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.

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.

Via Twitter:

Sarah Steelman ‏@sarah_steelman

Patriot Field of Dreams Tea Party Rally for Common Sense was inspirational!Lots of people w/ heartfelt concern for our country. #mosen#tcot 5:07 PM – 19 May 12

The Mellman Group conducted a survey [pdf] of 600 likely voters in Missouri on the 2012 U.S. Senate race for Majority PAC from May 8-10, 2012. The margin of error is 4.0%. The poll memo was released yesterday:

McCaskill Continues To Lead The Missouri Senate Race Against All Comers

[….]

Despite being subjected to over $5 million dollars in negative attack ads from her Republican opponents, third party groups and Super PACs, our recent survey shows Senator Claire McCaskill leading all three of her potential Republican opponents in her bid for reelection. Indeed, her margin over the two opponents we examined in our last poll has actually increased since March 9th. Methodological failings render the results of other recent polls misleading.

[….]

Senator McCaskill has weathered a barrage of negative attacks and maintains a clear lead against all three of her potential GOP

opponents. McCaskill leads Sarah Steelman by 9 points (45%-36%) John Brunner by 8 points (46%-38%), and Todd Akin by 5 points (44%-39%) with 19%, 16% and 17% undecided, respectively.

Indeed, strong support for McCaskill nearly outpaces total support for her Republican rivals, with 36% supporting her strongly against Steelman, 35% supporting her strongly against Brunner, and 36% supporting her strongly against Akin. By contrast, barely a fifth of voters support Steelman (18%), Brunner (20%), or Akin (19%) strongly.

[….]

The poll memo includes a criticism of a sampling technique utilized in Missouri by other pollsters.

The conclusion:

…In short, thanks to her overall lead, more intense support, and edge among independents and moderates, Senator McCaskill is poised to mount a winning reelection bid regardless of her eventual opponent.

Previously:

The state of the U.S. Senate race (May 8, 2012)

There’s a difference between rhetoric and insanity (May 9, 2012)

The video (May 9, 2012)

The republican cult of victimhood.

Sarah Steelman (r), a republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, defended the teabagger “kill the Claire bear” comment in a telephone interview on KZRG radio in Joplin today:

Radio interviewer (KZRG): …I know that, uh, ver, a lot of people are very passionate about getting Claire McCaskill out of office. They feel like that she is just the bane Missouri’s existence, one, ’cause she doesn’t listen, and two, she has a dramatically different plan than most Missourians agree with, very much lining up with President Obama most of the time. I know that there’s been a lot of strong opposition to her, that was very much voiced in a tea party rally in Springfield. Scott Boston making the statement, um, he wa, he, he was talking about Claire McCaskill, how she needs to go, then he says, we need to kill the Claire bea, Claire bear in reference to her. What do you make of that statement and, and, you know, what’s your stance on people using that type of rhetoric.      

Sarah Steelman (r): Well, look [inaudible], here, here’s the deal. When I was at this rally he was using that, those, those words as a metaphor. He was talking about those little cuddly care bears that, uh, were popular some time ago with the rainbows on their stomach.  

Radio interviewer (KZRG): Right.

Sarah Steelman (r): [inaudible] And he did not, there was nothing violent about what he said, he did not personally threat, threaten her, no one perceived it as a threat. There was no anger. [laugh] He was, he was using that as metaphor and, you know, he, the, here’s what happened. The, the Democratic trackers, you know, the people who follow me around with their video cameras [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] were there. They took, the videotaped the whole rally. You know, couple days later they take it back, they find this [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] little, little thing and they, they, you know, what he said. And what do they do? They, apparently took it to the Post Dispatch [laugh] first, because the Post Dispatch called him and asked him about it. That was right before the FBI knocked on his door. I mean, this was just kind of a, a, a bad joke, uh, metaphor that he used regarding care bears, there was nothing violent about it.    

Radio interviewer (KZRG): Right. I guess, I just, I just have [crosstalk] one…

Sarah Steelman (r): In the delivery of what he said, there was nothing violent about it.

Radio interviewer (KZRG): I think perhaps there, there’s a better way to voice opposition than to u, than start using words like kill when you’re anywhere even near referencing a politician in, in any way. Would you agree [crosstalk] or disagree?

Sarah Steelman (r): Here, well, I, you know, I would have used a different choice of words, obviously. [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] I, I don’t talk like that, but, here, here’s the thing, I mean, are we just gonna abandon all common sense in this country and every time somebody says anything they’re gonna, the, the government is gonna come down and send out the F, FBI agents to knock on your door? [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] Are we gonna have thought and speech police? You need to take things in the context of which they were given and use some common sense in government today. This part of the problem in Washington, there is no, absolutely no common sense. And people jump on somebody like Scott Boston, an individual, and they can put the whole, uh, force of the federal government down on this guy and don’t look at the context in which he said it. [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm. Well, Sarah…”] And there was no, there was nothing violent in his, in the way he said it. And furthermore I would say that you didn’t see the rest of the tea party rally, did you? You didn’t see the mother who stood up there who, uh, lost her, her son, the first Navy sea, SEAL casualty in the war on Iraq. [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] You didn’t see her discussion. You didn’t see all the patriotic songs that were sung. [Radio interviewer (KZRG): “Um, hm.”] You know, this, this is what I have a problem with. Let’s use some common sense.

Radio interviewer (KZRG): Sarah, we’re out of….

There is a difference.

Apparently Senator Claire McCaskill (D) is cuddly and has a rainbow on her stomach. We’ll need to ask her about that the next time we see her.

“…there was nothing violent about what he said…”

It’s interesting that the operative word no longer has a violent connotation. When did that happen? Was there a memo? If so, we didn’t get it.

“…no one perceived it as a threat…” Seriously?

“…There was no anger…” At a teabagger rally? Seriously? They were singing Kumbaya?

“…They, apparently took it to the Post Dispatch [laugh] first, because the Post Dispatch called him and asked him about it. That was right before the FBI knocked on his door…” Think about that for a second. The newspaper got it first and called the guy, and immediately after that the FBI, traveling at near the speed of light, having heard about it second, knocked on his door. Sarah Steelman (r) is an idiot.

[from KZRG] “…I think perhaps there, there’s a better way to voice opposition…”

Sarah Steelman (r) is an idiot.

You see, that’s appropriate language for criticizing a politician. It has a long and distinguished tradition in America.

“…I mean, are we just gonna abandon all common sense in this country and every time somebody says anything…” Uh, it wasn’t just anything. Sarah Steelman (r) is an idiot.

“…You need to take things in the context of which they were given…” At a teabagger rally. Sarah Steelman (r) is an idiot.

We rest our case.

From the bustee:

….[Rush] Limbaugh said that not very long ago, marriage meant one man and one woman, “like two plus two equals four.” And then “some people came along” who weren’t happy with that, and now those like Limbaugh have to defend traditional institutions…..

From the campaign of a republican candidate for Attorney General:

“Ed Martin believes marriage should be between one man and one woman….”

Via Twitter, from a republican candidate for U.S. Senate:

Sarah Steelman ‏ @sarah_steelman

Obama supports same sex marriage.I don’t support.Sponsored bill for marriage define as 1 man and 1 woman. #mosen #tcot [….] 3:42 PM – 9 May 12

We must defend our sacred traditions at all costs. Oh, wait…

A headline from almost two years ago: Elton John Sings at Rush Limbaugh’s 4th Wedding

Previously:

The state of the U.S. Senate race (May 8, 2012)

There’s a difference between rhetoric and insanity (May 9, 2012)

At a campaign stop, Tea Party activist Scott Boston said “we have to kill the Claire Bear,” referring to U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill.

Meanwhile, Steelman and her son and Deputy Campaign Manager Sam Steelman, stood nearby. After hearing the remark, Sam Steelman applauded.

Scott Boston (teabagger): …I’m thrilled to be here today with Andy Kramer (sp) of the tea party express because they, they have found a candidate they like, the United States Senate, that’s Sarah Steelman.

They are touring all over the state in support of her candidacy. [inaudible] We have, we have to get Claire McCaskill out. We have, we have to kill the Claire bear, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] Who walks around being some sort of rainbow bright, uh, care bear or something, but really, she’s an evil monster…

How erudite.

By now you’ve probably read about the frothing Tea Partier whose inflamed tirade led Senator Claire McCaskill to ask for and receive extra security protection. In case you haven’t, though, it seems that one Scott Boston gave vent to some rather extreme emotions inspired by the mild, centrist Democrat:

We have to kill the Claire bear ladies and gentlemen,” Boston said, according to an audio tape of his remarks gathered by the Missouri Democratic Party and made available. “She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something, but really she’s an evil monster.”

Dispicable, sure, but nowadays not that unusual. Boston’s fulminations are, if anything, more notable for the inanity of the “Care Bear” comparison.

What’s even more disturbing, though, was the defense of Boston mounted by Sarah Steelman, who hopes to be the GOPer opposing McCaskill next fall. She tentatively disavowed his rhetoric, but endorsed his emotions, observing that she might “disagree with the words” but “I understand his frustration and I emphatically support his right to express his views.”

Steelman evidently thinks that rhetoric is all that is at issue, and that the implicit threat should be disregarded. She attempts to reduce the issue to media bias and claims the role of victim so beloved by conservatives:

Steelman mainly criticized the media. “When a conservative citizen makes a statement, the liberal press attacks it and spins it in the worst way,” she said, but it “applauds” comments like President Obama’s during the 2008 campaign when he said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

She also cited McCaskill’s remark during 2010 debate over renewing the Bush tax cuts: “If (Republicans) think it’s okay to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because they’re going to pout if we don’t give more money to millionaires, it really is time for people to take up pitchforks.”

“This is a typical double standard and why we conservatives are at war with the liberal establishment,” Steelman said

Strong metaphors are okay. What’s not okay are over the top threats directed at specific individuals, metaphorical or not. Obama, to use Steelman’s example, did not say he was going to take a gun to McCain, but that he would do political battle well-armed – a promise that I personally found reassuring. If he had said that he would shoot, kill or do whatever to McCain, I can only imagine the furor it would have – deservedly – ignited.

The real problem with these violent, right-wing flights of fancy, though, is that they are almost always in service of beliefs that are so divorced from reality as to boggle the mind. We are right to be concerned by metaphors threatening violence when they are coupled with paranoid and irrational beliefs.*  

Consider, for instance, the similarities between this bit of bile, taken from the March Newsletter of the Republican Party of Greene County, Virginia (via DailyKos), and Mr. Boston’s outpourings:

The ultimate task for the people is to remain vigilant and aware  ~ that the government, their government is out of control, and this moment, this opportunity, must not be forsaken, must not escape us for we shall not have any coarse but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November ~ This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.

Is this just rhetoric, or a call to armed revolution? You tell me. And when you’ve split those very fine hairs, tell me what to think when folks like Steelman go out of their way to not only validate, but encourage the insane world view that animates these folks. Sadly, as Ed Kilgore notes, “encouraging ‘the crazy’ has become an extraordinarily regular feature of GOP politics these days.”

*Slightly edited for clarity.

This is getting really ugly.

Sen. Claire McCaskill Getting Beefed Up Security After Tea Party Activist Declares ‘We Have To Kill The Claire Bear’

By Alex Seitz-Wald on May 8, 2012 at 5:15 pm

Police are assigning extra security to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) after a Tea Party activist declared at a rally last week, “We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen.” The rally was hosted by the group Tea Party Express, which is endorsing McCaskill challenger Sarah Steelman (R), who was in attendance at the rally.

Scott Boston, a St. Louis Tea Party activist, said, “She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.” “We have to kill the Claire Bear,” he added.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that local police are performing more patrols around the senator’s house at the request of the Capitol Police, and that she now has extra security at public events….

A press release from the Missouri Democratic Party:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 8, 2012

MDP Response to Steelman Comments on Threat Against McCaskill

McCaskill Threatened On Stage At Steelman Tea Party Rally, Steelman Defends Activist

Jefferson City, Mo.-The Missouri Democratic Party released the following statement after Sarah Steelman refused to condemn a death threat made against Senator Claire McCaskill during a Tea Party rally thrown on behalf of Steelman’s candidacy last week. Steelman was in attendance when the threat was made and issued a statement today that she “emphatically supports” the man who threatened McCaskill’s life.

“In this day and age, it’s really disappointing that someone won’t acknowledge when their friends and supporters have made inappropriate comments about something as serious as a threat like this,” said Caitlin Legacki, Missouri Democratic Party spokeswoman. “Missourians look to their leaders to step up and do the right thing when it comes to acts of violence and this sort of inflammatory language. We don’t need more people in Washington who issue threats and draw hard lines, we need people who can put aside their differences and stand up for what’s right. It shouldn’t be hard for Sarah Steelman to recognize that, so it’s unfortunate that she refuses to condemn these threats of physical violence.”

According to the Post-Dispatch, Steelman “emphatically supports” the right of her supporter to threaten Sen. McCaskill’s life:

On Tuesday, Steelman came to Boston’s defense, blaming the “liberal media” that, she says, employs a double-standard when it comes to covering political rhetoric that contain a hint of violence.

“I may disagree with the words Mr. Boston chose in his statement,” Steelman said in her own statement, “but I understand his frustration and I emphatically support his right to express his views.”

###

May disagree? Classy, eh?

Some time ago conservative radio personality Mark Reardon characterized current GOP Senatorial contender Sarah Steelman as “not the sharpest fork in the drawer.” While his comments were replete with good old boy sexism – he also felt the need to note that she was “hot” (dumb blonds, anyone?) – he may have been onto something.

Yesterday, Steelman revealed that despite dabbling in GOP politics for the past several years, she had no idea about what the Violence Against Women Act was. Even more surprising, given the recent news reports, she was also unaware that there was any controversy about renewing the Act, which dates from 1993.

Steelman’s ever-alert campaign staffers quickly responded that, of course, she is “open to the Republican version of the law’s reauthorization.” That’s the version that denies protection to LGBT people, immigrants, and Native American women on reservations. But not to worry – assurances to the contrary aside, there’s no real guarantee that she really knows much about either version of the legislation.

This sort of lapse is something of a pattern with Steelman – just for fun, let’s just do a quick and dirty compilation of the things she doesn’t know that have made the news:

— Most recently, she, (admittedly, along with the rest of the GOP gubernatorial primary candidates) had to admit she didn’t know what the minimum wage was set at in Missouri, although she was pretty sure that she was against it. Bear in mind that Steelman, purportedly, has a degree in economics.

— In a fundraising appeal at the beginning of her senatorial campaign last year, she begged “1000 friends to contribute $100 each to raise $10,000 by midnight … .” Gee, when I do the math, $100 multiplied by 1000 friends equals just a little bit more than Sarah thinks. And I can figure that out without a degree in economics.

— During her 2008 gubernatorial campaign, Steelman tried to capitalize on anti-immigrant fervor in the GOP base, emphasizing the burden that undocumented workers place on Missourians. Sadly, she completely misinterpreted the findings of a report on immigration and got her facts all wrong in an effort to magnify what is basically a non-problem in Missouri:

Steelman’s report overstated the estimate of illegal workers in Missouri by 5,800 to 10,800 workers. It overstated the unemployment rate among illegal workers by more than two-thirds. It also assumed that not a single illegal immigrant living in Missouri works for an employer who withholds and pays payroll taxes….

— Our own Michael Bersin participated in a twitter exchange where this holder of an advanced economics degree displayed major ignorance of current economic thought.

Given the economic nature of so many of Steelman’s public faux pas, it’s tempting to question her vaunted academic background. But of course, committed to equality of opportunity though we may be, we know that not everybody brings the same equipment to the game. We’ve all seen those students who sit with their mouths hanging open at the back of the class – they aren’t always the sharpest forks in the drawer either. Nevertheless, some of them manage to get degrees.

Slightly edited for clarity.