PULSE POLL: McCain v. Obama Match Up In MO
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:00pm | Permalink

According to the latest Missouri Pulse poll conducted 2/18-2/20, 40% of registered voters in Missouri would currently vote for U.S. Senator John McCain, 37% would vote for U.S. Senator Barack Obama and 18% remain undecided. McCain’s edge falls within the margin of error ( /-3.5%).

Based on the narrowly divided electorate and the sizable chunk of undecided voters that both McCain and Obama are capable of wooing, it appears Missouri will once again be a battlefield state during the general election should Obama defeat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

At the state-level, 45% of registered Missouri voters believe the state is on the right-track, 42% believe it is on the wrong-track and 12% are undecided. As for issue importance, 36% believe the economy is the most important issue facing the state at this time with health care (23%) and education (14%) coming in second and third.

Link up: Missouri Pulse poll data from 2/18-2/20 survey (pdf)

Dirty Dealings Across The River
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:20am | Permalink

A lot of Illinois Democrats, including Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich (a.k.a. “Public Official A”), are going to be sweating it out next week as the corruption trial of their fundraising sugar daddy Tony Rezko commences. While mounting media interest surrounding Blagojevich’s alleged involvement in extortion schemes linked to Rezko has resulted in him being labeled the-next-Illinois-governor- most-likely-to-land-in-the-pokey, Obama’s ties to Rezko, while significant, have yet to receive similar scrutiny. Time will tell if that remains the case, as the Chicago Sun-Times reports there is a “strong chance” Obama will be among the names that will surface at next week’s trial.

Battle For The ‘Burbs
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:50pm | Permalink

Today, the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, two of the most respected think tanks around, teamed up to present a snapshot of America’s ever evolving election demographics. In a must-read teaser column in today’s Wall Street Journal, coauthors from each think tank debunk certain perceived trends as bygone or overblown while lending credence to the widely held belief that many an election will hinge on battles in the traditional suburbs, emerging suburbs and exurbs—areas that are thriving in Missouri and will ensure our state remains a national bellwether for some time.

Context: Jay Nixon’s Worst Enemy
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 9:40am | Permalink

Few political candidates would entertain the notion of taking undue credit for tax relief with a record remotely similar to that of Jay Nixon. Nixon’s abysmally liberal 22-year record on taxes, which is tainted by his support for a wide spectrum of tax hikes, was best summed up in 1988 when Jack Danforth’s camp responded to Nixon’s criticism of President Reagan’s renowned $750 billion federal tax overhaul by asserting, “Nixon must have Walter Mondale for a campaign adviser.”¹

Following that loss, Nixon went on to vote for hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in gas, income, business and sales tax hikes as a State Senator. He also opposed nearly $200 million in tax refunds for Missouri seniors while maintaining his support for making it easier to raise property taxes on homeowners.² Not even Nixon’s most earth shattering legislative achievement, raising taxes on video rentals, was tax-free.

As Attorney General, Nixon fought in court to keep “the largest tax hike in the history of Missouri”—a $315 million hike passed in 1993—from going to a vote of the people.³ During another botched U.S. Senate bid in 1998, Nixon said the eradication of the IRS would result in “economic collapse”⁴, and he criticized Sen. Bond for refusing to support a $515 billion federal tax hike⁵ all the while toiling in court to prevent Missouri taxpayers from receiving $120 million in state tax refunds.⁶

More recently, Nixon voiced support for U.S. Speaker Pelosi’s socialized health care plan that would have raised taxes by an estimated $71 billion (pg. 3 of link), and his own heath care plan would require a nearly $1 billion tax hike on state taxpayers.

All things considered, it is hard to imagine anyone keeping a straight face upon hearing of Nixon’s effort yesterday to disingenuously claim credit for the passage of Republican crafted property tax reform legislation, which came about as a result of months of public meetings last year with homeowners throughout the state. A group of homeowners even created a blog in support Sen. Mike Gibbons, who has spearheaded the reform effort alongside State House leaders. Nixon has no such blog and for good reason. According to folks who attended the public meetings, Nixon was nowhere to be seen, which is a fitting tribute to a wind-chiming credit snatcher whose lexicon has been void of the phrase “tax relief” for the past 22 years.

_____
¹ P-D, 4/19/1988
² P-D, 4/24/1989
³ P-D, 8/3/1998
⁴ P-D, 9/1/1998
⁵ KC Star, 10/28/1998
⁶ KC Star, 8/5/1998

Thanks For The Reminder, Jeff
Posted by: John Hancock | 5:00pm | Permalink

If scandals did not have shelf lives, Jay Nixon would be chasing ambulances rather than running for governor. However, just when Nixon thought his Ameren donation scandal (circa 2006) had exceeded its expiration date, Attorney General wannabe Jeff Harris, a fellow Democrat, filed legislation that will not only stir up memories of Nixon’s case study in corruption but would criminalize the very thing that he did. What’s next, Harris? A public rejection of campaign donations from lawyers handling gobs of Second Injury Fund claims? Nixon would really love that!

Denunciation v. Rejection
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:20pm | Permalink

This morning, some conservatives and liberals in the media and the blogosphere are questioning the “word blizzard” answers given by Barack Obama during last night’s debate regarding the endorsement he received from Louis Farrakhan, the infamous Nation of Islam leader who is notorious for his anti-Semitic and anti-American outbursts. Critics ranging from the National Review’s Byron York to Hillary Clinton are charging that simply denouncing Farrakhan’s support is a far cry from rejecting it.

While those in the pro-rejection camp have a legitimate gripe, it is not really all that surprising that Obama refused to reject Farrakhan’s support. After all, this is the guy who has said that if he is elected president he will personally meet with the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. If Obama is open to meeting with Islamofascists such as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then what is to stop him from meeting for tea and scones with a home grown hatemonger like Farrakhan?

R.I.P.: Conservative Icon William F. Buckley (1925-2008)
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:10am | Permalink

The National Review is reporting that its founder William F. Buckley passed away overnight in his study at his home in Samford, Connecticut. No one else’s words more appropriately describe Buckley’s contributions to modern American conservatism than the late great President Ronald Reagan.

Excerpt from Reagan’s speech at National Review’s 30th anniversary event, 12/5/1985:

“One final note: I think eventually the pundits and analysts are going to catch on to the enormous force and deep roots of the conservative movement. Some of them even seem to have finally realized that I actually am one and that I mean it. And when that happens, they are going to realize something not only about this journal, but about its founder and editor: that Bill Buckley is perhaps the most influential journalist and intellectual in our era — that he changed our country, indeed our century.

While I am quite certain that this is what history will say, I also know you and I would add something, because you and I remember a time of the forest primeval, a time when nightmare and danger reigned and only the knights of darkness prevailed; when conservatives seemed without a champion in the critical battle of style and content. And then, suddenly riding up through the mists, came our clipboard-bearing Galahad: ready to take on any challengers in the critical battle of point and counterpoint. And, with grace and humor and passion, to raise a standard to which patriots and lovers of freedom could repair.

Like myself, many of you have known and been grateful for Bill's friendship — like everything else he does, he has made of that too an art form.

So, Bill, one last word to you. We thank you for your friendship. You are, of course, a great man. And so we thank you also for National Review, for setting loose so much good in the world. And, Bill — thanks, too, for all the fun.

God bless you.”

MO MEDIA WATCH: Not Exactly An Epiphany
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:10 PM| Permalink

After reading Hank Waters’ latest piece in the CDT, it seems only fitting that Jay Nixon’s campaign either cut him a check, or at least buy him dinner to cover the cost of his services as an advisor. But Nixon’s campaign should not pay out too much as Waters’ advice to the gaffe- and scandal-prone Nixon isn’t exactly original. In essence, Waters advises Nixon to keep his mouth shut and hide from Missouri voters over the next several months, and—presto—he will become governor.

Unbeknownst to Waters, Nixon has been trying, with limited success, to do that very thing recently in what is likely an extension of lessons learned from his last serious political scrape—his 1998 loss to Sen. Kit Bond. Following that loss, which was chalked up to self-inflicted damage caused by a pay-to-play deal with tobacco lawyers, issue waffling and his dubious status among African Americans, Nixon echoed Waters’ tardy advice.

From the Post-Dispatch, 1/11/1999:

“When you refuse to take a position, you’re not punished,” Nixon said. “It’s only when you take a position that you’re punished.” “The reward is not to talk,” he continued, “and to repeat the pollster-tested phrases.”

In the event that Nixon continues to tip-toe around the serious issues the next governor will face, Missouri Pulse encourages Mr. Waters to drop the advice columns and, instead, pressure Nixon to detail his positions and vision—something that has long escaped him—in what should be a vigorous debate over the future of the state. Anything less would be an insult to the voters.

They Didn’t Get The Memo
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:52 PM | Permalink

“I know we can't control everything our family does, but I feel that it is his 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.”

- Plea from State Rep. Belinda Harris (D-Hillsboro) to Jay Nixon, P-D, 12/12/2005

An O’Fallon development company found out last week that Jay Nixon will not hesitate to go after those who pollute Missouri’s streams, unless of course the polluter in question is his family’s sewage treatment plant. If only the O’Fallon developers had ponied up a couple hundred thousand dollars to Nixon’s campaign or maybe hired a Nixon family friend to represent them, they, too, would have been given a 15-year window of immunity from Attorney General scrutiny no matter how bad things got. So your pollution operation is “one of the worst in the state”? Nixon won’t care. So the EPA wants to take you to the woodshed? Nixon won’t care. So fellow Democrats are pressuring Nixon to take action? He won’t care. Keep on polluting Missouri’s streams!

Gimme Shelter!
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:00pm | Permalink

“Experts said legislation to stem practices by offshore entities could pose a conflict of interest for her [McCaskill] as a senator.”
- A foreboding excerpt from a KC Star story, 10/19/2006

Last week, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), a leading opponent of offshore tax shelters, announced a panel he chairs, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, will ramp up efforts to crack down on such shelters. Moreover, Levin is pushing for renewed debate on anti-tax shelter legislation, and he wants POTUS contenders to pay greater attention to the issue.

Levin’s actions have put Sen. Claire McCaskill, a fellow subcommittee member and shameless tax shelter beneficiary, in a tough spot. Beltway sources say McCaskill, whose disclosure of assets in a Bermuda-based shelter became a campaign issue in 2006, may be pressured—in the unlikely event of media scrutiny—to recuse herself from any role in the subcommittee’s inquiry due to concerns about her inherent conflict of interest. According to McCaskill’s most recent personal financial disclosure, she reported family assets worth up to $1 million in Bermuda-based Rural Housing Reinsurance Co. of America, Ltd.—the entity that was at the center of the 2006 controversy. (See pg. 11 of link)

On a related note, how’s that blind trust coming along, Claire?

AM Levity … Sort Of
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:10am | Permalink

From Townhall.com’s Gary Varvel:

National Republicans are waging a two front campaign against Democrats and the national mainstream media. Perhaps the once-respected New York Times will read the tea leaves and financial reports that show their standing with Americans continues to tumble.

Integrity? What Integrity?
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:00pm | Permalink

Last year, Jay Nixon tried to deceive Missourians about his illegal use of his state car for political trips before he finally admitted misusing the car for nearly three years. In the process, it was also revealed he had lied to state auditors about the car’s use the year before.

In late October, following Nixon’s confession of impropriety, his campaign forked over an arbitrary $47,000, which it claimed was “more than necessary” to cover the supposed costs of Nixon’s 3-year span of illegal political joyrides. Now, in late February, Nixon’s ally, Democrat State Auditor Susan Montee, has busted him for underpaying the state by $8,600—a far cry from the “more than necessary” claims his campaign made months before.

Considering that Nixon’s 22-year career as a politician is littered with these types of integrity draining ordeals, it has to be difficult for many state Democrats to fathom why their party has made this scandal prone gent their standard bearer in a year when their party’s latest credo is all about “hope” and “change.”

Welcome To The Waffle House
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:20pm | Permalink

Abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, desegregation, term limits, tax hikes, the minimum wage, health care cuts and now public financing for political campaigns are among the growing list of issues Jay Nixon has waffled on. Yesterday, the CDT’s Politics Blog reported Nixon “has come out against public financing of campaigns.”

Actually, Nixon no longer supports public financing due to the fact he came out in favor of that very issue earlier in his political career. According to the excerpt below, Nixon used to believe campaign finance reform was a sham without public financing. As Nixon’s waffle menu grows, enterprising reporters should seriously consider asking him a simple, yet relevant, follow-up when inquiring about issue positions. Something along the lines of, “So, has this always been your position on [enter issue here]?”

“[State Sen.] Goode had a companion bill that would have set up a public financing system for campaigns in Missouri. That bill died in a Senate committee. ‘The average citizen doesn't buy into it,’ Goode says. ‘They think it's the ultimate perk.’ Nixon says without such a system, campaign finance reform is a sham. ‘The only way to have enforceable limits is to have a carrot out there as well as a stick,’ Nixon says. Odd as it sounds, ‘If people in this state don't want their government for sale, they're going to have to pay for that.’ Tom Mericle, who lobbies for Common Cause of Missouri, agrees. Because of the influence of special interests, ‘the present system is simply corrupt,’ he says. ‘It's legal but it's corrupt. The only thing that is going to really get to the heart of this problem is public funding of political campaigns,’ Mericle says.” (Post-Dispatch, March 15, 1992)

Bipartisan Protect America Act Still In Limbo
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:15am | Permalink

Missouri Republicans, led by U.S. Sen. Kit Bond and House Whip Roy Blunt, are taking the lead in pressuring House Democrats to drop their stalling tactics, conducted at the behest of their trial lawyer supporters, and pass the Protect America Act, which allows for the extension of a surveillance program that targets suspected foreign terrorists. The measure, which has bipartisan support, has been bottled up by Speaker Nancy Pelosi with nary a peep from Missouri’s delegation of hapless House Democrats.

A new web video from the House GOP:

Eternal General’s Record Foils Him Again
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:20pm | Permalink

Jay Nixon was first elected Attorney General in 1992 in a campaign that focused on reforming the scandal-plagued Second Injury Fund (SIF) by putting a stop to pay-to-play dealings and making it more accountable to taxpayers. Throughout most of his tenure, Nixon has repeatedly taken credit for and campaigned on SIF changes he claimed “saved taxpayers’ money” and delivered “a tax cut to businesses across the state.” All told, Nixon has taken credit for creating a whopping $100 million in savings for taxpayers via the SIF.

Now, after more than a decade of credit taking, grandstanding and politicizing his SIF work, Nixon is desperately seeking to wring his hands of the embattled fund as it teeters on the brink of insolvency and threatens his political fortunes. Gone are the days of the “$100-million-in-taxpayer-savings” pitches and chest thumping rhetoric. Instead, Nixon’s mouthpieces have taken up a defensive posture and are even claiming their boss has had no role in the SIF’s sprint toward insolvency, which has been triggered by a nearly 600% increase in expenditures on his watch.

While Nixon seeks cover from legislative scrutiny concerning the SIF’s looming insolvency, a logical extension of that debate is developing. It seems the appearance in Nixon’s MEC reports of myriad lawyers and law firms with significant Second Injury Fund work is stirring up some buzz and questions. What kind of Attorney General accepts donations from lawyers and firms he is tasked to oppose before the very state fund he campaigned to clean up? It seems Nixon may have more than just the SIF’s insolvency to answer for now that he has opened himself to the very pay-to-play criticism he utilized to get elected Attorney General in the first place.

So Much For The Women’s Vote
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:25am | Permalink

Should Jeff Schaeperkoetter, a former attaché to Jay Nixon, run for Congress in the 9th District, it will be intriguing to see how long it takes before other Democrats in the race take him to task for the widely distributed “Getting Off Easy” bombshell that appeared in the Riverfront Times a few years ago. In a testament to the Democrats’ sad state of affairs in the 9th District, some are arguing Schaeperkoetter, despite his baggage, is still the most viable possible candidate in an overall lackluster field. Maybe there is hope for State Sen. Chuck Graham after all!

Nixon’s Bad Day In Court, Part II
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:00pm | Permalink

“I think the legal community as a whole looks upon our Attorney General as someone who is more interested in giving press conferences than in knowing and following the law. I think he’s out on a political frolic.”
- Prominent lawyer and one-time Nixon supporter Don Wolff, KC Star, 6/22/1995

It could be argued that Attorney General Jay Nixon’s gubernatorial bid commenced in early 2005 when he made the ill-fated, yet headline grabbing, decision to sue his client—the state—over a rusty and unused Boonville rail bridge. Yesterday, Nixon’s campaign-within-a-campaign, which was beset by repeated losses in court, finally came to an end when the Missouri Supreme Court refused to review his case, thereby putting a stop to a nearly 3-year drain on hundreds of thousands of state tax dollars that were wasted on Nixon’s frivolous pursuit of headlines.

In May 2005, Nixon kicked off his publicity-driven suit the way he knows best—by misusing taxpayer-funded resources for his own political gain. While Missourians are familiar with Nixon’s 3-year span of illegally using his state car for campaign trips, that was not his first rodeo. Prior to filing the now defunct rail bridge suit, Nixon’s official staff coordinated with environmental groups in an effort to swell support for the suit once it was filed. The e-mails below were sent on May 25, 2005, the day before Nixon publicly announced his suit, and they represent a sampling of a day-in-the-life of Nixon’s political—oops, official—staff.

9:53am: E-mail from Nixon advisor Mary Still to Trailnet, w/ Nixon Chief-of-Staff John Watson CC’ed, re: the public relations push for the yet-to-be-announced suit:

9:58am: Mary Still’s e-mail to the Audubon Society’s Roger Still:

10:13am: Environmentalist David Bedan’s mass e-mail sent to Nixon mouthpiece Scott Holste touting details of the yet-to-be-announced suit:

10:57am: Audubon’s Roger Still responds to Mary Still’s 9:58am e-mail:

2:54pm: Nixon deputy Travis Ford’s e-mail to Holste re: a call with Greenway Network:

Nixon’s Bad Day In Court, Part I
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:50am | Permalink

Three of Attorney General Jay Nixon’s top state lawyers—pulling down $92,000-$113,044 a year—have worked on a pending federal suit in which Nixon is alleged to have discriminated against a former state lawyer because she is a quadriplegic. Unfortunately, it appears Nixon saw no pressing need to devote that same kind of legal muscle to his office’s failed defense of a popular and tough sex offender law that was deemed unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court yesterday.

A look at the court opinion shows that Nixon, who runs one of the largest law offices in the state, had a single lawyer who pulls down $43,000 a year defending the sex offender law. Either the high-paid state lawyers working on Nixon’s lingering discrimination suit were too busy in their ongoing effort to save their boss’ derriere, or Nixon simply did not think the law was worthy of a vigorous defense. Another explanation for Nixon’s poor showing is the fact the case pitted him against controversial criminal defense lawyer Chet Pleban, who Nixon recently hand-picked to serve on a politically engineered investigative panel targeting his nemesis Gov. Matt Blunt. Pleban, who represented a sex offender named “R.L.” in his successful challenge to the law, was assisted on the case by Lynette Petruska, a Nixon donor.

When an Attorney General prioritizes his own ambition and the interests of his cronies in the criminal defense community above the public safety of Missouri’s children, it might—just might—be time for that Attorney General to consider hanging it up and entering the private sector. The “Pleban & Nixon Law Firm” is kind of catchy.

DEMS IN DISARRAY: Super Delegates, Super Problems?
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:40pm | Permalink

It appears members of the Party of the Hanging Chad are in turmoil in Missouri and elsewhere as they debate whether super delegates are subject to their own free will or are supposed to cast their lot in accordance with the victorious contender in each state. Should the Clinton-Obama contest conclude without a winner, the current sniping could very well turn into a national battle over the future of the party, and Missouri will be in the middle of it all.

Considering the possible implications, how is it that nearly all of Missouri’s Democratic heavyweights are super delegates except the party’s senior statewide officeholder and gubernatorial nominee Jay Nixon? Should push come to shove, it seems Nixon, a self-professed champion of party unity, would have the gravitas to keep things from getting out of hand between the Obama and Clinton factions here in Missouri. However, “gravitas”, “unanimity” and “leadership” are qualities foreign to Nixon, which might explain his absence from the fray thus far.

CAPITOL BEAT: Property Tax Relief On The Agenda
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:55am | Permalink

This week, the P-D reports the State Senate will consider legislation (SB 711) proposed by Senate chief Mike Gibbons (R-Kirkwood) that seeks to tackle an issue that is hitting critical mass throughout the state—skyrocketing property taxes. In short, Gibbons’ measure seeks to roll back tax rates when property values spike, thereby limiting payoffs reaped by taxing authorities at the expense of tax fatigued homeowners. Gibbons’ measure is co-sponsored by a number of Republicans from across the state and a single Democrat.

Unsurprisingly, the Democrat tax-and-spenders in the legislature have yet to say much at all about Gibbons’ measure, and then there is the Dooley factor. Although local taxpayers blame St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley for the eye popping property tax bills that prompted calls for state action, long-time Dooley advisor and Jay Nixon cheerleader John Temporiti currently serves as the chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party—yet another possible explanation for the ongoing silence of Democrats.

Link up: St. Louis County Residents for Property Tax Relief Now

Clinton Camp Accuses Obama Of Plagiarism
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:35pm | Permalink

Today, POTUS aspirant Barack Obama’s stand-alone strength—his oratory—has been called into question by Hillary Clinton’s camp. According to the Clinton camp, Obama plagiarized a crowd stirring excerpt from a 2006 speech by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick this past weekend. While it is too early to gauge whether Clinton’s charge will damage Obama’s standing with remaining primary voters, his advisors have to be concerned, because Obama’s strength is in his charismatic speech giving, not his liberal policies. If the credibility of Obama’s speechifying is drawn into question, what is he left with? Not even the almighty Oprah could stem that tide.

More...

A blast from the past: Look for reporters and pundits to resurrect the tale of Delaware Sen. Joe Biden’s 1988 POTUS downfall, which was triggered by plagiarism. Excerpt from a Washington Post blog post from earlier today:

“The Obama campaign may underestimate the controversy's impact in the final hours of the Wisconsin race or in upcoming races in Ohio and Texas. Words do matter, as do their origins. Ask Joe Biden, who took words from a British politician in 1988 without attribution and paid a high price.”

The Clinton camp’s YouTube evidence:

For Those Yet To Experience An “Obama Moment”
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:45am | Permalink

This weekend, the SNL’s Tony Messenger candidly explained his “Obama moment”—“goose bumps” and all. For those who are anything but smitten by Obama’s mile-wide and inch-deep rhetoric, renowned conservative columnist Mark Steyn offers his take on the left’s worship of the man offering American voters nothing more than “gaseous Sesame Street platitudes.”

Excerpt from Steyn’s column:

“Poor mean vengeful Hillary, heading for a one-way ticket on the oblivion express, has a point. Barack Obama is an elevator Muzak dinner-theater reduction of all the glibbest hand-me-down myths in liberal iconography — which is probably why he’s a shoo-in. The problems facing America — unsustainable entitlements, broken borders, nuclearizing enemies — require tough solutions not gaseous Sesame Street platitudes. But, unlike the whose-turn-is-it? GOP, Mrs. Clinton’s crowd generally picks the new kid on the block: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. I wonder if Hillary Rodham, Goldwater Girl of 1964, ever wishes she stuck with her original party.”

Nixon’s Next Election Year Conversion?
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:05pm | Permalink

Jay Nixon is a career politician and a habitual flip-flopper known for changing his views on key issues if it will benefit his political fortunes. Over the years, Nixon has flip-flopped on issues as divergent as abortion, gun control, desegregation, tax hikes, the minimum wage and granting illegal immigrants access to taxpayer-funded services. That said, Missourians are left to ponder when Nixon will flip-flop yet again and throw his support behind school prayer now that the MRP has called him out for his longstanding opposition to that very practice.

DGA To Undermine Nixon’s Rx Tales
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:10pm | Permalink

Over the years, Attorney General Jay Nixon has buried Missourians under a mountain of press releases touting his tagalong efforts, often alongside 48 or 49 other states, to cash in on massive suits filed against pharmaceutical companies. Never mind that Nixon has rarely been an actual leader in such suits. For him it’s all about the smoke-and-mirrors—the act of duping Missourians into believing he is a legal titan pulled from the pages of a John Grisham novel when, in fact, he had to take a number and wait in line for a cut with 48 or 49 state Attorneys General and even reps from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, who have also argued for a cut of the increasingly common settlements.

While Nixon gears up to tell his tall tales on the campaign trail, one of his top supporters has already begun the process of unintentionally throwing a wrench into his messaging plans. According to IRS records and Congressional Quarterly’s MoneyLine (subscription required), the Democratic Governor’s Association (DGA), which has already begun the process of sinking millions of dollars into Missouri to support Nixon’s gubernatorial bid, has accepted approximately $2.5 million from the very heavy hitters in the pharmaceutical industry that Nixon will claim to have slain. The $2.5 million figure represents donations made to the DGA since 2005, the year Nixon began to aggressively pursue his bid, by such heavy hitters as GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and the industry’s lobby, PhRMA.

Despite the awe-inspiring hypocrisy of the developing situation, Missouri Pulse is quite confident Nixon’s longstanding hypocrisy on so many other issues—immigration, abortion, gun control, minimum wage, deseg, etc.—will factor into his decision to press on and tell his tall tales of fighting pharmaceutical companies while relying on them to help bankroll his gubernatorial bid. After all, that is the Nixon way.

Pelosi Blocks Extension Of Terrorist Surveillance Measure
Posted by: John Hancock |