 |
|
 |
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Is John Edwards The New Dean?
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:30am | Permalink
 In his latest column, reputable national political analyst Stu Rothenberg, who deemed Jay Nixon the “most disappointing Senate candidate of 1998”,1 devoted quite a bit of ink to the surging John Edwards. In gist, Rothenberg writes the 2004 edition of Edwards has been scrapped for a divisive, class warfare driven “Howard Dean-like” candidate who would “likely rip the nation apart” if he found his way to the White House.
Aside from Edwards’ ideological shift even further to the left, let’s not forget just how stereotypical this faux populist really is. While the suspender snapping Edwards pitches himself as an electable hybrid of Dean and Ralph Nader, at the end of the day he is still a multi-millionaire trial lawyer who lives in a 25,000 square foot mansion,2 purchases $400 hair cuts and served on a hedge fund that profited from one of his favorite political targets—the subprime lending industry.
And Republicans think Hillary Clinton is the easiest target!
Choice cuts from Rothenberg’s column:
“For months, observers have noted that Americans are tired of the polarization and gridlock that has defined Washington, D.C. at least since 1994 (except for a brief period following September 11th). But if Iowa Democrats choose Edwards, they are choosing anger, confrontation and class warfare. In a sense, they are displaying buyer's remorse (from 2004) and choosing a more attractive, charismatic Howard Dean-like candidate this time.”
“The North Carolina Democrat's message seems well-suited for 1933 or 1934, but not nearly as ideal for 2008.”
“But let's be very clear: Given the North Carolina Democrat's rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart …”
“Just as important, a President Edwards might well find that his view of the American economy is built on sand. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and ‘them,’ this nation's economy depends on the success of both small business and big business. Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble. That's certain to make retirement funds - including those owned by labor unions and ‘working families’ - happy, right?”
_____
1 Roll Call, 12/21/1998
2 Newsweek, 12/24/2007
|
 |
|
 |
|
December 18, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop That Masked Man!
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:30am | Permalink
After nearly 15 years as Eternal General, Jay Nixon has finally prosecuted a lone case pertaining to illegal immigration. Now that Nixon has finally gotten around to handling a single case, albeit in the shadow of an election year, the Pulse and myriad Missouri voters would like to hear him explain why he was AWOL on the issue of illegal immigration the other 14 years he was Attorney General.
First and foremost, Missourians deserve to know why Nixon has long supported (pg. 9) prohibiting states like Missouri from denying the flow of state tax dollars to cover the education and welfare of illegal immigrants. Nixon’s position reveals a lot about his 14 years of inaction. Why combat illegal immigration when you believe illegal immigrants have a right to mooch off state services funded by Missouri taxpayers? It is no wonder Nixon has dodged addressing this particular issue to date.
Building on Nixon’s support for diverting tax dollars to subsidize illegal immigrants, how can he possibly defend his slush fund’s decision to award $875,000 to a St. Louis organization that publicly provides health care to illegal immigrants? In fact, Nixon’s slush fund awarded the organization a $100,000 grant while he was trying to score political points via the prosecution of his lone illegal immigration case. Again, no explanation has been provided.
Finally, Nixon owes Missourians an explanation for his failure to take action in 2002 when it was discovered an illegal immigrant was working in the office of then-Governor Bob Holden. Adding insult to injury, Nixon didn’t lift a finger to investigate why Eliot Spitzer wannabes in Holden’s office sought to obtain the daughter of the illegal immigrant a driver’s license.
Looking back, it’s rather obvious why Nixon wants Missouri voters to see him in his election year “costume” rather than as he really is. Nixon’s public record since January, 1993 provides more than enough impetus to rip off the mask.
|
|
|
|
|
December 18, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He Said WHAT??
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:40am | Permalink
 What kind of politician receives a D-Minus from the NRA1, supports restricting the gun rights of police officers2, opposes concealed weapons as an affront on civil liberties that would “result in the formation of armed posses3”, supports the Clinton era’s anti-Second Amendment agenda4, supports implementing aspects of Clinton’s agenda at the state-level5, and supports a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns?
If you guessed Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi you’re probably correct, but here in Missouri those happen to be the long-held positions of Jay Nixon. That said, you can imagine the laughter from hunters, sportsmen and pro-Second Amendment rights groups recently as Nixon had the gall to issue a press release touting his newfound “support” for gun rights. In fact, Missouri Pulse obtained its copy of the release from a couple of hunters who could hardly finish a sentence before bursting into laughter. Nixon can be labeled “pro-gun” at about the same time Britney Spears wins the Mother of the Year award…
What’s next for Nixon? We predict that he’ll announce he is now pro-life, anti-tax, pro-business and suddenly support cracking down on illegal immigration. Nixon’s new strategy of running as a Republican with the 20 years of liberal baggage is far from brilliant. Robin Carnahan, Joe Maxwell and Roger Wilson have got to be kicking themselves! Where’s Bob Holden when you need him?
______
1 NRA Political Victory Fund, 2004 cycle rating, Nixon
2 Attorney General opinion, 89-96
3 AP, 1/19/2004
4 Clinton speech at Nixon fundraiser, 11/17/1997
5 SNL, 9/14/2004
|
|
|
|
|
December 17, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balancing the Scales of Justice
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 9:35am | Permalink
Last month, Attorney General Jay Nixon was taken to court by a former employee, Martha Grothoff, who claimed that he had let her go because of her disability.
As the Pulse first reported back in October, Grothoff filed suit against Nixon claiming discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Nixon, realizing that a drawn-out court battle could be disastrous for his aspirations for higher office, sought to settle the case out of court.
A settlement was reportedly reached at the beginning of November, but no further details have emerged. Unfortunately, the press has ignored Grothoff’s legitimate grievances, instead focusing their collective attention on Scott Eckersley’s politically-motivated claims.
A search of Missouri news articles mentioning Scott Eckersley yields nearly 150 results, yet a similar search of major newspapers for stories regarding the Grothoff case finds 0 results.
There is a real story here—a quadriplegic woman suing the Attorney General for discrimination, while Nixon uses taxpayer funds to avoid a potentially damaging court battle.
Looks like this may be a case for Elliot Davis (because, “after all, you paid for it”).
|
|
|
|
|
December 14, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weekly Dose Of Dem Hypocrisy
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:15pm | Permalink
Higher ed. Today, the MDP is squawking about higher education a few short years after the party and Jay Nixon staunchly defended Bob Holden’s higher education funding cuts, which became a top issue in Claire McCaskill’s campaign to topple Holden.
Now, in 2007 with the funding issue off the table thanks to Governor Matt Blunt’s leadership, the MDP is boohooing about Blunt’s latest proposal to devote $100 million to scholarships in an ongoing effort to address college affordability.
So, let’s get this straight. The MDP defended the actions of a Democratic governor who starved Missouri’s colleges and universities and drove up the cost of tuition, but now that a Republican is governor they have already opposed a tax-free $350 million plan to invest in state colleges and universities, and now they oppose a $100 million tax-free plan to provide scholarships to aspiring Missouri students. Talk about misplaced priorities!
Chet’s regret. Earlier this week, the latest addition to Jay Nixon’s crew of Keystone Kops, Chet Pleban, made an appearance on Fox 2 in St. Louis (h/t Missouri PNS) in which he pontificated on the merits of the Sunshine Law. However, in 1993, Pleban served as an attorney to the St. Louis Police Board during a spate of closed door meetings that triggered news stories, editorials and the criticism of a Post-Dispatch lawyer, who accused the board of violating the Sunshine Law. Ironically, Pleban was fired months later by the board … during a closed door meeting.
Chet-and-Ron—back by popular demand …
|
|
|
|
|
December 14, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where’s Claire?
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:00am | Permalink
Congressional Democrats are reeling from a year marked by mounting failures and burgeoning internal turmoil. The latest major setback played out last night as Senate Republicans killed a Democrat energy plan that included $21.8 billion in tax hikes; hikes that think tankers argued would have been a catalyst for gas price spikes. Hours after the defeat, Senate Democrats, with their tails tucked between their legs, resurrected the energy plan without their pride and joy—the pay-at-the-pump tax hikes. It passed by an overwhelming 86-8 margin.
In addition to the energy plan, Democrats, over the past week, have been dealt defeats that include the demise of promised paygo budgeting, a failure to counter Republicans on AMT relief and capitulation to President Bush’s position on federal spending.
Somewhere among the downtrodden Democrats is Missouri’s own Claire McCaskill, who voted to kill paygo, voted for the energy plan that included the $21.8 billion in pay-at-the-pump tax hikes and voted for the massive Democratic budget bills that triggered the futile spending battle with Bush. Just last week, a cocky McCaskill chortled that the GOP was no longer the party of fiscal conservatism only to watch days later as her party’s House leaders caved in to Bush’s spending demands, which included about $22 billion in spending cuts.
In a year marked by Congressional futility and ineptitude, today’s “Delta House of Congress” editorial in the Wall Street Journal seems to be a fitting analogy for McCaskill and her colleagues.
From the editorial:
“Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country. . . .
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.”
|
|
|
|
|
December 13, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MO MEDIA WATCH: No Spring Chicken
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:55am | Permalink
In post-term limit Jeff City, Jay Nixon is the equivalent of U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). He may not look that old, but this guy’s been around so long he once voiced opposition to the late great President Ronald Reagan’s now legendary $750 billion tax relief plan, which took place in 1981.
Since his first State Senate campaign in 1986, Nixon, a career politician, has either switched or compromised his position on a litany of issues. To name a few: tax hikes, taxpayer refunds, illegal immigration, guns, abortion, balanced budget amendments, state and federal clean water laws, NAFTA, deseg, Sunshine Law, minimum wage, gaming, drunk driving, death penalty, anti-meth policies, campaign finance reform, term limits, charter schools, local control in education, tuition breaks and Medicaid.
That said, it is remarkable how reporters have thus far failed to cover anything Nixon has said or done prior to 2005 when he formally announced his intent to run for governor. A prime example is evident in the recent spate of puff pieces pertaining to Nixon’s current Medicaid views.
In short, critical analysis and context have been lacking in the stories outlining Nixon’s “outrage” over Medicaid funding. By stepping back just three years, one would see that from 2002-2004 Nixon defended Democrat-enacted Medicaid cuts that sought to reduce or eliminate benefits to over 300,000 Missourians. In the post-MKT Bridge world, it’s hard to imagine why Nixon limited himself to bucking his client, the state, over a rusty bridge while forsaking his passion for the preservation and expansion of a state-run health care system.
Stepping back even further, perhaps Nixon’s assurance that he is not a HillaryCare zealot could be easily challenged. Why, he may have even supported the Clinton-Ted Kennedy script for socialized health care. Imagine if he had voted to implement a state-run health care system here in Missouri that would have been funded with massive tax increases.
In a way, I’m grateful Democratic shortcomings don’t get much play in the press. It keeps conservative sites busy! However, it wouldn’t hurt them to dig a little bit every once in a while and turn the hot lamp on the Democrats, especially with a baggage-laden candidate like Nixon in the mix.
|
|
|
|
|
December 12, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potpourri
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:45am | Permalink
Guilty by association? State House races have a tendency to turn into guilty-by-association contests. That said, HDCC chief Rachel Storch’s decision to lead liberal lightning rod Hillary Clinton’s statewide campaign could trigger unintended scrutiny of Clinton’s support, or lack thereof, in Cape Girardeau and St. Charles County where special elections for open State House slots are scheduled for February 5—the same day Missourians will cast their votes in the state’s presidential primary. Based on the composition of both districts, it’s doubtful either Democratic State House aspirant would welcome the Clinton association.
Politico issues Leadership Report Cards. The Politico has posted Leadership Report Cards for Speaker Pelosi, Senate chief Harry Reid and their Republican counterpoints John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. The excuses from the Democratic side are myriad; maybe it has something to do with historically low Congressional approval ratings and a raft of broken campaign pledges.
Reading the tea leaves. Reputable poli-pundit Stu Rothenberg, who deemed Jay Nixon “the most disappointing Senate candidate” in 1998, breaks down yesterday’s Republican Congressional victory in a battleground state and explains what, if any, trend it may show.
Heisman for a home-schooler. The Cato Institute’s blog shares some underreported background on Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow of the University of Florida. Apparently, Tebow is not a product of the public school system. In fact, he was a product of home-schooling, a long-time liberal pet peeve. How can this be!!
Time flies. Led Zeppelin was a big deal nearly 40 years ago, and they still are today as evidenced by their monster show earlier this week in London. Whether you were actually around when the band last played a live show or you got hooked on their music through a relative or a friend growing up, their reemergence has a way of reminding everyone how time can fly!
|
|
|
|
|
December 11, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Review: Romney For President
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:50pm | Permalink
 This afternoon, the National Review, arguably the leading conservative magazine in the country, announced its endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. A couple excerpts from the endorsement:
"Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy. . . .
"We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly."
Disclosure: John Hancock serves as a fundraising consultant to the Romney campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
December 11, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All In The Name Of Political Expediency
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:35am | Permalink
 In 2003, Jay Nixon, without a word of dissent, went to court to defend Democrat-enacted Medicaid cuts that were estimated to slash health care benefits to as many as 400,000 low-income Missourians. Two years later, Nixon so cherished an unused rusty Boonville rail bridge that he saw fit to sue the state to prevent it from being dismantled. When asked why he was suing the state, Nixon argued it was within his ability to oppose the state when he saw fit. So, Nixon sued the state to save an unused rusty bridge that was dear to his heart, but he did not see fit to sue the state to stop Democrat-enacted health care cuts that would have impacted 400,000 Missourians.
Now, Nixon has built his gubernatorial bid around a mile wide, inch deep, bogus populist platform that relies solely upon criticism of Republican enacted overhauls of out-of-control welfare programs. Nixon is pledging to expand state-run health care just four years after he defended significant state health care cuts. Apparently, nobody ever told Nixon houses should not be built on sand. Joe Maxwell and Robin Carnahan may come to regret their decision not to challenge this guy.
|
|
|
|
|
December 10, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Lump Of Coal For Taxpayers
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:50pm | Permalink
The conservative think tankers at the Heritage Foundation have unfurled a map that details the adverse impact the Congressional Democrats’ energy bill (HR 6) could have on individual states over the next few years in terms of gas prices.
According to Heritage research, the average Missourian now pays $2.85 for a gallon of gas. If the Congressional Democrats’ energy plan, which includes billions of dollars in tax hikes and various environmental mandates, was somehow enacted over a Bush veto the average Missourian would pay $4.72 for a gallon of gas by 2016. In dollar figures, that would mean the average Missouri driver would pay roughly $909 more per year for gas than they do now.
Last week, both the House and the Senate voted on the Congressional Democrats’ energy plan. Missouri delegation breakdowns:
House roll call vote, 12/6, passed 235-181:
Akin, Todd (R-2): No
Blunt, Roy (R-7): No
Carnahan, Russ (D-3): Yes
Clay, Lacy (D-1): Yes
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-5): Yes
Emerson, Jo Ann (R-8): No
Graves, Sam (R-6): No
Hulshof, Kenny (R-9): No
Skelton, Ike (D-4): Yes
Senate roll call vote, 12/6 on cloture, failed 53-42:
Bond, Kit: No
McCaskill, Claire: Yes
More: WSJ coverage of the Democrats’ failure to pass the plan in the Senate.
|
|
|
|
|
December 10, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paygo Out The Window
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 8:55am | Permalink
“I am comforted by new pay-as-you-go rules that we put in place in January which will result in a surplus by 2012.” Sen. Claire McCaskill, KC Star, 9/29/2007
Despite all the pledges and ultimately empty rhetoric, Senate Democrats, including Claire McCaskill, abandoned a central component of their 2006 campaign platform when they voted last week to kill their paygo budgeting gimmick. As an editorial in this morning’s Wall Street Journal illustrates, the issue was nothing more than a “confidence game” intended to help tax-and-spenders like McCaskill mislead voters into believing they were fiscally conservative.
Excerpt from WSJ editorial:
But paygo shouldn't be allowed to expire without everyone kicking sand on its grave. That's because it has been nothing but a confidence game from the very start. Paygo doesn't apply to domestic discretionary spending, and it doesn't restrain spending increases under current law in entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. Its main goals are to make tax cutting all but impossible, while letting Democrats pretend to favor "fiscal discipline," a la Ms. Pelosi's boast …
With paygo in the can, McCaskill is now limited to a couple messaging avenues on fiscal issues. Either she 1) continues to tout her support for earmark reform as some sort of end-all-be-all or 2) she explains why she supports a Democratic budget that would raise taxes by $2.7 trillion and increase spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. For the short-term the answer is rather obvious, but it will be most interesting to see how McCaskill handles the mounting criticism of her and her caucus’ budgeting practices in the event she faces a true dyed-in-the-wool fiscal conservative down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
December 7, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another Democratic Pledge Bites The Dust
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:25 PM | Permalink
This morning, a spokesperson for Sen. Claire McCaskill touted her caucus’ adherence to the pay-as-you-go budgeting system, which requires additional entitlement spending and tax relief to be offset by tax hikes or spending cuts.
Strangely enough, the comments came hours after McCaskill voted to eviscerate the pay-as-you-go system. On Thursday night, McCaskill joined 87 other Senators in support of legislation The Washington Post claims “blew a $50 billion hole” in the Democrats’ pay-as-you-go pledge.
Excerpt from The Washington Post, 12/7/2007:
Senate Democratic leaders insisted they had done all they could to preserve their much-ballyhooed pay-as-you-go — or "pay-go" — rule, which said any new entitlement spending or tax cuts had to be offset by tax increases or spending cuts.
Once a centerpiece of Democratic claims to the mantle of fiscal discipline, pay-go ultimately was steamrollered by the AMT, which could hit 23 million families this year if Congress fails to act.
"We want everyone to know we have tried every alternative possible," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after Republican lawmakers used Senate rules to block any consideration of the House-passed AMT bill, paid for largely by tax increases on Wall Street titans.
Excerpt from Wall Street Journal, 12/7/2007:
The $51 billion package, passed on an 88-5 vote, would eliminate the AMT for 19 million people in 2007. But the lost revenue was not offset, marking a departure from the pay-go budget rule Democrats reinstated when they took over Congress this year. Pay-go requires that new tax cuts and spending programs be offset with spending cuts or tax increases. It can be waived with sufficient Senate support.
Senate Democrats said abandoning pay-go was necessary to attract Republican support for a bill widely viewed as urgent in order to limit tax-refund delays. But the move sets up a confrontation with the House, where Democrats frequently point to pay-go as evidence they are fiscally responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
December 6, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partying With Courtroom Opponents
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:33 PM | Permalink
Last week, Attorney General Jay Nixon squared off before the Missouri Supreme Court against the IAFF and its trial lawyer and labor union comrades, who are seeking to undo 2005 workers comp reforms. Tonight, with the case still pending, Nixon is scheduled to attend a campaign kickoff for a fellow Democrat at—of all places—Firefighter’s Hall in St. Peters.
It is not known whether Nixon, who will likely be surrounded by IAFF bosses, will wear earplugs and/or handcuffs to avoid unseemly discussion of the pending case, acceptance of additional donations from various fire union funds, including controversial “flower funds”, or a round of laughs for his continued failure to act on requested fire union reforms brought to light by a P-D investigation in 2004.
|
|
|
|
| | |