BREAKING: Extortion
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:15pm | Permalink

This evening, the AP brought down the curtain on Scott Eckersley’s 15 minutes of fame when it revealed he attempted to extort the Blunt administration for a political job following his firing. In summation, Eckersley was fired, spent a month trying to extort a political job from the Blunt administration, and when he discovered that he could not merit a favorable recommendation from the administration, he turned to two of Jay Nixon’s trial lawyer buddies out of spite. On the media side, it will be interesting to see if those who have defended Eckersley and put him on a pedestal decide that this extortion self-revelation is newsworthy.

More tomorrow!

Throwing Caution To The Wind
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:25pm | Permalink

Tawana Brawley. Anita Hill. Mike Nifong. All three made headline grabbing allegations against others that were reported as fact by many in the media. All three were later found to be frauds, which in turn put a serious dent in the credibility of various news outlets.

Rather than learn from the gaffes of the past, some in the media are rushing to grant whistleblower immunity status to former state employee Scott Eckersley—warts and all. As in the cases of Brawley, Hill and Nifong, there is plenty of evidence that shows Eckersley is anything but worthy of being placed on a pedestal. Yet, some have already dismissed his abundance of personal and professional problems, not to mention the fact that his lawyers are Jay Nixon’s indentured servants, in a transparent attempt to tarnish the Blunt administration at any cost.

In contrast to the politically engineered PR machine behind the Eckersley push, a disabled former state legal counsel who served Missourians for 15 years is pursuing justice with little to no fanfare this week in federal court. On Friday, a settlement conference is scheduled to commence in Marla Grothoff’s discrimination suit against Jay Nixon. Grothoff’s suit, which was filed in 2004, doesn’t feature high-powered trial lawyers, tabloid allegations or political subplots that target Republicans. With the Grothoff case potentially nearing resolution, perhaps her story of discrimination and unfair treatment deserves some broader public exposure – we will wait to see…

Sprinting To The Left
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:15am | Permalink

Last night’s Democratic POTUS debate revolved around a September 26 U.S. Senate vote on a resolution that sought to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guard, which has been at a minimum training and equipping terrorists to kill American soldiers in Iraq, wound up on the short end of the stick by a 76-22 margin.

The vote was the center of the universe during the debate, because Hillary Clinton voted with the 75 other Senators who believe the Revolutionary Guard’s targeting of American soldiers merited action. When Hillary Clinton is attacked by members of her own party for a single hawkish vote, it certifies the opinion of many a pundit that the Democratic Party is in a dead sprint to the left. And the left wonders why they continue to be labeled “weak” and “out to lunch” on national defense and military matters.

After watching John Edwards, Dennis “E.T.” Kucinich, and all the other McGovernites pile on Clinton for the better part of an hour, I found out Missouri’s own Sen. Claire McCaskill was 1 of the 22 Senators who voted against declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In a subsequent Washington Post story, McCaskill explained her vote via the same talking points used by Edwards, Kucinich and the rest of the liberals in last night’s echo chamber. There is no word whether the Revolutionary Guard has yet to send her a thank you card for her vote.

National Legal Blog Picks Up On Nixon’s Arbitrary Payout
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:35pm | Permalink

LegalNewsline.com offers a solid synopsis of Attorney General Jay Nixon’s arbitrary decision to payout $47,000 after illegally using his state vehicle for political trips for three years. Who knows … maybe LegalNewsline.com will also pick up on Nixon’s date in court this Friday.

AFP: Stop The Wasteful Litigation
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:35pm | Permalink

A coalition of more than 200 Missouri school districts in search of a judge mandated $1 billion tax hike for additional funding is on the ropes after recent court defeats and news of mounting legal fees.

Missourinet reports the coalition’s legal fees, which are paid with tax dollars, are the focus of a new effort to encourage the coalition to reconsider appealing its most recent court loss to the Missouri Supreme Court. To date, the coalition has drained $3.2 million in tax dollars from member school districts to fund its case for a $1 billion tax hike.

The conservative group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has conducted some great research that shows just how much each district that is part of the coalition has wasted to fund the coalition’s case. The range runs from as low as $66 for Latham to $596,404 for St. Louis public schools.

Link of the day: AFP’s district-by-district waste tracker

If objectivity ruled the day: Media types should drop a call to the Missouri Education Roundtable not to get stock anti-Sinquefield quotes but to inquire if most member groups continue to support the school funding litigation.

Free To Do As He Pleases
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:40am | Permalink

In March 2001, Attorney General Jay Nixon pontificated on the need for disabled state employees to have the right to sue their employers. Nixon said, “State government should be a leader, not a shirker, on issues of discrimination and should not be allowed to treat its employees as second-class citizens.”

Three years later, a former state legal counsel accused Nixon of treating her like a second-class citizen when she filed a discrimination suit against him in which she claimed he refused to hire her because she was a quadriplegic. This Friday, a federal judge has ordered Nixon and his accuser to begin a settlement conference in that very case.

Despite the case against him, Nixon has shamelessly continued to pander to advocates of the disabled. In March 2007—in the midst of the lawsuit—Nixon spoke to advocates during Disabled Rights Legislative Day in Jefferson City. In a stunning case of cosmic hypocrisy, Nixon’s lawyers filed motions weeks later in an effort to weaken the discrimination suit against him.

From the Attorney General office press release, 3/28/2007:

Nixon meets with, speaks to advocates for the disabled
March 28, 2007 Attorney General Nixon spoke to a rally of advocates for Missouri's disabled citizens on the steps of the state Capitol on March 28. Afterward, Nixon spoke with several of the advocates, who were there for Disabled Rights Legislative Day.

Unbelievable!
Posted by: John Hancock | 7:50pm | Permalink

Read the prior post.

Then read this 2001 press release from Nixon’s office.

Money quote from Nixon’s release:

“State government should be a leader, not a shirker, on issues of discrimination and should not be allowed to treat its employees as second-class citizens. In Missouri, at least, the General Assembly can right this wrong by passing a law that would allow lawsuits by our state employees with ADA discrimination claims to be filed in state court.”

Nixon Entangled In Employee Discrimination Suit In Federal Court
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:05am | Permalink

While Attorney General Jay Nixon’s henchmen push the baseless reprisals of a disgruntled ex-employee of the Blunt administration, Nixon is embroiled in an actual employment discrimination suit in federal court with a settlement conference set to commence this Friday.

According to court documents procured by Missouri Pulse, Nixon was sued for discrimination in 2004 by Marla Grothoff, who served in state government as an attorney and legal counsel for 15 years prior to her termination in 2003. In 2003, Nixon’s office was given jurisdiction over certain Social Services duties and employees including Grothoff. Grothoff, who is a quadriplegic, claims in her suit that Nixon chose to let her go in spite of her solid record as a legal counsel, and she claims Nixon’s decision was based on her disability.

Following her termination, Grothoff sought and received the right to sue Nixon for discrimination through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In November 2004, Grothoff filed a suit in Boone County Circuit Court in which she alleged Nixon “intentionally discriminated” against her and “acted with malice or reckless indifference” to her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Her suit was later moved to federal court.

Interestingly enough, the federal judge in the case against Nixon has scheduled a settlement conference for this Friday. With that in mind, it seems the blatant manipulation of Scott Eckersley by Nixon’s henchmen was nothing more than a politically charged attempt to divert attention from Nixon’s own legal troubles. It will be most interesting to see if the fine folks at Missouri’s media outlets report the allegations of Grothoff, a former state employee with a 15-year track record of service, as fact just as they reported the allegations of Eckersely, a disgraced former state employee, to be fact this past weekend.

Case: Grothoff v. Nixon; 2:04-cv-04290-WAK

Nixon’s Pawnshop
Posted by: John Hancock | 10:10pm | Permalink

In the media’s latest rush to tar-and-feather the Blunt administration, they have ignored the transparently political nature of desperate allegations made against the administration. Scott Eckersley, a former state employee, was fired for a litany of alleged problems that included: poor performance, habitual tardiness, insubordination, threatening his supervisor, using state resources to do significant private work on state time, and using his state email account to access an adult website.

While any one of these issues would constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal, some in the media have chosen to treat the baseless reprisals of Eckersley as fact. In reality, one need only examine the “legal team” assembled for Eckersley to understand what’s really going on here.

Consider this: Out of thousands of lawyers working in Missouri, the public is supposed to believe that Eckersley just happened by chance to stumble across prominent trial lawyers Steve Garner and Chip Robertson, who are eternally indebted to Attorney General Jay Nixon and who happen to have a serious axe to grind with the Blunt administration.

Some facts to consider about these lawyers who helped Eckersley craft his pitch:

• 111,000,000 reasons to be eternally grateful to Nixon: Garner is a long-time officer at the Strong Law Firm in Springfield while Robertson is a partner at the Bartimus firm in Kansas City. In 1998, Nixon hired both firms, which were already among his “major political supporters”¹, to handle work on the state tobacco settlement. In arguably the most egregious example of political corruption in the history of Missouri, Nixon allowed both firms to walk away from the tobacco case with their share of a $111 million payout following just five months of work.²

• Follow the money: Since the 1998 election cycle, sources tied to both lawyers’ firms have generated more than $150,000 in donations to benefit Nixon’s campaigns. In addition, both firms have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to other Democratic committees.³

• Recent dispute over Missouri’s court plan: Earlier this year, both Garner and Robertson were outspoken defenders of Missouri’s court plan after it came under fire from Republicans and conservatives. Critics consider the present plan a feeding trough for trial lawyers like Garner and Robertson, who dominate the judicial selection process. Since the showdown this year, trial lawyers have made no bones about their desire to exact vengeance on Blunt and other Republicans who dared to question their coveted system.

• Governor Wannabe: About two years ago, Robertson announced he was contemplating a primary challenge to Blunt but gave no specific reason for his interest in a race. Such talk fizzled out this past August when Robertson announced he would not challenge Blunt.

• Nixon appointee: Last December, Nixon appointed Robertson to the Community Advisory Committee of his slush fund—the Missouri Foundation for Health. To date, the foundation has awarded millions of dollars in grants to Democratic front groups, pro-abortion groups and clinics that proudly serve illegal immigrants. Nixon’s appointment of supporters such as Robertson has greased the skids thereby permitting millions in grants to flow to such groups.

So, Pulse readers, take just a moment and put yourself in a journalist’s shoes. How would you handle the following set of facts?

1) The Governor’s administration fires a staff lawyer for cause (poor performance, tardiness, insubordination, threatening a supervisor, doing personal business on state time with state resources, and using a state email account to access an adult website).
2) There is a paper trail verifying each of the causes for the termination.
3) This former employee approaches you with the assistance of two lawyers whose firms have donated over $150,000 to the Governor’s political opponent.
4) These same lawyers have a long and close relationship with the Governor’s opponent that has been both financially and politically rewarding.
5) The employee and his “legal team” spin a whistle-blower tale about his legal advice being ignored and causing his wrongful termination with plenty of anti-Blunt hyperbole added for dramatic effect.

Your choices:

A) Dismiss the story as the product of a disgruntled employee acting at the behest of political operatives with ulterior motives; or
B) Write an article casting aspersions on the Governor and his staff for wrongfully terminating a poor, unfortunate whistle-blower.

If you selected option A) above, you pass the first exam in “News 101” at most any school of journalism. If you selected option B), then welcome to the Fraternity of Missouri political news reporters.

_______
¹ P-D, 7/4/1998
² KC Star, 10/19/2004
³ FEC, MEC

Judge, Jury & Executioner
Posted by: John Hancock | 4:20pm | Permalink

The good news is that Attorney General Jay Nixon paid the state $47,000 today to cover his illegal use of a state vehicle for campaign trips over the past three years. The bad news is the law breaker, Nixon, came to the arbitrary conclusion that he owed the state $47,000.

Every day, Missourians receive parking and speeding tickets, but do they get to decide how much they should pay for the infractions? No. A parking monitor or a police officer does that for them. In Nixon’s case, nobody has yet to hold him to account. He broke the law, attempted to justify it for a week, eventually conceded he had broken the law for three years and he has now cut an arbitrary check in an attempt to make his illegal actions go away.

If State Auditor Susan Montee took her job seriously, she would immediately intervene on behalf of Missouri taxpayers and hold Nixon to account. Anything less will result in an unseemly spectacle whereby the state’s top law enforcement official is cleared to act as his own judge, jury and executioner.

WSJ: Congressional Dems Spawn “Trillion Dollar Baby”
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:55pm | Permalink

While many in the media are eating up the Congressional Democrats’ plan to raise taxes on Americans by $1 trillion, an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal casts the plan in a much different light.

Excerpt from the editorial:

“No one thinks his plan has a chance of becoming law this year, but its beauty is as a signal of Democratic intentions for 2009. In proposing what would be the largest tax increase in history, Mr. Rangel is showing the world what he wants the tax code to look like if Democrats run the entire government. None of the Presidential candidates will admit this before November 2008, but give Mr. Rangel credit for having the courage of Hillary Clinton's convictions.

The New Yorker is wily enough to realize he has to wrap this homely child in the ribbon of ‘tax reform,’ and yesterday he even invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan's 1986 reform success. If only the Gipper were still here to have fun with that one. Readers of a certain age might recall that the 1986 reform traded lower tax rates (a top rate of 28%) for fewer loopholes and deductions. Mr. Rangel's idea of reform is to raise tax rates in order to offer more deductions.”

MO MEDIA WATCH: “Education Groups”
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:45am | Permalink

The KC Star reports today that a coalition of “education groups” feel they are under siege from the forces of conservative education reform led by Rex Sinquefield. The story benignly refers to the unnamed groups as members of the Missouri Education Roundtable—“representing teachers, parents, school administrators and local school board members.” In fact the groups constitute the backbone of the state's education establishment, employ more than 20 state lobbyists to maintain the status quo and pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into Missouri campaigns each election cycle for good measure. Prominent members of the Roundtable include the Democratic heavy hitters at the NEA and the AFT.

To his credit, Sinquefield has triggered a long overdue debate over the direction of education policy in Missouri. For far too long, the “education groups” referred to in the Star’s story have been operating without challenge, and now that they have one, the media should welcome the discourse and report on it in an impartial fashion. Here’s a humble suggestion: Missouri’s media might want to give the same “descriptive” treatment to liberal “education groups” that they regularly apply to “conservative,” “supporters of vouchers” such as Sinquefield.

Law & Order?
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:30pm | Permalink

Quite a few folks are having a laugh at Chris “Impostor” Koster’s expense as he launches his bid to become the next Attorney General. In a case of Seinfeldian irony, Koster, who yesterday said he would be a “law and order” Attorney General, is launching his campaign to fight crime arm-in-arm with former State Sen. Harold Caskey, the author of the controversial 2003 early release law that critics argued would trigger the release of thousands of criminals from state prisons.

Don’t believe the Pulse? Ask Attorney General Jay Nixon.

Excerpt from the P-D, 4/2/2004:

Nixon said the combined effect of the court rulings could lead to the release of almost a third of the state's prison population. He said that the problem was not with the court's decisions but with Caskey's bill. "There are people who should be locked up who in the coming months will cause severe and significant damage to the public safety of our state," Nixon predicted. "For 11 years, crime has gone down, and this bill may change that trend.”

Congressional Dems Propose The Mother Of All Tax Hikes
Posted by: Jonathon Prouty | 12:15pm | Permalink

With Congress’ approval rating already in the toilet and in need of a good flushing, House Democrats, led by Ways & Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), are doing the unthinkable. They are proposing what Congressional Republicans are describing as the “mother of all tax hikes.”

Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), a rising star among fiscal conservatives, estimates the bottom line of Rangel’s tax overhaul plan amounts to a greater than $1 trillion tax increase on hard working Americans. Fortunately, Hensarling and other like-minded conservatives have already proposed a tax cutting alternative to Rangel’s plan—the Taxpayer Choice Act. Check out the details of the Taxpayer Choice Act in an op-ed authored by Hensarling and other Congressmen in today’s New York Post.

A Contrast In Approach
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:50am | Permalink

While there is enough contrast between Governor Matt Blunt and Attorney General Jay Nixon to fill the Grand Canyon, each official’s approach to the issue of illegal immigration provides one of the more stunning points of contrast.

A story in today’s Post-Dispatch illustrates Blunt’s take-the-bull-by-the-horns approach to the issue. In the weeks since Blunt announced a plan to crack down on illegal immigration in Missouri, he has gotten results. As the P-D reports, 52 arrests have already been made. Blunt’s efforts have also garnered the attention of the liberal wackos at the ACLU, who were so distracted by the crack down that they momentarily forgot about securing rights for terrorists and removing God from schools in order to whine about Blunt’s actions.

In just a few weeks time, Blunt’s crack down has far exceeded Nixon’s lack of accomplishment during his nearly 15 years as the “state’s top law enforcement official.” In fact, Nixon long supported a do-nothing approach regarding illegal immigration, and, in a testament to his conviction, he saw to it that nothing was done.

Nixon’s do-nothing approach is an extension of his ideological views. In a 1998 survey (pg.9), Nixon noted his support for granting illegal immigrants access to educational and welfare programs funded by Missouri taxpayers. In 2002, Nixon became the Invisible Man after it was discovered an illegal immigrant was working in the office of Gov. Bob Holden. Moreover, Nixon has created and overseen two health care foundations, and he set forth a mission that both foundations aide Missouri’s uninsured population. Since their establishment a few years ago, the foundations have granted well over $1 million to groups that serve and defend illegal immigrants—not exactly the uninsured demographic most thought Nixon wanted to serve.

Unsurprisingly, Nixon was noticeably absent from today’s P-D story on Blunt’s crack down. Hopefully, Nixon will not be absent or turn on the Blunt administration in the event that the ACLU or another liberal interest group that shares his views on illegal immigration decides to sue the state to stop Blunt’s successful efforts.

Bond, McCaskill Vote Against DREAM Act
Posted by: John Hancock | 3:40pm | Permalink

To their credit, Sens. Kit Bond and Claire McCaskill voted this afternoon to block the Senate’s latest stab at amnesty—Sen. Dick Durbin’s DREAM Act. The vote tally was 52-44 on cloture.  Now, if only McCaskill would join her Senate Republican colleagues in support of cutting the flow of tax dollars to cities that offer themselves as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.

McCaskill “Torn” Over Latest Amnesty Effort
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:05pm | Permalink

A story in today’s Post-Dispatch reveals that Sen. Claire McCaskill is “torn” over Sen. Dick Durbin’s pending DREAM Act—a controversial immigration bill that critics are equating to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Although McCaskill made the right call earlier this year when she cast her vote against the infamous amnesty boondoggle, there is some concern that she may be leaning to the wrong side of the fence on the DREAM Act. Last week, noted amnesty opponent Mark Krikorian asserted that a Senate vote to kill an amendment that sought to penalize sanctuary cities for harboring illegal immigrants could serve as a precursor to the DREAM Act, which is scheduled for debate today. In the vote referenced by Krikorian, McCaskill sided with the pro-illegal immigration bloc in the Senate and voted to kill the amendment.

More...

Link up to what DREAM Act critics are saying.

McCaskill’s office contact number in DC: (202) 224-6154

Nixon Might Need To Rewrite His One-Note Song
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:05am | Permalink

Attorney General Jay Nixon is on a mission to make the 2008 gubernatorial race a referendum on Medicaid, but his unusual and, thus far, unsuccessful decision to sue the state in the dispute over a Boonville rail bridge may throw a wrench into his plan.

While it is not unprecedented for an attorney general to sue his client (i.e. the state), it is unusual, which brings us to the crux of Nixon’s problem. While Nixon did not hesitate to take the unusual step of suing the Blunt administration over the fate of a rusty rail bridge, why didn’t he display his self-professed passion for Medicaid by suing the Holden administration following its approval of cuts in 2002?

In 2002 and 2003, Nixon defended the state in court following deep cuts to dental and eye care for Medicaid recipients. He also defended Holden’s attempt to raise Medicaid’s income cutoff for the disabled, blind and elderly. Plaintiffs argued the cuts would have adversely impacted tens of thousands of Missourians.

According to an August 2006 St. Joe News-Press story, Nixon said, “I don't think slashing health care is good for Missouri. I think you shouldn't barter away people's health care. The government shouldn't play politics with that.” Apparently, Nixon was not referring to instances when Democrats tried to scale back Medicaid and he defended their actions.

Nixon’s one-note song is beginning to wear just a bit thin – he really should consider adding another note or two. With his access to health care monotony going nowhere, perhaps Nixon should consider building a campaign message around access to Hannah Montana tickets...

Slay Has Sway With Prominent Missouri Democrats
Posted by: John Hancock | 2:20pm | Permalink

The current African-American-led effort to recall St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay has the potential to present an electoral threat to Missouri Democrats next year. While the recall effort has yet to require statewide elected officials to choose sides, there is already evidence of a developing rift between black and white Democrats as illustrated by a recent story in the St. Louis American. As the American pointed out, prominent Missouri Democrats such as Attorney General Jay Nixon and U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill are presently dodging any discussion of Slay’s recall for reasons that are rather obvious.

Simply put, Slay has sway beyond his capacity as mayor of a heavily Democratic city. While he may not be running the MDP, one of Slay’s top aides was recently named the party’s executive director. In addition, tens upon tens of thousands of dollars in political donations traced to Slay and his influential family show them to be among the more prominent non-union/trial lawyer donors to Democratic candidates and committees across the state. In fact, Nixon’s latest MEC report disclosed nearly $9,000 in donations made on September 28 from corporate entities housed at the address of Slay Industries.

Yet another reason for the evasiveness of Nixon and McCaskill can be found in a 2002 Riverfront Times story that portrayed Slay as beholden to powerful Democratic consultant Joyce Aboussie. In addition to Slay, Aboussie has also been tied to the political fortunes of McCaskill and Nixon, who the Riverfront Times reported was scolded like a child by Aboussie for his views on red light cameras in 2006.

One can only imagine what must be boiling under the surface of the Democratic Party as party leaders and Jay Nixon grapple with how best to handle the growing intra-party acrimony. For Nixon, it could turn into a case of déjà vu reminding us all of his prior status as the NAACP’s punching bag during his failed 1998 U.S. Senate bid.

Ask And You Shall Receive
Posted by: John Hancock | 9:00am | Permalink

Yesterday afternoon, Missouri Pulse noted high-profile instances in State Sen. Chuck Graham’s record where he went to bat for bar aficionados. (See post below.) Graham, whose weekend drink-and-crash controversy remains the hottest topic in central Missouri, pushed legislation in 2001 that would have restricted the liability of bars that serve legally intoxicated patrons, and a year later he attempted to cut the Division of Liquor Control budget by 85% in a failed effort to neuter that agency’s investigative powers.

This morning, KMOX (h/t Combest) has a must-listen-to story on Graham’s 2001 push to limit the liability of bars that features strong criticism from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which opposed his legislation at the time it was proposed. It goes without saying that once Graham decides to face the music, he will have a lot to answer for.

Graham’s Record May Come Back To Haunt Him
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:30pm | Permalink

While State Sen. Chuck Graham (D-Columbia) finds himself in quite the tempest over his DWI controversy, his legislative record on alcohol-related issues poses a wholly separate obstacle.

In 2001, the CDT reported that Graham filed a bill to relax the liability of bar owners that served alcohol to legally intoxicated patrons. The bill was aggressively opposed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

Excerpt from the CDT story, 3/22/2001:

A bill filed by state Rep. Chuck Graham, D-Columbia, would eliminate the provision requiring a criminal conviction for a civil suit, but it also would set a higher standard by requiring plaintiffs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a restaurant knowingly served alcohol to a minor or to someone legally intoxicated. . . . Representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving adamantly oppose the measure. Mike Boland, public policy liaison for MADD, said the bill makes the burden of proof too high. Boland also took issue with the complaint that bar owners’ insurance rates have increased. . . . [Boland:] "They’re liable, why does the alcohol industry feel they’re entitled to absolve themselves of any responsibility? It’s wrong, it’s unconscionable they feel they can set themselves up where they can continue to take no responsibility."

A year later, Graham made headlines when he attempted to cut 85% of the budget for the Division of Liquor Control—the agency responsible for enforcing alcohol laws and a long-time Graham adversary. Graham conceded his intent was to eliminate funding for enforcement agents within the agency, which prompted criticism from lawmakers who successfully combated Graham’s effort.

From the KC Star, 4/5/2002:

But most lawmakers criticized the cut. They said enforcement helps curb underage drinking, reducing the carnage caused by drunken driving. "We need to send a strong message that we support liquor control enforcement," said Rep. Nancy Copenhaver, a Moberly Democrat.

Nixon’s Spares POTUS Wannabes From Primary Pick
Posted by: John Hancock | 12:05pm | Permalink

“When you refuse to take a position, you're not punished. It's only when you take a position that you're punished. The reward is not to talk and to repeat the pollster-tested phrases.”—Jay Nixon, P-D, 1/11/1999

This weekend, the P-D reported that Attorney General Jay Nixon has no plans to throw his weight behind a contender in the Democratic presidential primary.

Excerpt from the P-D story, 10/20/2007:

“Nixon has not endorsed a presidential candidate and has no plans to do so. But Shur said Nixon would support the Democratic nominee, when named. When asked whether Nixon would campaign alongside Clinton if she leads the ticket, Shur said he would not speculate on who would win the nomination.”

While it is unknown whether Nixon’s refusal is rooted in his general lack of political courage or his dissatisfaction with his party’s current roster of POTUS wannabes, one thing is for certain: Nixon’s recent presidential primary picks have not panned out. In 2000, Nixon endorsed Bill Bradley in the presidential primary¹, and in 2004, he backed Dick Gephardt.² Considering Hilllary Clinton’s recent surge in the polls, Missouri Democrats who oppose Clinton and are somewhat superstitious may find it beneficial to lobby Nixon to throw his support behind her candidacy.

_______
¹ AP, 3/4/2000
² P-D, 2/3/2003

DEMS GONE WILD UPDATE: Graham Arrested For DWI
Posted by: John Hancock | 8:05am | Permalink

This past weekend, State Sen. Chuck Graham (D-Columbia) became the latest Missouri Democrat in need of a legal defense fund when KOMU reported he was arrested for a DWI in Columbia after plowing his car into another vehicle. Following the crash, Graham informed police he had consumed “a few” beers. After looking at the mug shots, this site is struck by the striking resemblance between Graham and former Vice President Al Gore. One might say the arrest is an “Inconvenient Truth.”

Regardless, Graham’s run-in with the law is the latest in a string of such problems for a number of prominent Missouri Democrats, none of which have yet to receive a reprimand from their party. The following list represents a few of the high profile pending issues:

• Earlier this month, Attorney General Jay Nixon acknowledged he had illegally used his state vehicle for political trips dating as far back as 2004. Shortly after his confession, State Auditor Susan Montee, a Democrat, revealed that Nixon lied to state auditors last year when he said the vehicle had only been used for official purposes. The details and the extent of Nixon’s law breaking are still being sorted out …

• Last month, State Sen. Jeff Smith (D-St. Louis) and State Rep. Joe Aull (D-Marshall) were charged with misdemeanor fake ID charges following a run-in with authorities at a Booneville casino. Smith and Aull are scheduled to appear in court November 6. As a sidebar, Smith and Graham are said to be the so-called brains behind the Senate Democrats’ campaign operation. Quite the dynamic duo!

• Last week, The Turner Report disclosed that the federal bank and credit card fraud case against State Rep. John Bowman (D-St. Louis), who was indicted earlier this year, is scheduled to go to trial November 26.

• Over the weekend, former Jackson County Executive Katheryn Shields got unwelcome news when a Kansas City businessman pleaded guilty to conspiring with her in a federal mortgage fraud case. Shields, a Democrat, is a defendant in the case which is scheduled to commence today.

• Last month, Pro-Vote, a leading Democratic front group, was on the receiving end of a union busting complaint filed by an independent union. The complaint was filed with the National Labor Relations Board and is said to be pending.

Graham and his other legally embattled colleagues should look on the bright side. There have got to be plenty of qualified trial lawyer donors to their campaigns who would be more than willing to take their cases!

Nixon & McCaskill Appear To Be Getting Along Just Fine
Posted by: John Hancock | 1:45pm | Permalink

In recent months, Democrats have r