Hush, Hush. No Tough Questions On The Farm Tour!
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:05pm | Permalink

After gagging on the nauseatingly affectionate media coverage of Senator Claire McCaskill’s farm tour, this site thought it would be fun to offer a line of questioning that was certainly not asked of Missouri’s junior Senator by any reporter.

• I know I’m only supposed to ask Republicans about conflicts of interest, but what percentage of your family’s government subsidized housing empire disclosed in your 2007 personal financial disclosure has active loan and financing agreements (like the one below) with the USDA and its affiliated agencies?

  TENNESSEE SECRETARY OF STATE, UCC RECORD
  Debtors: HARPER ASSOCIATES LTD IV
  Debtor Address: HARPER ASSOCIATES LTD IV
  P O BOX 68
  CLARKTON, MO 63837
  Secured Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USDA, RURAL DEVELOPMENT
  Filing Type: CONTINUATION
  Filing Date: 6/5/2006
  Filing Time: 09:05AM
  Filing Number: 206-033540
  Original Filing Number: 860-380082
  Original Filing Date: 11/4/1986

• How many loans or financing agreements does your family currently have through the USDA and its affiliated agencies? Less or more than 100?

• So, you have dozens of outstanding loans and financing agreements with the USDA and its affiliated agencies?

• Do you still plan to vote on the Farm Bill in spite of this apparent conflict-of-interest?

• Why bother with a farm tour?

Wanna See Libs Get Mad? Tell ‘Em There’s No U.S. Poverty Plague
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:00pm | Permalink

Earlier this week, the U.S. Census Bureau released data that showed the poverty rate in the U.S. dropped for the first time in a decade. Predictably, Democrats and many media types did not let the good news rain on their ongoing poverty-is-everywhere-and-only-the-government-can-shield-you-from-it misinformation campaign.

Fortunately, the folks at the Heritage Foundation, a leading national conservative think tank, have offered a timely and alternative view to some of the myths associated with poverty in America.

• Check out the video refutation

• Fast facts

Excerpt:

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

• Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.

• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Legislator Questions Nixon’s Illegal Immigration Record
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:45am | Permalink

During legislative debate yesterday, Rep. Tim Flook (R-Liberty) raised an issue this site first breached yesterday. What has Attorney General Jay Nixon been doing to crack down on illegal immigration in Missouri for the past 14 years?

From Missourinet:

Democrats further contend that Governor Blunt, a Republican, only wants to talk about illegal immigration, but doesn't want to really do anything about it. Republicans counter by noting state law already holds businesses liable for using illegal workers. Rep. Tim Flook (R-Liberty) reads from the statutes during House floor debate. Flook says the law is there, it just hasn't been enforced. He and other Republicans say Democrat Jay Nixon, the State Attorney General, and Democrat Susan Montee, the State Auditor, could enforce what's already law and haven't.

Dem Voter Registration Group Hit With $775,000 Fine
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:40pm | Permalink

In 2004, Missouri and other battleground states were targeted by America Coming Together (ACT)—a Democratic voter registration group funded by the crème de la crème of liberal elites: George Soros. Some may recall that the group ran its Missouri operation alongside the radical liberal group Pro-Vote, and, at one point, was criticized for employing convicted felons as door-to-door canvassers.

After an extended federal investigation of the group’s activities, the FEC recently decided to fine the now defunct group to the tune of $775,000. The reason? Numerous campaign finance infractions triggered by the group’s ultimately futile desire to defeat President Bush. The National Review’s Byron York, the NY Post and The Hill have the all details.

While $775,000 may seem like a steep fine, remember who funded ACT—billionaires like Soros and deep-pocketed labor unions. This site wouldn’t be surprised to see Democrats assemble an ACT II in the coming months. After all, what is a $775,000 fine if it helps get Hillary Clinton elected president and Jay Nixon elected governor?

From York’s column:

On Wednesday, the Federal Election Commission slapped America Coming Together with a $775,000 fine — the third-largest such penalty in history — for violating campaign-finance laws in the 2004 election. Now largely defunct, America Coming Together was the biggest of the so-called “527” groups that took in millions from donors like George Soros for the purpose of defeating George W. Bush. In a case that has taken years to decide, the FEC ruled that America Coming Together did an end-run around the campaign-finance laws in 2004 by claiming it was using its money for non-partisan purposes like voter registration when it was in fact spending millions specifically targeting Bush.

_____
1 AP, 6/27/2004

What Is There To Deny?
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:15am | Permalink

“Them politicians treat me like a mushroom. Cause they feed me bull and keep me in the blind.”
-Lyrics from “Lord Have Mercy On The Working Man”; as performed by Travis Tritt

During his failed 1998 Senate bid, Attorney General Jay Nixon filled out a Vote Smart survey in which he clearly indicated his support for prohibiting states from passing laws that would ban illegal immigrants from access to taxpayer funded public education and welfare services. Now, Nixon is denying that he filled out the survey and supported the controversial position.

An excerpt from a story in today’s Post-Dispatch:

The state Republican Party is accusing Nixon of being soft on illegals, and cites a questionnaire he filled out a decade ago that the GOP says indicated that he supported state benefits for illegal immigrants and their children. He denies it.

As anyone who has read Nixon’s Vote Smart survey can attest, this is a very cut-and-dried issue. Each year, Vote Smart surveys get candidates in trouble across the country, and Nixon is no exception. Rather than issuing silly and unbelievable denials, Nixon should consider a better excuse. Better yet, he should admit that he filled out the survey and believes illegal immigrants should have access to taxpayer funded welfare services. While some in the media may not be inclined to push Nixon on this issue, the public won’t buy the line Nixon is attempting to sell them.

Nixon’s Record Combating Illegal Immigration
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:40am | Permalink

Attorney General Jay Nixon has been repeatedly described as Missouri’s “top law enforcement official” since he took office in 1993. However, little is known about Nixon’s record on illegal immigration aside from his documented belief that states should not be allowed to ban illegal immigrants from access to taxpayer funded government services, and his oversight of a foundation—founded by Nixon—that has doled out over $900,000 in grants to a St. Louis clinic that has claimed nearly 2/3 of those it treats are undocumented.

In the past year, Nixon has attempted to piggyback on the illegal immigration crackdown efforts of Republican leaders such as Governor Matt Blunt and Treasurer Sarah Steelman, but little is known about his comprehensive record on the issue as Attorney General. That said, here are the highlights of Nixon’s efforts to combat illegal immigration in Missouri during his 14-year tenure as Attorney General:

The end.

Dems, Special Interests Dealt Defeat In Funding Case
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 2:00pm | Permalink

An effort supported by some Democrats and powerful special interests (i.e. Missouri NEA here and here) that could force a $1 billion judicially-mandated tax increase on Missourians for education funding failed its first test today as a Cole County judge rejected almost all of the plaintiffs’ arguments. Despite the defeat, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs - Democratic donor and former “personal lawyer” to Mel Carnahan Alex Bartlett - said his clients will likely appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.¹

Today’s ruling could certainly be interpreted as a victory for Governor Matt Blunt who enacted an updated school funding formula in hopes of providing additional funding to state public schools without the necessity of raising taxes on Missourians. To date, Blunt has increased school funding by more than $500 million without raising taxes.

___
¹ P-D, 12/29/1993

Nixon Stonewalls Reporter In MEC Fiasco
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:00am | Permalink

Kudos to the CDT’s Jason Rosenbaum for asking some tough questions of Attorney General Jay Nixon following yesterday’s disclosure that Nixon deceptively touted an unaccepted MEC policy on retroactive donation returns for an entire month.

When Rosenbaum pushed for answers from Nixon’s office, he was rebuffed by the invocation of attorney-client privilege nonsense despite the fact that both the MEC and Nixon’s office are susceptible to the Sunshine law. We wish Rosenbaum all the best if he attempts to “sunshine” his way to information from Nixon’s office. We hear they are none to receptive to such requests these days.

Excerpt from Rosenbaum’s blog post yesterday:

Yesterday, Connor told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the Missouri Ethics Commission did not vote on whether a Supreme Court decision should be made retroactive. He made that statement again in an interview with the Tribune today.

The brief argued that candidates who took money over pre-existing campaign finance limits should return donations.

I asked Connor whether a vote was necessary for the commission to vote in order to file the brief. He said: “Not necessarily, but [the commission] did not consider it. They took no position. And that’s what the situation said that it was an Ethics Commission position. But they never took a position, because they took no vote on it.”

The Attorney General’s office said “today’s Missouri Supreme Court opinion adopts the Missouri Ethics Commission’s position that the Court’s July 19th ruling reinstating contribution limits.”

When pressed whether such a statement was inaccurate, Connor said: “It was his office that made the statement. The Ethics Commission never made a statement.”

“What we do as an administrative agency, we act basically on what the legislature enacts and the court rules,” Connor said. “[The commission] doesn’t take positions.”

When asked whether the MEC would have had to sign off on the brief in order for it to be filed, Holste said: “They commission was a client on this matter and I really would have to decline to give any details about how that process occurred because of attorney-client relationship.”

Nixon Corruption Update
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:25am | Permalink

It’s getting harder and harder to keep up with Attorney General Jay Nixon as his three-ring circus featuring deception, collusion and illusion in the donation limit dispute has become well-documented. However, Nixon’s political antics in the donation limit dispute should not be confused with the concurrent controversy surrounding his dismissal from the Planned Parenthood litigation as that is a wholly separate matter of conflicts and ethical issues pertaining to Nixon.

Regarding donation limits, Nixon thus far has 1) blown the state’s defense in support of a law that eliminated donation limits, 2) colluded with his long-time political guru, who was his court room opponent, in order to undermine the state’s defense, 3) deceived Missourians into believing for a month that he crafted an MEC-approved request that called for a retroactive return of donations, and 4) after having his deception exposed yesterday, Nixon is now refusing to further advise the MEC.

Essentially, Nixon’s actions to date can be summed up by the term “retroactive.” Nixon has demonstrated a conniving penchant for stopping at nothing to mitigate the fundraising advantage of Governor Matt Blunt. He has aggressively pushed for a retroactive donation return policy alongside his guru/supposed courtroom opponent Charles Hatfield for over a month. In a nutshell, Nixon has forsaken his duties as Attorney General and, instead, has engaged in a full court political press aimed at ensuring that the outcome of this case benefits his election year fortunes.

Now, Nixon’s packing up his circus and leaving town, but only after he achieved his political goals. After a month of deception and fabrication regarding the so-called MEC request he crafted in favor of retroactivity, Nixon now claims he will no longer advise the MEC. He is like the classic film villain who uses and abuses others to achieve his ends only to discard them once they are of no further use to him. Opposite Nixon’s starring role in this fiasco are the MEC and the public who took Nixon’s word at face value. We should have known better.

If The Feds Can’t Get It Done...
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:30pm | Permalink

Although illegal immigration reform has faltered at the federal level, Governor Matt Blunt is pursuing a crack down on the problem in Missouri. Yesterday, Blunt announced plans to get tough on illegal immigration via increased law enforcement training and the proliferation of immigration status-specific background checks on all incarcerated individuals. Blunt cited recent murders involving an illegal immigrant in New Jersey as impetus for his actions.

According to estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), 35,000-65,000 illegal immigrants currently reside in Missouri. FAIR estimates that illegal immigrants drained $88.3 million in taxpayer dollars in Missouri in 2004.

Rasmussen Poll: Blunt-Nixon Match-Up Looking Tight
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:05pm | Permalink

New polling data released by Rasmussen Reports shows Missourians are nearly split between incumbent Governor Matt Blunt and challenger Attorney General Jay Nixon as 2008 approaches. According to Rasmussen, 46% favor Nixon, while 43% favor Blunt. It will be most interesting to see how Democrats and those in the media who have been citing biased Survey USA numbers respond to this sobering news.

Radical Liberal Protest Group Targets Blunt
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:36 AM | Permalink

Yesterday, liberal protest group Pro-Vote attempted to skewer Congressman Kenny Hulshof over his refusal to attend an anti-war rally. Today, they are targeting Governor Matt Blunt and his health care reform overhaul plan, MO HealthNet.

Pro-Vote operates as a coalition that includes a veritable who’s who of liberal elites. ACORN, the ADA, Howard Dean’s Democracy for America, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, PROMO and a coven of unions are all part of the coalition. The group is so liberal its ringleader was once featured in an interview conducted by the Young Communist League USA.

When they’re not harassing Republicans in off years, Pro-Vote operates as a foot soldier for the Democratic Party in Missouri. In 2004, Pro-Vote worked alongside George Soros’ America Coming Together as part of a futile voter registration effort undertaken by Democratic front groups to topple President Bush.¹ In 2006, Pro-Vote set its sites on Jim Talent. At the state level, Pro-Vote donated over $35,000 through its MEC committee to the benefit of state Democratic candidates during the 2006 cycle.

Today’s attack against Blunt should be called into question based on the fact that Pro-Vote’s so-called non-partisan offshoot, the Missouri Citizen Education Fund, has received more than $370,000 in recent grants from the Jay Nixon-created Missouri Foundation for Health. Moreover, Nixon will likely rely on Pro-Vote to do for him in 2008 what they did in 2004 and 2006—work to get Democrats elected. All things considered, the term “surrogate” certainly comes to mind.

Despite a mountain of evidence that illustrates Pro-Vote’s transparent ideological and partisan agenda, many in the media have repeatedly failed to appropriately label the group. It will be interesting to see if Pro-Vote’s attack on Blunt gets coverage, and whether any of that coverage includes an accurate description of their radical agenda.

1 AP, 6/27/2004

Nixon Hoodwinks Media, Public In Campaign Finance Brouhaha
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:30am | Permalink

In July and early August, respected Missouri media outlets (see list below) reported that Attorney General Jay Nixon crafted a request from the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) to the state Supreme Court that lobbied for a retroactive ruling in the ongoing dispute over campaign donation limits. Unfortunately, nobody in the media bothered to inquire as to the MEC’s position on Nixon’s request until yesterday when it was disclosed by the Post-Dispatch that the MEC “never voted” on Nixon’s July request.

Nixon’s month of deception came to an end yesterday when he attempted to claim the MEC should abide by his unapproved position and require a retroactive donation return, which has been his goal all along. Thus far, Nixon has intentionally dropped the case, unflinchingly colluded with his courtroom opponent/long-time political guru Charles Hatfield, and now it has been discovered that he deceived the media into believing he spoke for the MEC when he did not.

From the beginning, Nixon’s blatantly transparent goal has been to force a retroactive return of donations to even the playing field with Governor Matt Blunt, who holds a substantial fundraising edge in the gubernatorial race. Regardless of the outcome, Nixon’s cutthroat actions reveal yet again that he will stop at nothing to achieve his political ends even if it means burning any remnant of ethics, decency and respect for the office he occupies.

Media coverage that validated Nixon’s unapproved July request from the MEC:

Post-Dispatch:

• 7/26/2007, “Court To Rule On Donation Refund From Candidates”

Columbia Daily Tribune:

• 7/25/2007, “Nixon: Make Trout Ruling Retroactive” (from Politics Blog)

• 7/26/2007, “Nixon Wants Court To Order Donor Refunds”

Associated Press:

• 7/26/2007, “Attorney General Says Candidates Should Have To Return Money”

• 8/1/2007, “Missouri GOP Argues Against Returning Excess Contributions”

Kansas City Star:

• 7/26/2007, “Excess Campaign Donations Should Be Returned, AG’s Office Says”

• 8/1/2007. “Let Candidates Keep Donations, Missouri GOP Says”

Why Not Talent?
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:45pm | Permalink

National Review contributor Kate O’Beirne penned an interesting nugget today in which she makes a case for Missouri’s own Jim Talent to succeed Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General. Definitely worth consideration.

BREAKING: Nixon Caught Manipulating Planned Parenthood Case
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:40pm | Permalink

An afternoon release from the Department of Health & Senior Services details Attorney General Jay Nixon’s attempt to remove attorneys that replaced him on the Planned Parenthood case. Last week, Nixon was dismissed from representing the state in the case due to a serious conflict of interest that stems from his longstanding pro-abortion record.

Supreme Court Hands Off Campaign Finance Decision To MEC
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:35pm | Permalink

In an opinion handed down this afternoon, the Missouri Supreme Court has decided to hand off the final say in a controversial campaign finance case to the Missouri Ethics Commission. A primary issue in play is whether a retroactive return policy will be enacted on donations collected by candidates that were in excess of prior limits. Check out the CDT Politics Blog for more.

Nixon Advisor: Guns, Abortion Among Issues That Don’t Matter
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:15am | Permalink

In a weekend appearance in Newton County, Nixon campaign advisor Jon Hagler (see Leadership Now LLC) told local Democrats that Second Amendment rights and abortion-related issues were inconsequential in the upcoming election year.

From Neosho Daily News coverage of the Newton County event:

“For far too long, Democrats have been down in the ditch looking for that issue: guns, abortion, gays. You can't stay focused on the horizon if you're in the ditch, the horizon being health care and education for our children. Let's not get distracted by things that don't matter. We are right on the issues.”

Hagler made the statements shortly after Nixon was fired from representing the state in pending Planned Parenthood litigation due to his extensive pro-abortion record. Furthermore, Hagler’s assessment that Second Amendment rights are of no consequence was a serious gamble in Newton County where many Democrats have been supportive (see Prop B) of traditionally conservative gun issues opposed by Nixon.

Truth In Advertising? Semester Report Card
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 10:45am | Permalink

Over halfway through her first year in the Senate, Claire McCaskill has racked up a surprisingly liberal voting record. In spite of the traditional media branding her Truman reincarnated, a maverick, and an independent, McCaskill has still managed to vote with the most liberal members of her party between 84% and 86% of the time.

Regular readers may recall earlier this year that McCaskill was voting with the Durbin-wing of her party more than 90% of the time. Durbin, of course, was named the most liberal Senator by the National Journal in 2006. While that number has dropped to the mid-80’s, look for the numbers to creep toward the 90% threshold again as upcoming debates over the war and spending issues will likely find McCaskill voting more regularly with liberal leadership.

NOTE: For the usual liberal suspects who regularly email this site claiming our numbers are skewed, please note that tallies includes all 310 roll call votes cast thus far in the Senate.

If You See This Gentleman...
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 3:00pm | Permalink

The photograph on the right is that of a suspected Democratic operative who has been tracking the movements of Governor Matt Blunt. Frankly, few aside from the media, the MDP and former Virginia Senator George Allen give a hoot about trackers as they are simply a byproduct of modern political discourse. However, it will be interesting to see if any Missouri media types pursue the Democrat’s identity with the same vigor they expended on the Republican operative who temporarily tracked Jay Nixon. Perhaps we’ll soon know the identity of the pictured Democrat. Then again, perhaps we won’t.

MO MEDIA WATCH: What’s News?
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 11:25am | Permalink

It never ceases to amaze what the media will cover and what it will not cover in Missouri. Most folks would probably agree that coverage pertaining to the colors of candidate websites, recycled pipedream conspiracies (Nathan Cooper, fee offices, etc.) and the identities of temporary campaign staffers is irrelevant or, at best, superfluous. But that hasn’t stopped media types from diving into each of these topics in recent weeks.

Meanwhile, a number of issues that are clearly more newsworthy have gotten little, if any, attention from the Missouri press. For example:

• The Jay Nixon-Charles Hatfield courtroom shakedown continues. Imagine the coverage if a Republican Attorney General repeatedly faced off against his go-to-political-guru in court. I’d hate to be the client of the Attorney General in that situation! This is a big time conflict of interest.

  Solitary salute: The KC Star has written the only substantive story on this issue.

• Let’s face the facts. Nixon blatantly ripped off a preexisting federal recall site. The last time I checked, the guy is running for governor on a platform of leadership and experience. What kind of “experienced leader” rips off the work of others and claims it as his own aside from Joe Biden?

  Solitary salute: The CDT’s Politics Blog issued the only post/story on the issue.

• The embattled Appellate Judicial Commission is dominated by deep-pocketed Democratic donors. All current “lawyer” and “non-lawyer” members are donors.

  Shut out: If a single reporter or columnist in the state has noted that a member of the commission has donated to Democrats, send me the story because I haven’t seen it.

• Nixon is in bunker mode over this Planned Parenthood suit. He knows his record on such cases is abysmal, and his response to his removal is vague to say the least.

  Shut out: Not a single reporter or columnist has yet to get a detailed explanation from Nixon regarding his thoughts on the case. One can only imagine what Nixon’s response would be if he were asked to reconcile his current position with his record of the past – things like his lackluster defense of Planned Parenthood funding bans that resulted in his eventual ouster as the state’s attorney in such cases.

Did Komo Get The Memo?
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:25am | Permalink

Last year, a partisan newsletter landed some House Democrats in hot water after it was found to have been distributed via an official state e-mail account. Apparently, Democratic leaders did not share that experience with freshman State Representative Sam Komo (D-House Springs).

If they had done so, Komo would not have made the mistake of circulating fundraising literature during the special session that includes his official state e-mail account and his official state phone number as contact information. At least voters in Komo’s district now know how he spends his time in his Capitol office.

Democratic Front Groups Threaten To Sue Missouri
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:25pm | Permalink

The word this afternoon is that Democratic front groups led by the notorious liberals at ACORN are threatening to sue the state of Missouri over trumped up charges that the state has not complied with the federal voter registration law. It will be most interesting to hear what Missouri’s invisible Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has to say about ACORN’s allegations as she is the state’s chief election official and is supposed to be monitoring such things.

As for ACORN, well, what is really left to say? The group has little, if any, credibility outside the Democratic establishment as a result of numerous voter fraud incidents. In fact, the group’s threat of litigation in Missouri comes shortly after the state of Washington concluded “the largest case of voter-registration fraud in the state’s history” against ACORN workers.

More...

The WSJ’s John Fund examines ACORN in a July 2007 column

Illinois AG Prefers Preexisting Site To Nixon’s Rip Off
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:15am | Permalink

Count Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, among those who appropriately reference the work of www.recalls.gov. Rather than ripping the site off and making grand claims as Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has done, Madigan, like everyone else sans Nixon, correctly and consistently references it as a tool for consumers to utilize when it comes to getting up-to-date info on recalls.

Since March, five news releases from Madigan’s office have referenced www.recalls.gov, and this morning on KMOX she again referenced that site, not Nixon’s rip off, in an interview regarding the recent flurry of recalls involving Chinese-made products.

An excerpt from a Madigan news release, 6/26/2007:

Consumers can find a list of the recalled items at the CPSC website, www.cpsc.gov, or by going to www.recalls.gov.

As anyone can see, Madigan’s news release was issued two months prior to Nixon’s big announcement that he had ripped off www.recalls.gov. Although Nixon preposterously claims that his rip off site is somehow “more comprehensive” than the federal site (link: debunk), we’ll be the first to let you know when Attorneys General like Madigan take Nixon at his word and forsake the preexisting federal site they have been referencing for years. Once again, Nixon is encouraged to take the ethical route and terminate his bogus site and simply reference the preexisting www.recalls.gov site as Madigan and others have been doing for years.

FAST FACT FOR JAY: Unbeknownst to Nixon, the media and government officials like Madigan have referenced www.recalls.gov in hundreds of news stories and news releases since the site was established in 2003.

Progress In Iraq Threatens To Split Dems
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 7:50am | Permalink

"It will be the Democratic left, which is probably immune to any news of success in Iraq, against the middle-of-the-road America.”
—Penn State public policy professor Matthew Woessner, Reuters, 8/22/2007

Given the news of progress in Iraq, it seems preexisting divisions between centrist and far left constituencies within the Democratic Party could be exacerbated. In fact, political experts have begun to suggest that progress in Iraq could jeopardize the 2008 election picture for Democrats as legislators from centrist-leaning districts may be forced to break with the party’s far left anti-war leadership in the war against terrorism.

Confounding the Democratic predicament is the fact that an increasing number of their own members, including Democratic representatives, and high-profile Senators counting Hillary Clinton, have already conceded that the surge is working. A positive progress report in September from General Petraeus would only aggravate the growing disunity within Democratic ranks as more centrists will be forced to remove the rose-colored glasses and face electoral reality back home.

For Missourians the question is:

Will our resident windsock—Senator Claire McCaskill—exhibit any consistency or fortitude in the war against terrorism, or will she side with the anti-war constituency in her party and continue to claim we are “squandering the lives of our bravest”?