Truth In Advertising?
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 8:50am | Permalink

Note: This is the first in a series of articles appearing weekly that will analyze Sen. McCaskill's voting record.

During a recent interview on the Allman & Smash Moring Show (March 22, 2007, audio | transcript), Claire McCaskill bragged about winning a “non-conformist” award from some Beltway publication for her early record in the Senate. If you haven’t noticed, McCaskill has been shamelessly tooting her own horn about how independent she is since she challenged Bob Holden in late 2003. She’s professed to being an “independent voice” for Missouri. She’s incessantly droned about how Talent supported 90-some-percent of President Bush's decisions, all the while portraying herself as a D.C. outsider. Rhetoric aside, let’s see if there is any truth in McCaskill’s advertising. (continued below...)

According to an analysis of more than 115 roll call votes cast in the increasingly divided Senate through March 28, McCaskill has voted with prominent Northeastern Liberals such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy between 91% and 92% of the time. McCaskill has also voted with self-described “socialist” Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont nearly 89% of the time. These are the same folks who Candidate McCaskill attempted to keep at arms’ length last year. Non-conformist? Not a chance.

In 2006, The National Journal named Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) the most liberal U.S. Senators. As things currently stand, Missouri’s self-appointed “independent voice” of McCaskill is voting with Durbin 93.1% of the time and Boxer 92.7% of the time.

Make no mistake. The U.S. Senate is divided along partisan lines and offers a ripe environment for a truly independent leader to carve a niche. However, McCaskill’s bite runs contrary to her bark. Her votes on key issues—opposition to alternative minimum tax relief for working class Missourians, opposition to death tax relief for family farmers, support for unionizing airport screeners at the behest of Big Labor, and voting to retreat from the war on terror—put her in lockstep with the Senate’s liberal elites and at odds with mainstream leaders such as Sen. Kit Bond, with whom McCaskill has voted only 50% of the time.

Perhaps McCaskill’s independent streak will develop in the months ahead.

We’re not holding our breath.

McCaskill Betrays Campaign Pledge, Votes To Shelve Death Tax
Relief For Missouri Family Farmers
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 3:10pm | Permalink

Last year, Senate candidate Claire McCaskill refuted criticism of her position on death tax relief by claiming she supported “eliminating” death taxes on family farms worth up to $10 million.

Recently, though, Sen. McCaskill abandoned her campaign position when Senate Dems voted to kill a modest proposal (Amendment #583 to S Con Res 21) that would have ended the death tax on family farms worth up to $5 million. The proposal, which mirrored “a plan popular with moderate Democrats,” failed by a narrow 51-48 margin. As expected, the prosthetic populism of Candidate McCaskill is grating against the liberalism of Senator McCaskill. (See how McCaskill has been voting with the Senate’s most notorious liberals in the “Truth In Advertising?” post below.)

For info on the need for death tax relief, check out this Farm Bureau backgrounder.

BUT WILL IT PLAY IN POTOSI?  McCaskill Pays Off Big Labor At The

Expense Of National Security
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:45pm | Permalink

Analysis from National Review, 3/19/2007: Senate Democrats want to give Transportation Security Administration employees collective-bargaining power. Apparently their solution to recent TSA failures is to make incompetent employees even harder to fire. Last October, TSA screeners at Newark Airport failed 20 of 22 undercover security tests in a week (though many dangerous sets of tweezers were confiscated). The Democrats’ plan to grant TSA employees broad new protections would only make matters worse. Firing unionized federal workers is so difficult that the inept ones stick around forever. Such inflexibility should not be imposed on the agency tasked with protecting Americans from airplane hijackings. If the Republicans were doing this kind of favor for one of their biggest campaign contributors, the Democrats would be screaming about the “culture of corruption.” Now that the majority’s on the other foot, we’re supposed to believe that this sop to organized labor is merely part of the Democrats’ historic concern for the working man. We’ll believe that . . . when tweezers fly.

…But Will It Play In Potosi?: McCaskill, the "non-conformist" with a conformity problem (see post below), was recently criticized for her role at the forefront of Senate Dem efforts to pass collective bargaining rights for airport screeners at the behest of Big Labor. During McCaskill's Senate campaign, her federal committee accepted over $350,000 from Big Labor PACs, which ranks her among the top Senate targets of labor largesse.  Such obvious cowtowing to liberal special interests is anything but an exhibition of the independence McCaskill claimed she would utilize as a Senator. 

Big Labor PAC contributions to top 2006 Senate Dem targets as reported by FECInfo.com:

More from the Missouri Pulse Poll: Right-Track/Wrong-Track
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:35pm | Permalink

Despite desperate attempts by Democrats over the past three years to attack the administration of Gov. Matt Blunt, Missourians are satisfied with the direction of the state, according to new data from Public Pulse Research. The poll asked Missouri voters if the state was on the right-track or wrong-track, and the results were encouraging.

Overall, 47% of respondents said that Missouri is on the right-track, with 43% believing otherwise. Younger Missourians, those 18-34 and 35-49, were even more likely to believe the state is heading in the right direction, with clear majorities in each category responding positively.

The positive “right track” numbers in Missouri are a very encouraging sign for the state’s GOP majority. While national polls have shown a negative mood about the state of the country, Missouri Republicans can take satisfaction in a job well done. These results prove that Republicans continue to hold the confidence of those they lead.

Public Pulse Research surveyed 600 registered voters via telephone on March 19-20, 2007. The statistical margin of error of is /- 3.5%.

House Votes To Strip Nixon Of Second Injury Fund Responsibilities
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:50am | Permalink

Last night, the State House approved an amendment (UPDATE 10:00am- House Amendment 2 to HB 12, Missouri House Journal, 3/28/07) to an appropriations bill that would move funding for the Second Injury Fund from the Attorney General's office to DOLIR, thereby removing Jay Nixon from the equation. An audio account of the proceedings indicated that the amendment passed by an 88-65 margin.

The vote took place weeks after a House committee requested that Nixon produce info on the Second Injury Fund, which has experienced skyrocketing annual payouts on his watch. During last night's debate, supporters of the amendment disclosed that Nixon had failed to respond to their request, and they questioned his handling of the fund. Nixon first ran for Attorney General on a platform that included reforming the Second Injury Fund. Since he's taken the reigns, annual Second Injury Fund expenditures have spiked from $11 million in FY1993 to $67 million in FY2006.

It remains unclear what role payouts to plaintiff lawyers, Nixon's top special interest supporter, have played in the fund's financial woes.

Check back for additional developments on this issue...

“No Comment” Nixon Strikes Again
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:50pm | Permalink

Earlier today, Blunt CoS Ed Martin held a news conference (with audio thanks to Missourinet) on the details surrounding Nixon’s cash-and-carry arrangement with Ameren. Predictably, Nixon tucked tail and ran when reporters sought comment on the charges:

Following Martin's press availability, a group of reporters marched from the Capitol to the Attorney General's office to ask for Nixon's response. Officials in Nixon's office said the Attorney General is not available for comment. But the office did issue a four-sentence written statement accusing Governor Blunt of engaging in politics.¹

Nixon can’t keep invoking “no comment” every time he’s in a tough spot. Whether it’s Ameren or his family’s sewage plant problem (see post below), it makes him look like he’s hiding something. He should take a lesson from Major League baseball player Gary Matthews, Jr. who recently was put through the publicity ringer when he waited sixteen days to respond to allegations that he took human growth hormone. The longer you wait, the more skeptical people become.

_________
¹ Missourinet, 3/28/2007

Re: The Nixon Donor Depot

Anyone who has tried to make sense of MEC campaign reports knows how tough it can be to figure out the origin of many contributions. You’ve got to sift through donations from obscure LLCs, PACronyms, funneled contributions from local committees, the children of donors, individuals who don’t list their employer, etc. It can be a real pain in the neck.

Unlike other state-level sites, the Nixon Donor Depot debunks the origins of contributions to the AG and categorizes them. Obscure LLCs that max out are found to be owned by tobacco lawyers, UFCW becomes the United Food & Commercial Workers union, child donors are reunited with their parents, and otherwise "unemployed" individual donors are found to be business executives.

All kidding aside, the site is an unfinished product but it is up and running. It will grow with each filing, and Missouri Pulse hopes to add some additional user friendly search options, in addition to graphs and charts aplenty. Currently, a simple search will track down anything in the “SearchName” and “Company” columns. For example, if you search by the name “Bartimus”, you’ll receive all corporate donations to Nixon from the Bartimus Frickleton law firm and any lawyers who list the firm as an employer.

We’ll keep you posted on all updates.

McCaskill: A “White Flag” Democrat
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 10:30am | Permalink

Yesterday, Sen. Claire McCaskill and her Democrat colleagues voted to block an attempt to remove a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Because of the narrow failure of the amendment (by a 50-48 margin), the pork-filled Iraq spending package will mandate combat troop decreases beginning 120 days after passage of the bill, with the ultimate goal of withdrawing all combat troops by March 2008.

The Senate vote and a similar vote last week in the House have been criticized by Republicans and independent Democrats as “surrender”, defeatism, and waving a white flag. Missouri’s own Sen. Kit Bond, whose son served in Iraq, blasted the plan as an effort to seize decision-making authority from our generals in the field. President Bush said he will veto the bill that contains the timetable language if it reaches his desk in its current form.

One is left to wonder why McCaskill hasn’t publicly defended her support of the controversial timetable. As of this morning, McCaskill has yet to issue a statement on the issue. It’s not like her to miss a good fight, and it’s not as if she’ll surprise anyone with her explanation. After all, she was talking about a “two-year framework” for retreat and usurping decision-making authority from military leaders last fall.

Ongoing Sewage Problems In Nixonville
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:20am | Permalink

If you’re reading this, you’re probably familiar with Jay Nixon’s self-inflicted conflict-of-interest in the Ameren-Taum Sauk case. While that conflict has been getting well-deserved headlines, another, which Nixon was warned about 15 years ago, has found its way into court.

The self-described “fervent environmentalist”¹ Nixon faces an image problem due to his ties to an embattled sewage plant—operated by Central Jefferson County Utilities Inc.— and the nearby residential development it has affected—Raintree Plantation. Both the plant and the Raintree developer—Raintree Plantation Inc.—are located in Nixon’s home county (Jefferson County) and are owned by his father and other long-time political supporters.²

Since Nixon first ran for AG, family business interests have loaned over $100,000 to his committees, and associated individual and corporate donors have accounted for thousands of dollars in additional support.³  Both Democrat and Republican critics have noted Nixon’s past employment with Raintree, his former residence in the development, and the key financial role family business interests have played throughout his political career.⁴

As AG, Nixon has largely ignored mounting environmental problems at the sewage plant while pursuing an image depicted in the campaign photo above. In 2005, Nixon altered his negligent course and, instead, tried to cut-and-run from the politically problematic plant. When the Post-Dispatch ran a story in December 2005 entitled “Nixon’s Tie to Firm Mucks Up Image”, Nixon, who had already outsourced the state’s legal work in the plant case, “was unavailable to comment.”⁵ The story focused on Nixon’s ties to the plant and the plant’s environmental problems, which included “illegal sludge discharges” into a nearby creek. Such problems have drawn the ire of the EPA, DNR, disgruntled local residents and Democrat Rep. Belinda Harris, who pleaded with Nixon to do something for residents affected in his home county.

Rep. Belinda Harris: "I know we can't control everything our family does, but I feel that it is his [Nixon’s] father and I would appreciate it if somehow he could maybe help him understand that this is a very important issue and it needs to be rectified.”  ⁵

Unfortunately for Nixon, the December 2005 story did not end his sewage problem. Last month, the Missouri PSC “approved the transfer of the water and sewer system assets” of the plant to the Jefferson County Public Sewer District as a result of the plant’s failure to “provide safe and adequate water and sewer service.” Plant failures also were a factor in the PSC’s decision to sue Central Jefferson County Utilities for multiple environmental-related violations.⁶ The PSC has filed suit in Cole County.

It’s times like these when Nixon must wonder why he failed to heed Democrat Mike Wolff's advice 15 years ago:

"The least Missourians can expect from their hard-earned tax dollars is an attorney general who practices what he preaches. If Nixon intends to, as he says, `prosecute polluters who are threatening the health and safety of our children and families,' then it seems he's got his work cut out for him not too far from his breakfast table." ⁷

Click here for photos of a creek affected by the sewage plant. Photos were taken by Missouri Department of Natural Resources staff in 2004.

______________
¹ Post-Dispatch, November 24, 1991
² Missouri PSC, Hearing Transcript, Norville Kenneth McClain, Jr. testimony, December 20, 2006
³ MEC, FEC campaign finance reports, 1986-2006
⁴ Post-Dispatch, October 4, 1991
⁵ Post-Dispatch, December 12, 2005
⁶ MO Public Service Commission, Release, February 9, 2007
⁷ Kansas City Star, October 4, 1991

That “Hound” Won’t Hunt
Posted by: John Hancock | Permalink

Jay Nixon’s latest political bombast has invited scrutiny regarding his various positions on the hot-button issue of illegal immigration. Weeks ago, Gov. Blunt fired a state contractor that had hired illegal immigrants. Now, “press hound”¹ Nixon is attempting to reinvent his bark on the issue at the Governor’s expense.

Simply put, that “hound” won’t hunt. During his 1998 U.S. Senate bid, Nixon completed the Vote Smart survey, a survey that may dog him for some time to come. In that survey, he disclosed his support for the following immigration position:

“Prohibit states from passing laws that deny human services (medical care, education) to illegal immigrants or their children.”

Instead of rattling his saber over the specter of illegal immigrants cleaning state offices, Nixon should follow his stated liberal convictions and work to ensure that all illegal immigrants in the state, regardless of occupation, have access to the same welfare and educational benefits that Missourians already fund with their hard-earned tax dollars.

Throw the dog a bone: Nixon’s 1998 Vote Smart survey in its entirety.

________
¹ Kansas City Star, July 2, 1995

MISSOURI PULSE INTRODUCES MISSOURI PULSE POLL™:

Inaugural Survey Tests Giuliani – Clinton Match-Up
Permalink

If the Presidential election was held today, Missouri voters would select Republican Rudy Giuliani over Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to a recent poll conducted by Public Pulse Research. The survey found that 44% of Missourians would “probably” or “definitely” vote for Giuliani, 33% would “probably” or “definitely” vote for Clinton, and 12% were undecided.

This news comes as national polls consistently show Giuliani and Clinton as the front-runners for their respective parties’ nominations. Results in Missouri generally mirror national trends and show Giuliani with significant cross-over appeal to Independents—whom favored Giuliani 39%-22%— and even some Democrats. While 7% of Democrats supported Giuliani, only 1% of Republicans would vote for Clinton.

Geographically, Giuliani was favored in three out of four statewide media markets—Kansas City (44%-36%), Springfield (59%-23%), and Mid-Missouri (61%-19%), while Clinton barely carried the St. Louis media market (39%-38%).

Public Pulse Research intends to track potential presidential match-ups in each of their quarterly statewide polls. This poll was conducted via telephone on March 19-20, 2007, and surveyed 600 registered voters. The statistical margin of error of is /- 3.5%.

WEB TIP: Check out the Missouri Pulse “Best Bet” Presidential Campaign Site, http://www.mittromney.com/.

UPDATE [2:10pm]- A national poll conducted by Harris Interactive shows Clinton's flimsy support among Democrats and reinforces the findings in Public Pulse's poll. Harris found that 50% of Americans—including nearly 20% of Democrats—said they would not vote for Clinton, while only 36% would.

Dear Fellow Politico,

I am pleased to introduce a new informational site, www.missouripulse.com. While there are many places on the web where you can find “information” about state politics, this site will offer alternative yet reliable news, commentary, and analysis so you know the real story behind what's going on in our state. I and other Missouri conservatives hope to make this site a must-read for anyone interested in Missouri politics.

Come back early and often! We’ll provide investigative reporting, insight on current events, and an alternative perspective that is all too often lacking in Missouri’s mainstream media. Whether you’re a participant in the political arena, an interested observer, or a member of the media, Missouri Pulse will attempt to inform, amuse and make you think!

Get informed. Know the truth. Get involved. Here at Missouri Pulse, our goal is to equip Missouri conservatives with the tools to win the war of ideas! Don’t ever be bashful about letting me know what you think! Feel free to send me an email. (john@public-pulse.com).

Let’s get to work!