KINDER'S COMMENTARY: WILSON'S ANNOUNCEMENT SURPRISES, ADDS TWIST TO 2000 RACE

Wednesday's announcement stunned pretty much everyone in the statehouse: Lt. Gov. Roger Wilson wouldn't be running for governor in 2000 after all. Something about spending more time with his family, weighed against time and money concerns, as in the incessant fund-raising chase necessary to achieving high office. Thus did a man whose prime goal in life has always been to be governor stand down. If his family needs him more now -- something he certainly knows -- then I join everyone else in admiring Roger's decision.

The jovial, well-liked Wilson is always quick with the hearty greeting of a natural politician. A former state senator who had already raised over $300,000, Wilson will now fold his exploratory committee and offer to return the money.

The Wilson announcement would appear to leave the field for the Democratic nomination for governor to Treasurer Bob Holden. Perhaps. The view from my seat in the Missouri Senate, shared widely by capitol insiders, is that from a purely political standpoint the Democrats have just lost the better of their candidates for governor. In my judgment after five years of close observation, the canny Wilson is, by orders of magnitude, a more savvy politician than is the state treasurer. Moreover, of Bob Holden, a perfectly nice enough fellow, it could be said that his personality makes Mel Carnahan's absolutely thrilling by comparison.

Another point worth mentioning: Were Missourians to choose Holden for governor, it would mean more influence in state government for U.S. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt than has ever before been the case. Holden, a native (along with Carnahan) of Birch Tree in Shannon County, is a former Gephardt aide. The formidable Gephardt machine, certainly a force to be reckoned with, could be put at someone's disposal in a Democratic primary.

His recent fund-raising success notwithstanding, look for Holden to be challenged for the Democratic nomination. Whether it be former St. Louis mayor Vince Schoemehl, he of never-a-dull-moment fame; or Jackson County prosecutor Claire McCaskill, she of the truly ferocious ambition; or Cape Girardeau County's own Secretary of State Bekki Cook; or someone else, Holden will likely face a contest.

An under-appreciated wild card in all this is the outcome of this November's election campaigns for both the Missouri House and Senate. Should a hard-charging Republican effort succeed in winning a majority in either the House or Senate, Missouri politics won't be the same.

The GOP hasn't controlled the Missouri House since 1952-54 and hasn't been in the majority in the Missouri Senate since 1946-48. That is to say, no person under the age of 67 has ever voted in an election that sent a Republican majority to either house of the General Assembly. At a time when 75 percent of America's population is governed by the nation's 33 Republican governors, Missouri is among only six states where Democrats hold both houses of the legislature and the governor's mansion. But in the House, only six seats are needed to put Republicans in the majority, and in the Senate, only three. For perspective, consider that less than five years ago the House was 95-68 Democratic, while before my election in 1992, the Senate was Democratic by a margin of 21-13. The tenure of Mel Carnahan, like that of Bill Clinton, has been good for electing Republicans.

Recent statewide polls are showing Republicans have pulled even with Democrats in party identification after years of being down anywhere from 12-20 points. This year's elections will be interesting, as will those in 2000.

~Peter Kinder is assistant to the president of Rust Communications and a state senator from Cape Girardeau.