- Texas man arrested for powder-letter hoax
- Islamic State opens ‘marriage bureau’ for single jihadists
- Drone almost blocks California firefighting planes
- Tornado rips off roofs, downs trees near Boston
- GOP: Environmental rules keeping agents from accessing border
- John Kerry: Millions displaced by religious fighting in 2013
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia’s gay marriage ban
- White House says Russia ‘losing’ war in Ukraine
- Hamas turns to North Korea for weapons deal, Iran for money
- Syrian casualties surge as jihadis consolidate
By David Keene
Allowing states to innovate could reduce dependency on bureaucracy
Topic - Sarah Steelman
Three Republicans hungrily eyeing Claire McCaskill's Missouri Senate seat have spent the past few months trying to tarnish each other's conservative credentials while polishing their own — a tactic that's designed to appeal to Tuesday's primary voters but one that could hurt the party's chances against the vulnerable freshman Democrat in November.
Democrats have their thumbs on Republican scales in Senate primaries in Missouri and Wisconsin this summer, hoping to improve their own chances of maintaining a majority in November. The idea isn't quite as far-fetched as it might sound.
In a GOP version of gender politics, some prominent Republican politicians and women's groups have endorsed Sarah Steelman over two conservative male candidates in Missouri's Aug. 7 Senate primary — despite her past votes opposing tort reform and support from labor and trial lawyers' groups.
The Republican primary for Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill's seat has grown increasingly hostile in recent weeks, but the three candidates barely attacked one another at a debate Monday night near St. Louis.
The re-election bid of Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri is providing an early look at how Republicans plan to tie President Obama and his plunging job-approval ratings to vulnerable Democrats down the ballot next year.
"I look forward to listening and talking with the members of the congressional committee about their concerns for our country," Mrs. Steelman said. "I know there are a lot of good people interested in running, and I hope we can all work together to select the right candidate."
"I'm not sure how much they are vetting these women," she said. "But I guess I would give Maggie's List a little leeway if Ms. Steelman was conservative on everything else, because I think we need to start somewhere. On the left, Emily's List has thousands of women who write checks and support their liberal ideas. I suspect some of them are not knowledgeable about how liberal that group is."