“Matt Blunt shouldn’t have turned tail and run, bad show.”
Perhaps. But the main reason that Matt Blunt didn’t run was that he was unpopular and would have likely lost. Indeed, he might not have even survived a Republican primary. Perhaps he thought that another Republican would have been a stronger candidate.
You are right that Blunt shouldn’t seek office in the future, for the same reason Democrats don’t want Bob Holden to run for anything.
I think the unpopularity wasn’t quite as bad as portrayed, and was merely an indication that he was trailing Nixon by a narrow margin in a head-to-head matchup for the past year. Ostensibly Blunt’s people went with Hulshof, so while Steelman might’ve made a fair challenge, he likely would’ve survived renomination. I don’t honestly think he was that much more unpopular or damaged than, say, Pawlenty in MN in ‘06 or Daniels in IN this year (of whom did very little to justify being reelected, yet managed an astonishing 20%+? win).
In any event, I think Steelman may be the best bet to take on McCaskill in 2012. Peter Kinder will likely go up against Nixon that year, who isn’t likely to accomplish much with a GOP legislature.