SIF Should RIP
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:50am | Permalink

Months ago, this site was the first to question the ongoing existence of Missouri’s obsolete and scandal-prone Second Injury Fund (SIF) which has been run into the ground by the abysmal management of Attorney General Jay Nixon, who first ran for Attorney General in 1992 on an SIF reform platform. Contrary to the claims of Nixon and his trial lawyer donors who profit from the SIF, nearly 20 states have done away with such funds, which includes recent efforts in New York, Arkansas and South Carolina.

Over the past few months, others have joined the SIF debate here in Missouri. In today’s Springfield News-Leader, Associated Builders & Contractors chief Jim Kistler asserts that Missouri should look at what other states have done for perspective on remedying our SIF woes.

Excerpt from Kistler’s op-ed:

“Missouri should examine how other states have handled similar problems. A majority of states ... have either eliminated their Second Injury Funds or severely restricted the types of injuries which can be compensated.”

Liberal Dreams v. Fiscal Reality
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 5:05pm | Permalink

[UPDATED @ 5:45pm]:  Heritage just released additional commentary on the current impasse over SCHIP.  Definitely a must read; particularly the efforts of Sens. DeMint and Coburn to craft a conservative counterproposal.

While liberals in Missouri work themselves into a frenzy over the prospect of the Democrat-controlled Congress busting the budget to greatly expand a government health care program for children, others are taking a far more sobering view of the situation.

According to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, Missouri stands to be a “big loser” if the Democrats prevail with their health care scheme. By big loser, Heritage means Missouri taxpayers would pay out nearly $500 million more in taxes than we’d receive in increased grant funding. It’s bad enough Democrats want to bust the budget in their march toward HillaryCare. It’s an insult to injury to think Missouri would pay out the nose and still wind up on the short end of the stick.

From Heritage:

Kudos To McClellan
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:20am | Permalink

Whether he meant to or not, Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan has illustrated how his fellow editorial writers apply the bogus “nonpartisan” label to liberal groups.

From McClellan’s column in today’s paper:

On the other side is the Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts. Personally, I don't trust any group that has "Fair and Impartial” in its name, but that mistrust is not shared by my editorial-writing colleagues who pointed out that one of the leaders of this group is former Supreme Court Chief Justice Chip Robertson, who was chief of staff for Gov. John Ashcroft before being named to the Supreme Court. He is nobody's idea of a liberal, said the editorial.

Huh? He's been reborn. He's one of us. He left the Supreme Court to get in on the Tobacco Settlement Scam. Remember when Tom Strong and the Pirates — that gang of politically influential lawyers — got in on the national tobacco settlement? Chip was part of that crowd.

Bamata Robertson, we call him these days. (Born Again in the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys.) Whenever we need to make one of our leftie causes seem nonpartisan, we drag him out.

Interestingly enough, the focus of the excerpt, Chip Robertson, was appointed by Attorney General Jay Nixon last December to serve on the watchdog committee that oversees grants made by the Nixon-created Missouri Foundation for Health, which funds a number of liberal attack groups that are ironically defined as “nonpartisan” by the P-D.

Nuts About ACORN
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:30am | Permalink

“Last year several ACORN employees told me that the ACORN scandals that have cropped up around the country are no accident. ‘There's no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances,’ says Nate Toler, who was head of an ACORN campaign against Wal-Mart in California until late last year, when Acorn fired him for speaking to me.”
-John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 7/30/2007

While Democrats give chase the black helicopters of voter fraud, one of their primary voter registration groups is in a very real pickle over very real voter fraud charges. In his latest column, the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund unloads on much-maligned Democratic front group ACORN, which just saw seven of its workers indicted in the state of Washington for what the Secretary of State calls the “worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history” of the state. Among the bogus “voters” that drew the attention of authorities: Actress Katie Holmes, former Speaker Dennis Hastert, the NY Times’ Frank Rich and Thomas Friedman, and of course fictitious names such as “Fruto Boy.”

ACORN’s Missouri problems; excerpt from Fund’s column:

In Kansas City, where two Acorn workers have pleaded guilty to committing registration fraud last year while two others await trial, only 40% of the 35,000 registrations submitted by the group turned out to be bogus. But Melody Powell, chairman of the Kansas City Board of Elections, says Acorn's claim that it brought the fraud in her city to light is "seriously misleading." She says her staff first took the evidence to the FBI, and only then Acorn helped identify the perpetrators. "It's a potential recipe for fraud," she says, noting that "anyone can find a voter card mailed to a false apartment building address lying around a lobby and use it to vote." Ms. Powell also worries that legitimate voters who were registered a second time by someone else under a false address might find it difficult to vote.

Hey, Big Spender
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:25pm | Permalink

"Iraq aside, the most important debate in Congress this year may be the one unfolding over health care. . . . The Bush Administration wants to increase the $25 billion Schip budget by $5 billion over the next five years; Democrats want to bump it up by $60 billion and make it easier to cover even many affluent families. This is HillaryCare on the installment plan, and Senate Democrats have scheduled a truncated debate to whip it through with little public attention." —Wall Street Journal editorial, 7/16/2007

Last year, Candidate Claire McCaskill made an issue of the fiscal claims of Republicans. Like other Democratic challengers across the country, she exploited the growth of government on the Republicans’ watch by calling into question their past claims. McCaskill’s oft-used and derisive one-liner to Missouri voters was, “How's that working out for you?”¹

Unlike other Democrats, McCaskill benefited from the fact that the last vote she cast on a relevant fiscal matter was nearly two decades ago, and she was perceived as tightfisted with tax dollars as a result of her duties as auditor. Additionally, her failed 2004 gubernatorial bid revolved around a fiscal conservative theme and “respect for your tax dollars.”²

As is often the case with McCaskill, the fiscal perception she molded as a candidate eroded upon her ascent to the Senate. Earlier this week, McCaskill reiterated her fiscally irresponsible position in favor of a Democratic plan to greatly expand spending on a government-subsidized health care program intended for low-income children—SCHIP—by $35 billion. Under the plan, Democrats would expand the program’s eligibility far beyond its original scope to include middle-class families making as much as $82,000 annually. That’s right--$82,000!

McCaskill’s support for this nanny state scheme could and should backfire. Aside from erasing any fiscal credibility she might have built up after last year’s campaign, hard working middle-class Missouri taxpayers will be insulted by her attempt to lump them in with low-income welfare recipients who they believe are the typical beneficiaries of such government programs. Contrary to what McCaskill may believe, Missourians continue to espouse and practice the tenets of self-reliance.

In their zeal to creep toward HillaryCare, McCaskill and other Democrats have misread the tea leaves on health care yet again. If McCaskill truly had “respect for your tax dollars” and the livelihood of middle-class Missourians, she would oppose this horribly misguided expansion of government.

_____
¹ KC Star, August 27, 2006
² P-D, October 24, 2004

McCaskill Loophole Exposed
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:30am | Permalink

Yesterday, the Missouri Republican Party exposed another sordid detail of Attorney General Jay Nixon’s clumsy attempt to exploit the recent court ruling on donation limits. In this instance, Nixon was caught red-handed as he lobbied to exempt Sen. Claire McCaskill, who has yet to pay off a $1.6 million campaign loan, from adhering to reinstated donation limits. Check out AP coverage of the MRP’s find here.

To add relevant context to the situation, it is an open secret that Nixon and McCaskill have been on the outs for at least a decade since Nixon tried to dump the Bob Griffin corruption case in her lap. In response to Nixon’s Griffin gaffe, McCaskill issued the following public rebuke of Nixon:

[McCaskill] publicly rebuked Nixon … for leveling "nebulous and sensationalistic” allegations. Nixon's investigation, McCaskill added, was "factually reckless and sloppy.” (AP, August 8, 1998)

Nixon’s underhanded effort to grant McCaskill an exemption proves yet again that he will stop at nothing to achieve his political ends. In this case, he oafishly abused his power as Attorney General in an attempt to placate a longstanding political rival whose support he seeks.

The saddest part of the charade is the fact that McCaskill voluntarily went along with Nixon, whose politics and abilities she has public castigated as “nebulous”, “sensationalistic”, “factually reckless” and “sloppy.” While we agree with McCaskill’s depiction of Nixon, she should have revisited her concerns prior to going along with his ill-fated scheme.

Hatfield Donation Should Be Scrutinized
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 4:05pm | Permalink

With Attorney General Jay Nixon on the defensive over charges that he colluded with his long-time guru Charles Hatfield on the recent campaign finance case, attention should now be turned to a $20,000 donation made to Nixon’s campaign committee from an obscure LLC created by Hatfield. On March 6, 2007, the Hatfield-created Strategic Property Investments LLC donated $20,000 to Nixon’s committee in the midst of the campaign finance case, which found Hatfield and Nixon on opposing sides.

From Nixon’s April 2007 MEC report:

The same day the donation was made, the AP reported that a Cole County judge heard arguments from Hatfield and Nixon’s office in the campaign finance case. As the saying goes, the rest is history. Nixon went on to blow the defense, Hatfield won, and now they’re attempting to impose a retroactive scheme that will erase Governor Matt Blunt’s fundraising advantage to the benefit of Nixon.

As the recent Ameren fiasco proved, Nixon is susceptible to payoffs, and the present situation exacerbates that concern. The acceptance of $20,000 from a courtroom opponent in the midst of a case is ethically tenuous at the bare minimum and could be easily perceived as a bribe. Accepting $20,000 from a courtroom opponent who has a longstanding and continued interest in your political fortunes is a whole different ballgame.

Just Some Good ‘Ol Boys...
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 9:10am | Permalink

“Making their way, the only way they know how
That's just a little bit more than the law will allow”
-Lyrics from Waylon Jennings’ hit “Good ‘Ol Boys” (Dukes of Hazzard theme song)

A story in today’s KC Star raises valid questions regarding the political motivations behind the transparent tag-team efforts of Attorney General Jay Nixon and his long-time guru Charles Hatfield to reinstate donation limits. As most know, Nixon (allegedly) defended the law that ended donation limits against Hatfield and his client, a former Democratic State House candidate, who sought to reinstate the limits. Long story made short—Nixon flopped, Hatfield won, and both are now attempting to erase Governor Matt Blunt’s fundraising edge by seeking a retroactive return of all donations in excess of reinstated limits.

While the whole situation reeks of collusion and conspiracy, this is not the first time Nixon and Hatfield have delved to such ethical depths together. Some morsels from the not-so-distant past:

• In 1999, Nixon was ridiculed by a judge after it was discovered he had discussed legal strategy and held a fundraising event for his campaign with an executive of a Blue Cross subsidiary during a major case involving Blue Cross. Rather than concede that Nixon’s actions were indefensible, Hatfield, who was Nixon’s counsel on the Blue Cross case, tried to push back against the critics.

• In 2004, Nixon (allegedly) defended the state’s position on provisional ballots against an MDP challenge led by none other than Hatfield. Nixon flopped, Hatfield won, and an initial round of questions arose regarding the ethics of Nixon facing his guru in court. (AP, August 11, 2004)

• In 2005, Hatfield represented embattled state contractor MTM in the weeks leading up to Nixon’s brokerage of a controversial out-of-court settlement with MTM over charges of fraud. (Case #WD65738, Western District Court of Appeals, filed July 15, 2005)

• During the recent campaign finance case, an obscure limited liability corporation created by Hatfield, Strategic Property Investments LLC, donated $20,000 to Nixon’s campaign. A case of déjà vu? Nixon accepting $20,000 from a legal opponent during an ongoing case? Kinda reminiscent of the Ameren fiasco.

  Strategic Property Investments LLC 230 W McCarty St. Jefferson City, MO 65101-1553

  3/6/2007 - - - - - 21200

  $20,000.00 Monetary

• Earlier this year, Hatfield’s firm, to which he is a partner, brought on Nixon’s outsourced counsel who had been hired by Nixon to work on the school funding case to the tune of more than $1 million to date. Like Hatfield, the outsourced counsel formerly served as Nixon’s deputy. So, Nixon apparently didn’t feel up to the task of defending the state’s side in the school funding suit, which resulted in him hiring a former deputy to do it. After the outsourced counsel completed his arguments in Nixon’s place, he hopped over to Hatfield’s firm where he is now a partner. Kinda sounds like a revolving door. Kinda sounds like one of those “culture of corruption” attacks Democrats made last year.

WILL IT PLAY IN POTOSI? McCaskill v. John Doe
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:30pm | Permalink

In their haste to brand Sen. Claire McCaskill a “maverick”, the media has overlooked a host of things that are anything but “maverick” in nature. An unnoticed example that calls such claims into question occurred last week when McCaskill voted against a “John Doe” amendment that sought to grant immunity to Americans who blow the whistle on suspected terror plots. Despite the best efforts of McCaskill and other Democrats, Michelle Malkin disclosed earlier today that language granting immunity has been inserted into the Homeland Security conference report.

While some may be shocked by McCaskill’s ultra-liberal vote, it is not out of step with her views. During McCaskill’s failed 2004 gubernatorial bid, she spoke at a politically correct Free Cat Stevens soirée alongside an ACLU bigwig. In McCaskill’s speech, she claimed Americans were “wallowing in a cesspool of ignorance” following 9/11. She also condemned the efforts of the government to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks.

From the KC Star, 10/1/2004:

McCaskill said everything that's good about the country is at stake in the Nov. 2 election. People have been kept afraid by terrorism alerts and government actions that focus on individuals. "Ignorance and fear are kissing cousins," McCaskill said. "Because of fear we are kind of wallowing in a cesspool of ignorance.”

McCaskill’s statements from 2004 add context to the reasoning behind her vote against the “John Doe” amendment. Even if McCaskill is correct, which she surely is not, and we are “wallowing in a cesspool of ignorance”, she should have voted to grant each and every one of us the right to protect our cesspool from those who seek to obliterate it.

Dose of hypocrisy: McCaskill’s opposition to granting Americans immunity when they blow the whistle on suspected terrorists runs contrary to her recent efforts to grant “very basic” employment-related whistle blower rights for airport screeners she sought to unionize. The score: Unions-1; American citizens- 0.

From The Washington Post, 3/1/2007: McCaskill proposed a deal to give TSA workers "very basic" rights, such as whistle-blower protections, a spokeswoman said, which TSA chief Kip Hawley said could be acceptable.

Guilty By Omission?
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:20pm | Permalink

Regardless of the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent ruling on campaign finances, Attorney General Jay Nixon’s refusal to utilize his family’s wealth to his benefit during the limitless donation period should be duly noted.

Since Nixon’s first State Senate bid in 1986, sources connected to Nixon family businesses have directed gobs—as in six-figures worth of gobs— in support to his most competitive campaigns. Such support has included loans, standard donations, office space and the use of a country club for events.

Now, with a family sewage plant—“one of the worst” in the state—mired in court over ongoing pollution problems, Nixon has conceded via omission that 1) the sewage problem is politically radioactive to a “fervent environmentalist” like himself and 2) the pending charges against the plant have merit. If the inadvertent admissions were not true, Nixon would have likely cashed in during the limitless donation period.

Montee Should Be Forthcoming More Often
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:15am | Permalink

Yesterday, Auditor Susan Montee made news when she announced she would support Sen. Obama for POTUS in 2008. In remarks to media outlets throughout the state, Montee was quite forthcoming regarding her opinions of Obama and other 2008 contenders.

As many know, Montee was anything but forthcoming earlier this year when her whitewash audit of the scandal-prone Second Injury Fund came under fire. To this day, Montee has yet to refute conflict-of-interest charges that stem from documentation of her family law firm’s work on nearly 150 resolved Second Injury Fund claims since 2004. And she’s even taken the not-so-clandestine step of having her name scrubbed from the firm’s attorney roster after this site exposed its inclusion on that roster months after she was sworn in as auditor.

As the picture above indicates, there is little, if any, separation between Montee’s political fortunes and her family’s law firm, which served as a primary financial buttress for her 2006 campaign. Rather than play Missourians for fools, Montee should follow the lead of her 2008 pick Obama, who confessed to making a mistake when he conducted business with a Chicago man who is currently under indictment in a federal corruption case.

In Case You Missed It...
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:25pm | Permalink

"The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they are fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al Qaeda in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat. If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world and disastrous for America. We will defeat al Qaeda in Iraq.”
—Excerpt from President Bush’s speech made earlier today

Earlier today, President Bush issued a stern message to the wobbly-kneed Congress when he offered new details on the threat posed by Al-Qaeda in Iraq. While it remains to be seen when, or if, the increasingly anti-war factions within Congress will take heed of Bush’s message and develop a backbone, it would be in their best interest to tone down their zeal for withdrawal and consider the sobering consequences should Iraq be left to the likes of Al-Qaeda.

More...

The whole shebang: Bush’s full speech

The cliff notes: A synopsis of Bush’s speech

Sewage Problems? Nixon’s On The No-Call List
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:00pm | Permalink

Missouri’s self-described “fervent environmentalist” Attorney General has once again dropped the ball on a sewage-related matter. Jay Nixon, whose family and donors operate “one of the worst” sewage plants in the state, recently took some heat from a former Democratic State Rep. for offering little, if any, advice to Pulaski County leaders who face mounting sewage problems as a result of increased development.

According to Waynesville Daily Guide coverage, former State Rep. Bill Ransdall, who is now Pulaski County’s presiding commissioner, claims to have repeatedly contacted Nixon’s office for advice on the matter, but his efforts were for naught. After being rebuffed by Nixon, whose office has more lawyers than most KC and St. Louis firms, Randsall sought advice at the local level.

We’re quite certain Ransdall would have received Nixon’s counsel had he been located near a major media hub. Moreover, let’s face it—Nixon turned a blind eye to his family’s sewage plant troubles for 14 years. Why would he assist his constituents in Pulaski County in a sewage matter that has only recently become a threat to public health?

From the Waynesville Daily Guide:

Presiding Commissioner Bill Ransdall, who has repeatedly requested legal advice on various matters from Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon and Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Deborah Hooper but received few answers, said learning of [local government specialist Eber] Cude’s background is good news. Ransdall said he wanted to take Cude up on his offer to research the power of third-class counties to pass health-related ordinances.

“We would appreciate that, and we expect you’ll get us a quicker response than some other places,” Ransdall said.

WILL IT PLAY IN POTOSI? Gravel, McCaskill Travel Lonely Road
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:35am | Permalink

During last night’s debate, surly fringe candidate Mike Gravel reiterated his controversial position that U.S. soldiers have died in vain in Iraq. Subsequent AP coverage of the debate noted the following:

Former Alaska senator Mike Gravel said U.S. soldiers are dying in vain. No other candidate would go that far.

While the remainder of the effusively anti-war Democratic POTUS field now understands the polarizing effect of such statements, Sen. Claire McCaskill has yet to apologize or retract a recent Gravelian statement in which she claimed the lives of U.S. soldiers were being squandered in Iraq. That leaves McCaskill in the company of the zany and fringy Gravel, whose anti-war invective is so radioactive that even his rivals, who are all anti-war to some extent, would dare not agree with him.

Blue Dogs They Are Not
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:00pm | Permalink

As AG contenders Jeff Harris and Margaret Donnelly prepare to square off in the Democratic primary, Missouri voters are likely to find there is little difference in the ideology of the candidates as both have amassed clear-cut liberal voting records in the State House. To put it more succinctly, they’re peas in a pod.

Since 2003, ultra-liberal protest group (click for Young Communist League interview), Pro-Vote, has issued state legislative scorecards for each session with the exception of 2004. The votes included in the scorecards are predictably hard-left and include an array of social (pro-abortion, gay rights, anti-2nd Amendment, etc.) and budget busting fiscal issues. As expected, most Republicans scored between a 0%-20% on the scorecards--marks they should be proud of considering the content.

Coincidentally, Pro-Vote began issuing the scorecards at the onset of the legislative tenures of Harris and Donnelly, who both won elections to the State House in November 2002. Since 2003, both have voted in accordance with Pro-Vote’s wishes 100% of the time.

While their adherence to the liberal line may benefit them in the primary, the victor will find the general campaign to be a wholly different matter when factoring in the Democrats’ increasing reliance on peeling off a portion of the Republicans’ out-state edge. Judging by the glowing marks from Pro-Vote, Harris or Donnelly will likely have their work cut out for them.

Weekend Video Feed
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:55am | Permalink

First and foremost, be sure to check out Sen. Bond’s appearance on Fox News Sunday alongside Sen. Bayh (D-IN). And for those who didn’t get enough caffeine this morning, check out Dennis Miller’s riffage (h/t: Red State) on hapless Senate chief Harry Reid.

MO MEDIA WATCH: Aesop Couldn’t Tell A Fable This Well
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:20am | Permalink

For nearly three years, the KC Star has browbeaten state-level Republicans for being too conservative. Now, after all this time, the Star has changed course as evidenced by a story in this Sunday’s edition. Simply put, the story, which this site will not link to, attempts to depict state-level Republicans as traitors to their core conservative principles—a tactic that was part of the DCCC’s 2006 messaging strategy.

Unbeknownst to the piggybacking liberals at the Star, there are numerous problems with their story. We’ll start with three primary problems for the sake of brevity.

Problem #1: No Budget Context. Right out of the box, the Star noted that state spending has increased by 16% over the last two years with Republicans in charge. Big deal.  The Star’s two-year snapshot does not register as a drop in the bucket when compared to changes in state spending that occurred on the Democrats’ watch from FY1993-FY2000. According to a Chamber of Commerce study, state spending increased from $9.5 billion to $16 billion within those time constraints, which amounts to a 68% spike. To add insult to injury, Bob Holden proposed a $19 billion budget in 2002, which doubled annual spending within a decade’s time.  Now, that's a big deal.

Unfortunately, there was limited, if any, Star analysis of state spending trends on the long watch of the Democrats. For the sake of objectivity, they should at least consider long-term trends when they are tempted to make fodder out of a two-year snapshot that offers no trend whatsoever. 

Problem #2: Please, Please, Please … Vet Your Sources!  The Star’s academic source cited throughout the story is Missouri State University’s Mark Rushefsky, who just donated to Jay Nixon’s campaign and has donated to other Dems over the years. If you must cite an academic source when conducting a hatchet job, at least make sure the source has a semblance of objectivity.

A quick look at Rushefsky’s state- and federal-level donations over the past few cycles:

Sources: MEC, Institute on Money in State Politics

Problem #3: No Mention Of Alleged Conservative Transgressions. The Star fails to mention a number of the alleged transgressions its editorial writers have repeatedly criticized conservative Republicans for committing in recent years. Among the transgressions, which we refer to as successes, that come to mind: 2005 welfare reforms, the expansion of 2nd Amendment rights, lawsuit abuse reforms, tax relief for seniors, holding the line on taxes, and the passage of multiple pro-life measures. These are just a handful of the conservative policy successes that have been criticized by the KC Star and other liberals throughout the state.

While the conservative legislators and advocates who were interviewed for the story are certainly correct in their assertions that more can be done in Missouri, the Star’s analysis of conservative shortcomings predictably reads like a hatchet job written by liberals with an axe to grind.

Oh, The Irony Of It All
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 12:50pm | Permalink

Missourinet’s coverage of yesterday’s Missouri Supreme Court ruling on donation limits featured an amusing claim from Jay Nixon’s veteran political guru Charles Hatfield, who successfully argued for the reinstatement of donation limits. Hatfield’s praise for the ruling provides a snapshot of the long-running Democratic hypocrisy on campaign finance reform in Missouri.

Hatfield praises the decision; excerpt from the Missourinet coverage:

...Hatfield challenged the law in court, and is pleased with the ruling which reinstates campaign contributions. . . . Hatfield says he believes that since the law ending the limits has been struck down, the excess contributions will have to be returned, too.

Does this mean Hatfield will set an example by proactively seeking a refund of the $20,000 he donated to Nixon through Strategic Property Investments LLC, an obscure entity with his name on it? Moreover, will he seek additional refunds from Nixon for the $50,000 in donations made by his firm’s client Walsworth Publishing and a separate $20,000 donation made by Hennemeyer Co., who Hatfield represented last year in a lease dispute with the state?

The least Hatfield and Nixon could do is pretend that their words mean more than their hypocritical actions.

MO MEDIA WATCH: 3-Step Guide For Vetting State Liberal Groups
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 10:00am | Permalink

This site understands that the Missouri media is busy—there are stories vital to everyday Missourians that need to be written. After all, whose day is complete without reading about Sen. McCaskill’s efforts to conjure Harry Truman or the colors of Jay Nixon’s new website? After a such a hard day's work, how does one find the time to take an objective look at oft-cited left-wing sources, especially when the statement they just gave you is a scathing indictment of the Blunt administration’s failure to raise taxes by a gazillion dollars to cover birth to burial health care?

Well, worry no more! In just three easy steps, Missouri Pulse can help you vet your favorite left-wing sources even if you choose to give them a platform out of spite and/or enduring love.

1. Check out how much your source has received over the past few years from Jay Nixon’s slush funders at the Missouri Foundation for Health. Estimated vet time: 5 minutes

Example: Missouri Budget Project grants from 2003-2005: $556,235

2. If that isn’t enough, cross-reference the amount the source has received from Nixon’s slush funders with the source’s total revenues as disclosed in their most recent IRS 990 filings, which should be easily obtainable for a reporter. Estimated vet time: 10 minutes

Example: Missouri Budget Project’s 2003-2005 IRS 990’s.
Total disclosed revenue: $815,315

3. Divide the slush fund number and the IRS 990 number and, voila! Your source is owned by Nixon’s foundation, which accounts for more than 68% of its revenues from 2003-2005. (2006 isn’t included because the IRS 990’s have yet to be released.)

4. (TOTALLY OPTIONAL): Consider the fact that your source is compromised before reporting it as a “nonpartisan group that promotes the plight of low-income Missourians.”

McCaskill’s Half-Baked Truman Impersonation
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:00pm | Permalink

“To me, being a Democrat means being strong on defense. I mean, Harry Truman, Kennedy, those are the people I had as heroes.”
–Sen. Joe Lieberman, Fox News, 1/14/2004

Bush has said that he didn't take office wanting to be a war president, and Franklin Roosevelt certainly didn't, either. Nor did Harry Truman, though he was faced soon with deciding whether to drop the atomic bomb and, five years later, deciding whether to respond to the communist invasion of South Korea.
–Michael Barone, Weekly Standard, 7/16/2007

A final Truman point. Notwithstanding his political collapse with Korea, surveys concluded that the American people had grown in their support of the broader Cold War. We'll know soon enough the direction of George Bush's political fortunes. But his assessment of the world-wide threat as articulated five years ago remains valid, as did Truman's of the Cold War ahead. History's treatment of Mr. Bush is likely to be about the same: He didn't flinch.
-Wall Street Journal editorial, 9/1/2006

Senator Claire McCaskill’s impersonation of Harry Truman is a tough sell. Yes, Truman led an oversight committee during World War II, but he was also resolute in support of that war and subsequent conflicts that set the stage for the Cold War. In fact, Truman alleviated FDR’s concerns about the creation of his oversight committee by assuring the President that he was “100 percent behind the administration.”¹

It appears the media types are too busy attempting to draw comparisons between McCaskill and Truman to ask some very simple questions of Missouri’s junior senator. Is McCaskill’s eagerness to hold the military accountable for wartime spending merely a political sham to highlight her opposition to the war? Why is she so keen on increased oversight, yet she disparages the sacrifices of our soldiers by saying their lives have been squandered?

Ironically, McCaskill unveiled her faux Truman oversight proposal the same day she cast her lot in favor of withdrawal from Iraq. This marks an important distinction between Truman and McCaskill that has gone unnoticed. Truman, in his oversight role, retained his resolve during the bloodiest conflict in history, whereas McCaskill has lost the courage to persevere in the war on terror but wants to hold the military accountable, nonetheless.

That said, Truman’s oversight was afforded a lofty credibility as he was tasked with being objective and stern with those whose sacrifices he appreciated. Conversely, McCaskill’s current efforts are easily dismissed as the caprice of an anti-war politician attempting to score cheap political points at the expense of an unpopular war. If McCaskill truly wants to claim the mantel of Truman, it would be in her best interests to read beyond the brief chapter of his life that focused on his role in war oversight. She will likely find they have very little in common. We suggest she read up on the anti-war adventures of former Sens. Frank Church and J. William Fulbright instead.

____
¹ Fleming, Thomas The New Dealers' War: F.D.R. And The War Within World War II

Overlooked, But Not Forgotten
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 12:00pm | Permalink

Amid the recent flurry of MEC reports, one filing has gone largely unnoticed. After nearly three years, Sen. Claire McCaskill has begun to pay off her $1.6 million loan to her ill-fated 2004 gubernatorial campaign.

According to McCaskill’s MEC filing, she reported raising over $130,000 in large donations this quarter from a number of labor unions, a Missouri gray market cigarette dealer, a casino, Anheuser-Busch and two Democratic lobbyists for General Motors, who happened to make $9,200 in donations to McCaskill’s committee within days of her reversal on fuel economy standards. Hmmm...

Such blatant disregard for her own rhetoric—a McCaskill hallmark:

From McCaskill’s campaign site: "To most folks, the circle of influence between lobbyists, Members of Congress and their staff must have seemed like business as usual, inside the Beltway nonsense that didn't really affect them," said McCaskill. "But the recent scandals involving Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay have driven home to middle class families the real impact of the influence peddling and secret deals that go on up in Washington.”

Oh yeah, and how’s that lobbying reform plan coming along, Claire?

There Is Perception, And There Is Fact
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:30am | Permalink

Include Attorney General Jay Nixon among the countless Democrats who subscribe to the “us vs. them” routine, particularly when spinning campaign finance yarns. He can also be lumped in with many of those same Democrats who make such claims without taking a hard look at their own campaign’s finances.

Earlier this week, the Nixon campaign issued a release that essentially claimed he was running a down-home grassroots campaign with the support of 7,716 donors. Add a dose of the garden variety "special-interests-are-running-amok" rhetoric, and—voila—Nixon’s phony populist message is complete.

Unfortunately for Nixon, his messaging could not be further from the truth. In fact, Nixon’s top 22 donations of $10,000 and above accounted for nearly 39% of his 2nd quarter fundraising haul. Unsurprisingly, many of those 22 donors are labor unions and trial lawyers (a.k.a. special interests) with some heavy hitters in St. Louis development circles thrown in for good measure. Such facts are worth considering the next time Nixon attempts to sell his bogus spiel.

Source: Nixon for Governor, July 2007 MEC Report