 |
|
 |
April 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
I Can’t Quit You
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:40am | Permalink
“Well, I can’t quit you baby. But I got to put you down for awhile.”
- Lyrics from “I Can’t Quit You Baby” by blues master Otis Rush
Yesterday, for what seemed like the 35th time, Barack Obama attempted to sever his 20-year bond with his incendiary pastor and mentor Jeremiah Wright. While many pundits and reporters believe Obama has finally ridded himself of Wright, the National Review’s Byron York is not so certain the damage inflicted on his campaign won’t resonate with voters until Election Day. In his latest column, York hits the nail on the head with his argument that Wright believes Obama has tried to denounce him not because he disagrees with his outlandish world view, but because he has to solely for political reasons. If Obama’s honesty is drawn into question, what does that say about his greatest asset—words, just words?
Excerpt from York’s column:
“Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls,” Wright told the Press Club. “Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. . . . I do what pastors do. [Obama] does what politicians do.” A few days earlier, in an interview with PBS’s Bill Moyers, Wright said Obama, in his Philadelphia speech attempting to calm the controversy created by Wright’s sermons, had said “what he has to say as a politician.”
That, not Wright’s wide-ranging social theories, is what forced Obama to denounce Wright at a hastily arranged news conference Tuesday. By questioning Obama’s honesty, Wright was striking at the heart of the Obama campaign. The most damaging thing Wright could ever say is that he knows, based on his long personal relationship with Obama, that Obama agrees with him but can’t say so publicly for political reasons. Put another way, if voters believe that Obama fundamentally rejects Wright’s views, they might question Obama’s judgment in remaining close to Wright for 20 years. But if voters believe that Obama secretly agrees with Wright but is putting on another face to win an election, then all is lost.
|
 |
|
 |
|
April 29, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama, ACORN & Voter ID
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:30pm | Permalink
While some reporters continue to mistakenly refer to the scandal plagued lefties at ACORN as “a community group that helps register poor voters”, the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund isn’t having any of that. Instead, Fund has penned an analytical piece that details the history between ACORN, Barack Obama and voter ID. And wouldn’t you know it! ACORN used to be an Obama legal client, he sat on the board of a non-profit that directed grants to the group, he helped train ACORN’s staff and more recently he joined briefs with the group in opposition to the Indiana voter ID law that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. Oh yeah, ACORN has also endorsed Obama for POTUS and the group is planning to use its controversial voter registration practices to put him in the White House. And to think some folks in the media still believe ACORN is nothing more than “a community group that helps register poor voters.”
Excerpt from Fund’s piece:
“In 1995, then GOP Gov. Jim Edgar refused to implement the federal ‘Motor Voter’ law. Allowing voters to register using only a postcard and blocking the state from culling voter rolls, he argued, could invite fraud. Mr. Obama sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and won. Acorn later invited Mr. Obama to help train its staff; Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which frequently gave this group grants.
Acorn's efforts to register voters have been scandal-prone. St. Louis, Mo., officials found that in 2006 over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations didn't exist. ‘We met twice with Acorn before their drive, but our requests completely fell by the wayside,’ said Democrat Matt Potter, the city's deputy elections director. Later, federal authorities indicted eight of the group's local workers. One of the eight pleaded guilty last month.
In Seattle, local officials invalidated 1,762 Acorn registrations. Felony charges were filed against seven of its workers, some of whom have criminal records. Prosecutors say Acorn's oversight of its workers was virtually nonexistent. To avoid prosecution, Acorn agreed to pay $25,000 in restitution.
Despite this record – and polls that show clear majorities of blacks and Hispanics back voter ID laws – Mr. Obama continues to back Acorn. They both joined briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn Indiana's law. . . .
Acorn's national political arm has endorsed Mr. Obama. And its ‘nonpartisan’ voter registration affiliate has announced plans to register hundreds of thousands of voters before the November election. An election in which Mr. Obama may be the Democratic candidate.”
|
|
|
|
|
April 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fighting With Words, Not Votes
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:30pm | Permalink
For the past couple weeks, House Democrats have repeatedly voiced displeasure with Republican-sponsored measures that seek to combat illegal immigration and challenge the wasteful allocation of tax dollars to subsidize illegal immigrants. Yet, when it comes time to vote, most Democrats are either voting with Republicans or not voting at all on the very measures many in their caucus, including their leaders, have publicly castigated. Last week’s vote on HB 1626, a bill that would prohibit illegal immigrants from public assistance, is the latest example of that (see vote tally below).
According to a Vote Smart survey (pg. 9), Jay Nixon supports prohibiting states from denying illegal immigrants access to taxpayer funded services, which one might think would make reporters curious about Nixon’s thoughts on HB 1626. While the Pulse holds little hope in a reporter actually grilling Nixon about the measure, we’re willing to bet he would probably echo the sentiments of his legislative allies, who toss red meat rhetoric to appease their liberal base but vote with Republicans in order to appear tough on this hot-button issue. After all, what’s one more flip-flop for Nixon, who has been all over the map on a litany of issues for the past 22 years?
From the State House Journal, 4/24/2008: 
|
|
|
|
|
April 24, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor Lowers The Bar
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:45pm | Permalink
This week, Jay Nixon has made much of his support for Big Labor, and his campaign finance reports over the past three years suggest a mutual affinity despite some rather obvious flaws overlooked by his supporters. These days, it appears a Democrat like Nixon can still garner the support of labor bosses despite a history of investing in Wal-Mart, the bane of labor’s existence, shilling for an heir of the company, supporting NAFTA (pg. 12 of survey) and speaking against state-level efforts to raise the minimum wage. With a record like that, Nixon might be able to cut into the 40% of rank-and-file union members who vote Republican!
Excerpt from the Dexter Daily Statesman, 11/22/2005:
Nixon entertained several questions after his presentation. One, from Ron Yersack, concerned Nixon’s view of the possibility of raising the minimum wage in Missouri. But Nixon sidestepped the question. “That’s a federal issue,” he replied. “But they already voted not to, and the states can do it,” Yersack pointed out, “and 17 states have raised the minimum wage on their own, and the price of everything has gone up.” Nixon, who has described himself as a centrist, agreed with Yersack that the minimum wage was too low, but declined to call for enactment of a state minimum wage. “That’s for our congressional delegation to do,” he said, “but I don’t believe it’s a state issue.”
|
|
|
|
|
April 23, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So Let Me Get This Straight, Part I
Posted by: Jonaton Prouty | 12:10pm | Permalink
In all of its infinite wisdom, the MDP lashed out yesterday at a Republican gubernatorial contender for having the audacity to propose reforming the state’s license office system while their presumptive gubernatorial pick Jay Nixon has been all but silent on the issue since he and his office went to court in the 1990’s to defend Carnahan administration efforts to replace Ashcroft era license office operators with Democrat operatives.
To put it bluntly, it’s a tactic that only a Missouri Democrat could get away with: Attack a Republican reformer while banking on the notion that reporters will continue to ignore their candidate’s glaring flaws on the very issue the reformer seeks to address. Now that takes some serious gumption!
Details of the AG’s defense of Carnahan era patronage picks from P-D, 1/18/1999:
Political patronage has all but disappeared from state government, but Gov. Mel Carnahan is fighting to preserve the last remnant.
Sprinkled throughout the state are 167 “fee offices” - places where Missourians can pay sales taxes on new vehicles and boats and get their license plates, drivers licenses and car titles.
Operators cover their expenses - and make a profit - by charging a $2.50 fee for each transaction. The governor usually picks political supporters to run the offices.
That tradition is under fire from Republicans who lost their offices in 1993 when Carnahan, a Democrat, took office. On Thursday, lawyers argued the case before the Missouri Supreme Court, which will decide who gets to keep the political plums.
Federal courts have ruled that most government workers and contractors cannot be fired solely because of their political affiliations. That would violate their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association.
But a few exceptions are allowed - for workers in policy-making roles and those whose political affiliation is reasonably related to performing their duties. Whether fee agents fit into the latter exception is the key issue in the suit.
The Republicans' attorney, Leo V. Garvin Jr., told the high court that state law lists fee agents' duties as selling licenses and collecting sales and use taxes. "No one contends that politics has anything to do with the statutory duties of the fee agents," Garvin said.
But Michael Boicourt, an assistant attorney general, said that for thousands of residents, getting their license renewed is their only contact with state government. Fee agents are "the governor's representatives at the grass roots," Boicourt said.
The governor needs people he can trust to provide efficient, courteous service, former Carnahan aide Roy Temple said at the trial in 1997. It's appropriate to consider political affiliation because fee agents aren't restricted in their political activity, as state employees are, he added.
|
|
|
|
|
April 22, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better Late Than Never
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 4:25am | Permalink
A Pulse reader passed along an interesting weekend editorial in the Post-Dispatch that focused on the justifiably maligned low-income housing tax credits doled out to developers via the Missouri Housing Development Commission.
Much to my surprise, Claire McCaskill was referenced in the editorial in a not-so-positive light. While Republicans have criticized McCaskill since her tenure as State Auditor over her family’s involvement in government-regulated low-income housing projects, it is nice to see the Post-Dispatch finally acknowledge the existence of the conflict. Hopefully, it won’t take nearly as long for the media to scrutinize McCaskill’s current financial picture and ascertain the potential for equally inherent conflicts stemming from Senate votes on federal housing-related measures that stand to impact her bottom line. The word out of D.C. is that all roads lead to the USDA’s Rural Development program.
Excerpt from the Post-Dispatch editorial, 4/20/2008:
“One of the reasons the [low-income housing tax credit] audit has been controversial is that Ms. Montee’s predecessor as auditor, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., is married to Kirkwood developer Joe Shepard, who is in the business of buying and reselling low-income housing credits. Brokers, builders and developers are making out like bandits. But the poor and elderly residents who need quality housing? Or state taxpayers? Not so much.”
|
|
|
|
|
April 21, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something’s Gotta Give
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 8:55am | Permalink
Over the weekend, Jay Nixon’s tax and spending promises became even more at odds with fiscal reality. According to KY3, Nixon, who recently pledged not to raise state taxes on Missourians, promised universal health care for children as an addition to his preexisting plan to resurrect a health care system that would already require a nearly $1 billion state tax hike. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a national health care group, Missouri currently has 127,000 uninsured children.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Nixon’s health care proposals are going to come with a hefty price tag for taxpayers—a price he has yet to discuss. Considering Nixon’s 22-year record as a tax-and-spend liberal, it stands to reason that his no-new-taxes-pledge will likely join abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, the minimum wage, NAFTA, deseg, term limits, drunken driving, gambling and the death penalty on the growing list of issues that Nixon has changed his views on over the years.
|
|
|
|
|
April 18, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 A Not So Veiled Threat
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:35am | Permalink
Not even the pro-abortion faction within the Democrat establishment is immune from the spillover rancor that is emanating from the divisive Clinton-Obama mêlée. According to the AP, Ellen Malcolm, a top Clinton supporter and the chief of the powerful pro-abortion group EMILY’s List, is taking a “wait and see” approach regarding the political futures of Sens. Claire McCaskill and Amy Klobuchar, both Obama supporters. Malcolm, whose group is the top donor to the pro-abortion McCaskill, had this to say when asked what effect McCaskill’s support for Obama could have on her political future:
"There's no question that some of our members are very angry,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president and founder of the EMILY's List political action committee, which gives money to female candidates who favor abortion rights.
"They feel that they elect the women and they've gone to bat for the women and they want every single woman to go to bat for every woman candidate," she added.
Asked whether Klobuchar and fellow freshman Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, another Obama superdelegate, risk losing their seats over these endorsements, Malcolm said, "We'll just have to wait and see.”
It’s worth noting that Malcolm’s public shot at McCaskill and Klobuchar represents an escalation since the AP reported earlier this month on the development of a rift between EMILY’s List and the two Senators over their decision to back Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
April 17, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robertson Mess Worries Dems
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:30am | Permalink
Sources tell Missouri Pulse that the legal imbroglio that has engulfed Chip Robertson, a Jay Nixon appointee and a beneficiary of Nixon’s pay-to-play tobacco litigation scheme, has raised alarm within the Democratic establishment. Aside from the obvious connectivity to Nixon, concerns are brewing over the existence of hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations that have been made to the MDP, Nixon and other party leaders by Robertson’s firm, Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, and its lawyers. A cursory review of state and federal campaign finance records shows that the firm, its lawyers and their spouses have donated more than $300,000 to Democrat leaders and party committees since the 2004 election cycle.
Should Robertson and other Bartimus lawyers fail to extract themselves from their current mess, at least they stand to reap a windfall of returned donations that will help cover their legal fees!
<
|
|
|
|
|
April 17, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Growth Council Exposed
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 10:00am | Permalink
First and foremost, kudos to Jeff Harris and the folks in the state media for following Missouri Pulse’s lead in scrutinizing Chuck Hatfield’s Economic Growth Council.
After reviewing the donations disclosed in the council’s April MEC report, it is obvious why current AG Jay Nixon and AG wannabe Chris “Impostor” Koster wanted the council to funnel them the nearly $500,000 via party committees. Although nearly $200,000 from stem cell proponents accounts for the largest chunk of change, a few other donations are of interest.
$17,450 from casinos: Gambling industry donations aren’t usually a big deal, unless they are being funneled to the Attorney General or his potential replacement. Late in his first term, Jay Nixon started taking heat for his acceptance of gambling industry donations due to the conflict it presented to his duties with the state Gaming Commission. The KC Business Journal questioned whether he had “run afoul of the rule of professional conduct that bars lawyers from representing clients with conflicting interests.”1 Ingram’s questioned his acceptance of $70,000 in gambling industry money: “If he did nothing illegal, his vigilance in enforcing the will of the people is surely suspect.”2 In 1996, the KC Star’s Rich Hood wrote, “[Nixon] displays an incredible myopia in that he accepts campaign contributions from casinos and officials of casinos. As the state’s top law enforcement officer, he has no business taking money from casino interests, legal or not.”3 Finally, in 1998 Nixon disclosed he would no longer accept such donations.4 Apparently, a decade-long moratorium was sufficient for him. As for Koster, he might want to consider the drubbing Nixon took before accepting such donations during a contentious primary.
$100,000 from St. Louis trial law firm: An Attorney General and his coattail tugging wannabe must maintain the perception of ethics no matter how besmirched each of their reputations might be. Maybe that is the reason why Nixon and Koster chose not to directly benefit from a $100,000 donation from Carey & Danis, a trial law firm whose namesakes once had their licenses suspended for a year by the Missouri Supreme Court.
$22,500 from lawyers with William Lerach’s ex-firm: In February, tort baron William Lerach was sentenced to two years in prison for his role in a kickback scheme that attracted national attention. Law.com reported that Lerach’s plea deal required federal investigators to avoid pressing charges against his firm, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins. Now that the firm is free to do as it pleases, its lawyers are ponying up sizable donations to Nixon and Koster, both ATLA members, through Hatfield’s Economic Growth Council.
__________________________
1 KC Business Journal, 7/28/1995
2 Ingram’s, 11/1998
3 KC Star, 10/23/1996
4 KC Star, 3/13/1998
|
|
|
|
|
April 16, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What’s Chuck Looking For?
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 12:30pm | Permalink
“People who are giving that kind of money are looking for something. That's what bothers me.” - Chuck Hatfield on the need for donation limits, P-D, 5/18/2006
One year ago, Missouri Pulse questioned why the media was not scrutinizing the fundraising of Chuck Hatfield—Mr. Donation Limits/top advisor to Jay Nixon. As evidence, the Pulse noted that while Hatfield was allegedly fighting Nixon in court for the restoration of state donation limits, he and his firm’s clients were pumping substantial over-the-limit donations into Nixon’s MEC committee.
A year later, Hatfield has taken his blatant hypocrisy a step further with the formation of a slush fund , the Economic Growth Council, (see prior post) that funneled nearly $500,000 in over-the-limit donations from casinos, stem cell interests and trial lawyers to the committees of Nixon and Chris “Impostor” Koster during the April quarter. All things considered, it seems long overdue for someone in the media to use a little of Hatfield’s own rhetoric on him, Koster and Nixon. What is Chuck looking for?
|
|
|
|
|
April 15, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introducing The Missouri Democrats’ Campaign Slush Fund
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 6:35pm | Permalink
How ironic is it that Chuck Hatfield, Jay Nixon’s guru and a self-professed champion of donation limits, is listed as the treasurer of the Economic Growth Council, a new MEC committee that just released an April report that disclosed nearly $500,000 in donations to run-thru party committees? Early indications are that most, if not all, of the Economic Growth Council’s donations went to run-thru party committees that then funneled the large sums, well in excess of individual donation limits, to the state committees of Jay Nixon and Chris “Impostor” Koster. Predictably, the Economic Growth Council is being funded by casinos, stem cell proponents and trial lawyers.
One can only imagine how frustrated the camps of Margaret Donnelly and Jeff Harris will be once they find out the top adviser to their standard bearer, Jay Nixon, is working against them at the behest of Koster, a former Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
April 15, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Backpedaling Begins
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:40am | Permalink
In a 22-year career marked by flip-flops, Jay Nixon’s no-new-taxes pledge, which he issued last Thursday, may wind up having the quickest turnaround time. According to a P-D Political Fix blurb posted last night, Nixon is now leaving the door open for tax hikes just four days after his spokesman said, “Jay won’t raise taxes.” Although Nixon’s camp protests the P-D’s blurb, his historic support for tax hikes and his ongoing support for a health care plan that would require a nearly $1 billion state tax hike undermines his disingenuous pledge. In addition, Nixon hasn’t exactly kept up his end of the bargain in the past when it comes to holding the line on taxes as evidenced by his first campaign.
1986-1987: GAS TAX SHUFFLE
1986—Candidate Nixon’s campaign rhetoric: “[Nixon] says he cannot support a gasoline tax increase for Missouri until Jefferson County starts getting more of the tax money its residents already have paid.” (P-D, August 3, 1986)
1987—State Sen. Nixon throws Candidate Nixon under the bus: [Nixon told a group] he had examined some figures and had just decided to endorse the state’s proposed 4-cent tax increase on gasoline. “I am supporting the gas tax now for some specific reasons,” he said. Earlier, Nixon had been against the tax because of the Missouri Highway Department’s performance in Jefferson County. “I didn’t get elected to raise taxes,” he told the group. “But I’m convinced we will get significantly more than we will be paying. Also, the tax is a user’s fee. If you don’t drive, you don’t pay.” (P-D, May 30, 1987; 1987 State Senate Journals, SB 135, 63, January 20, 1987; Nixon vote: Y; 31-2 overall vote; January 20, 1987; pgs. 184-185)
|
|
|
|
|
April 11, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Convenient Time For A Bathroom Break
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:10pm | Permalink
Yesterday, the State House passed a Republican-sponsored measure that intends to clamp down on illegal immigration on a number of fronts. However, prior to the measure’s passage House Democrats had a field day tearing into it as evidenced by this excerpt from KC Star coverage:
Democrats, however, castigated nearly every aspect of the bill as ineffectual or potentially harmful. “Anyone that goes home and tells their constituents we did something about illegal immigration is simply a shameless liar,” said Rep. Jeff Roorda, a Barnhart Democrat.
Contrary to their rhetorical fury, many Democrats joined with Republicans in passing the measure by a 124-16 margin. However, it was the Democrats who did not vote that attracted the most attention. According to the State House roll call vote for the measure, Democrat flamethrower Jeff Roorda (see quote above) sat out the vote while Minority Floor Leader Paul LeVota, State Treasurer contender Clint Zweifel and Attorney General wannabes Jeff Harris and Margaret Donnelly were listed as absent with leave. While Zweifel appears to have been absent from all votes cast yesterday, the others cast votes, which prompts some obvious questions, particularly for the Attorney General wannabes. If they can’t muster the courage to take a position on a measure that seeks to crack down on illegal immigration, how do they plan to address Jay Nixon’s 15-year policy of inaction on the issue as Attorney General?
|
|
|
|
|
April 11, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Words To Remember Him By
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 10:05am | Permalink
 For the past 22 years, Jay Nixon hasn’t encountered many tax hikes that he opposed. As a State Senator, he supported a billion dollars in state tax hikes of all shapes and sizes, and he backed efforts to make it easier to raise property taxes on homeowners. As a federal candidate, Nixon’s lowlights included his opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s renowned $750 billion tax overhaul, his attacks on Sen. Kit Bond for refusing to support a $515 billion tax hike package and his assertion that the eradication of the IRS would lead to economic collapse. As Attorney General, Nixon fought in court to keep “the largest tax increase in state history” from going to a statewide vote, and he opposes legislative efforts to curb judge mandated tax hikes. More recently, he supported a failed $71 billion federal tax hike that would have put S-CHIP on the road to socialized medicine, and he supports a nearly $1 billion state tax hike to reinstate Missouri’s fiscally unsustainable health care system.
All things considered, it was hard not to laugh when Nixon’s spokesman told the CDT yesterday, “Jay won't raise taxes.” This is coming from the same guy who once fought to impose a sales tax on video rentals and said afterward, “It will be nice that we’ll finally get some educational benefit from Rambo III.”
|
|
|
|
| | |