MO MEDIA WATCH: No Accountability
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 1:00pm | Permalink

For weeks, Missouri Pulse has examined questionable grants made by Jay Nixon’s slush funders at the Missouri Foundation for Health. Unfortunately, our friends in the media, many of which rely on grant recipients as “nonpartisan” sources for their stories and editorials, have largely ignored the issues addressed thus far.

While these issues cry out for accountability, we are left to wonder what is required to trigger media scrutiny aside from replacing AG Jay Nixon, the Democrat overseer responsible for this mess, with a Republican. We’re certain that any Republican with appointment powers over a billion-dollar foundation that doles out millions in grants to ideological pet causes would face the immediate wrath of the media. Heck, the Democrats got coverage this week with a feeble attack on Rep. Carl Bearden’s data collection work for an association that amounted to “a little over $1,000.” And while the Bearden non-issue somehow merited press attention, Nixon’s oversight of a foundation that has doled out millions to his allies remains largely ignored.

For the sake of review, here is an account of current grant totals made by the foundation to Nixon’s liberal pet causes:

• $5.8 million:  The current tally of grants awarded by the foundation since 2003 to groups that comprise Missouri’s burgeoning liberal advocacy network, more commonly known in Jeff City as “the advocacy arm of the MDP.” While many of the groups have been receiving grants since 2003, they really hit their partisan stride in 2005 when Gov. Blunt assumed office. Since then, the groups have taken on a prominent role as manufacturers of partisan attacks all the while being disguised as “nonpartisan” sources in news stories.

  The $5.8 million figure includes over $700,000 in grants to establish and further the mission of Missouri’s most visible liberal policy shop, the Missouri Budget Project; $3.3 million to groups that formed a coalition to oppose Gov. Blunt’s MO HealthNet plan; and nearly $650,000 combined to the rowdiest liberal protest groups in Missouri—GRO and the Missouri Citizen Education Fund (Pro-Vote).

• $875,560: The current tally of grants awarded by the foundation since 2003 to La Clinica, a St. Louis clinic that serves uninsured illegal immigrants.

• $452,307: The current tally of grants awarded by the foundation since 2003 to leading pro-abortion groups Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

It is a shame that a foundation with a stated mission to help Missouri’s uninsured has squandered $7 million in grants to a liberal attack network that has accomplished nothing, a clinic that caters to illegal immigrants and prominent pro-abortion groups. It goes without saying that a number of health care providers could have put the money to better use.

MU Sources: Former Business Exec Is Frontrunner
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:10am | Permalink

The KC Star is reporting this morning that a former CEO with Covalence Specialty Materials is the frontrunner for presidency gig at MU. The position has attracted plenty of attention in recent weeks as Congressman Kenny Hulshof threw his name into the ring for consideration. An announcement as to who will be selected is expected tomorrow.

Big Labor Pays Steep Price To Control Missouri Dems
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:50am | Permalink

“Got you in a stranglehold, baby...”—Ted Nugent

Despite a dwindling aggregate membership and a shift in power from the private- to public-sector, Big Labor maintains its longstanding stranglehold on the Democratic Party at both the national and state levels. For a case study in public-sector union clout, look no further than the 2004 Missouri gubernatorial contest. During that race, Big Labor donated a combined $5 million to the MDP, Bob Holden and Claire McCaskill. Of that total, nearly half came from two prominent public sector unions—AFSCME and the SEIU, which sought to preserve the collective bargaining rights granted in Holden’s controversial 2001 executive order.

While the fine folks in Missouri’s press corps recently had a grand time making hay out of $100,000 donations to Republicans, both AFSCME and the SEIU and their staggering $2.4 million have gone unnoticed for years. In Post-Dispatch coverage of this week’s court ruling on collective bargaining, the issue is predictably broken down along partisan and factional lines with Dems’ zealously defending the ruling, which could trigger a windfall for public-sector unions like AFSCME, the SEIU, the NEA and the IAFF. These unions keep the lights and water on at the MDP, and, in turn, the MDP is given its marching orders, but nary a peep about this fact finds its way into print. It’s an open secret; a cash-and-carry arrangement of staggering proportions, and it’s bound to continue into next year’s campaigns with public-sector issues back on the table.

Will Gore Request Another Recount?
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:25pm | Permalink

Drudge is reporting the latest book on Ronald Reagan, “The Reagan Diaries”, narrowly bested Al Gore’s latest book in opening week sales by a margin of five books sold. Despite Gore’s omnipresence in the media, Reagan’s legacy and legend continues to endure, which helps explain efforts by 2008 Republican POTUS aspirants to portray themselves in the Reagan image.

Advisers: Thompson Will Make 2008 Run
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 12:35pm | Permalink

The Politico is reporting that advisers to former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) have confirmed that he will enter the 2008 contest for POTUS over the 4th of July holiday. If true, it goes without saying that the dynamics of the race on both sides will be dramatically impacted.

If You Can’t Cut It In The Private Sector...
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:25am | Permalink

Since the 1950’s, the percentage of employees in labor unions in America has plummeted from 35% to the current level of 12%. As if that isn’t an adequate sign of outright rejection, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that just over 7% of all private sector employees are currently unionized in comparison to 36% in the public sector.¹

It is in the public sector where unions have found refuge, and yesterday the Missouri Supreme Court, dominated by judges appointed by Democratic governors, handed unions a plum by overturning a 60-year legal precedent that limited collective bargaining rights to the private sector here in Missouri.²

While conservative leaders have correctly blasted the ruling as judicial activism at its worst, we suspect it could eventually backfire on the unions. Over time, public employees may come to see unions for what the private sector ultimately saw them as—unnecessary drains on finances and resources. Only this time, the unions will be draining the finances and resources of taxpayers. That factor alone could expedite disillusionment should unions abuse the system through strikes, protests and the pursuit of tax hikes for self-serving purposes.

From a public opinion perspective, the ruling yesterday is not unlike Bob Holden’s controversial 2001 collective bargaining order. Neither Holden’s order nor yesterday’s ruling were mandated as a result of sweeping public support or legislative fiat. That said, look for the issue to morph into a 2008 issue that stands to benefit Republicans who have been railing against judicial activism and working to create a more efficient state government. Not to be outdone, Democrats will likely replay the 2004 cycle when Holden and McCaskill expressed tepid support for the controversial 2001 order while benefiting from over a million dollars in public sector union support.

___
¹ Washington Post, 2/27/2007
² AP, 5/30/2007

McCaskill Continues To Tilt At Windmills On Gas Prices
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:25pm | Permalink

Last year, Candidate McCaskill incessantly blamed Republicans for high gas prices. Now, with Democrats in control of the Senate and the House, Sen. McCaskill still finds a way in today’s Springfield News-Leader to blame Republicans for even higher gas prices, and she has the nerve to rattle her saber about lowering our dependence on foreign oil after she voted earlier this month against increasing fuel economy standards—an issue she supported last year.

Furthermore, McCaskill continues to chisel away at oil company profits, which makes perfect political sense for a liberal who is adrift on the subject otherwise. It is unfortunate that McCaskill has yet to hammer on the greatest profiteer from America’s oil consumption—government. The next time McCaskill fills up one of her cars or her private airplane, she should consider the fact that oil companies only wish they could siphon as much from each gallon as government does in the form of taxes.

From the Tax Foundation:

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration

Riddle Me This
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 9:30am | Permalink

Last week, Jay Nixon’s slush funders at the Missouri Foundation for Health released a poll that concluded most Missourians would support raising taxes to cover the uninsured. Not to rain on the parade, but it would be most interesting to know how the foundation defines who constitutes the “uninsured.”  Do they, like Nixon (see pg. 9 of link), believe illegal immigrants are entitled to state health services funded by the tax dollars of hard-working Missourians? If so, do they include illegal immigrants in their definition of the “uninsured”?

There are a couple reasons for our queries. A simple explanation of the term could have drastically altered the conclusions of the poll, especially if the foundation’s definition is in line with recent grant awards. Since 2003, the foundation, which was created by and is overseen by Nixon through appointment powers, has doled out $875,000 in grant awards to St. Louis-based La Clinica, which openly defends its health care work for uninsured illegal immigrants. If the $875,000 is any indication, it seems the foundation interprets its mission, which is to help the state’s uninsured, as including illegal immigrants. Unlike Nixon, we’re willing to bet that certain 2008 AG aspirants might frown on the foundation’s current interpretation of their mission.

Press accounts of La Clinica’s work:

“Working with a small budget and a volunteer staff, La Clinica is struggling to serve a community with few alternatives. . . . Almost two-thirds [of the clinic’s patients] are undocumented immigrants, said the clinic's founder...” (P-D, 9/12/1999)

“Doctors and school officials asked that they not be required to police for illegal immigrants or to place them in a position of denying people health care services or an education. Dr. David Campbell is director of La Clinica, which is staffed by volunteers and run on contributions. The clinic had nearly 10,000 patients visits last year. ‘Out of those 10,000, how many are undocumented?’ he said. ‘I don't know. We don't ask, and I hope we don't ever have to ask.’” (P-D, 8/15/2006)

Montee The Magician Attempts To Make A Conflict Disappear
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:15am | Permalink

Earlier this month, Missouri Pulse defused Auditor Susan Montee’s deceptive assertion that she had no conflict-of-interest when she audited the Second Injury Fund. Despite the fact her family’s law firm resolved nearly 150 claims before the fund in recent years and her name was on the firm’s attorney roster, Montee insisted she had no ties to the Montee Law Firm.

Montee’s feeble defense was regurgitated in a weekend item at Missourinet that focused on the necessity of the Second Injury Fund. While Rep. Steve Hunter (R-Joplin) should be commended for questioning the necessity of the obsolete fund, Montee assumed her usual defensive posture. At least she can now defend herself without Missouri Pulse claiming she is still on the family firm’s attorney roster. Since we outed the inclusion of her name on the roster a couple weeks ago, someone has erased it. Now, let’s see Montee the magician erase the nearly 150 resolved Second Injury Fund claims.

More...

Captured May 10, 2007: Susan Montee included on the Montee Law Firm’s attorney roster

Honoring America's Heroes
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:25am | Permalink

Today is a day of reflection and appreciation for those who have fought and died for our great country over the years. We ran across author Peter Collier’s moving Memorial Day column in the Wall Street Journal and wanted to pass it along.

MO MEDIA WATCH: Re: Equal Scrutiny Of Nixon Slush Funders
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:10pm | Permalink

"Missourians are willing to accept a tax increase to cover the uninsured.”
--Jim Kimmey, Nixon donor/foundation CEO

In a proclamation that shocks no one, Jay Nixon’s slush funders at the Missouri Foundation for Health claim that 67% of Missourians would support massive tax increases to help cover the uninsured. While the news is certainly welcomed by Nixon, who has yet to say how he would finance a return to pre-2005 welfare reform rolls, it is our hope that the Post-Dispatch, which reported on the polling data without a single quote from an opponent or skeptic, will scrutinize the data with the same fine-toothed comb they used on a recent school choice poll released by the Show-Me Institute.

As things currently stand, Nixon’s slush funders at the foundation have awarded $4.3 million in grants to underwrite and finance the state’s burgeoning liberal advocacy network, not to mention leading pro-abortion groups. That alone should merit the scrutiny of the Post-Dispatch, which pledged to crack down on politically involved non-profits when it apologized for its coverage of the Show-Me Institute’s poll. If they plan to follow through on their pledge, why not start with the granddaddy of politically involved non-profits?

From the apology, 5/9/2007:

Moreover, we all need to realize that think-tanks, research groups and foundations, no matter their political stance or non-partisan-sounding names, are becoming much more active in the political process on many local issues.

Kudos To Smith
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:15am | Permalink

PubDef has an incredible YouTube video up that pits Democrat Sen. Jeff Smith against a St. Louis teachers union during what appears to be a forum. It seems the union was none too pleased with Smith’s work on teacher testing issues during the recently completed legislative session. Kudos to Smith for having the courage to defend his measure in a hostile environment. Seeing a Missouri Democrat part ways with a teachers union is a blue moon moment. Seeing one refute charges from an unhinged union member’s personal attack is quite possibly unprecedented.

Memo To McCaskill: You’re Not In Pine Lawn Anymore
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:15am | Permalink

According to a WaPo story posted online yesterday, Sen. McCaskill wants to make historically private Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on appropriations public. The committee has long kept such workings private due to the fact that it deals with classified information pertinent to national security. Even liberals, including current committee chair Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), understand the need for continued privacy as evidenced by Levin’s rebuke of McCaskill’s efforts in the WaPo story.

Beyond pro and con arguments, McCaskill’s rationale for opening the meetings is lacking. She cited her work as a former enforcer of Missouri’s open records law as the source of her desire for transparency in government. While most would agree that government at all levels should strive for greater transparency, McCaskill has ventured into one of the few areas where privacy is critical, particularly as it pertains to classified information during a time of war. National security matters are far removed from the days when McCaskill took Pine Lawn, Southwest City and Greenwood to task over open records issues, and we hope she decides to join Republicans and fellow Democrats who understand the importance of their duties, albeit private, on this critical committee.

Ethics In Nixonville
Posted by: John Hancock | 11:13am | Permalink

A recent hire at Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP has raised suspicions in state political circles. Earlier this month, the firm, which employs Jay Nixon’s political guru Charles Hatfield as a partner/chief lobbyist, announced the addition of former Nixon deputy John Munich as partner.

Ordinarily, Munich’s hire wouldn’t be red-flagged. After all, birds of a feather tend to flock together. However, the SMH announcement comes just a month after Munich concluded the state’s defense in the much-discussed school funding lawsuit. In 2004, Munich, who worked as a Nixon deputy alongside Hatfield from 1993-1999, was brought in by Nixon to handle the case through his firm at the time, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. Nixon, who is no stranger to hiring friends to handle lucrative legal gigs that he should have handled himself (i.e. tobacco litigation), defended the hire of Munich and the firm despite controversies surrounding the firm’s alleged fleecing of New York taxpayers in a similar case.

In New York, Munich’s firm racked up $727,000 in travel and hotel fees, $1.8 million in payments to expert witnesses and over $250,000 for photocopying. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. All expenses, which eventually totaled more than $11 million, were on the taxpayer’s dime, and it really rubbed New Yorkers the wrong way when the firm lost the case. Despite this case study in waste and incompetence, Nixon saw fit to bring in the same firm to handle Missouri’s defense of its school funding system. But, hey, friends look past each other’s flaws, right?

At last check in January, Munich’s firm had been paid nearly $1 million in Missouri tax dollars for his work on the state school funding case—a figure that certainly ballooned over the past few months as courtroom arguments ensued and expert witnesses were paid for their services. While it remains to be seen if Munich’s hire will result in a court victory, this much is certain: Nixon, again, hired a friend to do his job, paid him a substantial amount in tax dollars, and then after the job was complete made sure Munich got a prime spot alongside his political guru at a politically influential law firm that has been shaking the money tree for Nixon.

For the sake of taxpayers, we certainly hope the state prevails in the school funding suit. However, Nixon’s interest in the outcome of this suit probably has more to do with avoiding conflict-of-interest questions that will certainly arise if he loses another case...

Helpful tips for our friends in the media:
1) Ask Nixon if sending approx. $1,000,000 to his former employee is a conflict of interest.
2) Ask Nixon what he knew about Sutherland Asbill & Brennan’s New York controversy.
3) Ask Nixon if he disclosed his prior relationship with Munich to legislators when the firm was hired.
4) Ask Nixon why his office, one of the larger law firms in the state, was incapable of defending the state in the education lawsuit.
5) Ask Nixon how his fundraising effort is going outside of lawyers and law firms his office has enriched over the years...

More to come...

McCaskill Opposes Immigration Bill, Contradicts 2006 Rhetoric Again
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:00am | Permalink

Politico is reporting that Sen. McCaskill opposes the controversial immigration compromise, which has drawn widespread criticism and has been equated with amnesty.

While we’re grateful to the folks at Politico for getting McCaskill on the record on this important issue, the writer misinterpreted her ever-changing positions on immigration policy during last year’s Senate campaign. Candidate McCaskill’s claims during the latter part of the campaign were part of a concerted inoculation effort on immigration that transpired after she made an overtly pro-amnesty statement in a March story in the CDT.

“[McCaskill] said priority for legalization should be given to those who return to their own countries and apply legally, but she added, ‘I think that we need to look at ways that the people who are here illegally can pay for the crime they've committed without being a further burden on taxpayers.’”

Now, over a year later, it appears McCaskill has completely contradicted the CDT quote that landed her in hot water in the first place.

From the Politico story:

"I don't like the idea that you can just come forward and register and somehow that means you haven't broken the law," she [McCaskill] said.

Nixon Embarrassed By Fellow Dems, Donor In Court
Posted by: John Hancock | 5:00pm | Permalink

As you may know, AG Jay Nixon was recently embarrassed in a Howard County courtroom when a judge ruled that his office mishandled evidence in a cattle case. Adding insult to Nixon’s injury is the fact that two defense lawyers who unloaded on his mismanagement of the case are both long-time Democratic supporters from the Columbia area.

Excerpt from Boonville Daily News story, 5/18/2007:

...William Rotts of Columbia, Mo., argued Thursday that the attorney general's office violated the “Chinese wall” in investigating the case. The “Chinese wall” is legal jargon describing the separation between a criminal investigation and a civil investigation. . . . In his argument, Rotts said the attorney general's office should not be allowed to prosecute the civil case, citing a 1997 appellate court decision throwing out a civil judgment because the attorney in the case was an assistant prosecuting attorney who obtained evidence from the head prosecutor, who was trying a related criminal case. “We are being kept in the dark while the civil and criminal side jabber back and forth in the attorney general's office,” Rotts said. Ben Leonard's attorney, Edwin Orr, who filed an identical motion with the court, noted that he was “shocked” when he found bank records in the civil prosecutors' evidence that he objected to releasing and was never overruled. He said the only explanation was they got them from the criminal investigators.

A check of federal and state campaign finance records since the 2000 cycle found that both Rotts and Orr are consistent Democrat donors who have contributed thousands to the likes of Jeff Harris, Claire McCaskill, Chuck Graham, Jim Ritter, Tim Harlan, Ken Jacob, Bekki Cook, and Bob Holden. Last year, Orr and another lawyer at his firm donated to Nixon (see copied donations below). After Orr’s thrashing of Nixon in court, it’s probably safe to say that a proliferation of additional support from Orr to Nixon will not happen any time soon.

McCaskill In Hot Water With Liberal Elites
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 1:35pm | Permalink

If KC Star columnist Mike Hendricks is correct, Sen. McCaskill has a lot of explaining to do regarding her recent betrayal of more than two decades of support for an Equal Rights Amendment. If you don’t agree with a term as strong as “betrayal” take it up with the graying unhinged liberal supporters of McCaskill who believe its still 1972. They most certainly feel betrayed. While McCaskill’s political wind-chiming won’t result in voters mistaking her for Phyllis Schlafly, what’s to stop disenchanted liberal supporters from making that connection should she continue with her present course?

Nixon Prefers Irrelevant Rhetoric Over Substance
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:15am | Permalink

Yesterday, Jay Nixon issued a bizarre and irrelevant judgment in which he claimed Congressman Kenny Hulshof was not qualified to serve as MU president solely because he opposes embryonic stem cell research. That makes about as much sense as NY Yankees owner George Steinbrenner’s no-facial-hair policy. Alex Rodriguez would hit 40 home runs a year for Steinbrenner if he looked like a member of ZZ Top just as Hulshof would surely do a bang-up job at MU regardless of his view on stem cell issues. But I digress...

While Nixon seemed strangely at ease taking screwball potshots from left field at Hulshof, he fumbled, stumbled and bumbled his way through a final rant against Governor Blunt’s $350 million tax-free higher education stimulus plan—more commonly known as MOHELA. Nixon’s incessant crowing over MOHELA must come to an end at some point, right? Where is his alternative plan to counter Blunt? It seems only logical that anyone this ticked off would offer an alternative as a substantive accompaniment to their fiery partisan rhetoric. Otherwise, Nixon is offering up opposition for the sake of opposition, which is hardly the mark of a credible gubernatorial aspirant. Let’s see that plan, Jay. (photo courtesy of the KC Star)

Quotes That Sunk ‘Em...
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:30pm | Permalink

Jimmy Carter, in the 1976 presidential debate, said he consulted his 12 year-old daughter on nuclear arms issues.

Gary Hart challenged reporters to tail him. (Hart was later photographed with his mistress on a boat called Monkey Business).

John Kerry defended his position on the war in Iraq, claiming he “actually voted for the war before he voted against it.”

Howard Dean’s “Yeeaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

Missouri Pulse has uncovered another, uttered by Missouri’s own Jay Nixon. From the Post-Dispatch, 10/22/1992:

“Nixon noted that he has promised to change the [Second Injury Fund] by barring any participating lawyers from contributing to the attorney general's political campaigns.”

There’s much more to come...

MO MEDIA WATCH: Tax Debate Roars To Life In D.C.; Will We

Hear About It In MO?
Posted by John Hancock | 2:00pm | Permalink

In the past week, Democrats in Congress have added an exclamation point to their 29% approval rating with failures that are sure to make swing voters in Missouri and elsewhere cringe with buyer’s remorse. Although one could write extensively on earmark reform, amnesty for illegals, failed Murtha containment efforts, and surrender in the war on terror, we’re more interested in the escalating debate over last week’s passage of an immense Democratic budget plan that could adversely impact Missouri taxpayers if not for President Bush’s veto authority.

Last Thursday, Democrats rammed a $3 trillion federal budget plan through both the House (214-209 vote; Missouri delegation voted along party lines) and the Senate (52-40 vote; McCaskill: Yea; Bond: Nay) that Republicans and conservative pundits argue amounts to either “the biggest tax increase in U.S. history” or the “second largest tax increase in our nation’s history.” Pick your poison. The hikes would be triggered by phasing out Bush’s sweeping tax cuts, which were supported by both Republicans and sensible Democrats such as former Sen. Jean Carnahan.

While the current batch of Democrats have adamantly denied that phasing out tax relief constitutes a tax hike, even the ultraliberal L.A. Times recently entertained the notion that the Democrats’ budget plan “contained the second largest tax hike in history …”  This is a debate that seriously affects taxpayers in Missouri, and it seems logical that our friends in the state media would pick up on it. If memory serves us right, initial efforts in 2001 to enact the tax cuts that are currently in jeopardy drew considerable attention from reporters at Missouri media outlets and the derision of various editorial boards. For the sake of equity and objectivity, Missourians from all walks of life have benefited greatly from the tax relief, and should be hearing more about the current national debate as they stand to lose if Democrats prevail.

Truth in Advertising—2008 Democratic Frontrunner Analysis
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 1:00pm | Permalink 

As rumors intensify as to which Democrat presidential aspirant Sen. McCaskill will endorse, Missouri Pulse will occasionally issue a side-by-side analysis of her voting record in relation to arguably the top two Democrats in the running—liberal heavyweight Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. With more than 170 Senate roll call votes already cast this year, it seems McCaskill, Clinton and Obama have much in common as McCaskill has voted with both at a greater than 90% clip. While political considerations, particularly Clinton's viability in Missouri, give Obama an edge, there is no disputing the fact that McCaskill could go either way from an ideological standpoint. More to come...

[UPDATE 1:10PM]  The recurring Obama-Clinton analysis will in no way affect Missouri Pulse's weekly vote analysis of McCaskill's ongoing allegiance to other prominent Senate liberals. 

Nixon Does In Cass Co. What He Failed To Do In His Home County
Posted by: John Hancock| 8:15am | Permalink

According to a May 17 release from the AG’s office, Jay Nixon is doing for Cass County what he has neglected to do for 14 years back home in Jefferson County; he’s cracking down on a polluting sewage plant. In what amounts to a stark contradiction of current events in Jefferson County, Nixon is actually suing the operators of a sewage plant that has violated state clean water laws and has polluted a nearby creek. His brazen rhetoric is like a child taking credit for making his bed while the floor of his bedroom is littered with candy wrappers and dirty clothes.

Nixon in his own words, from the release:

"It is imperative that the sewer systems are immediately upgraded and brought into compliance with state clean water laws after too many years of delays."

We wonder how the people living in Raintree Plantation feel after reading a quote like that! No matter how many sewage dumps Nixon sues between now and November 2008, he cannot erase the sludge from his 14 year record of neglecting sewage problems in his own back yard caused by his family’s sewage plant--a plant deemed “one of the worst in the state” by environmental regulators. And when the pollution problems at his family’s plant reached critical mass, Nixon walked away from the case as a result of his glaring conflict of interest. Let’s also not forget a couple of the underlying political elements that fueled Nixon’s neglect. 1) Family business interests helped bankroll Nixon’s ascension to AG, and 2) he used to work as a lawyer for those same interests.

While the folks in Cass County were certainly in need of assistance, it does not change the fact that the polluters at the Nixon family plant in Jefferson County have been collectively thumbing their noses at affected residents for years without fear of punitive action by the AG. While Nixon has ignored the problems in Jefferson County, Missouri voters will not.

News-Leader Takes Note Of Missouri Pulse
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:30pm | Permalink

In today’s editorial, the Springfield News-Leader took note of Missouri Pulse’s efforts to promote substantive discussion of Missouri issues from the conservative perspective. While blogging is certainly a Democrat-dominated medium, we are excited about our growing readership and look forward to continuing with our present course.

Carter Reminded Of His Irrelevance
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:05pm | Permalink

Well, Jimmy Carter’s repeated henpecking of the Bush administration finally drew a rebuke this past weekend. This whole situation could have been avoided had Carter retained the humbling lessons of 1980, which was the last time he was reminded of his irrelevance at the hands of the Reagan Revolution.

Memorable Reagan quote from 1980 campaign:

“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”