Video: First campaign ad on HHS mandate in MO Senate race

posted at 9:50 am on February 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Sarah Steelman hits the air first in using the HHS mandate on religious organizations as a billy club in the upcoming elections. Steelman will run for the chance to replace Claire McCaskill in a tough Republican primary, one in which she will almost certainly get outspent by John Brunner. With only $84,000 cash on hand at the moment, Steelman rolls the dice by hammering McCaskill over her support for the mandate, and vows to fight for First Amendment rights if she beats McCaskill in the fall:

This is a pitch-perfect ad from Steelman, and one fellow Republicans should study closely for their own ad campaigns.  What’s the one word that doesn’t get mentioned in the spot? Contraception:

In the spot, Steelman speaks directly into the camera and accuses the president of trampling on Americans’ constitutional rights.

“It is a slap in the face for religious freedom and is another disastrous byproduct of Obamacare.  Worse yet, Claire McCaskill has agreed with them.  I don’t,” she says.

The ad never specifically cites contraception and frames the issue as one of “religious freedom,” a pitch that could be received particularly well in the southwest part of the state which is home to many evangelical Christians.

Democrats have to defend a lot of red-state and swing-state Senate seats this year, and this could be a big issue if Republicans keep the focus on this issue as two principles at stake: religious freedom and the abuse of power by the Obama administration through ObamaCare.  Steelman doesn’t get derailed into a discussion of the merits of contraception, nor should other Republicans, but in upholding the rights of religious organizations to refrain from facilitating violations of religious doctrines, and more generally of businesses to make their own decisions on what they will subsidize and what they will not — just as they were free to do before the passage of ObamaCare gave the federal government diktat power.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Go Sarah!

singlemalt 18 on February 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Steelman’s got my vote, of course I’d vote for a dead cat before I voted for McCaskill.

Axion on February 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM

This debate is very easy to flip it to being the republicans being against contraceptives.

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

How come this lady has only $84,000 on hand to defeat a vulnerable democrat? Is there other Republicans running or is this very hot lady our candidate?

dirtseller on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Objecting is not enough. Unless all these religious organizations have an actual game plan, they are screwed.

Blake on February 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM

The Republican primary race for US Senate in Missouri is going to be interesting.

Steelman is not liked overly much and there are other names in the mix which are garnering bigger support.

Todd Akin is running against Steelman.

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Great ad. This is a very winnable election for Republicans, but will Santorum being at the top of the ticket hurt our chances of picking up this seat?

That is why I am anti-Santorum. His lack of a chance to win might depress the Republican vote, and the independent vote to a degree, and allow McCaskill to win just because of that.

milcus on February 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Is there other Republicans running or is this very hot lady our candidate?

dirtseller on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

There are at least three Republican candidates in Mizzou because everyone sees McCaskill as vulnerable, having been a vocal Obama supporter in a state that went to McCain last time around.

teke184 on February 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

LCMS President Rev. Dr. Harrison made a statement on February 3rd.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a statement from the ELCA. They abandoned that train back in ’88.

Hat Trick on February 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

teke184 on February 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Thanks.

dirtseller on February 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Sarah Steelman reminds me of Jan Brewer and I like Jan Brewer.

Axion on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

This debate is very easy to flip it to being the republicans being against contraceptives.

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

You are absolutely correct. The slow thinkers of the Democrat party are already repeating that complete fabrication. Oh well, we know anything factual is disregarded when the new talking point is released.

Renwaa on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM


Harrison to speak before House committee


By Adriane Dorr

LCMS President Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison will take part in a Capitol Hill hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington, D. C., on Thursday, Feb. 16. The hearing will focus on the issues of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in relation to the Obama administration’s recent health-care ruling regarding contraceptives.

The panel also will include Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist and Jewish leaders.
The Rev. John T. Pless, who teaches theological ethics and is an assistant professor of Pastoral Ministry and missions at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, and Ann Stillman, vice-president and general counsel for Concordia Plan Services (the LCMS’ church workers’ health plan), will accompany Harrison to the nation’s Capitol.

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, Harrison also released a statement in response to President Obama’s Friday, Feb. 10, revision of the initial health-care ruling–one that required religious organizations to cover the cost of contraceptives (including abortive drugs)–calling the modification simply a “temporary enforcement delay.”

The original Jan. 20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcement required that health insurance plans “cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services.”

But on Friday, after a public outcry concerning a violation of religious rights and rights of consciences, President Obama appeared to offer an “accommodation,” saying that non-profit religious organizations will no longer be required to include contraceptives in their health insurance plans. Coverage of contraceptives, however, would still be available through the insurance providers themselves.

“We see President Obama’s action Friday as significant,” said Harrison, but “the ‘accommodation’ did not expand the exemption for religious employers, nor did it restrict the mandate in any way.”

“We remain opposed to this mandate because it runs counter to the biblical truth of the sanctity of human life,” Harrison noted. “We can no longer expect a favored position for Christianity in this country. But we can, as citizens of this great nation, fight for constitutional sanity against secularizing forces.”

Harrison also encouraged members of the LCMS to “pray for and support our government” while reminding them that “our consciences and lives belong to God.”

James F. Sanft, president and CEO of Concordia Plan Services, praised Harrison for taking a strong stand on the issue, noting that the administration’s mandate has far-reaching implications for the Church.

“We strongly support President Harrison’s statement on behalf of the LCMS,” said Sanft. “The issues here go well beyond the Concordia Health Plan and our ability to serve our members in a manner consistent with our Lutheran doctrine.”

“This is, first, an issue of religious freedom and the First Amendment,” he said, “and second, an issue of life, as drugs that result in abortions are being defined as ‘contraceptives.’”

Harrison’s statement regarding Obama’s revision of the ruling can be read here. Harrison also released a video statement that can be seen here.

The Washington, D.C., hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. EST, can be streamed live at the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s website.

Adriane Dorr is managing editor of The Lutheran Witness.

Posted Feb. 15, 2012

OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

There is a third Republican running in the primary race, John Brunner. I suspect however that it’ll be a two person race.

From everything I can tell, whoever gets the Republican nomination will be very good – one of those rare ocassions.

Akin’s got some issues, but then so too does Steelman.

Going into the general, McCaskill is going to have stiff competition. The state tends to split 50/50 lib/con, Rep/Dem since about half of the state’s population is in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Steelman was the state’s former State Treasurer and Akin is a US Congressman from a very red district just inside and outside of the St. Louis metro area – for all of you interested and didn’t know.

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM

The ad never specifically cites contraception and frames the issue as one of “religious freedom,” a pitch that could be received particularly well in the southwest part of the state which is home to many evangelical Christians.

I’m from that area, Springfield, to be exact. It’s not just evangelical Christians in that area that agree with religious freedom.

I’ll vote for her, just like I did in her last campaign.

Torch on February 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Hat Trick on February 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Harrison video…

OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The language of the ad is great, otherwise it is flat. No graphics or other images.

matthew8787 on February 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Great ad. This is a very winnable election for Republicans, but will Santorum being at the top of the ticket hurt our chances of picking up this seat?

That is why I am anti-Santorum. His lack of a chance to win might depress the Republican vote, and the independent vote to a degree, and allow McCaskill to win just because of that.

milcus on February 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Santorum or Romney or any other Republican on the ticket has just as much chance of “hurting” the Republican running for US Senate in Missouri as Obama being on the ticket can and will hurt Claire Bear McCaskill’s chances of re-election.

Frankly, I think Claire’s got more to worry about sharing a ticket with Obama than conservatives, Republicans and Akin or Steelman have to worry about Santorum or Romney being on the ticket.

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Ahhh yes, the GOP– where women have balls and men don’t….

hillsoftx on February 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod statement
OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

That GREAT, but is there any such statement from the Missouri Synod?
For a long time, the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church had the reputation for taking hard stands like this, back when almost all churches were falling into the “situation ethics” nonsense.

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Easy and dishonest but thats a liberal Obama supporter for you. Any means necessary. Would you really ask others to sacrafice their religous beliefs just to win?

magicbeans on February 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Going into the general, McCaskill is going to have stiff competition. The state tends to split 50/50 lib/con, Rep/Dem since about half of the state’s population is in Kansas City and St. Louis.

If the non-binding vote on Obamacare in the state back in 2010 is any indication, McCaskill is toast.

76% voted for that and even with the St. Louis and KC fraud machines going hard for her, it’ll be hard for her to make up the difference.

teke184 on February 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

McCaskill is an absolute joke of a senator. How does a state with so much going for it pick a senator that is such a babbling idiot when it comes to the best interests of her constituents?

volsense on February 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM

This debate is very easy to flip it to being the republicans being against contraceptives.

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Of course it’s easy to lie to the public when the MSM serves as a mouthpiece for Media Matters, which co-ordinates its talking points with the Obama White House.

The problem for the Dims in their attempt to cynically and dishonestly frame the debate as “Republicans want to take away your contraceptives” is the fact that Republicans don’t want to do that. The vast majority of Republicans are fine with women having easy access to relatively cheap contraceptives (as they currently do); they just don’t want the government trying to force Americans who object to contraceptives and abortion pills into paying to provide them “for free” to their employees.

AZCoyote on February 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM

OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Thank you for including that link. I am a WELS member and was wondering if the Synod had put out a statement against the mandate but hadn’t went looking for it yet.

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

This debate is very easy to flip it to being the republicans being against contraceptives.

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Your parents are still miffed, the contraceptives didn’t work for them, aren’t they?

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Is there other Republicans running or is this very hot lady our candidate?

LOL, if Missouri women look like her, for the first time I understand why they’re letting Mirrouri into the SEC!

radjah shelduck on February 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

How does a state with so much going for it pick a senator that is such a babbling idiot when it comes to the best interests of her constituents?

volsense on February 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM

That was a weird race to say the least.

Amazing that stem cell research and Michael J. Fox made that much of a difference, even in a bad year for Republicans.

teke184 on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

That GREAT, but is there any such statement from the Missouri Synod?
For a long time, the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church had the reputation for taking hard stands like this, back when almost all churches were falling into the “situation ethics” nonsense.

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 10:04 AM

OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM

OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Go Sarah!

singlemalt 18 on February 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Why am I starting to love the name Sarah?

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

teke, I think the handwriting was on the wall for McCaskill even during the last presidential election. Obama’s win forced her to line up behind him. That set her up for everything that has happened since, even as she has tried to backpedal and distance herself from him, specifically starting in 2010.

Between the political thrashing the Tea Party and conservatives gave in backlash to Democrats and liberals (not just the Obamacare opt-out) here in Missouri in 2010, Claire’s tax issues – plane – and in general trying to play moderate, means she’s on unstable ground.

I believe she’ll be a one term Senator.

McCaskill running against Steelman or Akin will be like Carnahan running against Blunt.

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Amazing that stem cell research and Michael J. Fox made that much of a difference, even in a bad year for Republicans.

teke184 on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

People don’t like acknowledging this, but Rush Limbaugh had a nice big hand in drumming up sympathy for McCaskill by bashing Fox in the ad.

Whoopsie!

KingGold on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

“This debate is very easy to flip it to being the republicans being against contraceptives.”

Let’s see what we’re against, chime in anyone if I miss anything.
Contraceptives
Abortion
Sex/sex education especially for kindergarteners
Gays/gay marriage
Pedophilia (it’s just another lifestyle choice)
Plural Marriage (it’s just another lifestyle choice)
Senior Citizens (why do they need a lifestyle choice, they’re checking out soon, the sooner the better, throw them all off the cliff)
The Wrong Religion
Poor People
Education
Healthy School Lunches (featuring chicken nuggets)
Clean Air and Water
Global Warming
Polar Bears
Tolerance
Compassion
Charity
The Chevy Volt

We are the party of death and party pooping. 02/16/12 the day of my awakening!

/

vityas on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Good to make this stand. Like the above poster, I don’t expect the ELCA to do anything. I don’t expect much from them, and they rarely disappoint.

The_Livewire on February 16, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Our side really needs to drop the “Obamacare” moniker. It sounds so dumb in this otherwise spot on ad.

Call it the “Democrats’ health reform” or “Obama’s health reform” anything other than “Obamacare.” That term immediatly turns off many in the mush that makes up the “independent” vote that, unfortunately, will decide the 2012 election.

Common Sense Floridian on February 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I was baptized and confirmed WELS, and am currently in a LCMS parish. Evangelical Lutheran Synod has also put out a statement…
Nothing but crickets chirping coming out of Chicago hdqtrs of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Thanks Omaha for the links, watching….

MontanaMmmm on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Sarah Steelman reminds me of Jan Brewer and I like Jan Brewer.

Axion on February 16, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Sarah Steelman is a lot prettier. She would easily win the Missouri beauty contest, or a Senate beauty contest if elected.

Steve Z on February 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Steelman doesn’t get derailed into a discussion of the merits of contraception, nor should other Republicans, but in upholding the rights of religious organizations to refrain from facilitating violations of religious doctrines, and more generally of businesses to make their own decisions on what they will subsidize and what they will not — just as they were free to do before the passage of ObamaCare gave the federal government diktat power.

Please, Ed, keep hammering this point. It’s not just about religion, it’s about business in general and fighting against the encroaching Federalization of the economy. The last thing we want is for the argument against this to be solely based on religion, because that sets the stage for the same dictatorial measures to be imposed on non-religious entities.

The argument must be made that this sort of power grab is entirely unconstitutional regardless of the institution or individual at which it is directed. The Federal government cannot tell anyone what they must (or must not!) subsidize.

AJsDaddie on February 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

That was a weird race to say the least.

Amazing that stem cell research and Michael J. Fox made that much of a difference, even in a bad year for Republicans.

teke184 on February 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

It’s because of how Amendment 2 – embryonic stem cell research bill – was sold. It was sold as a stem cell research bill and through clever crafting, specifically of the bill’s summary (which the State Secretary has the ability to edit and/or write) which contradicted the bill, enough people bought into it as a humane thing.

It didn’t hurt that a lot of money was poured into the advertising campaign to pass Amendment 2 by a research firm that would benefit from its passage and also garnered the support of some RINOs with big names and thus “respect”.

Jim Talent had his own issues iirc that made him vulnerable, so it was a perfect storm against him and Amendment 2 that year.

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Call it the “Democrats’ health reform” or “Obama’s health reform” anything other than “Obamacare.” That term immediatly turns off many in the mush that makes up the “independent” vote that, unfortunately, will decide the 2012 election.

Common Sense Floridian on February 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Oh, give me a break. You know who else continues to push that idea? Jon Stewart. He knows, like we do, that the law is majority-unpopular, and the majority routinely tell pollsters that they want it gone.

I see no reason to stop calling it “Obamacare” other than to insulate a terrible president from his terrible signature achievement.

KingGold on February 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM

MontanaMmmm on February 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Yes, I’m watching it too and I am glad to see the conservative Lutheran bodies standing with our Roman Catholic brethren…

OmahaConservative on February 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The problem for the Dims in their attempt to cynically and dishonestly frame the debate as “Republicans want to take away your contraceptives” is the fact that Republicans don’t want to do that. The vast majority of Republicans are fine with women having easy access to relatively cheap contraceptives (as they currently do); they just don’t want the government trying to force Americans who object to contraceptives and abortion pills into paying to provide them “for free” to their employees.

AZCoyote on February 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM

And this Republican has a huge problem with giving out free drugs (and free cell phones and free lunches and free mortgages and free cars to the rich). I need a hair cut and pedicure. Shouldn’t those be free too?

Portia46 on February 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

This debate is very easy to flip it to being the republicans being against contraceptives.

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Except that the premise is stupid, and a bold-faced lie to boot. I have no problem with contraception – my problem is paying for yours with the higher premiums my insurer will certainly charge me to offset the expense of providing it to you “free of charge” (what a crock). You want to bang around the universe, do it on your own nickel and knock yourself out.

CantCureStupid on February 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

LOL, if Missouri women look like her, for the first time I understand why they’re letting Mirrouri into the SEC!

radjah shelduck on February 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Slightly OT but Mizzou will win the SEC East next year and shock Bama in Columbia! It goes without saying that it will be a two-team race in basketball, between UK and Mizzou.

iwasbornwithit on February 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

teke and to others – I should clarify that Amendment 2 focused on embryonic stem cell research but the advertising campaign in support of it and its supporters marketed and made it a discussion about stem cell research in general. They moved the goal posts so that when people who were against embryonic stem cell research argued, they were painted as inhumane and against finding cures, as against stem cell research in general.

Between the money, the propagandist twisting, goal-post moving and I believe Robin Carnahan’s hand in altering the bill summary*, as well as the state’s 50/50 tendency combined with 2006 being a banner Democrat year, the deck was stacked against opponents of Amendment 2.

*The bill summary is what is visible at the polling station prior to voting and on the ballot. The bill was three or four times longer and a comparison of the two, the bill and the summary showed if not a distinct contradiction, a clear implication of contradiction when you worked out what the bill mandated compared to what the summary stated.

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 10:35 AM

You want to bang around the universe, do it on your own nickel and knock yourself out.

CantCureStupid on February 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Good point and I chuckled at “bang around the universe.”

iwasbornwithit on February 16, 2012 at 10:36 AM

What’s with the ‘I’m wealthy’ backdrops always used in these ads. Get these candidates out of the dimly lit, stately rooms and show them in the crowds of people who support them.

HopeHeFails on February 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Robin Carnahan

Gee, what a surprise. One of the Carnahan brood had a hand in undermining a Senate candidate.

I wouldn’t be surprised if she had it out for Talent since he had the temerity to beat her mother in the 2002 special election to fill out her late father’s term.

teke184 on February 16, 2012 at 10:48 AM

vityas on February 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

projection much? seeya

Is it fascinating that we all got here by the same circumstance that liberals now call a woman’s health problem that must be subsidized to the point of prevention and elimination? I guess it only takes one to tango now huh?

DanMan on February 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Sarah Steelman is a lot prettier. She would easily win the Missouri beauty contest, or a Senate beauty contest if elected.

Steve Z on February 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I may dislike her political views – all of them, in fact – but Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) isn’t bad looking, either.

Archivarix on February 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM

She ran for Governor in 2008, but was unsuccessful. Here is a bit of info.

MO Candidates for Senate

Todd Akin http://www.akin.org/about-todd-akin A U.S. Rep from MO

John Brunner http://johnbrunner.com/meet-john/ A Businessman-Owner? of Vi-Jon Mfg Co.

Sarah Steelman http://sarahsteelman.com/ Former State Treasurer & State Senator Ran for Gov in 2008

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I really hate to be critical, but does anyone else find it odd that she said her name and that she approved the message when she’s the one presenting it in the first place? I know they all do that at the end of their campaign spots, but usually, the speaker in the ad isn’t the candidate him/herself. Obviously you approve it if you are saying it though, right?

/nitpick

Otherwise, good ad. I’ll send her money if she is the one running against McCaskill. I want all the Catholic heretics out of office. GRRR….

pannw on February 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM

The zombie media will go all out to unearth this lady’s past, if she has one.

LizardLips on February 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM

President Obama’s “Compromise” Does Not Cover Southern Baptists

O.S. Hawkins President of GuideStone Financial Resources, says that President Obama’s statement on the new healthcare law excludes the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, and its financial arm provides health insurance to about 60,000 people, including pastors and missionaries (source). Here’s the statement from GuideStone:

Response to President Obama’s Statement on February 10, 2012

GuideStone Financial Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest church plans in the nation, was distressed to hear that the President’s comments do not take into account the needs of many of the oldest and largest church plans in the nation. GuideStone’s medical plan, like that of many other established church plans, is self-funded, which means it pays benefits directly instead of using a third-party insurance company as the source of benefit payments. This self-funded approach to healthcare coverage, which is common among many historic and large church plans, was completely ignored by the President in his comments.

The comments today appear to reflect a narrow and inadequate approach that does not address the issues at hand for Southern Baptists who oppose so-called contraceptives that can and do cause an abortion. Even more troubling is that the broader issue of religious freedom was only given lip service but no serious consideration in the President’s remarks.

As stated by GuideStone’s President O.S. Hawkins, “The President’s statement today is an insulting affront illustrating a basic lack of understanding that this issue will not be solved by sleight-of-hand word games. It is a fundamental matter of religious liberty that threatens the very coverage of those dedicated persons who serve our churches and affiliated organizations. GuideStone will never depart from the core convictions it has held dear for decades regarding the sanctity of life.”

SoonerMarine on February 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Jim DeMint’s site is worth exploring for those that may not have.

http://senateconservatives.com/site/post/564/12-senate-races-to-watch

I signed up back in 2009 and receive updates from him. He stays on top of the Senate races. He’s one of the best in my opinion.

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Great message, and she’s got kind of a Rene Russo thing going on.

MikeinPRCA on February 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM

A very good ad.
I would like to see another ad asking the voter –

“if your willing to accept the loss of this right then the democrats want to know what other rights you are willing to accept the loss of too”

multiuseless on February 16, 2012 at 12:40 PM

hhh yes, the GOP– where women have balls and men don’t….

hillsoftx on February 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

+100

Old Country Boy on February 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Steelman doesn’t get derailed into a discussion of the merits of contraception, nor should other Republicans,

Ah, but they will. They won’t be able to help it. Despite the increasingly desperate attempts to make the abstract concepts of “religious freedom” and “executive branch overreach” into topics that the swing voter would care strongly about, this inevitably comes down to a group of middle-aged celibate males trying to impose their religious will on women who do not share their faith and worldview.

By all means, keep riding this, righties. It ain’t gonna break your way, as Darrell Issa is learning today: http://tinyurl.com/775fqze

Drew Lowell on February 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM

What’s the one word that doesn’t get mentioned in the spot? Contraception

Someone finally figured out that any mention of that word was arguing from the dem’s premises and to lose in advance? Unbelievable.

kunegetikos on February 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Santorum or Romney or any other Republican on the ticket has just as much chance of “hurting” the Republican running for US Senate in Missouri as Obama being on the ticket can and will hurt Claire Bear McCaskill’s chances of re-election.

Frankly, I think Claire’s got more to worry about sharing a ticket with Obama than conservatives, Republicans and Akin or Steelman have to worry about Santorum or Romney being on the ticket.

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

This hits the nail right on the head.

Bitter Clinger on February 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM

The claim that 98% percent of women are using or have used contraceptives demonstrates that there is no real need for the contraceptive mandate.

Too bad none of the republicans opposed to the mandate has enough brains to point that out.

agmartin on February 16, 2012 at 1:14 PM

This debate is very easy to flip it to being the republicans being against contraceptives.

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Which, of course, would be a lie.

However, being a leftist, you will find no problem with lying, will you? Since you cannot argue the actual facts.

Solaratov on February 16, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney need to follow Steelman’s cue–make the issue government overreach and trampling on the bill of rights vice contraception. Former speaker Pelosi threw them a bone recently, as reported by Fox, saying:

“98 percent of Catholic women, I am told by all of you, use birth control to determine the size and timing of their families. So again its a women’s health issue.” – Nancy Pelosi

If that’s the case, then there is no reason to expand coverage (if 98% of Catholic women already have coverage–or 99% of all women of child bearing age as reported elsewhere) it is only a matter of government usurping the bill of rights. Forcing an employer to pay for coverage that is already demonstratably available and widely used is only a means to infringe upon and take over the employer’s rights to make their business choices.

WhyNot on February 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Has anyone (or is anyone) bothering to explain that if the government extends a “right,” it can also take away that “right”? So what happens if instead of saying “You have to offer birth control” they say, “You cannot offer birth control”?

And you’re right about the bruhaha saying “Republicans are against contraceptive use and are trying to take it away.” That very thing was apparently just reported on MSNBC according to Rush.

UnderstandingisPower on February 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM

“98 percent of Catholic women, I am told by all of you, use birth control to determine the size and timing of their families. So again its a women’s health issue.” – Nancy Pelosi

WhyNot on February 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I think you miss the biggest logical fallacy here.

If 98% of Catholic women read the bible is the bible a women’s health issue?

Scrappy on February 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM

If all this stands, the libs will come to regret it one day. What’s to stop a future conservative president from using the same law to ban abortion, contraception, or anything else they want to change.

rjulio on February 16, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Hey milcus, having Romney at the top of the ticket will KILL ALL of the down-ticket candidates, because the down-ticket candidates will be forced to spend most of their time defending RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) at the top of the ticket. That destroys every one of the down-ticket arguments for replacing any and ALL J@ck@ss Party incumbents!?! Wise up, America!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM

This debate is very easy to flip it to being the republicans being against contraceptives.

liberal4life on February 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Go ahead and try to flip that debate. I’m willing to bet that you can’t. That said, I’m curious on your screen name. That and you bringing up “contraceptives.”

So liberal4life, did you choose this screen name because you are a radical liberal who supports the life of the unborn?

Conservative4Ever on February 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Todd Akin http://www.akin.org/about-todd-akin A U.S. Rep from MO

John Brunner http://johnbrunner.com/meet-john/ A Businessman-Owner? of Vi-Jon Mfg Co.

Sarah Steelman http://sarahsteelman.com/ Former State Treasurer & State Senator Ran for Gov in 2008

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Of the three, I like Brunner although I’ve always liked Steeleman”s attitude and hard work. Aiken is rather boring and establishment oriented.

Vince on February 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Of the three, I like Brunner although I’ve always liked Steeleman”s attitude and hard work. Aiken is rather boring and establishment oriented.

Vince on February 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I’m not familiar with any of them but I thot perhaps Steelman had more State experience and all around outreach to the people. Just my impression after reading the “about” on their websites. I agree with your take on Aiken too:-)

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 8:29 PM