 |
|
 |
January 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Re: Carnahan’s Decision Not To Challenge Nixon
Posted by: John Hancock | 5:45pm | Permalink
- Robin Carnahan seriously considered challenging governor wannabe Jay Nixon, who has been running as the perceived Democratic frontrunner since December 2004. By contemplating a challenge, Carnahan delivered a huge slap in the face to Nixon, who has never been able to unify Democrats. Despite an ongoing three-year run, which ranks among the longest statewide campaigns in Missouri history, Nixon is viewed as highly vulnerable, even within the Democratic establishment.
From the P-D’s Political Fix:
“Tony Wyche, Carnahan’s spokesman, said Wednesday morning that a lot of people had contacted Carnahan and urged her to consider the race.
Asked whether certain groups were pushing her, Wyche said: ‘I don’t know the identity of everyone that’s called but it’s a wide swath of people.’”
- Some factors that likely contributed to Carnahan’s consideration of a run: Nixon’s 42% (and rising) unfavorable rating, his sub-50% favorable rating, his penchant for gaffes, scandals and corruption, and his ongoing struggles in the African-American community.
- A Hillary Clinton POTUS nomination, a Nixon gubernatorial nomination and the ongoing race issues plaguing St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, a Democratic heavyweight and Clinton supporter, could prove dire for the political fortunes of Clinton and Nixon come November. One can only imagine how likely African-American voters in Missouri would react to Hillary “Race War” Clinton’s name at the top of Democratic ticket followed closely by Jay Nixon, who an NAACP official once called the “reincarnation” of George C. Wallace. Aside from Sen. Claire McCaskill and Carnahan, state Democrat leaders have not likely given this potential scenario much thought.
Comment from State Sen. Maida Coleman, a Nixon supporter, in a P-D Political Fix item posted last night:
“Nixon’s record on the St. Louis schools desegregation case is a sore spot in the African-American community.
‘That’s, unfortunately, Jay’s legacy,’ Coleman said. She saw the split when she talked politics with seven St. Louis aldermen who were in the capital Wednesday to testify on local control of the police department.
‘Some felt there should be a choice’ in the race, she said.”
- Finally, the contrast between the virtually non-existent record of Carnahan and Nixon’s embarrassing, scandal-ridden 22-year record could have been put to good use by Carnahan in a primary, not to mention the fact her last name also would have come in handy. Such issues were likely included in the poll Carnahan ran over the past few days.
|
 |
|
 |
|
January 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It Takes A Village … To Attack Clinton
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 3:53 PM | Permalink
“There isn't a successful American who hasn't benefited from that (It Takes A Village) concept.” - Claire McCaskill, KC Star, 8/27/1996
Anybody who has watched a cable news channel recently has likely noticed that wherever Democratic POTUS contender Barack Obama goes, his top sycophant, Sen. Claire McCaskill, is never far behind. When she is not shadowing Obama, McCaskill and her liberal icon buddy Sen. Ted Kennedy have served as his attack dogs as evidenced by their attacks on Bill Clinton, and who can forget McCaskill charging that a Clinton nomination would spell doom for Missouri Democrats?
Presently, McCaskill is accused of being an accomplice in Obama’s much-publicized snub of Clinton following the State of the Union address a couple days ago. All things considered, it is hard to fathom how McCaskill, an admitted adherent of the liberal precepts associated with Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” dogma, can so fiercely attack someone who was pivotal in shaping her own left-wing views. Maybe McCaskill’s long history of throwing fellow Democrats under the bus has something to do with it.
Full excerpt of McCaskill’s defense of Hillary from the KC Star, 8/27/1996:
“[Dole] pushed old hot buttons of socialism involving Clinton's book It Takes a Village. Drawing from an African proverb, Clinton advocates more community involvement in rearing children. . . .
But Dole said: ‘The state is now more involved than it has ever been in the raising of children, and children are now more neglected, abused and mistreated than they have been in our time. This is not a coincidence, and, with all due respect, I am here to tell you, it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family.’
That steamed Democrats like Jackson County Prosecutor Claire McCaskill. She proudly showed me her campaign button that features Clinton with a multicolored haircut like Chicago Bulls bad boy Dennis Rodman. The red, white and blue button said, ‘Hillary Rodman Clinton: As Bad As She Wants to Be.’
‘I think Dole's forgotten how he was raised, and he's forgotten what happened after his war injuries,’ said McCaskill, a Missouri convention delegate. It took a community of people to help Dole recover, graduate from college and become the successful politician that he has been. What Dole said ‘was mean-spirited and dumb,’ McCaskill said.
‘There isn't a successful American who hasn't benefited from that (it takes a village) concept,’ she said.”
|
|
|
|
|
January 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Missouri’s Meth Problem Continues To Fester On Nixon's Watch
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:20 AM | Permalink
“In the 13 years I have been attorney general, crime has gone down.” Jay Nixon, Dexter Daily Statesman, 11/22/2005
It could be quite amusing to see Jay Nixon, Missouri’s self-described “chief law enforcement officer” and the most consistent purveyor of hyperbolic rhetoric in the land, spin his record on meth this year considering new data that shows “Missouri remains far and away the national leader” when it comes to the proliferation of the drug. After 15 years of blustery crime fighting rhetoric that would make McGruff the Crime Dog whimper, Nixon has got to be wondering how his mighty words have yet to strike fear into the hearts of meth heads in Missouri.
It’s not as if Nixon’s lackluster record on meth hasn’t been exposed in past elections. Since his 1996 reelection bid, Nixon has been forced to repeatedly defend himself from criticism that he has done little to curb Missouri’s ongoing status as our nation’s “meth Mecca” as former Gov. Mel Carnahan once described it.1 In 1996, Nixon was first criticized for failing to make Missouri’s burgeoning meth scourge “a top priority.”2 Two years later during Nixon's last competitive race, Sen. Kit Bond took aim at his record by noting that Missouri had become the nation’s meth capital “under Jay Nixon’s watch.”3 Days after Bond aired his first of repeated salvoes, Nixon attempted a rebuttal, via state letterhead, that triggered a broadside from Bond’s camp:
“In spite of all the verbiage in Mr. Nixon’s press release, I still don’t see an explanation as to why our state is in such a sorry shape” regarding meth, Hubbard said. “By quiet, Senator Bond didn’t mean Jay Nixon wasn’t holding press conferences. He meant quiet in effect.” Hubbard also complained that Still acted improperly by issuing what amounted to a campaign “attack” against Bond.4
Since then, Nixon has continued to take flak from Republicans on the issue, he has lashed out at the anti-meth plans of fellow Democrats, and in 2004, his own plan, which marked a departure from his prior pro-treatment bearings, was panned by a U.S. Department of Justice crime researcher for proposing the creation of “university of meth” that would lump all meth offenders into one prison and result in “convicts teaching each other the best cooking techniques.”5 To suggest that it is time for a change in the Attorney General’s office, particularly when it comes to combating meth, would be an understatement.
1 KC Star, 10/7/1997; 2 P-D, 10/1/1996; 3 KC Star, 8/5/1998; 4 P-D, 8/14/1998; 5 P-D, 2/2/2004
|
|
|
|
|
January 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Temporiti’s Not So Subtle Message To Carnahan Supporters
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:50am | Permalink
Last Wednesday afternoon, The Washington Post was first to report that Robin Carnahan’s name was being floated as a potential challenger to Jay Nixon in a Democratic gubernatorial primary. Later that evening, the CDT’s Politics Blog was the first Missouri media outlet to pick up on the Post’s reporting. Thursday morning, The Politico, another reputable Beltway media outlet, also reported Carnahan was mulling a challenge to Nixon. Moreover, the links to the CDT’s pick-up and The Politico story were included on John Combest’s site that morning, and this site highlighted them in a 9:05am post.
Despite plenty of coverage on the Carnahan angle, Nixon toady and MDP chairman John Temporiti somehow saw fit to release an e-mail to party activists and donors later on Thursday in which he repeatedly praised Nixon as if he was already the Democratic gubernatorial nominee and no possible challenges were looming. You gotta wonder how Carnahan’s donors and supporters felt when they found out the MDP was pretending their candidate did not exist.
Here are relevant excerpts from Temporiti’s Nixon-is-my-one-and-only e-mail:
“While the Republicans embark on what looks like a nasty and expensive primary, we're proud to have a candidate in Jay Nixon that everyone can unite behind.”
“The Republicans will spend the next few months spending money attacking each other instead of Democrats. Meanwhile, Jay Nixon will continue traveling the state …”
“None of the would-be Republican candidates have the statewide name recognition, statewide political organization or statewide fundraising base that Jay Nixon has built over the past few years.”
“Missourians are ready for change, and they know that change will only happen by electing a candidate with fundamentally different priorities - and that's Jay Nixon.”
“It's been a good few weeks for Democrats, but remember: The morning after Election Day will be even sweeter when we wake up and Jay Nixon is our new Governor …”
|
|
|
|
|
January 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McCaskill Throws Clinton Under The Bus
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:45am | Permalink
 For the record, I and countless other Republicans do not disagree with Sen. Claire McCaskill’s assertion that Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket in Missouri would spell defeat for Democrats this November. However, while it is expected that Republicans will attack a potential standard bearer for the Democratic Party, it is a wholly separate matter when a U.S. Senator such as McCaskill, who was a long-time Clinton supporter, makes such charges.
Before Clinton supporters get too upset about McCaskill’s attack on their candidate, they should consider McCaskill’s history of stirring dissension among Democrats. In 1995, she and other Democratic prosecutors filed a legal ethics complaint against current Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Jay Nixon. In the 1998 Democratic primary for State Auditor, McCaskill was sued for libel by an opponent for falsely accusing him of failing to pay taxes. In 2003, she announced she would challenge a sitting Democratic governor in a primary. In 2004, she blamed the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry for her defeat in the gubernatorial contest. And now, she’s attacking Clinton. Is anyone really that surprised?
For the record …
McCaskill, sporting a Hillary Clinton pin, defends the First Lady and her “It Takes A Village” philosophy, KC Star, 8/27/1996:
“…Dole said: ‘The state is now more involved than it has ever been in the raising of children, and children are now more neglected, abused and mistreated than they have been in our time. This is not a coincidence, and, with all due respect, I am here to tell you, it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family.’
That steamed Democrats like Jackson County Prosecutor Claire McCaskill. She proudly showed me her campaign button that features Clinton with a multicolored haircut like Chicago Bulls bad boy Dennis Rodman. The red, white and blue button said, ‘Hillary Rodman Clinton: As Bad As She Wants to Be.’
‘I think Dole's forgotten how he was raised, and he's forgotten what happened after his war injuries,’ said McCaskill, a Missouri convention delegate. It took a community of people to help Dole recover, graduate from college and become the successful politician that he has been. What Dole said ‘was mean-spirited and dumb,’ McCaskill said.
‘There isn't a successful American who hasn't benefited from that (it takes a village) concept,’ she said.”
|
|
|
|
|
January 24, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could Carnahan Take On Nixon?
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:05am | Permalink
 In the past 24 hours, two highly respected Beltway publications, The Washington Post and The Politico, have reported that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s name has been floated as a potential primary challenger to Jay Nixon. If Carnahan decides to challenge Nixon it would not only expose Nixon’s known weakness within the state’s Democratic establishment, but it would also reignite a long running, and sometimes public, feud between the Carnahan faction and Nixon, who repeatedly clashed with Mel Carnahan during his gubernatorial tenure.
Excerpt from The Politico story:
“On the Democratic side, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is thought to be considering a challenge to Nixon in a Democratic primary.”
Excerpt from The Washington Post story:
“And, while most of the focus is on the Republican side, the name of Secretary of State Robin Carnahan -- daughter of former governor Mel and former senator Jean -- is being floated for the Democrats, a prospect that presumptive nominee Jay Nixon, the state's attorney general, can't be too happy about.”
|
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Dinosaur Sighting In The State Capitol
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:55pm | Permalink
Shortly after Gov. Blunt finished explaining to reporters how it was possible for a politician to forsake the temptation to make a career of running for office, Missouri’s post-term limit dinosaur Jay Nixon showed up at the capitol for a rabblerousing stump speech replete with a chorale of Democratic legislators who haven’t collectively accomplished anything since Nixon’s third term as Attorney General. One observer wryly deemed the ensemble “Old Way Jay & the Do-Nothings.”
According to some in attendance, Nixon, whose 22-year span as a career politician began during the Reagan administration, plans to continue campaigning against the wrong opponent, Blunt, while casting himself—rather oxymoronically—as a relic of change. Although it has been said before, Robin Carnahan, Joe Maxwell and Roger Wilson have got to be kicking themselves for giving this guy a free ride.
More …
The Eternal General’s lowly opinion of Missouri term limits:
“Since 1993, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has defended in public and in court the validity of the state’s term-limit laws aimed at restricting the years in office for state legislators and members of Congress. . . . But such actions by Nixon, who's serving his fourth term as the state's top law enforcement official, doesn’t mean he was ever really a fan of term limits. ‘Other than a Republican Legislature, it’s hard to see what Missouri has gotten out of term limits,’ Nixon said in a recent interview, offering what may be his first public comments disparaging the idea.” (P-D, April 4, 2005)
|
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Fear Factor When It Comes To Nixon
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:40am | Permalink
At last count, there are nine outstanding Republicans whose names have already been tossed about as potential gubernatorial contenders. While Democrats may contend that is due to a deep roster of qualified candidates on the Republican side, the fact is that current Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Jay Nixon doesn’t exactly strike fear into the hearts of Republicans. In fact, Nixon’s unrivaled status as a pontificating, scandal plagued, hypocrisy laced, tax-and-spending career politician almost certainly contributed to the groundswell of interest among Republicans, and those same flaws are the reason why some Democrats remain concerned about Nixon’s chances this year.
Excerpt from today’s Post-Dispatch:
“But some Democratic activists were privately wary, saying that some of the Republican contenders are popular among Missouri voters, with savvy political skills, and could pose serious problems for Nixon.”
|
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blunt’s Brave Decision is a Real Opportunity for Missouri Republicans
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:25pm | Permalink
Some things to consider following Governor Blunt’s announcement this afternoon:
-Blunt is the first governor of Missouri to make a self-denying decision with respect to a second term since the Constitution was changed to allow governors to run for two terms.
-Our polls show that this was a winnable race for Blunt if he had decided to seek a second term. Blunt and Jay Nixon were both under 50 percent and separated by only a few points. This past October, national pollster Scott Rasmussen released a poll showing Blunt ahead 44-43.
-Polls also show when Missourians know what has been accomplished in recent years they support the Governor and the actions of Republicans in the General Assembly.
-Blunt's fundraising consistently outpaced that of Nixon, and Nixon has spent considerable time and financial resources running against the wrong opponent.
-The donor pool will be essentially untapped for our Republican candidate.
-Some will argue nine months is not enough time for an election, but the entry of a fresh candidate is helpful to Republicans. Claire McCaskill decided to challenge Bob Holden on October 20, 2003 and defeated him just over 9 months later on August 3, 2004.
-Announcing the decision now prevented months of Republican infighting.
-Without the distraction of an election, Blunt's new role enables him to be an even more effective communicator for change as he can now engage in a direct policy debate with Nixon and other liberal Democrats who favor the old way of taxing and spending.
-Blunt is now able to be a selfless fundraiser for Republican candidates and the Missouri Republican Party.
Governor Blunt’s statement on his decision not to seek a second term:
|
|
|
|
|
January 21, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulse Follow-Up: Dem Candidate Accepts Blame For Dirty Tricks
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:00pm | Permalink
A week ago, Missouri Pulse was first to report on Democrat shenanigans in the special State House contest in the 16th District in St. Charles County. Earlier today, the Post-Dispatch’s Political Fix picked up on the issue and reported Democrat candidate Tom “The Invisible Man” Fann, who has taken heat for his campaign’s circulation of a leaflet that falsely claimed the endorsement of the mayor of St. Peters, has conceded that his campaign was at fault in the matter.
Apparently, the Clinton acolytes at the HDCC were so busy with Hillary’s state itinerary they never bothered to fill Fann in on the problems associated with manufacturing quotes. Excerpt from the Political Fix post:
“When I initially contacted Fann about Pagano’s disavowal, Fann said the comment attributed with quote marks to Pagano in the flyer was a compilation of the gist of Pagano’s comments at a Dec. 13 Board of Aldermen meeting in St. Peters. . . .
Fann, at the December meeting, said his main point wasn’t to criticize the city but to say that every citizen should have access to affordable health insurance. He also commended city services.
The Fann leaflet makes no reference to the Dec. 13 meeting but quotes Pagano as saying: ‘Tom Fann, his wife, and his three children have been a vital part of St. Charles County for decades. Fann is right on the issues. It is a shame that families do not have health insurance, and I know that he will do a great job.’
Pagano said he never said that and didn’t give anyone permission to attribute those words to him.
Here’s what Pagano actually said in his response at the meeting to Fann’s remarks, as reproduced on a city-produced DVD of the meeting:
‘Truthfully, I know you’re a very good person and a very honest person. And that particular station has a tendency to take this piece and that piece and destroy something that was not meant to be. And your character speaks well, and I do, speaking for the board and everyone, thank you for coming up on that issue. It was something that was really taken out of context and you’re correct, health insurance is a must for all citizens and that should be a priority. So I thank you on that. And also for the benefits of living in the city. And you’re a longtime resident of the city, and you would know.’”
|
|
|
|
|
January 21, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Hikes Not Included
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:05am | Permalink
This past weekend, a health care focused television spot featuring Democratic POTUS contender Barack Obama aired in Missouri. To Obama’s credit, he has provided voters with a price tag and corresponding tax hikes to cover his health care plan, which would cost more than $50 billion and would rely on eliminating President Bush’s tax cuts for funding.
Excerpt from a Washington Post story, 5/30/2007:
“… Obama would pay for his plan, which could cost more than $50 billion, by increasing taxes for people earning more than $250,000 and reversing tax cuts that President Bush approved. Obama would require almost all employers to offer insurance to workers or face a tax penalty, an idea that many businesses abhor and that is also in Edwards's proposal. This employer mandate drove much of the opposition to the Clinton plan in 1994.”
While Obama’s national plan makes tax fatigued voters nauseous, at least he had the fortitude to present an actual plan and put his name on it. Conversely, at the state level Jay Nixon has been campaigning for governor since December 2004 on the notion of increasing Medicaid spending here in Missouri by nearly $1 billion, but he has yet to shoot straight with voters regarding what taxes he would raise to cover it. If Nixon had an ounce of sincerity, he would follow the lead of Obama and other Democratic POTUS contenders and present Missourians with a detailed plan—warts and all.
|
|
|
|
|
January 18, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big Labor’s Big Comeback
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:30pm | Permalink
The same gent whose reporting played a key role in taking down Claire McCaskill’s fugitive fundraiser Norman Hsu is at it again. This time, the Wall Street Journal’s Brody Mullins has conducted a thorough analysis of Big Labor’s political clout and found that despite an ever shrinking membership, unions are displaying an amplified level of clout in this year’s election season due to an increased focus on the ground game.
Excerpt from Mullins’ report:
Labor's impact emerges in a look at raw cash. In the past two elections, in 2004 and 2006, unions spent a combined $561 million to help elect mostly Democrats. That's nearly a 50% increase over the $381 million spent on the previous two campaigns, according to data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Labor's political spending already was rising fast in the 1990s -- but so was the bigger spending by businesses.
The ground game is one of the fastest-growing elements of the labor spending. Unions spent $70.3 million getting members to vote in 2004 and 2006. That's up 145% from $28.8 million in the two previous elections, according to the center's figures. The money is spent to persuade members to back the union's candidates and then make sure they vote.
Labor unions still spend only about half as much on elections as companies and their political action committees as a whole. But the gap is closing. In 2000, companies were responsible for three times as much spending as unions. By the 2006 election, companies and their employees spent $491 million on elections, compared with $264 million for labor unions. Those figures underplay labor's impact because they don't account for union members who take vacation time to knock on doors and drive supporters to the polls.
Corporations don't spend much to try to get employees to vote, and their spending hasn't rebounded. From the 2002 to the 2006 off-year elections, says the Center for Responsive Politics, corporate spending dropped about 9%.
|
|
|
|
|
January 18, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hard To Imagine
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:35am | Permalink
Despite a torrent of glowing media coverage over the past year, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill’s approval rating stands at a surprisingly low 49%, according to Survey USA. As Missouri Pulse has previously noted, the media’s ongoing honeymoon with McCaskill has resulted in puff piece after puff piece on her peripheral PR-driven activities in the Senate while largely ignoring the reality that she has disappointed her liberal base on issues such as illegal immigration, ending the war in Iraq and the Equal Rights Amendment.
While liberals may find solace in McCaskill’s support for her caucus’ pronounced left-wing fiscal and social agenda, the fact remains that an overwhelming majority of voters, including coveted independents, disapprove of the job being done by the Democrat-controlled Congress. It will be interesting to see what adjustments McCaskill, whose desire for popularity is no secret, makes during this year's session to further placate her base and win over independents. As things currently stand, she has to be somewhat flummoxed.
|
|
|
|
|
January 16, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dem Shocker: Federal Deficits No Longer Matter
Posted by: John Hancock | 5:35pm | Permalink
A stellar editorial in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal pointed out that Democratic POTUS frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama recently betrayed their feigned support for federal deficit reduction (i.e. Rubinomics) and are now touting “economic stimulus” plans that would rely heavily on deficit spending. One can only imagine the heartburn all those new Democratic House and Senate members—members like Claire McCaskill—who campaigned on a deficit reduction pledge would experience in the event either Clinton or Obama’s plan landed in their laps.
Excerpt from the editorial:
Mr. Rubin's successor at Treasury, Larry Summers, started the bidding with a $65 billion tax rebate and spending plan. Hillary Clinton saw that and raised, and now wants $40 billion in tax rebates and $70 billion in new spending for unemployment insurance, housing assistance, home heating subsidies and green technologies. Barack Obama joined the fray Sunday, proposing a $75 billion "stimulus" that would have the government send millions of Americans a check for $250, plus another $250 in bonus Social Security payments.
But wait, what about those evil Bush deficits? Only weeks ago, Democrats claimed those were the road to perdition, even if the deficit had shrunk to 1.2% of GDP last year thanks to booming revenue growth. Remember the imperative of "pay as you go" budgeting? Ah, that was all before Iraq faded as a political winner and the economy became their favorite issue for regaining the White House. Now, all of a sudden, their motto is tax cut and spend.
"Stimulus shouldn't be paid for,” declared Mrs. Clinton on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The stimulus, by the very nature of the economic problems we're facing, is going to require an injection of federal funding." And no less than the oracle himself, Mr. Rubin, appeared at Brookings last week to declare that a deficit-padding stimulus "can give the economy a timely boost in the face of great uncertainty and concern with the short-term economic outlook." The coroner will note that the cause of death here is suicide.
|
|
|
|
|
January 16, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lots Of Questions, No Answers
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 11:20am | Permalink
According to a transcript of Jay Nixon’s campaign speech delivered in response to Governor Matt Blunt’s state-of-state address, he sandwiched a whopping eight questions in with a load of non-substantive fluff. While the non-substantive fluff has been par the course for Nixon throughout his career as a politician, the questions are troubling when considering he has been running for governor since December 2004.
After three years, it seems Nixon should be offering detailed alternatives, not a raft of questions for which he has no answer. If he is looking for a place to start, he should consider informing Missourians what taxes he will raise as part of his concerted effort to return the state to the failed taxpayers-as-ATM policies that prevailed just a few short years ago. It’s not like it would be a stretch for Nixon to support higher taxes, since he has a long record of support for increasing a variety of taxes, including sales, gas, income and business taxes.
|
|
|
|
| | |