McCaskill Member Of The “Addlepated Eight”
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 5:50pm | Permalink

In 2004, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Colin McNickle squared off with Teresa Heinz Kerry in the infamous “shove it” incident. More recently, McNickle has taken Sen. McCaskill and seven other Senate supporters of a windfall profits tax to task. He does not suffer the “Addlepated Eight” lightly.

Whose Budget Project Is It Anyway?
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:15pm | Permalink

For years, media outlets have portrayed the Missouri Budget Project as “a statewide nonpartisan organization.” In fact, that is the exact description used in today’s CDT story on the Budget Project’s opposition to state tax relief measures supported by Republicans. While the media has perpetuated the group’s “nonpartisan” image, a foundation created and overseen by AG Jay Nixon has handed out hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to the group with few, if any, questions raised about the glaring conflict.

Since 2003, the Missouri Foundation for Health has donated over $700,000 in funding to the Missouri Budget Project (a.k.a. Missouri Coalition for Budget & Policy Priorities), and the group has welcomed the support. Here is an account of that support from the foundation’s grant list for 2002-2006:

While a majority of the foundation’s annual grants are worthwhile and justified, it is unacceptable that over $700,000 has been squandered to help establish and further the efforts of a liberal think tank that should be funded through private means. If such an arrangement does not constitute an egregious conflict, what does? If a Republican elected official had oversight over a billion-dollar entity that was funding the Heritage Foundation, Missourians would have heard about it long ago.

Nixon & The NEA
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:00am | Permalink

Missouri’s NEA affiliate will reportedly endorse AG Jay Nixon for governor very soon, which is a no-brainer when considering the union, which has been called “an arm of the Democratic National Committee”¹, has consistently backed Missouri Democrats in both federal and state-level races. However, the timing of the endorsement raises questions regarding Nixon’s recent defense of the state’s position in the pending school funding lawsuit. It also begs examination of the union’s leftist political agenda, which will accompany the inevitable largesse that will benefit Nixon. With Big Labor, strings are always attached.

The Missouri NEA supports the plaintiffs in the current school funding suit, and for good reason. The plaintiffs have argued that current funding levels are inadequate and require $1.3 billion in increased state spending to correct, which would force a massive tax increase if judicially mandated. A $1.3 billion revenue injection into schools, while completely unnecessary, would keep union coffers full at the expense of Missouri taxpayers, which is a worthwhile tradeoff for those at the NEA. When taxpayers suffer, the NEA prospers.

Nixon’s office recently defended the current funding formula with the assistance of a pricy outsourced law firm. However, his pending endorsement from the pro-plaintiff NEA draws into question his defense as he stands to benefit from embracing the union’s agenda, which includes support for the suit. During the last Missouri gubernatorial contest in 2004, NEA sources donated over $600,000 to Claire McCaskill, Bob Holden, the MDP and the DGA. If Nixon accepts the NEA’s lucrative endorsement, he owes taxpayers some answers. Did he adequately defend taxpayers from a possible judge-mandated tax increase, despite the promise of NEA backing in 2008? Does he personally support the NEA’s position in favor of the plaintiffs?

Here’s a sampling of other NEA undertakings and issues:

“A honey pot for left-wing political causes.” Last year, the Wall Street Journal examined NEA annual spending. What it found was $65 million in dues doled out to a veritable who’s who of left-wing special interests that included Jesse Jackson’s PUSH Coalition, the Human Rights Campaign, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and Amnesty International.

Abortion. Recently, some NEA members have clashed with the establishment over the union’s pro-choice positions, which include the right to an abortion without parental notification. The dispute has not been dampened by the NEA, which co-sponsored a controversial pro-choice march in D.C. that was organized by Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU.

Gay rights. While the NEA claims it does not support same-sex marriage, it helps fund groups that do. The union also promotes homosexual advocacy through its powerful GLBT Caucus.

Immigration. The NEA opposed recent efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, and has served as a vociferous critic of English-only proposals for schools.

From the Christian Science Monitor, 7/5/2006: The National Education Association once declared that legislative initiatives calling for English-only instruction in schools are "government-sanctioned bigotry." They are a "form of thought control, another inappropriate burden placed on teachers."

2nd Amendment. The gun control policies of the NEA are to the NRA what George Foreman was to Muhammad Ali.

Link: Conservative Educators Caucus

____________
¹ WSJ, 1/4/2006

The Sports Beat
Posted by: Michael Urban | 10:10am | Permalink

The NFL Draft is this weekend, and that means it’s time for Missouri Pulse’s 2007 Draft Preview. To prepare for this column, I scrolled through numerous mock drafts, watched plenty of draft preview shows and read in-depth analysis on every team and have come to this conclusion: the NFL Draft is the biggest sports event in America. That’s a heavy statement to make but one that can be made with a substantial amount of evidence to back it up. Think about it, if your favorite team tanks near the halfway point of the season you quickly begin thinking about the draft and how it may improve your team. For many fans, this process starts in November, a full four months before the draft. The preparation commences much earlier for team scouts as they spend countless hours evaluating game film, 40 yard dash times, prospect interviews and more. And if that isn’t enough, sports writers and pundits forecast the draft before the Super Bowl, bantering back and forth about who should be the number one pick, who is the most overrated prospect and who is the sure-fire bet to save a franchise. All of this has created an unparalleled amount of hype and helped develop the draft into the spectacle that it is today.

I’m not going to pretend I know what every team will do in the first round so I will not bore you with a mock draft. [Note: Last I counted there were officially 3,851 mock drafts online, in newspapers, magazines, home and garden journals and in political blogs – a new record.] Rather, I will analyze the first round possibilities that confront the Kansas City Chiefs and the St. Louis Rams.

By the way, is it just me or is anyone else annoyed at the mock drafts that feature predictions for all 7 rounds? Really? I’m betting that ESPN’s draft expert Mel Kiper Jr. and the rest of the draft aficionados don’t know Manuel Ramirez (OG from Texas Tech) from Manuel Zelaya (president of Honduras). However, if you’re looking for some unintentional comedy this weekend look no further than ESPN’s draft crew discussing a 6th round draft pick out of Alcorn State.

On that note, let’s get to some real analysis and try to predict who the Chiefs and Rams will draft this weekend.

The Kansas City Chiefs

The Situation: The youth movement is underway in Kansas City as the Chiefs continue to deal veterans for draft picks. Dante Hall moved across the state this week in exchange for a 5th round pick, and Trent Green will undoubtedly be shipped to Miami for more draft insurance. With as many as 9 picks, the Chiefs have the opportunity to fill many holes this weekend. Kansas City has the 23rd overall pick and most draft experts seem to think a wide receiver is a logical choice. There will be solid receivers available when the Chiefs go on the clock, but look for Carl Petersen and Co. to go in a different direction. The retirement of future Hall of Famer Will Shields left a gaping hole on the offensive line leaving the Chiefs to consider drafting a guard in the first round. But perhaps the most pressing need is at cornerback where last year’s starters (Ty Law and Patrick Surtain) aren’t getting any younger.

The Pick: There will be a tough decision to make in the Chiefs’ war room between drafting Ben Grubbs – OG, Auburn and Aaron Ross – CB, Texas. But I predict Kansas City, led by the defensive-minded Head Coach Herm Edwards, will make a solid choice with the 23rd pick and choose Ross.

The St. Louis Rams

The Situation: The Rams have the 13th overall pick and will focus on improving the moribund run defense that ranked 31st in the league last year. The Rams ended all speculation about drafting WR Ted Ginn Jr. when they traded for the Chiefs’ Dante Hall on Wednesday thus filling their hole for a badly needed kick-off and punt return man. Rumors are flying that the Rams are interested in trading for Carolina’s Pro Bowl DT Kris Jenkins but all indications are that if a trade is made it will most likely occur on draft day. With that said, I think the Rams are focused on taking either Adam Carriker -- DT, Nebraska or Jamaal Anderson – DE, Arkansas depending on how the Jenkins issue unfolds.

The Pick: The Rams will trade their third and seventh round picks and a conditional second round pick in 2008 for Jenkins while they are on the clock. St. Louis will then desperately look down the board for a trading partner in hopes of acquiring more picks (the Rams would be happy to move down and pick Darrelle Revis – CB, Pitt) but will find no takers. Unable to make a trade, the Rams stay at 13 and pick Jamaal Anderson – DE, Arkansas.

There you have it folks -- real and insightful analysis on the NFL Draft from a political website. It doesn’t get any better than that.

Ideological Cloning: Why McGovern?
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:30pm | Permalink

It is our hope that no one reading this post had to suffer through the monotony of the Democratic debate last evening. For those who did and survived the boredom, you surely noticed the droning surrender theme, particularly from top-tier contenders. It was as if the far left anti-war ideology of George McGovern, the recipient of a presidential walloping in 1972, had been implanted into the minds of contenders.

For conservatives who want the cliff notes on the debate, check out Byron York’s column. For liberals in denial over the connection to McGovern’s ideology, check out what McGovern recently had to say about the comparison:

From NPR, 4/25/2007:

McGovern lost the 1972 presidential election by a 61%-38% margin.

More...

For those seeking POTUS contenders (both announced and unannounced) who are committed to the nation’s defense, check out the GOP’s Fantastic Four:

• Mitt Romney: Remarks on combating nuclear terrorism @ Yeshiva University.

• Sen. John McCain: Video of highlights of acclaimed April 11 speech @ VMI

• Rudy Giuliani: He’s everywhere following his remarks this week on Dem weakness on national security.

• Fred Thompson: NR column from January 2007 foretelling events currently unfolding over the direction of the War on Terror.

Another Broken Campaign Pledge...
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 1:40pm | Permalink

Yesterday, Sen. McCaskill joined fellow freshman Democrats to unveil legislation (S. 1238) that seeks to impose a 50% “windfall profits” tax on oil above $50 per barrel. Sen. McCaskill’s support for the legislation comes just 8 short months after Candidate McCaskill said she did not support such a tax.

From the AP, 8/28/2006:

A windfall tax was signed into law by President Carter and later repealed by a Democratic Congress after causing significant damage to the economy and increasing America’s reliance on foreign oil. If the current efforts of McCaskill and other Democrats are successful, we can be sure that any new taxes on energy companies will be passed to consumers in the form of higher prices, acting as a huge tax increase on low-income Missourians and the middle-class.

As far as McCaskill is concerned, did anybody really expect her to follow through on her pledges?

Recommended Reading For Chuck Graham
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:05am | Permalink

Sen. Chuck Graham has had a really, really bad week. Since his filibustering ways backfired and cost his district nearly $90 million in MOHELA projects, he’s been prone to temper tantrums, blame shifting, and even name calling. And that was before yesterday’s failure to remove restrictions on state funding for embryonic stem cell research. He capped his week marked by acrimony and acerbity with one final grizzled swipe at the MOHELA plan he loathes so much.

From the CDT Politics Blog:

Graham: “I think it’s time to send this piece of crap to the House.”

While Graham’s post-failure tirades are admittedly entertaining, he’s bound to cool off and nothing spells relief like the affirmations of Stuart Smalley.

Truth in Advertising—Week #5
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 8:15am | Permalink

Twenty-four weeks after being elected with the promise that she would be an independent vote for Missouri, Sen. McCaskill continues to vote with some of the most liberal members of her party—Boxer, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton—more than 90% of the time. This week’s most controversial vote occurred Thursday when McCaskill and her Democrat colleagues endorsed surrender in Iraq. President Bush has promised a veto of the capitulation plan, which could result in McCaskill reiterating her position one more time.

No Surprises: McCaskill, Dems Reiterate Support For Surrender
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:10pm | Permalink

About an hour ago, Sen. McCaskill and her Dem colleagues in the Senate prevailed by a 51-46 vote to send their surrender plan for the War on Terror to President Bush, who has pledged to veto the plan “very soon.”

For those in need of a pick-up after the Democratic Party waved the white flag in near unanimity, check out Sen. Joe Lieberman’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post that makes the case for steadfastness in the War on Terror. It’s doubtful that McCaskill’s recent efforts to nuance the deadlines for surrender would carry much water with him.

From Lieberman’s op-ed:

The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight. To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

Accountability Needed In Second Injury Fund Mess
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:30am | Permalink

Since 1993, AG Jay Nixon has repeatedly touted his reform, oversight and fiscal management of the Second Injury Fund. However, with the fund about to go belly-up as a result of a more than 275% increase in annual expenditures on his watch, Nixon is seeking political cover. Yesterday, lawmakers saw through a transparently political audit of the fund by Auditor Susan Montee and took their questions directly to Nixon.

What was Nixon’s response? From today’s the KC Star coverage:

While Nixon is entitled to rehash and reminisce on his first term, which concluded over 10 years ago, that doesn’t change the fact that the fund is currently teetering on the brink of insolvency. Feeble and dated political platitudes do little to solve the current mess. Instead of reaching back in time for a flimsy defense, Nixon should accept his role in the fund’s mounting financial troubles and get to work on a solution.

Leave The Terrible Ideas In Illinois
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 7:40pm | Permalink

In his latest campaign e-mail, AG Jay Nixon encouraged Missourians to join him in support of restoring state welfare rolls to pre-2005 reform levels, and he praised the efforts of governors in surrounding states to enact universal coverage.

From Nixon’s campaign e-mail:

Governors across the nation -- both Republicans and Democrats -- are providing real leadership to address health care challenges facing their states. . . . Closer to home, in Illinois and Kansas, Democratic Governors Blagojevich and Sebelius have done the same. These governors and others are taking creative approaches to make health care available to all citizens.

For Nixon’s sake, we are almost (but not quite) inclined to grant him a mulligan for praising Rod Blagojevich and deeming his health care plan "creative."  He can't be serious! Right now in Illinois, Blagojevich is waging a self-described “Armageddon” against state taxpayers as he pushes for the approval of the largest tax increase (check the link; incredible website) in state history to fund the establishment of a burgeoning socialized medicine program, among other things. Recent estimates place the tax hike in the $7 billion range.  "Creative" is not the word first word that comes to mind.

As things currently stand, Nixon's welfare restoration plan for Missouri could require a $1 billion tax increase just to implement.  His plan grates against the anti-tax bearings of Missouri voters and belongs with the terrible tax ideas on the other side of the Mississippi River where fiscal conservatism is a relic. 

In Defense Of Surrender
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:45pm | Permalink

Yesterday, Sen. Bond reiterated his hawkish position in the national debate over the direction of the War on Terror. Today, Sen. McCaskill aired her views in defense of surrender. After listening to the audio excerpt of McCaskill’s interview, she seems much more comfortable explaining the nuances of deadlines, targets and withdrawals than expressing the reasons for her position. After a week of fireworks and controversies, it is expected that final Senate and House votes on the much-debated war spending plan will be cast by the close of business on Friday.

WHITE WASH: Montee’s Second Injury Fund Fraud
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:05pm | Permalink

Last month, Missouri Pulse reported that a pending state audit of the Second Injury Fund was shaping up to be a sop for the trial lawyer friends of Auditor Susan Montee, who also happens to be a trial lawyer. This morning, Montee released the official audit, which substantiates our concerns that she would place blame for the fund’s long-term financial problems, which have been overseen by AG Jay Nixon, on recently enacted tort reforms.

In short, Montee’s audit is ham-handed, one-dimensional and completely ignores the elephant in the room (Nixon’s gross mismanagement of the fund) and the elephant’s handlers (payouts to trial lawyers who fund Nixon’s campaigns). Even former Auditor McCaskill, who wrote the how-to-guide on being a partisan auditor, was incapable of such obvious partisan malpractice. Let’s hope the media sees through Montee’s transparent scheme.

[UPDATE 11:00 PM] Gov. Blunt and other lawmakers have begun to question Montee's report. 

Same Song, Different Verse
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:30am | Permalink

“This is like déjà vu all over again.”—Baseball great Yogi Berra

AG Jay Nixon’s MEC reports reflect his anti-business record: gobs of trial lawyer support; some union support; very little support from businesses aside from a few real estate moguls. With that in mind, it is intriguing that Mid-Missouri Bank CEO Lee Gilbert recently donated $20,500 to Nixon’s committee. Although Gilbert has donated smaller amounts to other Dems, there was no precedent for him giving such a large sum to Nixon.

Then, recent stories in the Joplin Globe and Springfield Business Journal (a better read; registration required) cleared things up. According to the SBJ story, Gilbert disclosed that the Missouri Division of Finance, the FBI and the FDIC are currently investigating Mid-Missouri Bank. In recent days, the investigation triggered events that would make any CEO apprehensive. A bank president and a loan officer were canned, while two other executives were suspended.

Yet again, Nixon has proven himself to be the go-to-guy for legally embattled businesses in need of a powerful political ally. Sound familiar? With Ameren, he compromised his criminal investigation for nearly $20,000. Now, he has accepted a similar amount from the CEO of a Missouri bank that is the focus of a state and federal investigation.

Should the investigation of Mid-Missouri Bank result in the state pressing charges, Nixon could be forced to remove himself from the case as a result of the donations. Also, it’s no secret that Nixon’s office works closely with the Missouri Division of Finance on various consumer matters, which raises the specter of undue influence or his office’s involvement, albeit compromised, in the division’s current investigation.

In the event that Nixon completes the embarrassing trifecta of losing statewide in 1988, 1998 and 2008, he stands to make a lot of money in the white collar/corporate defense field. It is unfortunate that he is already accepting payoffs from potential clients while serving as the state’s top prosecutor.

A Win, A Loss
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:20 pm | Permalink

You win some …

The fine residents of Raintree Plantation in Jefferson County have been put through the ringer by the ongoing pollution mess caused by the Nixon family sewage plant. However, they are fighting back on their property owners’ bulletin board. The site features a wealth of info on state and federal actions against the sewage plant, and they even link up to Missouri Pulse’s recent work on the subject. It seems Jay Nixon may have to work a little harder than he thought in certain parts of his home county next year.

… you lose some

A couple weeks ago, Missouri Pulse cited a recent legislative update from the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys (MATA) in a post that dealt with the interest group’s lobbying campaign to keep AG Nixon in charge of the trial lawyer cash cow known as the Second Injury Fund. Today, keen observers informed Missouri Pulse that MATA’s legislative update is no longer available to the general public as a result of that post. We at Missouri Pulse sincerely apologize for any role we had in MATA’s decision to go underground with their lobbying schemes, and we hope they’ll resume posting them for all to read. (Please note our sarcasm.)

Bond, GOP Buck Polls; Remain United In Opposition To Dem Defeatism
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:20am | Permalink

The U.S has arrived at a critical crossroads in the War on Terror. In the next few weeks one of two directions will play out. Either Democrats will prevail in their efforts to surrender, or Republicans will buck the polls and press on toward victory.

If you’re wondering where Sen. Kit Bond stands on the surrender monkey chatter coming out of Washington these days, there is no better time to catch up. In recent months, Bond, whose son has served in Iraq, has taken an increasingly high-profile role as an opponent of Democratic defeatism. He continues to show his conviction in a must-read op-ed in today’s KC Star.

Recommended site:

New grassroots effort headed by active-duty U.S. soldiers: http://www.appealforcourage.org/

Double Whammy
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:15am | Permalink

Yesterday was a good day for pro-life Missourians. First, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an appellate decision which struck down Missouri’s partial-birth abortion ban. That action should clear the way for the reapplication of Missouri’s partial-birth ban, which already had the support of Gov. Blunt.

Secondly, the State House passed legislation (HB 1055) to increase state regulation of abortion clinics by a bipartisan 101-48 margin. Embattled abortion supporters at Planned Parenthood griped that the legislation could result in the end of abortion services at clinics in Columbia and Kansas City. Boo-hoo.

How did your State Rep vote? From the State House Journal, 4/23/2007:

Nixon Turns To STL Area Fire Union To Boost Tepid Union Support
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:00 pm | Permalink

A couple years ago, the Post-Dispatch challenged AG Jay Nixon to do the right thing and crack down on a controversial yet “politically powerful” fire union in the St. Louis area.

From a Post-Dispatch editorial, 12/8/2004:

But the [Missouri] Ethics Commission hasn't yet taken up the central issue of corruption. That's ridiculous. If the Ethics Commission or Mssrs.[AG Jay] Nixon or [STL County Attorney Bob] McCulloch had been investigating Watergate, Richard Nixon still would be president. The firefighters are a politically powerful union with strong ties in North County Democratic circles. It would take guts for Democrats like Mr. Nixon or Mr. McCulloch to cross them or for a Democrat like Mr. Dooley to back consolidation. Demanding accountability and stamping out corruption are part of their job. A crook is a crook, regardless of party affiliation.

So far, Nixon has predictably forsaken his “guts” and buckled to political pressures. He has also come to rely on fire unions to boost his otherwise tepid union support. According to Nixon’s April 2007 MEC report, he raised $1.3 million but received less than $75,000 from identifiable labor sources. Nearly a 1/3 of the labor total came from fire union sources located in the St. Louis area.¹

Nixon’s failure to crack down on union corruption isn’t the only problem he could face as a result of his fire union support. In 1998, Nixon’s U.S. Senate bid was hamstrung by African-American disillusionment with his campaign. Accepting gobs of donations from polarizing fire unions will not help him overcome that disillusionment.

_______
¹ MEC, Nixon April 2007 report

What A Difference A Year Makes
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:15am | Permalink

This weekend, the Post-Dispatch featured a front page splash on a state issue that has gone unnoticed for far too long—the lack of oversight regarding the allocation and use of low-income housing tax credits. According to the story, only about 35-cents out of every dollar spent on the tax credits currently goes to build homes, while the rest goes down the rat hole to “middlemen” who “buy and sell” the credits for a profit.

After reading the prominent and rather critical “buy and sell” section of the story, I was reminded of last year’s U.S. Senate campaign. Back then, buying and selling tax credits was neither a splash nor was it criticized. In fact, it barely registered with most in the media when it was revealed that Claire McCaskill’s husband, who amassed a fortune from government subsidies for low-income housing, had forsaken nursing homes and subsidized housing for work as a “middleman” “selling tax credits.” Although the need for reforming the tax credit program was just as relevant then as it is now, no penalty flags were thrown by the media. Instead, the latest McCaskill family business venture was relegated to near foot note status in most press coverage.

2006 tail-enders from the Post-Dispatch:

Shepard now operates as a tax credit syndicator -- buying and selling the credits as a sort middleman between the developer and investors. (P-D, July 27, 2006)

Shepard has quit developing apartments and now works mainly as a middleman, selling tax credits. (P-D, August 27, 2006)

To add insult to injury, few took notice when McCaskill, who had ignored the tax credit program during her first seven years as State Auditor, decided that during an election year it was politically expedient to announce an audit of the program through which her husband was benefiting as a “middleman.” It is not a shock that McCaskill never got around to releasing the blatantly political audit.¹

In 2006, Republicans rightly questioned the buying and selling of tax credits as it pertained to McCaskill, and in 2007 Republicans, led by Gov. Blunt, have raised awareness about the need for reform of the tax credit program. Let’s hope new recommendations from Blunt’s blue-ribbon task force come to fruition. As for McCaskill, sources say the latest family business venture is going quite well without the hassle of burdensome media scrutiny.

_______
¹ Springfield News-Leader, 2/22/2006

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING?-- Week #4
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:45am | Permalink

With 135 roll call votes cast through last Friday, Sen. Claire McCaskill continues to vote with prominent Senate liberals at a greater than 90% clip. Meanwhile, her voting record is not quite as glowing when compared to her Missouri counterpart, Sen. Kit Bond. Look for the sailing to get more treacherous for McCaskill in the upcoming weeks as the Senate will be at the center of contentious debates over war funding and taxation.

P.S. For the McCaskill staffers who are monitoring our weekly post (and we know you are), don’t go bonkers over Roll Call #130. CQ accidentally switched the votes of McCaskill and Sen. McConnell (R-KY), but they have made the correction.

Carnahan Compares “Home” To Middle East
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:45pm | Permalink

Apparently, SoS Robin Carnahan, like self-appointed Syrian ambassador Nancy Pelosi before her, fails to recognize the world of difference between American democracy and the oppressive and totalitarian terrorist states that litter the Middle East.  If the Middle East “wasn’t so different” than “home”, I'm guessing Secretary Carnahan fared much better on her property reassessment than I did!.  As an aside, what possible reason could our virtually invisible Secretary of State give for traveling to the Middle East?

From P-D Political Fix coverage of MDP Jefferson-Jackson dinner last night:

Carnahan recounted that she had recently visited the Middle East, where she witnessed “a sense in all of those places of unrest.” She then observed that the situation “wasn’t so different from what we’re undergoing here at home.'’ The difference, Carnahan concluded, was that “we have elections” where voters can force a change in their government and their leaders.

The Sports Beat
Posted by: Michael Urban | 3:20pm | Permalink

"With the people we have coming back, there's no way we shouldn't compete for the Big 12 title," said Daniel. "I don't see there being any way where we don't finish first or second in the nation in total offense. We have the ability to score 40 points a game. We can easily win 10 games." ESPN.COM

If you are a Missouri Tiger football fan the words spoken by Junior Quarterback Chase Daniel may seem inflated and shallow. After all, the last time a Tiger football team won 10 games the year was 1960 and Dwight Eisenhower occupied the Oval Office and Perry Como was a hit on TV…Yikes. So please pardon Tiger fans for their skepticism regarding such high expectations.

As the Tigers prepare for their annual Black and Gold game this Saturday at Faurot Field in Columbia, optimism may be at an all-time high but reality tells us it’s only April and kickoff to the ’07 season is still over four months away. This is plenty of time for fans to temper their optimism and get a reality check. Hey, I’m part of the club. I was a student at Mizzou when quarterback Brad Smith tantalized Tiger Nation with his game-breaking moves. Unfortunately, none of those moves helped achieve anything more than an 8 win season and two appearances in the hardly glamorous Independence Bowl. I’ve been hearing for years how in any given season the Tigers will finally brush away Nebraska and supplant themselves as the class of the Big XII North Division. There’s been all this talk but no results. High expectations have been part of Tiger football for years, but so too have major letdowns.

But perhaps Daniel is on to something when he says the Tigers have the ability to score 40 points a game. Maybe he’s right and the 2007 Tigers will quit teasing their fans and national prognosticators and finally win 10 games and contend for a Big 12 title. And you know what? I think Daniel is right. Here’s a guy who lost only one game as a starting quarterback in high school and led Texas powerhouse Carroll High (Southlake) to the Texas class 5 state title in 2004. He smashed Mizzou’s all-time record for touchdown passes in a single season, passing for 28 TDs in 2006. Also in ’06, Daniel threw for a jaw-dropping 3,527 yards surpassing the mark set by QB Jeff Handy in 1991 by a mere 1,091 yards. Folks, these aren’t Tecmo Bowl stats – these numbers were put up against Big XII conference defenses. In short, Chase Daniel is a winner. Add that to a very favorable schedule and the fact that he’ll be throwing to the best receiving corps in the conference and 10 wins and a New Year’s Day bowl invite is right around the corner. This team doesn’t even need a defense. My prediction you ask? The Tigers will win the Big XII North title and go 10-2, losing on the road to Oklahoma and Kansas State. You heard it here first. Oh yes Tiger fans, this will be the year we can file away those glorious memories of 1960 and look forward to 2007.

Here’s my take on the 2007 Tigers and a preview of their Black and Gold Game this weekend:

• Led by Daniel, the Tiger offense will again be potent in 2007. Returning tight ends Martin Rucker and Chase Coffman are BOTH All-American candidates and will lead the offensive attack. Potential All-Conference wide receivers William “helicopter” Franklin and Tommy Saunders will put up huge numbers in the spread offense and help the Tigers achieve “Greatest Show on Turf” status.

• The running game looks to be in good hands with tailback Tony Temple returning for his senior campaign. Although he had issues holding on to the ball in ’06, Temple looked solid down the stretch including a breakout 20 carry, 194 yard 2 TD performance in the Sun Bowl. Temple, along with tailbacks Jimmy Jackson and freshman Derrick Washington, will play a key role in keeping defenses off balance this season.

• There have been some rumblings this spring that the Tiger defense is soft and wi