Public Policy Polling [pdf] released even more results from from their survey of 582 Missouri voters interviewed between January 27th and 29th. The margin of error for the poll is 4.1%.
Everyone, with the possible exception of a chunk of the Democratic Party base, loves Governor Jay Nixon (D):
Nixon is aided by a positive job approval rating. 44% of voters approve and 31% disapprove. He enjoys support from Democrats (54-25), Independents (44-29), and slightly over one third of Republican voters also approve of his job performance (34-40).
[emphasis added]
This, for a Democratic governor. It's all good for Governor Nixon because the republican clown car has room for so many possibilities:
Q5 If the candidates for Governor this fall were Democrat Jay Nixon and Republican Bill Randles, who would you vote for?
Jay Nixon - 47%
Bill Randles - 29%
Undecided - 24%
Q6 If the candidates for Governor this fall were Democrat Jay Nixon and Republican Tom Schweich, who would you vote for?
Jay Nixon - 48%
Tom Schweich - 30%
Undecided - 22%
Q7 If the candidates for Governor this fall were Democrat Jay Nixon and Republican Dave Spence, who would you vote for?
As of this afternoon at least 26 senators had signed a leter urging the Susan B. Komen Foundation for the Cure to reverse its decision to stop grants to Planned Parenthood. And guess what? Claire McCaskill is one of the latest signatories. It's a pretty blunt letter - here's a sample of its message:
It would be tragic if any woman - let alone thousands of women - lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.
We earnestly hope that you will put women's health before partisan politics and reconsider this decision for the sake of the women who depend on both your organizations for access to the health care they need.
Greg Sargent has the full text here. Maybe McCaskill deserves some thanks? If you want to give her some positive reinforcement, something all pols need from time to time, here's her email contact form.
I've got to admit, unenthusiastic though I often am on the topic of McCaskill, that when it comes to women's reproductive choice, she's been pretty consistently good (unless you know something I don't). In her most recent pitch for contributions, she even touts her support for "a woman's right to access birth control, including the morning after pill." For a politician who seems to be generally adverse to controversy, to support making the morning after pill available means crawling out several shaky inches on the pro-choice limb the crazies are trying really hard to break off. Give credit where it's due, I say.
Public Policy Polling [pdf] released additional results from from their survey of 582 Missouri voters interviewed between January 27th and 29th. The margin of error for the poll is 4.1%.
Interesting results:
Q8 If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?
@tonymess Tony Messenger
Just asked state auditor Tom Schweich if he is still considering running for Republican nomination for governor. His answer: "No comment." 7 hours ago
The statement below is taken from Washington Monthly blogger Ed Kilgore's commentary on the passage of right-to-work-for less legislation in Indiana:
But as someone who grew up in the right-to-work Deep South, I can assure Indianans that from a psychological point of view they are about to enter a brave new world where an ever-neurotic desire to keep corporations happy always seems to trump any consideration of fair play or workers' rights. Welcome to the Old South, Hoosiers! Misery loves company.
What struck me immediately is that Kilgore could have been describing the political tone that has been emanating from Jefferson City during the past ten years that I've been living here - even without right-to-work-for-less.
I can only add, that like most of the deep South states Kilgore references, the legislative anxiety about not offending business interests doesn't seem to have done much for the state's economic growth. Given the steady decline that has characterized the past decade, one can be forgiven for concluding that the result has been quite the opposite.
A recent news article about Bill Randles, one of the not-so-fab GOPers vying for the gubernatorial nomination, reminds me of a story I heard somewhere about the Nicaraguan Dictator, Anastasio Somoza. According to the story, which works metaphorically though I can't swear to its accuracy, Somoza opposed letting a charity distribute shoes to barefoot Nicaraguan peasants - he claimed they maintained an essential spiritual contact with the soul of Nicaragua through the contact of their bare feet with Nicaraguan soil. Of course Somoza himself and all his family wore shoes. Given the amount of loot he managed to expropriate from the Nicaraguan people, I assume that they were probably very expensive shoes.
I'm not suggesting that Bill Randles wants to be Missouri's dictator or that he has the brutal proclivities of Somoza, a man about whom the epithet "butcher" does butchers the world over a grave injustice. I will point out, though, that as a Harvard educated lawyer, he's probably doing pretty well for himself. Which makes it all the more troublesome that he's apparently channeling the spirit of Bill Lembke, the mean-minded twit who was willing to turn Missouri's long-term unemployed out into the streets in order to make some inane point about government spending. But there it is: Randles has stated that if elected, "he would deny federal funds for education, the environment, health care, and, eventually, Medicaid."
Why, given the poor state of Missouri's finances, would anyone refuse to let the federal government return some of the money paid to it by Missouri taxpayers? How, given the over-the-barrell condition of the current state budget, can Randle prattle about preferring to let Missouri devise its own Medicaid alternative? He claims that if the state succumbs to federal demands, "Medicaid will occupy too much of the state budget in the near future." In other words, to hell with the people Medicaid serves - too many of them, so too damn bad for them.
Seems that Randles, like Mitt Romney, isn't worried about poor people. Romney claims that his lack of concern stems from his belief that they have an ample social safety-net, while, out of the other side of his mouth, he promises spending cuts that would savage the safety net. Mr. Randles, for his part, declares with a straight face that, in order to bring down health care costs, he would "change requirements for emergency rooms so that they are only required to treat uninsured patients for life-threatening injuries." Forget about maintaining the only avenue for health care open to those folks Republicans are hell-bent on keeping uninsured.
Randles states that the federal government may "send money, but they require us to spend more money to get it. So you have to say at some point, 'what is this deal worth'?" Based on this assertion, I would guess that Randles not only has problems with basic math, but also might not be absolutely open about his real priorities which are, clearly, to kill social spending that might threaten tax "relief" for rich businessmen.
Like Somoza, who sacrificed the welfare of Nicaraguan farmers in the service of a patriotic fantasy about the Nicaraguan soul, Randles is willing to not only sacrifice the welfare of Missourians, but their federal tax dollars in the service of a fantasy about preserving the state from the debilitating effects of that right-wing bogey, "big government." Like the Somozas, who were more than willing to forego the spiritual properties of Nicaraguan soil and prance around the country fully-shod, the consequences of Randles' high-minded effort to divorce Missouri from federal dollars is very unlikely to affect well-off Kansas City lawyers in the same way that it will affect the average Missourian.
As an afterthought, there's one more story about Somoza that might be apropos here. When asked why his government spent so little on education for the largely rural and illiterate Nicaraguans, he replied that he didn't want them educated, they were, afterall, only oxen. Draw your own conclusions.
I bet you all know what the Susan G. Komen for the Cure is - only one of the biggest breast cancer charities, the very avatar of "pink ribbon culture," not to mention a fund raising powerhouse that pulled in over $400 million in 2010. The organization has an active affiliate in St. Louis, which sponsors a yearly "race for the cure" along with other fundraising events.
Today the organization added another distinction to its roster. It betrayed its mission for political purposes. Specifically, Komen succumbed to political pressure and cut its ties to Planned Parenthood, effectively letting us know just where Komen's concern for women's welfare stops. Planned Parenthood will loose hundreds of thousands of dollars that was used primarily for breast cancer screenings for low-income women.
Komen claims that its bylaws prohibit partnerships with any organization being investigated by "local, state or federal authorities," and Planned Parenthood is currently being subjected to a politically motivated witch-hunt conducted by anti-choice zealot, Rep. Cliff Sterns (R-Florida). However, lest you think that poor little Komen had no choice, Think Progress' Marie Diamond points out that:
Komen's new Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Karen Handel, not only has a long anti-choice history, but pledged to eliminate grants for Planned Parenthood to provide breast and cervical cancer screenings when she ran for governor of Georgia in 2010.
Diamond notes further that:
Since anti-abortion activists and their Republican allies ratcheted up their crusade against Planned Parenthood last year, they've targeted any and all allies of the organization to try to make inroads, including the cancer charity. Planned Parenthood provides birth control, STD testing, and cancer screenings to low-income women.
Score one for the zealots.
So you wanna lob a few return volleys? Contact Koman (parent organization here; St. Louis affiliate here) and let them know you think their callous disregard for the welfare of low-income women stinks and that you will remember, when the donation requests come around, that Susan G. Koman for the Cure was willing to put politics above their mission to help women. If you feel the same way about this that I do - which is to say, furious and betrayed - you might also let them know that you are giving your donation to Planned Parenthood. I'm going to do so. If you're really steamed, you can donate to Planned Parenthood right here.
And lest you think you can hold your nose and continue to support Komen because it does really good stuff, just let me point out that there are lots of breast cancer charities that do good work. None of us need to be complicit with Komen.
SB 722 Bars entities that invest in the energy sector in Iran from contracting with the state and political subdivisions
Sponsor: Lamping
LR Number: 5353S.03I Fiscal Note not available
Committee:
Last Action: 1/31/2012 - S First Read--SB 722-Lamping Journal Page:
Title: Calendar Position: 97
Effective Date: August 28, 2012
Current Bill Summary
SB 722 - This act creates the "Iran Energy Divestment Act" which bars entities that invest in the energy sector in Iran from contracting with the state and political subdivisions. Entities wishing to make public contracts shall certify that they are not investors in the energy sector in Iran. Entities that falsely certify shall be subject to a penalty equal to the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the contract. In addition, contracts may be terminated by the awarding body and the entity shall be ineligible to bid on and enter into such contracts for three years.
It's all in how you define things. From the bill [pdf]:
...(2) "Energy sector", activities to develop petroleum or natural gas resources or nuclear power....
It appears that a few things were left out. Batteries maybe?
It would be interesting to see the effect of channeling public investment in the United States into wind power technology rather than petroleum and nuclear.
Once again the forces of evil are trying to get themselves reelected. This time those who say they are defenders of our Constitution are stabbing that document in the heart by trying to deny people their right to vote.
Like Jason Voorhees in some bad 'Friday the Thirteenth" movie, voter ID has been resurrected. No matter how often the courts and good and decent people shoot it with a silver bullet or put a wooden stake through its heart, it comes back to life.
A few years ago, Missouri passed a voter ID bill which, fortunately, was struck down by the Missouri's Supreme Court. Let me relate the problems I had with the law before it was overturned.
If you're an 87 year old woman who has lived in the St. Louis area for your whole life, had a driver's license for over fifty years, never been a felony, and wants to vote - Good luck. Especially, for anyone that does not have someone to escort them around. At least that's what I found out trying to help my mother in law to get a voter ID card.
I and the rest of the family had the emotional task of moving my in laws from a retirement home to full time care. Along with the physical move came the administrative nightmare of changing the address, phone number, cable, and insurance. Now, add to that list getting voter ID cards.
My father in law would be a lesser problem. I had his birth certificate; and being a man, he has never had a name change. Unfortunately, without her birth certificate, my mother in law would be a challenge.
I went to the Department of Revenue website to see what I needed to do. If you were renewing a valid driver's license, it was clear that there was an exception for needing a birth certificate for those over 75 year old. It was less clear for my mother in law, who hasn't had a valid license this millennium.
A call to the DOR, in Jeff City, quickly confirmed her need for a birth certificate. My request that Governor Blunt go over to Illinois and pick it up for me was met with a chuckle and an "I don't think so." That chuckle turned to laughter as she overheard me mutter, "Only two more years."
A call to the St. Clair County recorder verified that, yes, indeed my mother in law was born; and for only $11.95, I could confirm it. I thought I was home free, but then I remembered that the website had said something about other proof being need if there was a name change. I realized her birth certificate would have a name different than the one she has used for the last 67 years.
Another call to Jeff City established that indeed a marriage certificate was needed. A call to St. Louis County would substantiate that for another $6.00, I could affirm that she was not living in sin.
Now, I am not against jumping through some hoops if there really was a problem in voter fraud, but my feeling is this was just an example of what business school textbooks refer to as management by exception. An example of management by exception would be a teacher demanding a 1000 word essay on getting to school on time from the entire class just because one particular child is always late.
The nexus of voter ID law lies in the election of 2000. The St. Louis Board of Elections sent out a letter to all registered voters who had not voted within the last year warning those not replying would be removed from the voter list. This resulted in 33,000 names taken off the list.
Lacy Clay, running for his retiring father's Congressional seat, warned the Board that they had taken thousands of legitimate voters off the list; and if they didn't allow these people to vote, they would be sued. The Board did not relent and chaos rained on November 7th.
Because of that chaos, a federal judge ordered the polls open until 10 PM and to accept votes from anyone that showed up. The voter's registration would be verified later. The next day a firestorm of protest began with Senator Bond's hysterically, fist pounding, accusatory speech. The culmination of this outrage is the current voter ID law.
Was there massive voter fraud, or was this new law just management by exception punishing all voters because of the abuse of a few?
Secretary of State Matt Blunt investigated the 2000 election and found that out only 135 people that voted were not registered. In addition, 14 dead people voted, 86 voted twice and another 1400 votes were in one way or another questionable.
Those numbers might seem shocking, but put into context the questionable votes were only six hundredths of one percent of the total Missouri vote. That's like worrying about 60 cent of a 1000 dollar bill. All Missourians are now being punished for the misdeeds of an extremely small minority. This is classic management by exception.
In the rush to correct a flaw that was affecting only a few hundred votes, politicians are disenfranchising ten of thousands of elderly and disabled. Despite hundreds of thousands of Missourians needing non driving voter ID's, less than 500 were issued in the first month of the program.
In a Post Dispatch poll, only 18 percent of Missourians favored voter ID's. In the Legislatures' special session four years ago, legislators need to be repeal or revised the voter ID law so Missourians are ruled by what is best for the majority not by exceptions.
Yesterday, GOP Senator Roy Blunt's office sent out a press release touting his co-sponsorhip of legislation that would permit congress to authorize the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline:
This project would create 20,000 American jobs, generate $20.9 billion in new private sector spending, reinforce America's energy security, and benefit 1,400 American job creators - all without costing taxpayers a dime," Blunt concluded. "This project is good for America's job creation and energy independence, and that's why I'm proud to join my colleagues to co-sponsor this bill.
As is often the case with the esteemed Senator Blunt, the statement above is replete with misstatements and exaggerations:
-- The U.S. is now a net exporter of products made from crude oil; any oil piped to the Gulf along Keystone would be sold to the highest bidder, countries like Mexico and China. Consequently, completion of the pipeline has little to do with energy independence.
So why is Blunt overstating the benefits? There are two likely reasons:
1. Political gamesmanship: Congressional Republicans are, as TPM's Sahil Kapur argues, trying to exploit Democratic divisions and push Obama into a corner politically:
... It's a question of whether we'd rather have the pipeline or the issue," a GOP aide said in December. They chose the issue, bringing into question how much they care about the pipeline itself. Indeed, not forcing a decision would have neutralized the politics surrounding the matter.
But now Republicans have turned it into a weapon, and the politics are win-win for them. Their base overwhelmingly supports the pipeline and its capacity for some temporary job creation puts them on the right side of the most important issue on voters' minds in this election year.
For Democrats, the issue is a headache because their constituencies are split: environmentalists oppose it, while labor and big business have forged an unlikely alliance in its favor. The GOP push may not yield anything substantive, but it forces Obama to keep taking sides within his base, and answer to Republican attacks that he's blocking a job creation opportunity.
2. Money. When the senator in question is Roy Blunt, money always seems to enter the equation somewhere down the line. As Think Progress reports, senators who have supported Keystone XL have been well paid by PACs representing Big Oil. Of the 35 senators listed by Think Progress, Senator Blunt, as befits a new member of the senate leadership, has done very well for himself, having received $39,000, the third largest contribution.
Once again we are about to see corruption and political games trump reasoned and careful policy making. And, once again Roy Blunt's right in the middle of it all. If you're nostalgic for the Good Old Days in the Bush administration, it seems like your time has come again - if it ever went away, a proposition that may have been put to the lie by the election of Roy Blunt to the Senate.
We had a lively exchange about HJR with Representative Chris Kelly (D) two weeks ago. As WillyK, the author of the original post, wrote in a comment:
...I have tried to present arguments to show that this is a wrong-headed approach to the state's financial problems, though I would gladly entertain your counter arguments...
Which is to say, somewhat more diplomatic than the following:
....Since you like it, why not make the case here for why it doesn't suck, and why we should jump on the bandwagon, and how you certainly pulled the wool over the eyes of all those reactionary right wingnuts in the General Assembly?....
So, Representative Chris Kelly (D) sent us the following on HJR 43:
PUT SOME AWAY FOR A RAINY DAY
"Let Pharaoh take action to appoint overseers in charge of the land, and let him exact a fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt in the seven years of abundance. Then let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming, and store up the grain for food in the cities under Pharaoh's authority, and let them guard it. Let the food become as a reserve for the land for the seven years of famine which will occur in the land of Egypt, so that the land will not perish during the famine." Genesis 41, 34-36
Representative Eric Burlison (R-Greene) has introduced House Joint Resolution 43 to limit the amount of General Revenue Missouri State government may spend in any given year and to provide for reserve funds to be used in times of emergency and economic downturns. HJR43 is similar to previous resolutions sponsored by former House Budget Chairman Allen Icet. As a Democrat, I support this bill. This is my reasoning...
Oh, it's official, the paperwork is in. Cass County Prosecutor Teresa Hensley (D) is definitely challenging Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) in the 4th Congressional District.
The Statement of Committee Organization (FEC Form 1)
It's interesting to note that former state Senator Harold Caskey (D), in the 31st Senate District - including Cass County, is campaign treasurer. Sarah Sudduth (D) who, if memory serves correctly, ran against Vicky Hartzler in the 124th Legislative District in 1998, is the custodian of records. It might be safe to say that Representative Hartzler may have had a little past difficulty garnering confidence in her abilities from the other side of the aisle.
Located in the heart of Westport --
The Original Kansas City
Californo's: Elegant dining in a delightful atmosphere,
located in the heart of Westport
