McCaskill’s Glass House Moment
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:20pm | Permalink

Yesterday, Sen. McCaskill took a cheap shot at our admittedly struggling President when she told the CDT’s Jason Rosenbaum the following:

“I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, he’s the President of the United States,” McCaskill said. “But I think he may be more effective clearing brush right now in Crawford right now than he’s going to be in Washington.”

McCaskill’s harsh words didn’t stop there as she went on to mention other facets of Bush’s alleged irrelevance.

Now, a day after McCaskill unloaded on Bush, The New York Times reported on the frustrations of freshmen Senators as they come to grips with Congress’ historically low approval ratings. How did McCaskill respond? She confessed it is “a little scary”, and she conceded that it is very difficult to force change. Kinda makes you feel irrelevant, right Claire? Hopefully, she will consider the struggles of the Democrat-led Senate the next time she feels compelled to kick the leader of the free world when he’s down.

Excerpt from The New York Times story:

"It is a little scary," said Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, as Congress broke for the Fourth of July recess and lawmakers headed home to confront voters who are evidently very unhappy with the performance of the House and Senate.

But she and her colleagues say they feel their constituents' pain. They are quickly discovering that nothing happens very quickly in the halls of Congress – except perhaps for shifts in public opinion – and that it is very difficult to force change.

IBD: Congress Should Tackle Critical Issues, Drop Witch Hunts
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:55am | Permalink

Occasionally, we like to highlight a story or editorial outside the realm of typical AM reading for Missouri politicos. That said, an editorial in yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily caught our attention. With Congressional confidence ratings clocking in at an all-time low, IBD offered some simple, yet sound advice to Democrats in charge: Drop the overtly partisan witch hunts, and get to work on issues that require immediate attention.

IBD argues—and we agree—that Congress has diverted so much of its focus to overtly partisan three-ring-circus investigations that legislative progress on critical issues has been stifled. Issues in need of immediate attention include the reformation of Medicare, Social Security and national energy policy, and of course protecting Americans from the ever-present threat of terrorism. While Democrats successfully campaigned last year on these issues, IBD is not so sure they are up to the challenge based on their out-of-sight-out-of-mind view of such issues and the general leftward drift of their party.

Excerpt from the editorial:

But the way the Democrats are acting, and have acted for decades, these are issues that don't require attention. It's the same way they're treating the war on terrorism — in their minds, these problems don't exist.

Yet the threats of large-scale loss of life from terrorism, and economic misery caused by entitlement liabilities that can't be met in any reasonable way, and energy shortages created by a trendy obeisance to fanatic Greenshirts are real.

But this is what we should expect from lawmakers who get strong support from voters who think that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are terrorists, feel that driving an SUV is nearly criminal and think of government as a generous nanny.

Hypothetical question: Based on current ideological trends and pressures, could a high-profile Congressional Democrat publicly call for significant cuts in entitlement spending without serious intra-party reprisals? It’s been accomplished at the state-level, but Congress is a wholly different field of play.

The Cannibalism Of The Environmental Movement
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 4:55pm | Permalink

In a new forward for his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore directed his anger at some of his closest allies in the environmental movement for not reaching a “consensus” on global warming soon enough. Essentially, he faults scientists for not jumping to conclusions with (what remains) inconclusive data.

Prophet Gore has no need for petty things like science (except as a political tool). He writes, "The nature and severity of the climate crisis had seemed painfully obvious to me for quite a long time."

Maybe he believes he can see the future. Maybe it’s just woman's intuition.

According to The Independent (UK), the new forward is yet another platform for Gore—who still refers to himself as the former next president of the United States—to continue his whining and hand-wringing over his election defeat nearly 8 years ago. If only he was president, he claims, America would be “addressing the climate change.”

But the Independent article devastates one of Prophet Gore’s central arguments in one sentence:

“During his tenure as vice president, America's carbon dioxide emissions shot up far faster than at any time in modern history - by 15 per cent, compared to just 1.65 per cent during President Bush's first term.”

Ouch.

Missouri Pulse Compliments Dem AG Aspirant
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:35pm | Permalink

As 2008 AG aspirant Jeff Harris (D-Columbia) struggles mightily to compensate for his nonexistent list of legislative accomplishments, Missouri Pulse has decided to extend a compliment that he can feel free to post on his campaign website. For attribution: “Harris’ liberal ideological bearings pale in comparison to those of his potential 2008 challenger Rep. Margaret Donnelly (D-St. Louis).”

KILL BILL: Bond, McCaskill Vote To Kill Amnesty Deal Once & For All
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:05am | Permalink

Sens. Bond and McCaskill were 2 of 53 Republican and Democrats who just voted to kill the heavily criticized amnesty deal once and for all. Two words sum up this site’s thoughts on the now-deceased bill: good riddance.

In other news, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-VA) followed the short-lived amnesty drama with a long and rambling speech about his Methuselah-like status in the Senate. It’s nice to see how quickly things have returned to normal.

FOLLOW-UP: Nixon On The Spot In Local Tax Dispute
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:20am | Permalink

Last week, Missouri Pulse broke the news that Rep. Walt Bivins (R-St. Louis County) was seeking an opinion from AG Jay Nixon regarding the ability of a local fire district to place a measure to decrease property taxes on the ballot.

In a follow-up story (5th story down) in the Oakville Call, Bivins explained his position: “I went back and read the Missouri statutes relative to that issue. And, of course, the statutes talk about the power of the fire district to raise taxes, and it would certainly seem reasonable to me if they have the power to raise taxes, put that on the ballot, then they ought to have the power to put on the ballot to lower taxes as well.”

Given Missouri’s out-of-control property taxes and the overwhelming majority of Missourians who support the right to vote to decrease their taxes, we are glad to see Bivins is looking out for the interests of taxpayers in his district.

However, Nixon’s path on this issue is not nearly as clear as he must deal with competing interests—St. Louis area fire unions that support the status quo and fund his campaign and his long record in favor of higher taxes on Missourians. If Nixon makes the correct call and bucks the fire unions, the door could be opened for other elected officials to pursue long overdue accountability in local tax rates.

Look Who Emerged From the Woodwork
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:10pm | Permalink

After nearly a decade and a half of broken promises and outright conflicts of interest, Jay Nixon has appealed to Governor Blunt to bail him out of the mess he has made of the Second Injury Fund (SIF).

Despite Nixon’s campaign promises to the contrary, the SIF has descended into fiscal chaos on his watch. You may think Nixon would have the political discipline to avoid the issue. Apparently not.

One thing of which we are certain: Gov Blunt cannot help with Nixon’s gross conflict of interest regarding the fund. Only Jay Nixon can solve the problem of hundreds of thousands of dollars going to clients of the Montee Law Firm and Russell Still, husband of Nixon senior advisor Mary Still.

HODGEPODGE
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:00am | Permalink

Governor Sets 9/4 Date For Special Election

Yesterday, Governor Matt Blunt selected September 4 as the scheduled date for a special election to determine who will replace State Senator Chuck Gross (R-St. Charles), who recently resigned to go to work as St. Charles County’s director of administration. As things currently stand, State Representative Tom Dempsey is the lone Republican candidate, while nary a Democrat has stepped forward to run.

New Conservative Group Sets Sail In Missouri

Yesterday, the Adam Smith Foundation, a Jeff City-based conservative organization, announced its launch in an afternoon news release. The foundation will focus on judicial activism and education reform. Thankfully, it will be funded via private donations, which is a foreign concept to liberal Missouri think tanks that accept millions in funding from Jay Nixon’s slush fund. Best of luck to the folks at the Adam Smith Foundation.

Sen. Bond Tells His Side Of The Story
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:00am | Permalink

As previously reported, the U.S. Senate revived its flawed immigration proposal yesterday following a cloture vote of 64-35. Opponents of the legislation throughout the country have passionately condemned the vote, in which a number of Republican opponents voted to continue debate.

Sen. Bond, who voted for cloture despite his opposition to amnesty, explained his position to the CDT’s Politics Blog. This stance may work out if opponents drive a stake through the heart of amnesty once and for all. Bond’s pending amendment, already described by Democrats as a “deal killer,” is on tap for consideration.

From the P-D, 6/25/2007:

Bond, too, has an amendment — one that some Democrats have labeled a "deal killer." It would effectively prohibit any illegal immigrant from ever earning legal citizenship, contrary to a core provision of the bill.

Opponents of the measure now have no choice but to bring the amnesty express to a screeching halt. We’ll be watching.

Meet The New Dem, Same As The Old Dem
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:20pm | Permalink

The News-Leader’s Tony Messenger is reporting that 2008 Attorney General hopeful Rep. Jeff Harris (D-Columbia) has unveiled a glossy new campaign site. Following an initial inspection of Harris’ site, it seems he has yet to identify a single legislative accomplishment to tout as he prepares his run for higher office. Fortunately for Harris, the current occupant of the office he seeks has set the bar rather low.

In fact, Harris may find his lack of legislative accomplishments is secondary to figuring out how to reform the Second Injury Fund (SIF) and Nixon’s health care slush fund without ticking off the trial lawyers that rake in the dough from the SIF and the deep-pocketed Nixon appointees serving on the slush fund.

Republicans Preserve Workers Rights
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:25pm | Permalink

Earlier this hour, the U.S. Senate rejected a Big Labor proposal (for more info see post below) to eliminate secret ballot rights for non-union American workers by a 51-48 margin. The controversial proposal required a 3/5 majority to pass the cloture motion. As expected, Sen. Bond voted against the proposal, while Sen. McCaskill, who is deeply indebted to Big Labor, voted with her fellow Democrats, Sen. Specter (R-PA) and Sen. Sanders (Socialist-VT). Despite the loss, labor lobbyists view today’s vote as an expected setback that marks the beginning of additional efforts aimed at taking advantage of the Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Stay tuned.

Senate Showdown Expected Today Over Big Labor Proposal
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 8:50am | Permalink

“Failing unions, like failing industries, turn to government for protection in the form of coercion.”—George Will, Washington Post, 6/21/2007

While Democrats across the country continue their quixotic quest to uncover voter suppression conspiracies, Democrats in the U.S. Senate will vote today—at the behest of their Big Labor bosses—to do away with the traditional and democratic (little “d”) secret ballot process for union organizing drives. In essence, the proposal would eliminate a worker’s right to privacy when they cast their vote for or against unionizing their workplace—an undemocratic concept to say the least.

To get an idea of the mind boggling hypocrisy at work here, consider this. Each Senator (sans Sen. Barrasso) who will vote today was elected by secret ballot. Yet, about half (Politico: most, if not all, Dems, maybe Specter) will vote to end a worker’s longstanding right to cast a secret ballot during union organizing drives, which subjects that worker to coercion and intimidation from unions as his or her vote would be public. Fortunately, Senate Republicans are confident they will defeat this shameless sop to Big Labor, which continues to look to indebted Democrats to stop its hemorrhaging membership, particularly in the private sector. And Democrats wonder why approval ratings are ticking in at historic lows.

Pulse prediction: Sen. Bond will vote against; Sen. McCaskill will vote in favor.

Link of the day: The Center for Union Facts

Spitting In The Wind
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:20pm | Permalink

By now, Missourians have heard about the resurrection of the Senate’s amnesty proposal disguised as comprehensive immigration reform. However, you may not have heard about the public’s ongoing and overwhelming disdain for the proposal.

According to fresh polling data released today by Rasmussen Reports, just 22% of American voters currently support the immigration proposal, which is a point lower than results from two weeks ago. Such sustained opposition should steal whatever wind remains in the sails of the not-so-merry band of supporters on either side of the aisle, especially in the wake of their recent and futile PR campaign.

On the Missouri front, kudos to Sen. Bond, an outspoken opponent of the proposal, for pushing an anti-amnesty amendment that Democratic supporters of the proposal have deemed a “deal killer.” While it’s likely the amendment won’t come up for a floor vote, Missourians can rest assured that Bond is leading with our best interests in mind.

Excerpt from today’s P-D coverage:

Bond, too, has an amendment — one that some Democrats have labeled a "deal killer.” It would effectively prohibit any illegal immigrant from ever earning legal citizenship, contrary to a core provision of the bill.

Bond isn't lured by the additional border security funding, said his press secretary, Charles Chamberlayne.

"Before we can even address immigration, he believes we have to secure our border,” Chamberlayne said. "As long as there's a path for illegal immigrants to citizenship, (Bond) will not support the bill.”

Link of the day: Numbers USA

No-Call Nixon Dials In
Posted by: John Hancock | 6:30am | Permalink

One month after AG Jay Nixon criticized the legislature for failing to improve Missouri’s No-Call law, Missouri Pulse has obtained a copy of an actual script being used by Nixon phone bankers to pester Missourians with voter ID questions. Nixon, who has long touted the existing, loophole-ridden No-Call law as his lone legislative accomplishment, has apparently fallen victim to the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do malady that affects far too many politicians.

For those Missourians who have already been pestered by phone calls from the Nixon campaign, which cleverly disguises itself as Victory 2008 in the calls, Missouri Pulse is pleased to link to the Attorney General’s No-Call complaint form. However, we’re not holding our breath for the state’s top prosecutor to investigate these dinner-time intrusions.

Excerpt from a recent Nixon campaign missive (link currently down):

Jay Nixon for Governor Campaign is recruiting volunteers to phone bank at the law offices of Harlan, Harlan, and Still 307 Locust St from 5:00 - 9:00 pm on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings beginning June 4 and continuing throughout the summer. If you can help or for further information, please contact: Nate Kennedy

ENERGY DEBATE RECAP:

Does McCaskill Think Missourians Are Not Watching?
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 4:00pm | Permalink

During last week's Senate energy debate, Senator McCaskill tipped her hand, and showed Missourians where she truly stands on important aspects of domestic energy policy. In retrospect, two areas stand out:

Support for a $32 billion pass-along tax package.  For those who glanced at press coverage of the Senate debate, you may be inclined to believe McCaskill joined Sen. Bond in opposing the aggregate bill because of the fuel economy snag. That’s simply not the case. Buried in the coverage is the real deal breaker: a vote to kill a $32 billion Democratic tax plan that targeted oil and natural gas companies.

From AP coverage:

...McCaskill was especially upset that the bill did nothing to repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for the oil industry. Earlier Thursday, Republicans blocked [see first link] one of the Democrats’ top priorities, a $32 billion tax package for renewable fuels and other clean energy alternatives to be paid for with $29 billion in additional taxes on oil companies.

From P-D coverage:

“She (McCaskill) was incredibly disappointed that a tax package was not included that would have repealed billions in tax breaks and subsidies for big oil. She couldn’t, in good conscience, vote for a bill that didn’t include the repeal” of those tax breaks, said Adrianne Marsh, spokeswoman for McCaskill.

McCaskill creatively spins her support for the massive tax hike package as incentive repeal and part of her stick-it-to-the-corporations routine. However, if the package had passed the consequences would have been much more difficult to spin. Rather than sticking it to those intended, McCaskill and other misguided Democrats would have stuck it to beleaguered consumers at the pump as the added costs caused by the tax hikes would be passed their way. The saddest thing about the charade is that similar Democratic policies were tried and rejected in the 1980’s after consumers ended up taking the hardest hit.

Casualties of campaign rhetoric.  Missourians have been subjected to a constant stream of faux populist gas price rhetoric from McCaskill over the past year, and the outcome of the energy debate may leave many wondering whether it was all just election-year fluff. Aside from McCaskill’s misguided belief that raising pass-along taxes will somehow provide relief at the pump, she broke with campaign rhetoric on a couple issues that were formerly part of her gas price spiel: fuel economy standards and coal-to-liquid conversion.

For the past month, Missouri Pulse has examined McCaskill’s recent reversal on fuel economy standards. In fact, we’re pleased she finally came around to the free market side of the issue, which surely irritates her moderate and liberal supporters. However, the same cannot be said of her recent reversal on coal-to-liquid conversion.

Here’s what Candidate Claire told the Rolla Daily News last year:

McCaskill said converting coal into liquid fuel would also be a big step in making America energy independent. "One of the best ways we could reduce our dependency on foreign oil is by making coal into liquid fuel," she said. "The right technology could convert America's abundant coal reserves into synthetic fuels.”

After taking such a strong position on the issue, one might expect McCaskill to support the proliferation of coal-to-liquid technology. Wrong. Of two amendments (see Bunning here and Tester here) seeking to promote liquefied coal, McCaskill supported the Tester amendment—a dead-on-arrival proposal loaded with burdensome government regulations. The amendment was so onerous the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition, a leading promoter of the technology, opposed it. Of course, McCaskill opposed the Bunning amendment, which had the best chance of passage and would have achieved essentially the same goals as Tester’s amendment without all the regulations.

If McCaskill truly believes that reducing our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and alleviating the gas price burden on consumers are top priorities, then few issues should rival the importance of coal-to-liquid conversion and dismissing the resurrection of failed tax policies that have hammered consumers in the past. If this is how McCaskill plans to follow through on all her talk about gas prices, she should consider going back to the drawing board.

There Is Rhetoric, And Then There Is Action
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:25pm | Permalink

Some so-called leaders stand on the water’s edge and incessantly spout a lot of unrealized nonsense about cleaning up nursing homes to the benefit of the Missouri’s elderly. Others take action. Kudos to those who take their convictions beyond the lip service stage on this issue, which will only increase in importance as more and more Baby Boomers reach retirement age.

EXCLUSIVE: State Rep. Requests Opinion From AG
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 7:50am | Permalink

Missouri Pulse has learned that State Rep Walt Bivins (R- St. Louis County), prompted by a recent controversy in his district, formally requested a legal opinion from AG Jay Nixon regarding a fire protection district’s ability to vote to reduce its tax ceiling rate.

Earlier this year, the Mehlville Fire Protection District voted to place Prop TD, which would have decreased property taxes by 45 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, on the April 2007 ballot. But before citizens ever had the chance to vote, former Teamsters vice president Dennis Skelton sued the district, demanding that the proposition be removed. Skelton prevailed in court, but the St. Louis County judge issued no rationale for his decision.¹

Of course, the outcome should be a no-brainer—if taxpayers can vote to increase their taxes, then they should be able to decrease them as well. But for Nixon, the issue is not so simple.

Radical unions that profit from constant tax increases have an interest in preventing citizens from voting to lower their taxes. Not surprisingly, taxpayers see it differently. A recent poll conducted by Public Pulse Research found that a whopping 83% of Missourians support the “right to vote on tax decrease proposals.”

Nixon has a difficult decision to make: will he side with an overwhelming majority of Missourians or the radical unions that contribute to his campaign? Or will he respond at all?

______
¹ Post-Dispatch, February 9, 2007

Hodgepodge
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:50pm | Permalink

Circling The Drain. Sites across the nation are buzzing over the latest Gallup numbers that show the current Democratic-controlled Congress registering an all-time low confidence rating of 14%. To put the rating in perspective, Congress ranks below HMOs (15%) and trails the military (69%) badly. With such a disparity between Congress and the military, one might think Democrats would know better than attempt to tell the military how to do its job during a time of war.

Furthermore, the current 14% rating has been achieved without the media frenzy (i.e. Culture of Corruption mantra) that enveloped Republicans last year. Even with the media exacerbating the perception of corruption, the Republican-controlled Congress dialed in a 19% rating, which is lofty in comparison to the current rating. Time will tell if the media, in general, takes an interest in the reasons behind the current Democratic plummet.

9-To-1. MSNBC’s Bill Dedman has unleashed a whopper of a donation analysis (hat tip: Drudge) that investigates the federal donation patterns of journalists. As one might expect, the ratio of giving is lopsided in favor of Democrats, but who knew it would be by a 9-to-1 margin?! Check out the list of all 144 journalist donors. Also, note that all donations are exclusively federal and do not include state-level checks.

All For Naught. In other news, it seems Dedman’s analysis buried the hard work of the liberal lovelies at the Center for America Progress & Free Press, who issued a study yesterday that included a blueprint for the regulation of talk radio, which liberals believe is too conservative. So much for the free press, huh? Before the folks at CAPFP drop their blueprint in the trash, they should at least pitch it to the 125 journalists who recently cut checks to federal Democrats.

Darned If You Do, Darned If You Don’t
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 3:20pm | Permalink

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, is getting pounded for excessive travel on the public’s dime. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Blagometer is registering six grand a day flying between Chicago and Springfield, all on the public dole. What’s worse is that Illinois is heading for a budget crisis because the state is spending way too much money. Meanwhile in Missouri, Governor Matt Blunt has refused to bill the taxpayers for his travel and has chosen private aircraft (at his own expense) for transportation. The savings to Missouri taxpayers has been tremendous. Perhaps not coincidentally, Missouri’s fiscal house is in great shape and the Governor and General Assembly have produced sizable budget surpluses in each of the past two years. Predictably, Blunt’s opponents have attempted to spin his decision as some sort of special interest scandal. Only a Democrat would consider it scandalous to actually save taxpayer money.

Before long, state leaders will be relegated to using canoes and bicycles as the only politically-acceptable means of transportation.

Campaign Finance Reformers They Are Not
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:35pm | Permalink

This afternoon, Jay Nixon will face off against his long time political guru Charles Hatfield when campaign finance arguments commence before the Missouri Supreme Court. Hatfield, who has been advising Nixon for nearly 20 years, represents the plaintiff in the case, while Nixon represents the state.

Aside from the obvious ethical questions in the all-in-the-family showdown, it seems both Hatfield, who formerly served as Nixon’s campaign treasurer, and Nixon have recently changed their attitudes regarding campaign finance limits. According to Nixon’s latest MEC report, he wasted little time abiding by the new law that lifted limits, despite his public support for limits and opposition to the new law. On the plaintiff side of the case, Hatfield kicked in a sizable $20,000 donation to Nixon through his Strategic Property Investments LLC while two clients connected to him and his firm kicked in another $70,000. While supporters of the plaintiffs may find such facts disconcerting, they can find solace in the fact that Nixon and Hatfield will likely play to the cameras during today’s arguments only to resume their hypocritical fundraising tactics once the press conferences have ended.

No Need For Negotiations
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:50pm | Permalink

As amnesty supporters push to overcome recent legislative setbacks, Sen. McCaskill is feeling heat from both sides in the fight. According to a story in The Hill, McCaskill, who has voiced both support and opposition for amnesty over the past year, is in the doghouse with champions of amnesty over her recent votes against the incendiary measure. On the other side, she faces a groundswell of anti-amnesty sympathies back home as evidenced by a recent surge in Numbers USA membership rolls here in Missouri.

Although McCaskill has recently voted against the controversial measure, her office informed The Hill she was open to negotiations.

“It’s difficult to tell where she would be on a cloture motion at this point; she has had significant concerns, and if those things are not addressed, she wouldn’t vote to proceed to the bill,” the senator’s spokeswoman, Adrianne Marsh, said.

It seems McCaskill’s not-so-subtle message was well-received by amnesty supporters. An AP story filed within hours of The Hill story noted that amnesty supporters were seeking to placate the concerns of McCaskill and other recent opponents of the measure as part of a resuscitation effort aimed at gaining enough support to pass a final deal. Let’s hope our elected officials do the right thing and vote to kill the monolithic amnesty boondoggle once and for all should it be brought to the Senate floor. Usually, negotiations are the lifeblood of the legislative process, but in this instance they amount to perfuming the pig.

Missouri Democrats: Misguided Exuberance
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:18 | Permalink

Recent comments by top Missouri Democrats have caused me to chuckle and to take a look at recent state political history. The 2006 election of Claire McCaskill to the US Senate, in a very bad year for Republicans nationally, has produced some truly misguided exuberance on the part of our Democratic friends.

Going back to 1980, the top-of-the-ticket race in Missouri has gone GOP eleven times (1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004) and Democrat three times (1992, 1996 and 2006). The Democrats’ ten-year gap between winning at the top of the ticket is hardly an indication of a trend line. The clear trend of history in our state is solidly Republican.

More significant than the statewide Republican wins, however, is the fact that Missouri’s GOP has built a very solid foundation at the state legislative level. The current three election cycle majorities in the state house and state senate are an indication that Republican voting patterns in the state have penetrated down the ballot. Holding substantial legislative majorities in both chambers after a difficult 2006 cycle is proof positive of Republican strength up and down the ticket.

These realities must be difficult to swallow for a Democratic party that finds itself out of power and out of touch in the most mainstream state in America. Recent history has shown that Democratic candidates have performed their best when running on Republican themes and issues – hardly a mandate for liberal policy change!

So, the next time you hear a Democrat oozing over their 2008 election chances, remind them that they have a nearly 30-year trend line to overcome and that Missouri voters will most likely vote for a REAL Republican, not one masquerading on the Democratic ticket.

Second Injury Fund Woes Stir Debate
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:56 PM | Permalink

In May, Missouri Pulse was the first site to suggest that it was time for the scandal-prone, financially challenged hornet’s nest known as the Second Injury Fund to go the way of the dinosaur. According to a recent KC Star story, it appears we now have company. Last week, a regional vice president with the American Insurance Association appeared before a State House panel that is looking into problems plaguing the fund and argued that it was a relic that had already been eliminated in several other states.

Of course, Democrats don’t see things that way as their top two donor groups—organized labor and trial lawyers—have been rolling in the dough ever since the fund was established. As the debate over the fund intensifies, keep an eye on Attorney General Nixon and Auditor Montee, who are both severely hamstrung on the issue. After Montee presented a weak audit of the fund and claimed she had no conflict of interest, the Montee family law firm was exposed for handling nearly 150 fund claims in recent years. Nixon’s problems with the fund have also been noted, including his betrayal of past campaign pledges and the glaring Mary Still conflict. Since Montee’s conflict was exposed, she has been absent from the debate, and Nixon has been in hiding since the debate commenced. With Montee and Nixon sidelined by conflicts, it will be interesting to see if other Democrats can keep a straight face when attempting to defend the fund.

Why Bother?
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 12:03 PM | Permalink

It may not be popular to question Sen. McCaskill’s much-ballyhooed trip to Iraq, but the media never got around to addressing an obvious question. Why did McCaskill travel thousands of miles to piggyback on thousands of newspaper stories and government reports on contractor fraud and abuse? In all seriousness, Americans have been bludgeoned with a torrent of coverage on the issue in recent years, yet the severely tardy McCaskill saw fit to travel to Iraq and pester—er, question—military leaders on the topic, just as countless other Democrats have done, while these same military leaders are trying to win a war that some in McCaskill’s party claim does not exist.

Meanwhile, back on the home front, McCaskill is blindly pushing for a massive expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) without raising a single concern about the existence of more than 630,000 adults currently enrolled in the program, which is supposed to provide health coverage for impoverished children. When it comes to oversight, it seems McCaskill should drop the beat-the-dead-horse