we stop reading old media accounts about the former half term governor’s primary endorsement winning streak? Just asking.

Talking Points Memo is out with the startling revelation that there’s not much space between the three Missouri GOP primary senatorial candidates, Rep. Todd Akin, Businessman John Brunner, and Sarah Steelman. What differences there are tend to be expressed in how the candidates present themselves. TPM‘s Eric Kleefield lays out their distinguishing traits as follows:

– – Akin has a suburban St. Louis base and is maybe a little farther out on the shaky edge of the right wing than the others. And he’s very, very, religious in a scary, right-wing Christian way.

— Steelman plays to the rural Central and Southwestern part of the state, which probably accounts for her cowgirl act – what TPM calls a propensity to “make trouble a la Sarah Palin,” whose endorsement Steelman has tried to exploit twenty ways to Sunday.

— Brunner is very rich and very inexperienced politically and thinks that’s why he should be elected.

Sounds about right to me – we’ll know by this evening which of these minor cosmetic variations in the generic Tea Party Missouri politician prevails.  

Today’s polling info re the battle for Claire McCaskill’s Senate seat (via The Daily Kos):

MO-SEN (Rasmussen):

John Brunner (R) 49, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) 43;

Sarah Steelman (R) 49, McCaskill 43;

Todd Akin (R) 47, McCaskill 44

MO-SEN-R (Internal poll, as reported by Dave Catanese): John Brunner 29, Todd Akin 27, Sarah Steelman 25

What to make of the Senate poll? McCaskill’s working her way up – maybe folks are beginning to learn just that crucial bit more about her opponents as the campaigns heat up? If greater knowledge of the candidates is the reason for McCaskill’s improved figures, it looks like there are some people at least who don’t like what they’re learning. I assume it’s this type of consideration that prompts John Brunner to say as little about policy issues as he can – aside from the obligatory GOP boilerplate. Unfortunately, in a three-way primary, nobody else is going to observe the “quiet” rule when it comes to Brunner; it’s fair to expect that he’ll get his sooner or later.

When it comes to the question of the GOP primary candidates, is it too early yet to assess whether or not Palin has done anything, good or bad for Steelman? And do I remember incorrectly, or is Todd Akin inching up? Maybe McCaskill has done him some good after all.  

GOP senatorial primary contender John Brunner’s got a foolproof strategy: go on the attack with all the dirt you can shovel about your opponents, but when it comes to substance, keep your mouth tightly shut unless forced to do otherwise.  

Not only does Brunner run attack ads (doesn’t everybody?), he’s also put up special Websites for those who need time to parse the mud he slings at this opponents. Check out Akinfacts.com and Steelmanfacts.com. Pretty slick production values conveying a harsh message (is the “paid for by Brunner for Senate” note at the bottom of the page really almost impossible to read, or is it just my computer?).

Today, however, when Akin and Steelman will engage in debate (11:30 a.m. on “Up to Date,” 89.3 FM, KCUR), Brunner will be a no show.  

A campaign ad appearance by Sarah Palin (r) for Sarah Steelman (r):

Sarah Palin: Hi, I’m Governor Sarah Palin. We get America back on track by sending true conservatives like Sarah Steelman to Washington. Sarah is an economist who defends our tax dollars like a momma grizzly defends her cubs. Sarah Steelman earned her reputation as a conservative maverick, blocking pork barrel spending. And Sarah will fight for a constitutional amendment that forces Congress to balance the budget.

Sarah Steelman: I’m Sarah Steelman and I approved this message because the staus quo has got to go.

….Hi, I’m former half term Governor Sarah Palin….

…Sarah can’t name an economist who actually understands economics…

…Sarah Steelman really earned her reputation on government transparency…

There, fixed it.

A recent poll shows Senator Claire McCskill trailing all three of her potential GOP challengers in spite of the fact that it would be charitable to characterize these particular GOPers as leftover dog’s breakfast. And this is occurring even though McCaskill has carefully avoided identification with the progressive viewpoint and honed her “moderate” credentials, usually thought to be just the ticket for purple state Democrats.

McCaskill has tried hard to present herself as a pragmatist who takes a reasonable, open-minded approach, calibrating just which right-wing memes she needs to validate in order to buy a little credibility with out-state voters and which progressive principles are too precious to abandon. Take the recent senate vote on extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class but not for the wealthy if you want an example of how McCasill balances one step on the left with a second step to the right:

Illustrating the potential high-voltage political impact of the vote, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who is in a tight re-election race, announced she had introduced a bill preventing the estate tax from rising next year, and Tester co-sponsored it. She issued a news release to that effect just minutes after voting for the Democratic bill, which would let estate taxes go much higher in 2013.

If the polls are to be believed, this strategy has done little for McCaskill apart from almost alienating progressives. I say almost because most progressives know how to balance reality with their druthers and can live with ambiguity in the person of politicians teetering on the centrist tightrope, at least when the other choices are wallowing in rightwing mud.

Conventional wisdom is that McCaskill is trying hard to please those amorphous creatures we usually term “independent” voters. There’s some doubt that this designation actually pertains to a real entity, but McCaskill seems to be convinced that there are a few – or, at least, some erstwhile Republicans who are alienated by the circus freak show that now dominates the Republican party. The hope seems to have been that this group, if sufficiently cosseted, would provide her just enough votes in outstate areas that, combined with the Kansas City and St. Louis metro areas where she’s gold, it would enable her to prevail. It’s worked before, but I’m wondering if conditions haven’t changed since the election of America’s first black president.

There’s either not enough of these “independents,” or they are, as many have claimed, low information types who’re easily stampeded by negative sloganeering – of which we’ve had a steady barage since the election of Obama. Nasty, dishonest attacks of the same type used to slime the president and all of his initiatives have been lobbed at McCaskill as well, and it’s likely that the rate of fire will accelerate even more as we approach election day. After all, corporate interests with a lot to gain from a a GOP win also seem to have nearly bottomless pockets.

Lot’s of progressives sought to remind McCaskill that few among the GOP-leaning types were going to vote for a Democrat when they could get the real thing in the GOP shop. Nor does it seem that “moderate” is going buy McCaskill anything in an environment where the crazies are taking over, emotions are running high, lies are daily currency, facts – such as her “moderate” voting record – are easily overlooked, and where reasonable is just too … reasonable.

One can only hope that McCaskill will still pull it out, and that the endgame will justify her strategic gamble. After the primary, when she knows which variety of dufus she’ll be facing, she can direct a steady light on his or her particular strain of know-nothing Republicanism and maybe peel off a few real, erstwhile GOP moderates. Meanwhile, it’s hard to resist saying I told you so even though we know how much is at stake.

Take a look at the three ads that Claire McCaskill recently mounted against, respectively, the three GOPers locked in a primary contest to be her challenger this fall. (Michael Bersin has posted all three ads here.) Now consider Politico’s claim that the ads reveal that McCaskill would prefer to face Rep. Todd Akin (R-2) next fall. In regard to the Akin ad Politico‘s David Catenese writes:

While the McCaskill campaign is framing the spot as part of an aggressive effort to go on offense against Akin and his two GOP rivals ahead of their Aug. 7 primary, the precise language invoked is simultaneously meant to send a signal to Republican primary voters.

A narrator carefully uses a string of descriptions designed to appeal to conservatives before landing blows meant to undercut his appeal with the general electorate.

According to Catenese, the suite of ads build up Akin’s conservative credentials while savaging attacking his rivals, John Brunner and Sarah Steelman, in a way that will render them less appealing to the wingers in Missouri.*

While the entire GOP field is notably lame, Akin’s been a do-lilttle-to-nothing congressman, notable mostly for his evangelical fanaticism and extreme right-wing ideology. The few times he’s actually gotten national attention, it’s usually because he’s done something that suggests he wouldn’t be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. In a state-wide race, he might indeed be easy pickings.

*Sentence edited slightly.

I don’t know the motivation or situation of the Batman movie shooter, James Holmes, but I do know that schizophrenia most often manifests itself in late adolescence or early twenties. I know that what Holmes did is not incompatible with schizophrenic delusions such as those that led Jared Loughner to shoot Gabby Giffords. I also know that no matter what impelled his behavior, he had no difficulty arming himself with lethal assault weapons that serve no other purpose than rapid-fire killing. So much for a summary of all that I need to know abut this latest mass shooting.

Reactions from our political leaders have been all over the board, ranging from tight-lipped silence to absurd efforts to make ideological hay where no hay has been planted. (I am alluding, of course, to statements like those of the imbecilic Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) who was among the first to strap on his ideological waders when he attributed the Aurora tragedy to the  lack of institutionalized Christian prayer in schools.)

To date, Missouri pols are no exception. Many, of course, have not yet said anything – and some may never address the event; it will be interesting to see who wants to sweep it under the rug. Those who have acknowledged the shooting, however, seem to fall into one of three categories.

First are those who have been careful to avoid the appearance of politicizing the event. On Facebook and via Twitter pols such as Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4), Rep. Lacy Clay (D-1), Senators Roy Blunt and  Claire McCaskill, and Senatorial candidates John Brunner and Sarah Steelman have simply expressed sympathy and concern about the families of the victims. While this response is entirely appropriate, it is also convenient for embattled Democrats like McCaskill who has good reason to avoid riling up 2nd amendment fanatics unnecessarily. It is equally convenient for her opposite ideological numbers, such as Sarah Steelman who’s made a big deal about her NRA loving proclivities and her support for such extreme measures as conceal-and-carry legislation.

It will be interesting to see if any of these folks feel compelled to address the issue of gun control policy in the coming days. There will certainly be pressure to take up the defense or go on the offensive since some of their more avid supporters are not waiting. Witness this comment on Steelman’s facebook page:

… The so called “GOOD People” of Aurora allowed this to happen by allowing a theater to BAN guns. Now who is going to abide? Only the murderer will decide who dies. No sympathy here. You reap what you sow. Deal with it.

Steelman and others on the right should quickly distance themselves from this type of callous and ugly drivel if they feel the need to cultivate any credibility beyond Tea Party confines. It ought to be easy to do since this rhetoric is basically nothing more than stupid, macho swagger with no basis in fact – as Dave Weigel demonstrated in his takedown of the this meme in regard to the Aurora shootings.

The second type of response is exemplified by Rep. Billy Long (R-7) who has chosen to take the creative route à la Lois Gohmert. He has attempted to place himself on the moral high road while avoiding the issue of guns and managing to get in a swipe at the mainstream media – all at the same time. He wants “media” to “show some leadership” and stop showing photos of James Holmes; the news media should, according to Long, reserve their attention for the victims. He apparently thinks that the news coverage should be restricted to sensational exploitation of the dead, wounded and grieving, rather than probing the whys and hows of the tragedy. The latter, of course, might lead to uncomfortable questions about such things as legislation to ban assault guns which Billy, a long time NRA cheerleader, is on the record as opposing

Third and last, only one Missouri politician – at least as far as I am aware – has had the moral wherewithal to confront the elephant in the room, the outsize influence of the National Rifle Association. State Rep. Stacy Newman (D-73) has had the guts to call it the way lots of us see it:

As a Million Mom Marcher who has worked since 2000 to prevent needless gun violence, I am outraged that the gun lobby has continued to negatively influence our legislature.  Instead of passing sensible gun laws, the NRA has taken our legislature hostage with the passage of less restrictive and less prohibitive firearm laws. The gun lobby has consistently turned their backs on efforts to pass common sense legislation which could save lives.  Their motive is simple – increase gun manufacturers profits.  Tragedies like the Colorado theatre shooting should not happen in civilized society. They happen because legislatures let the N.R.A. write our gun laws.

This type of leadership isn’t just courageous, it’s essential. You want to know what Newman’s up against, read Randy Turner’s indictment of NRA influence in Missouri. You want to know what we’re all up against, just consider that last Saturday night, the police escorted a man out of an Ozark theater after he entered with a gun strapped on his hip. He did nothing illegal, though, according to the local Sheriff, since he was “just exercising his right to carry a firearm.”

I wonder how many other wannabe cowboys are going to use the Aurora incident as an excuse for showing off their guns. And how long it’ll be until an innocent bystander gets caught in some stupid shoot-out. It may be true that guns don’t kill people, people do, but it’s also true that people use guns to kill people, often lots of people, quickly and easily, no fuss, no bother, sometimes without even meaning to do so.

UPDATE:  Steve Benen also considers the conservative refrain that an armed populace can best defend against crazy shooters – specifically noting how, during the shooting of Gabby Gifford, an armed responder came close to mistakenly shooting an innocent person. A greater disaster was only averted because he had the sense not to use his gun. Benen also points us to reporter Laura Conaway’s efforts to verify stories about “armed heroes” who save the day – most of which she concludes don’t stand up to close examination.

If, on the other hand, you’re interested in a case where possession of a firearm made a situation worse, you need only look to the recent road-rage shooting incident in Missouri.