• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: November 2007

UPDATED: Francis Slay is Giving Hillary Clinton a Headache

30 Friday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Back in the spring, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. At the time, Slay’s endorsement was seen as a huge coup for Clinton, who was already facing a strong challenge from Barack Obama. Slay, as the Democratic mayor of a majority-African American city, has an effective political operation and sailed to re-election just a couple of years ago. But the paint’s peeling right about now. Following the uproar over the demotion of Fire Chief Sherman George, Slay is now facing an organized recall effort, and his opponents will be protesting inside and outside Hillary Clinton’s rally on Sunday at the Pageant. (h/t the always excellent PubDef) I have no idea how successful the recall effort will be (actually, I’ll believe it when I see it), but given the fact that the recall organizers are largely local African American leaders, and the fact that Slay, like the rest of Clinton’s host committee, is white, I can’t imagine Clinton’s team is too happy with the baggage Slay is bringing with his endorsement.

I thought it was a strange move for Slay to endorse Clinton rather than Obama, though I don’t know if it would have been enough to smooth over the Sherman George situation. Still, Obama might be glad he didn’t have to deal with this headache on his recent visit.

Update below the flip.

Per PubDef, Slay will not be appearing at Clinton’s small dollar Pageant fundraiser, so the protest is off. The recall group has a block of tickets, though, so if Slay shows up, they will make some noise. I suppose it’s a wash for Clinton; I’m sure Slay will still be appearing at some of the private fundraisers, while Clinton collects money from the block of people who bought tickets on the off chance that Slay makes an appearance anyway.

Holiday Greetings to State Employees from Rush Lim… er …Matt Blunt

30 Friday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

This from “Let the families without insurance fend for themselves” baby Blunt…I will let him speak for himself…comments welcome!

“Governor Matt Blunt”  11/29/2007 2:15 PM >>>

From:  Governor Blunt

To:  All Missouri State Employees

Date:  November 29, 2007

Re:  “Merry Christmas!”

Dear State Employee:

Merry Christmas!

I hope that I am among the first to wish a Merry Christmas to you, your family, and friends!

As most of us know, some question the appropriateness of saying “Merry Christmas!” particularly by government employees.

By my directive, as a government employee, you need not worry about this strange effort to undermine the historical foundation of this wonderful time of the year into an arid “Winter Break”.  You need not check your religious views at the door, nor your affection for the season, nor the use of its ancient, time-honored greetings.  The directive I have given to all executive agencies provides that no state employee will be reprimanded or disciplined in any way for saying “Merry Christmas.”

Please enjoy the holiday season!

Feel free to spread your cheer by wishing your colleagues — and especially the Missourians we all serve — a Merry Christmas!

Sincerely,

Matt Blunt

Why Mitt Romney Should Not Be President

30 Friday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

I normally do not make it a habit of coming out against a candidate, I have from time to time brought to light a candidate’s inconsistencies or outright lies but rarely have I made the case against a candidate. This will only be the second such case, the first was Rudy Giuliani because he is running on a misleading and often times false set of circumstances concerning 9/11 and his role in the Bernie Kerik fiasco. In the case of Mitt Romney I am willing to once again demonstrate a basic character flaw which is so entrenched in my opinion it should disqualify him from being elected President.

The deadly character flaw that Mitt Romney suffers from is a lack of courage to lead. America is at a crossroad and the last thing we need is a President without courage and leadership, because the direction and many of the steps we will need to take are not going to be popular and will not be consensus builders. For most of Mr. Romney’s adult life he has avoided the courage of leadership, eventhough he has been in leadership positions. It is one thing to be in charge, it is far different thing to be a leader. Someone in charge merely puts into place the positions and ideas of others, rarely venturing out of the box to express or enact any real change. Our country is in desperate need for real change, not someone who has made a life following and maintaining the status quo.

Civil rights became an even more insistent issue, when boycotts and violent protests over the university’s virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games. The Mormon Church at the time excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as results of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. (During their training, a fellow missionary of Mr. Romney took notes that read: “All men were created equal – No,” followed by “Sons of Ham. “)

A handful of students and prominent Mormons – including the Arizona congressman Morris K. Udall and his brother Stewart, then secretary of the interior – called for an end to the doctrine. Some Mormons hoped the pressure would persuade the church to abandon its exclusion of blacks, just as it had stopped endorsing polygamy.

Mitt Romney had walked in civil rights marches with his father and said he shared his concern for racial equality. But neither publicly questioned the church’s teachings. NY Times

During the earth-shattering struggles of his time, Mr. Romney repeatedly chose to remain on the sidelines while others took the lead and now he wants us to believe that he is a leader. Where was your leadership Mr. Romney when the country was going through the previous struggles that defined a nation and a generation? An example would be the exclusion of blacks from his Church, Mr. Romney would have us believe that he was against it, yet nowhere publically did he speak out against it, even though being the son of one of the most prominent Mormons in the country he had a platform to do so. But Mr. Romney chose to play it safe and go with flow supposedly secretly wanting the Church to change its doctrine of exclusion.

In this article that I cited Mr. Romney states that how things are done in his church is by God’s intervention, well that’s all fine and good Mr. Romney but you might consider when your “Church” violates a commanding principal of God to maybe join another church? If my church begins to teach the doctrine that women are not spiritually fit to become members it is the time that I as a member must make a decision, to follow God or to follow my church. In this case I am not given the choice of doing nothing, because doing nothing is a choice.

Most of the missionaries, though, were also relieved that their service meant a draft deferment. “I am sorry, but no one was excited to go and get killed in Vietnam,” Mr. Hansen said, acknowledging, “In hindsight, it is easy to be for the war when you don’t have to worry about going to Vietnam.”

Mr. Romney, though, said that he sometimes had wished he were in Vietnam instead of France. “There were surely times on my mission when I was having a particularly difficult time accomplishing very little when I would have longed for the chance to be serving in the military,” he said in an interview, “but that was not to be.”

While many Mormons – and eventually, some of his fellow missionaries – enlisted, Mr. Romney got a student deferment after returning from France. When the draft lottery was introduced in December 1969, he drew a high enough number – 300 – that he would never be called up. NY Times

The other issue where Mr. Romney again showed a lack of courage was the question of the war in Vietnam. I’m sorry but I just have to ask; besides John McCain was there any Republican politician that went to defend the country they now hope to lead? So the best the Republicans can offer the country is another long list of chickenhawks, defenders of the war only because they or their ilk will never have to fight in it. What a sad state of affairs for our country. Mr. Romney not only chose to take a deferment, he again uses the disingenuous response of I really wanted to go, but. Mr. Romney if you really wanted to go there would have been nothing to stop you. Take for instances the former professional football player Pat Tillman, he really wanted to go and he went. He left all the comforts and privilege and chose to stand up for what he believed in. It eventually cost him his life, so don’t disgrace the memories of all those who did choose to go and fight with that weak kneed answer.

Mr. Romney has never shown the strength and courage of his convictions, even now on the campaign trail he has stood for something different from when he was a governor. Can our country afford another President who says one thing and does another; I for one do not think so. Courage is not something you get from your relatives, either you have it or you don’t and Mr. Romney does not seem to have it. If he does he has not shown it, which in my opinion makes him not qualified to be President.

False history gets made all day, any day,

the truth of the new is never on the news – Adrienne Rich

The Disputed Truth

Where’s the Giuliani Scandal, Post-Dispatch?-Updated

30 Friday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

As DemFromCT notes on Daily Kos, even though Rudy’s personal life is not our business, it is our business if he is using taxpayer money to finance his trysts.  Sadly, though, most major media outlets have not yet given this scoop much coverage, and the Post-Dispatch is no exception.  What really irks me, though, is that the P-D has a blog called Presidential Buzz which has not said a word about the scandal, and has only posted 2 items in the past week!  Abuse of taxpayer money by a leading presidential candidate is a major story, and it doesn’t take much to write up a paragraph with a couple links in it (trust me).  Why even have a “Presidential Buzz” blog if you’re going to leave out major stories like this???

Update:  I followed Clark’s advice and emailed the Post-Dispatch, and Matt Fernandes (the person behind “Presidential Buzz”) told me that he has been sick and will put the item in the Sunday Presidential Buzz in News Watch, and may update the blog today.  So props to Mr. Fernandes (and to Clark).

Torture is never OK

30 Friday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

The Kansas City Star finally published my letter to the editor on torture – tiny URL: first part and tiny URL: second part.  I first wrote about my submission to the paper in a post on Show Me Progress titled: “Limited use of torture” in the Kansas City Star.

The online comments at the Star’s “Unfettered Letters” forum associated with my letter are a sad commentary on the state of our nation. tiny URL

The letter:

Torture is never OK

I’m not surprised to read a letter to the editor advocating crimes against humanity (11/21, “Limited use of torture“), given the tortured parsing of the present U.S. attorney general at his confirmation hearing. I shouldn’t be surprised since it’s apparent that, as a nation, we appear to base our morality, ethics and legal knowledge on the superficial content of television melodramas.

The prohibition of torture is a non-derogable human right – an absolute under federal law, international treaty obligations and the peremptory norms of international law. That is, no executive order, no law and no treaty (even if “the life of the nation is threatened”) can remove that prohibition under any circumstances. To do so is a crime against humanity.

There are several other non-derogable human rights. The analogy of police deadly force presented by the letter writer is a false one. If he wanted to provide a proper analogy in his justification of torture, he should have written about “limited use of murder (extra judicial death)” or “limited use of slavery.” Now, that would convince everyone that it’s all OK, don’t you think?

Michael Bersin

Warrensburg, Mo.

Yep, those comments are the real pieces of work.

The second comment:

The naivete of Professor Bersin knows no bounds. He concludes that wars are fought according to rules written by the Marquis of Queensberry.

Good intel often determines the course of the battle, and the war…

I don’t recall signing my letter “professor”. Somebody is watching me!

I don’t recall my letter mentioning anything about war. I don’t recall the letter advocating torture mentioning anything about war. Did Congress do something and not tell the rest of us?

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have power to…To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water…

Another comment:

…How far do you go with Michael? Do you agree with the prohibition “even if “the life of the nation is threatened”? If Michael is indeed a Professor he may be inflicting a lifelong handicap on his students…

I guess possessing critical thinking is considered a handicap by some people. Or maybe ignorance is a virtue.

United States Constitution, Article VI

…all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, Section 2340. (1) ”torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) ”severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from – (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and (3) ”United States” includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture)

Article 3 . 1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4. 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.  2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 16. 1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion.

Treaties in Force. November 20, 1994.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Article 4. 1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision. 3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Treaties in Force. September 8, 1992.

As further evidence that newspaper blogs really suck one of the commenters blathers on about bringing “the real world of ‘kill or be killed'” to the conversation whilst “sipping a good scotch and smoking good cigars”. Go read it, it’s got to be straight from an unsolicited 24 script written and submitted by an anxious 14 year old. So much for the rule of law and the Constitution.

Yup, as a people, we really do get or morality, ethics, and legal knowledge from television melodramas. Well, some people get it:

The ones who argue that “torture has existed in every war” (therefore it’s okay now; we just need to look the other way) seem to be proving Mr. Bersin’s point…

From the Dept. of Unbelievable – Walmart Seizes An Employee’s Medical Settlement, and It’s Legal

30 Friday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Imagine this. Through no fault of your own, an accident leaves you brain damaged, unable to work and care for your children. Your employer’s health plan picks up the initial costs while you fight for your life in the hospital, and later, in court with an insurance company. Seemingly, your luck changes, and you win a settlement to be placed in a trust fund for future health care expenses.

And then years later, your employer demands the entire settlement, plus interest.

This exact scenario happened to a Jackson, MO woman. Her employer was everyone’s favorite multibillion-dollar corporation, Wal-Mart. That’s right, the world’s largest retailer sued a brain-damaged woman for her medical expenses right here in Missouri. And worst of all, Wal-Mart won, because it’s completely legal.

Join me below the flip for more.

Deborah Shank was a 52 year old woman working at Wal-Mart as a stocker. In the spring of 2000, she was hit by a semi-trailer while checking out some local yard sales. She drifted in and out of a coma for weeks, while Wal-Mart’s health plan (on which Mrs. Shank paid her premiums, mind you) picked up the tab. After two years, much of it rotating in and out of the hospital for treatments and rehab, she sued the trucking company and received a settlement. Three years later, Wal-Mart sued her for $470,000, $52,500 more than what Mrs. Shank received in a trust fund for her care. Under a clause in her health plan, Wal-Mart is entitled to money received in a settlement, plus interest. Not just a part of it, all of it, regardless of how destitute it might leave her family.

Now Mrs. Shank relies on Medicare and Medicaid to pay for her care in a nursing home. Her husband divorced her, because as a single woman she might be eligible for a little more money. What’s worse, one of her sons was killed in Iraq last year. He was 18. A small consolation might be that due to memory loss caused by the accident, Mrs. Shank doesn’t always remember that he’s dead.

I know you’re enraged right now (if you have a beating heart,) but there’s two things you can actually do to help right this minute. The first is easy: Donate via WalMart Watch to help pay Deborah Shank’s medical bills. Any amount you can give will help, even if it’s just $20.

The second way you can help is even easier. At the bottom of this story is a link to e-mail this story to as many of your friends as you can rile up about this. Wal-Mart isn’t going to do the right thing in this case, or in future cases, unless they’re shamed into it.

Check back later for BlueGirl’s report on how this kind of skulduggery is actually legal.

St. Charles County: The Place to Pick Up Seats in the House

30 Friday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

At one time, St. Charles County, across the Missouri river from St. Louis County, was dependable Democratic territory, but for too many years now, Democratic activists knocking doors there have been pitied for having to work such unfriendly territory.  In fact, Democrats in Lincoln County, just to the west, having seen Republicans making some inroads in their own county, have wailed that they don’t want to turn into another St. Charles.

However, Kristy Manning, a young activist who lives in St. Charles, has a lot of hope for that area. She sees it trending Democratic and sees several areas on the brink of turning blue again.

As recently as 2002, four St. Charles Republican reps–Sherman Parker, Carl Bearden, Cynthia Davis, and Tom Dempsey–went unopposed.  By contrast, in 2006, not only did Democrats file in almost every race, but their numbers rose.  Where before Ds had typically pulled votes in the high thirties, last year those numbers rose well into the forties.

Look, for example, at how well Ed Applebaum did in the special election against Tom Dempsey last September for a state senate seat.  Dempsey has been known forever in St. Charles County. Applebaum, who got into the race with only six weeks left and who had scant funds compared to his rival, still managed to eke out 44 percent of the vote.  Dempsey had more than $417,000 to spend, which figures out to more than $62 a vote.  Applebaum spent only $1.74 per vote and relied instead on Democratic ideas and a good ground game.  Pro-Vote says that their volunteers knocked on more than 13,000 doors in those six weeks.  

Just think what Democrats could have achieved if they’d had more time and hadn’t been outspent 40-1.  A 10-1 ratio would have closed that 44-56 gap considerably.

Manning points out that the districts where Dems stand the best chance of taking House seats in St. Charles next year are 15 (Sally Faith), 16 (Carl Bearden’s seat until he resigned–special election in February), and 17 (Vicki Schneider).  

The seat in the 15th is always close and generally swings on 200 votes or so, depending on how hard the Democrat is willing to work.  In 2006, the Dem, Tom Green, got 48 percent of the vote. No D has announced in that race yet, though the local Democratic committee has had conversations with someone they like for the spot.

Bearden’s open seat, the 16th, looks like a tossup between the Democrat, Tom Fann, and a Republican named Mark Parkinson.

In the 17th in 2006, Kenny Biermann, running on not much money, got 49 percent of the vote against incumbent Republican Vicky Schneider.  Biermann realizes he could have worked even harder than he did–always a valuable realization for a candidate–so Schneider had better pull out all the stops next year if she expects to keep the seat.  And she knows it.  She will sometimes vote the right way on education and labor issues–a tacit recognition that her seat isn’t safe.

More proof of how the scene has changed in St. Charles is that in the 2004 gubernatorial race, there was a 21,000 vote difference between Claire McCaskill and Matt Blunt.  Last year, though, there was only a 12,000 vote gap between McCaskill and Talent.  That 9,000 vote gain is the sort of improvement that can go a long way toward swinging statewide elections.  Consider, for example, that Holden won the governor’s seat in 2000 by only 20,000 votes.

It’s not easy to pinpoint why Dems are making such gains in St. Charles.  Guns are off the table; that helps.  And even the abortion issue is nowhere near as hot as it used to be.  Manning says that in 2002, she was constantly asked, as she knocked on doors, whether the Dem was pro-life. In the Applebaum/Dempsey race last September, she says she wasn’t asked that question “once, not once.”  Polls bear out her sense of the change, because they indicate that few people base their choice of a candidate on that issue anymore.  Sixty percent of voters say they wouldn’t make that the deciding factor.

The biggest reason for the gains must surely be that people are seeing how Republicans don’t deliver on the kitchen table issues of jobs, education, and, above all, health care.  

But whatever the reasons, the bottom line is that St. Charles County is one of the best places in the state to pick up House seats next November.  The new Democratic State Chairman, John Temporiti, is debating where to place strategic Democratic operatives to influence the next election.  He couldn’t do better than St. Charles.

Furthermore, the gains there bode well for influencing the race for Todd Akin’s seat.  The West County Dems have been working hard to ID Democratic voters in West St. Louis County, part of the second congressional district.  That area is too strongly Republican to switch to the D column, but a big shift in D numbers in St.Charles could help push the Dem contender past Akin in that congressional district.

So, with Lincoln County Democrats pushing back, determined not to “become another St. Charles County” and with St. Charles itself trending back in the right direction, the electoral outlook in this part of the state is looking bright.

 

George Will to Missouri: “May God bless and keep Matt Blunt…far away from you”

30 Friday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Our inside the Washington, D.C. beltway chattering classes really have it made. Get a really large pay check (and invitations to those parties where they serve cocktail weenies) whilst you bloviate by pulling stuff out your….er, of thin air.

Ah, the political prognosticator of prognosticators, George Will, one of Newsweek’s resident gasbags, weighs in on the possibilities for republicans:

….Romney might be the most unconstrained of the four in selecting a running mate. A former business executive, he is partial to people who have run large entities, which would point him toward other governors. That would reinforce his theme that Washington cannot be improved by people acculturated to its milieu. Because the winner of the presidency usually wins a majority of the states in the Mississippi Valley, Romney might select Matt Blunt, 37, of Missouri, the bellwether state: It is the only state that has voted with every presidential winner since 1956….

Uh, Missouri didn’t pick the winner in 2000, buddy.

And that other weekly newsmagazine was already having a great week. Heh.  

“…Romney might select Matt Blunt, 37, of Missouri…” We can only hope.

“…he is partial to people who have run large entities…” The phrase – “…into the ground…” – was obviously left on the cutting room floor by the editors.

George Will hasn’t been paying attention to Missouri lately, has he?

“baby” Blunt – November approval ratings – SurveyUSA

George, we could go on…well, we did.

Mistakes Were Made: Taking Responsibility for Eckersley’s Firing

The Kansas City Star’s resident political stenographer finally notices something’s afoot

Scott Eckersley and Matt “baby” Blunt: memo, memo, who’s got the memo?

How did George Will ever manage to keep this Newsweek gig?

Norman Solomon at FAIR:

…The New Republic declared Will to be “the one person who has been most embarrassed by Debategate” and faulted him for two aspects of his behavior: “Appearing on ABC’s ‘Nightline’ the night of the debate, Mr. Will was one of the commentators who awarded the ‘victory’ to Mr. Reagan; he posed as a referee without ever making it clear that he had been one of the seconds.” In addition, the columnist “knew about the purloined briefing books” but kept the knowledge to himself. “Mr. Will said nothing about this on ‘Nightline’; nor did he write about it.”

…The controversy blew over. And in retrospect, Will’s prominence in Debategate probably helped rather than hurt his career. The incident certified that he was a power player at the highest reaches of presidential politics.

Nearly three years after his stealth role in the Carter-Reagan debates came to light, a front-page Los Angeles Times profile called Will “the pre-eminent American political commentator.” When the story briefly touched on Debategate and quoted Will, the tone was far from apologetic: “I simply reject the idea that I misled anyone. It wasn’t a state secret who I was for.”

But George Will knew that those Carter briefing papers were stolen. He made use of them. And he kept mum for as long as he could…

And there were these great moments of pearl clutching and hand over mouth gasping:

The Hypocrisy of George Will

blow Back

Moral relativism and public scold. I guess those qualify one for a good paying gig, though I don’t think it makes for a very valuable political endorsement.

testing saved draft

29 Thursday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing testing  

Scott Eckersley and Matt “baby” Blunt: Nixon appointed investigator resigns

29 Thursday Nov 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Blunt, deleted e-mail, Eckersley, firing, Knust, resignation, Sunshine law

The case of the missing e-mails continues.

There was this little item in today’s Kansas City Star:

Across Missouri: Judge in Sunshine Law case resigns

Daniel Max Knust resigned Wednesday, two weeks after the former Webster County judge was appointed to help determine whether Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration violated the state Sunshine law.

In a letter to Attorney General Jay Nixon, Knust attributed his resignation to criticism leveled by Gov Matt Blunt’s office that questioned whether Knust, a Republican, was part of a Democratic witch hunt…

tiny URL

Jo Mannies in today’s St Louis Post-Dispatch:

New lead lawyer in email probe says he won’t rush to judgment

…Knust wrote in his resignation letter to Attorney General Jay Nixon, “I did not anticipate that my independence would be doubted by the Governor’s staff. My parents were devout Republicans, and I have held office for 28 years as a Republican…”

[The title of the article refers to the appointment of Chet Pleban to replace Knust]

tiny URL

The Missouri republican party website [Eeeew!] also aimed its wrath at Knust. [I’m not providing a link, just be thankful that I went there to read it so you don’t have to. Eeeew! Can’t get the bad taste out of my mouth. Uck.]  

The moral of the story: If you do anything that  makes Governor Matt “baby” Blunt look less than saintly he will release the hounds.

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 740,837 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...