Mitt Romney, the son of Michigan governor George W. Romney, is beloved among Republican elites here in Missouri. Matt Blunt and Jim Talent both endorsed him fairly early. Jack Jackson, Jason Crowell, Gary Nodler, Bryan Pratt, Shannon Cooper, David Day, Doug Funderbunk, Dwight Scharnhorst, Neal St. Onge, and Bryan Stevenson have all endorsed him, too. And in a recent e-mail, Rod Jetton (h/t Arch City Chronicle) details how he was won over at a meeting with Mitt, just like “when you go to those time-share presentations.” (That’s a direct quote – I kid you not.) Ed Martin was won over with the answer to the first question of the meeting – his own – which was about the Iraq war abortion universal health care global warming Romney’s Mormon faith, of course.

Romney has a record of moderate governance, working to balance budgets, preserve a woman’s right to choose, extend health care to every citizen. Of course, that gives him no chance in the Republican presidential primary, so now he’s running as the most conservative candidate in the race. Double Guantanamo! Slash taxes! No universal health care! Stay the course in Iraq!

In honor of his whiplash-inducing position changes, the Democratic National Committee is auctioning off a ‘Mitt Romney Flip Flop Kit” on eBay. Details below the flip.

The Democratic National Committee is auctioning off a special edition Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Kit.

Having apparently run out of policy positions to auction off this campaign season, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is now calling on his supporters to join him in selling off parts of their pasts too.  Sure, smooth talking Mitt Romney is reportedly planning to spend as much as $60 million of his own money to win the GOP nomination.  But his campaign is still looking to reverse its declining fundraising numbers by convincing supporters to auction off old belongings and give the proceeds to the campaign. 

Since Romney has tried to smooth talk his way to the GOP nomination by shedding his previous positions on just about every issue in this campaign, his friends at the Democratic National Committee decided to join the fun by auctioning off Romney’s past.  This one of a kind, special edition Mitt Romney Flip Flop Kit includes:

Mitt Romney’s Flip Flops on issues ranging from abortion, immigration, tax cuts, the Reagan administration, gay rights, campaign finance reform, climate change, conservatism, gambling, gun control, etc.;
A limited edition DVD of some of Romney’s more infamous flip-flops;
Flip-Flop flash cards in the shape of flip-flops so you can study on all of Mitt Romney’s various positions, courtesy of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
A new pair of flip-flops;
A collectors edition foam flip-flop distributed at campaign events by a rival candidate;
A replica of the snowman that Mitt Romney is afraid to take questions from at the YouTube debate; and
A collection of Democratic signs, posters, pins and collectibles.
In order to avoid profiting from Romney’s flip-flopping, the DNC will donate an amount equal to the winning bid to a local pet shelter in honor of embattled Romney family dog Seamus. [http://www.democrats…] 

Special note-our lawyers are making us say this-the winning bid is a contribution to the Democratic National Committee and is subject to the restrictions and limitations of federal campaign finance laws.  The DNC will make a contribution equal to the amount of the winning bid to a local animal shelter.  Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. 

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee.  This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

This has got to be the longest continuous stretch of letters to the editor on any subject that I’ve seen in the seventeen years I’ve lived in the community.

It’s like watching a prize fight where the untalented challenger continues to doggedly walk into the punches of the seasoned champion. You’d expect the former would figure out that it just might be time to take a dive. But, no.

The church strikes back.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], here [part 5], and here [part 6].

Four more letters to the editor were printed in today’s edition of the paper. Three of the letters in defense of the church and pastor. One letter was in support of the paper.

Excerpts from the November 8th edition follow. The headers for each letter were provided by the paper. The paper’s circulation figures must be going through the roof.

The cult of victimization doesn’t wear well on anybody, least of all bullies and self-righteous fools. “Who, me?” they ask.

Church Does Help Needy

“…As I have read the various letters concerning the same sex union announcements in the paper, one of my concerns has been that some would seek to attack and vilify those with differing viewpoints…”

Like the newspaper? Or the two individuals in the announcement? What did the latter do to anyone?

I wonder if this letter is referring to language like “…This decision indicates a lack of respect for family values and a lack of concern for the unnatural lifestyle…” or maybe “…Your bold decision to promote this lifestyle is a flagrant attack on the traditional family God has instituted for us…” The language in these certainly appear to be calls to confrontation, eh?

Yeah, the cult of the put upon bully as victim doesn’t wear well at all.

In Support of Pastor

Dear Warrensburg and Columbia and New England and Florida, etc…..

I think “etc.” stands for San Francisco. You know, code for “those people”.

Church Does Offer Help

“The topic of homosexuality is a relational issue that all too quickly becomes a charged political issue. The recent same sex engagement announcement photo has set this in motion in our town. My church all of a sudden is labeled bigoted, hateful etc. because individuals voiced disapproval of the engagement announcement…

…I have some background in helping individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction…”

Tell me again who set what “in motion….” “…because individuals voiced disapproval…” Now, that’s an understatement if I’ve ever read one.

I do believe this individual letter writer offered “the cure.”

Stupidity may be inherited, but ignorance is a personal choice.

And, a final letter from the reality based community:

Issue Is An Opportunity

“…Then I got it!

This is about some people’s inability to accept others different from themselves. It is about ignorance, intolerance and hatred. (That’s the obvious part.) More important it is about the urgent need for sensible, tolerant, loving people around the world to stand together and speak out for a different way of thinking. It is about promoting peace and making a better world for all….”

Amen.

I heard a rumor that the paper is printing every letter it gets on the subject.

Team Blunt has stepped in it.  “It” is a combination of feces and bubblegum that stinks and sticks.  Not all that many Missourians are paying attention to the scandal yet, but they will because, not only is it not going away, it’s gaining momentum.  The furor bids fair to last into the campaign season and even to wind up in court.

Someone (Jay Nixon, eventually?) might sue the governor’s office for deleting e-mails in contravention of the state’s Sunshine Law and for refusing to reveal all the documents pertaining to this case.  But that scenario is still distant.  For now, Nixon is staying out of it and watching Bluntco hoist itself on its own petard. 

Another thread of the scandal that could end up in court is the brouhaha over whether the state broke into Scott Eckersley’s private e-mail account.  When Bluntco got wind that Eckersley had contacted the press, the office decided to preemptively smear him in the media.  The state mailed boxes of his records, unsolicited, to the Post-Dispatch and to Tony Messenger at the Springfield News-Leader.  Eckersley has proof that some of the e-mails in those boxes had to have been obtained from his private e-mail account.  Hacking into a private account is illegal.

Eckersley has a document from his internet provider AppRiver, stating that on September 28th he requested his e-mails not be forwarded to his government account and that they stopped forwarding any e-mail.  Yet some of the material that Blunt’s office sent to the Post and to Messenger was written after September 28th.  Not only has someone in the governor’s office, then, gained unauthorized illegal access to Eckersley’s private account, that someone was stupid enough to send proof of the crime to the media.

Since the purpose of sending that material was to smear Eckersley as a sexual pervert and as someone who cheated taxpayers by doing work for his private firm on government time, he’s not likely to feel charitable toward his former bosses, especially since they still maintain he lied about warning them that deleting e-mails was illegal.  At the very least, Eckersley is not going to shut up.

What he wants and what reporters want is for Matt Blunt to open all records dealing with this issue.  Blunt’s reasons for refusing to do so must be powerful if they can induce him to continue inviting such unwanted scrutiny.  Howard Beale, at Fired Up!, has a fine piece speculating on the reasons, starting with this quotation from one of Ronald Reagan’s wordsmiths: “Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.”

The first and most interesting conjecture has to do with the man who actually fired Eckersley, chief of staff Ed Martin.  Perhaps:

*Crazy Eddie Martin has chosen this battle as his own personal Waterloo.  Martin, who’s been both completely absent from the scene and who some have speculated is the target of coup attempts, remains inexplicably as the sole beneficiary of the complete protection of the Governor’s office.  It is possible that Blunt has committed himself to the increasingly suicidal decision to hide the truth because Martin has made clear that the totality of his actions in connection with Eckersley must never become known.  Already embarassed, Martin may well have made it clear to Team Blunt that he’s to be protected from further humiliation or else he shares the wealth and talks about what goes on inside the mansion.

Beale also thinks the stonewalling might be explained by Blunt himself having taken some part in this directly and not wanting it revealed.  Or his resistance might be simply hubris–feeling that he is above the law and thus not required to explain himself to anyone. 

The final possibility Beale offers is that:

*Blunt believes that doing the right thing in this instance will lead down a slippery slope to his having to comply with the law all the time.  It’s possible that Blunt believes that if he caves on this matter and shares the truth that he will be expected to do so with respect to other controversial situations.  He knows that –even if he slides on the Eckersley scandal– if the press gets the idea that it can access documents and communications about fee office distribution, his brother’s lobbying his office, the Nathan Cooper/James Harris scandal or any number of other sensitive items that he is irretrievably sunk.  So he’s sticking by his guns, telling the media they’ll get nothing and like it.

It looks as if Matt Blunt is in for a long, hard bout of public embarrassment.  Whether his malfeasance will sink into the public consciousness remains to be seen.  One would think it would, but then again, his role model, George W. Bush, got away with far more for far longer, even managing to squeak by in the 2004 election.  Let us hope that Blunt is not so fortunate in ’08.

( – promoted by Clark)

If approved by the State Legislature, over the next three years, the Axman will come for 484 case managers from the Missouri Department of Mental Health.  So states the St. Louis Post Dispatch.  These case managers work with the developmentally disabled populations and serve clients with disabilities such as mental retardation, cerebral palsy, head injury, autism, epilepsy and learning disabilities of some types. 

Never an easy job, ( workers currently handle caseloads of some seventy individuals) the state now figures it is too expensive to afford health and retirement plans for these state employees.  According to Keith Schaeffer, Director of the Department of Mental Health, “outside groups can hire workers more economically than the state.”  Of course, Mr. Schaeffer does not elaborate on  the professional backgrounds and/or licensures, if any, that these “outside groups” will need to possess.

Needless to say, parents and family of the disabled clientele are disturbed at this callous “outsourcing” of their loved ones care to entities as yet unidentified. County mental health boards that are currently targeted for taking over were initially set up to provide or award contracts to providers of services such as group homes, transportation, workshops and various therapies. These boards are not enthusiastic about the proposed arrangement citing such reasons as fear that approved state funds may not cover sufficient services.  They also cite the fact that boards were really set up to oversee services rather than provide them. 

It is no wonder that parents and families are upset.  They know the difficulties of caring for individuals with disabilities.  They know how difficult it is to find the services their children/loved ones need. They know how often  the disabled get lost in the system.  They know that the bumping of care from subcontractor to subcontractor is a recipe for abuse and lack of accountability. They know that untrained or poorly trained workers are more frequently unable to cope with the stress of providing care for difficult clients.  We read enough about abuse of the developmentally disabled and other vulnerable members of society. 

Although unstated in the SLPD article, services provided by these case managers have traditionally been covered by Medicaid.  The overall trimming of funding for public health programs invariably effects vulnerable populations in negative ways.  The subcontracting of care for the developmentally disabled from individual case management to bulk services is a prime example of abrogation of principle and duty for the sake of cutting corners in health care. 

Kudos to State Rep, Margaret Donnelly (D) Richmond Heights who says that:

…the state, not outside groups, has the duty of looking after the care of our developmentally disabled.  The real issue is that those clients are our responsibility.

Dear Eric,

My father, a World War II veteran, instilled in me an appreciation of our armed forces, and the young men and women who have done so much to protect the freedoms we cherish.  He taught me to appreciate the gravity of warfare, and that war should be pursued only when there are simply no alternatives available.

The Iraq conflict represents the unfortunate result when these principles are ignored, and I will continue to do everything in my power to force the President to change course.  But Congress must be equally vigilant to ensure that new flashpoints in the Middle East do not follow the same failed course as our Iraq policy.

In particular, I have been concerned with the Bush Administration’s provocative rhetoric on Iran, and I am using my seat in the United States Senate to remind the President that military action requires the express consent of Congress.  I have resisted efforts to provide what I would call “backdoor” approval for military action in that country.  Last month, the Senate considered an amendment that would categorize Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “foreign terrorist organization”.  To me, adoption of this amendment could essentially provide approval of military action against Iran, especially by this Administration.  I am also concerned that this amendment was debated without the benefit of a single hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member.

I voted against the amendment, and this month joined Senator Jim Webb and other Senate Democrats in a letter to President Bush stating, “We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action
against Iran.” 

If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that we must be aggressive and vigilant in stopping President Bush and Vice President Cheney from dragging us into new military quagmires.  I will continue to do everything in my power to prevent this from happening.

Sincerely,

Senator Claire McCaskill

Take notice, fellow denizens of the blogosphere. She’s not equivocating or allowing Bush to frame the debate. Thanks, Claire.

Now if we can only get her to do the same on Mukasey, the FISA bill, etc…

UPDATE: Somehow I missed this: McCaskill will vote against Mukasey.

It just keeps getting better.

I have previously written about the commitment announcement of two males and the reactions in letters to the editor in the paper here [original diary], here [part 2], here [part 3], here [part 4], and here [part 5].

The letters policy of the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal, as published periodically in a prominent box on its opinion pages, states in part:

…Letters which appear to be a personal vendetta against an individual or a business cannot be published. Nor can those that are vindictive, sarcastic, derisive or libelous…

That doesn’t leave much, does it? Then again, a newspaper can choose what they want to print, policy or no policy.

Four more letters to the editor in support of the publication of the announcement were printed in today’s edition.

Excerpts from the November 7th edition follow. The headers for each letter were provided by the paper.

The first letter:

Stand On Side Of Equality

“…The announcement made in your paper represents love, acceptance, compassion and equality. Anyone who stands against those virtues most surely represents hate. If the chance came for someone to gain understanding so that that they could then make peace with others, why wouldn’t they take that chance…?”

A letter from San Francisco, California:

In Defense Of Diversity

“…It often takes courage to stand up to discrimination, prejudice, and animosity – like which was recently expressed by some readers…

…I am ashamed, troubled, and saddened to read some of the letters you’ve received over this, and as offensive as they are, I believe they also serve a purpose…”

A letter from Columbus, Indiana:

In Line With Values

“…While I don’t feel that the main role of a newspaper is to promote values, I do find that recognizing the lifetime commitment of two people is in line with the traditional family values I learned every Sunday in church in Warrensburg…”

And finally, a letter from a Warrensburg resident:

Tired Of Narrow Minds

“…I am sick and tired of people writing in and saying the community this and the community that…I go to church every Sunday and have since I was very young and the God I was raised to know doesn’t teach us hate and prejudice, so it is hard for me to read articles from so called religious people expressing their hatred and prejudice…Threatening the newspaper, saying you will pull your subscription isn’t gonna get you nowhere, it just shows how immature and ignorant you are…”

It’s been a while since a letter to the editor criticizing the paper for the announcement has appeared. You know, the supportive counteraction of the rest of our community just might have something to do with that.

What an odd feeling to find myself siding with G.W. against Democrats. 

Bush has vetoed only his fifth bill since he took office in 2000, and finally Congress looks set to override him.  The House voted for override on Tuesday 361-54.  It would be reassuring that the Democrats and Republicans have finally found common ground on which to oppose the president if they were united for something like stem cell research, slowing global warming, or getting us out of Iraq. 

Instead, they’re going to override a veto of a $23 billion authorization for future water projects for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Although the bill includes some worthwhile projects, such as the $1.9 billion to restore coastal ecosystems, most of the 23 big ones are only a way to buy votes back home, otherwise known as pork.

The Tuesday Post-Dispatch has a top notch editorial about it. 

Among the projects in the bill is the reconstruction and expansion of locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. There is also $135 million to restore levees on the East St. Louis riverfront and $11.2 million to repair Wood River levees.

Should those projects eventually be funded, they would create a slew of well-paying construction jobs and eliminate some barge congestion. They also would increase flood protection for Metro East residents. That would be good for our region.

But let’s be honest: If the lock and dam expansion were proposed elsewhere, we’d be denouncing it as pork – and with good reason.

The corps tried for years to find economic justification for rebuilding the Mississippi and Illinois river locks. Some early studies concluded the investment required would return about 5 cents on the dollar in public benefits. Later studies were premised on the idea that barge traffic, which has declined for decades, suddenly would boom. That’s unlikely.

Rather than waste almost $2 billion on new locks that always end up killing wildlife, including endangered species, it would make more sense to skip the pork, skip the new locks, and tell some of those corporations shipping their goods by barge to consider railroads instead.

If you click on the Freight Rail Works ad at the left, you’ll find plenty of surprising information, but the most illuminating is that railroads can move 423 tons of freight for one gallon of fuel.  (Considering that statistic, we need to be getting a lot of trucks off the road too, thus saving the state of Missouri road repair money and unnecessary traffic fatalities.)

Pork barrel projects rose exponentially when Republicans controlled Congress, something like ten times more of it.  So it makes sense that pork would be the one issue where Republicans would hold hands with Democrats.  And it’s possible that legislators aren’t acting cynically, but believe spending all these billions is necessary. 

But the national treasury isn’t a well that Congress can dip into for billions for every unresearched whim.  This well could run dry, and I’m disappointed in our legislators for spilling several buckets this week.