In last night's final debate for the GOP nomination for governor of Missouri, candidates U.S. Rep. Kenny Hulshof and state Treasurer Sarah Steelman agreed on one thing: Each would make a better chief executive than Attorney General Jay Nixon, the presumptive Democratic nominee. Otherwise, the two GOP candidates dug in their heels and stuck to their usual campaign themes of low taxes and less government waste in an effort to sway voters before the August 5 primary.

In conservative Springfield, site of last night's debate, the candidates slightly refined their positions by staying away from spending issues, such as restoring some Medicaid cuts made by Gov. Matt Blunt. Both candidates said Blunt made many good decisions, and Hulshof praised the governor for addressing a $1 billion budget shortfall and changing the business climate in Missouri, which Hulshof said was at one point leading the nation in job losses.

Hulshof also spoke at times as if he were debating Nixon rather than Steelman, saying Nixon wanted to "take us back to budget deficits, record job losses, back to days when money was withheld from public schools... the days when one in five Missourians was dependent on public assistance."

Steelman, meanwhile, tried to keep the focus on Hulshof and his record in Congress. She repeated her criticism of his votes for earmarks and his support for the ethanol industry.

Hulshof strongly defended his position on ethanol, saying that instead of looking to the Middle East, Missourians are looking to the Middle West and ethanol as one solution to the energy crisis. He accused the oil industry of spending tens of millions of dollars to "lay the energy woes at the feet of ethanol," but he argued that without the ethanol initiative, Missourians would probably pay about 40 cents more a gallon for gasoline.

Steelman shot back that the savings at the pump point to the the flaws of relying on government-mandates, such as ethanol, to solve problems. The mandate, she said, meant spending 51 cents a gallon in subsidies by taxpayers to make the ethanol initiative feasible. For that reason, she argued that a free-market remedy would be the best solution for tackling energy and other economic problems.

Steelman conceded that she and Hulshof agreed on some issues, such as abortion, the Second Amendment and the benefit of public-private initiatives to help Missouri address its transportation needs. Where she parts company with Hulshof, Steelman said, is on the need for "a governor who knows how to say no" on spending. Hulshof responded that he has said "no" plenty of times in Congress, citing his support of the line-item veto authority for the president and a balanced budget. He added that Steelman was taking his votes on earmarks out of context and said he could point to 14 separate bills he had supported to save $13 billion.

Throughout, there was a healthy back-and-forth. When Hulshof attacked Steelman for favoring spending over $130 million for the nursing home industry when she was in the state Senate, she responded that the money was for improving the quality of care for patients. Likewise, when Steelman criticized Hulshof for earmarks, such as spending on a "bridge to nowhere," she hedged a bit when asked about the proposal including money for Missouri roads, but she insisted that Hulshof should have fought harder to remove earmarks from such legislation.

Hulshof was critical of Steelman for running what he called a negative campaign and said she had used information out of context to try to depict him as reckless with the public's money. Steelman responded that negative campaigning is in the eye of the beholder and that she was only calling attention to Hulshof's record in Congress.

When asked about minority aides on their staffs, Hulshof mentioned having "an exceptional young woman, a minority" on his staff and Steelman said that out of six staffers, two were minorities.