Less than two weeks before Matt Blunt dropped his “I’m not seeking reelection” bombshell, he gathered his cronies at the posh Big Cedar Lodge south of Branson to plan the campaign strategy for his upcoming reelection battle.  

Present at the meeting were top-tier staffers from his administration, media specialists, fundraisers, pollsters, communications specialists and ground-game organizers.  There was no doubt in anyones mind:  the meeting was the kickoff to his reelection campaign.  Those present reported that the Governor was engaged, inquisitive and involved in every aspect of the planning.  Prior to the meeting, Blunt had prerecorded video footage for his initial volley of campaign commercials that were to be rolled out before spring, with the goal of beating Nixon off the starting blocks with a couple of weeks of uncontested air time in which he could tout his ostensible “accomplishments” with no counter message.      

The brainstorming session in the Ozarks turned over every rock they could find. The participants pored over internal polling data; they discussed   initiative petitions currently making the rounds, keenly remembering the effects of 2006’s Amendment 2 (the stem cell initiative) and the influence of that initiative on other races.  

During the meetings his message was honed:  He would accentuate that he had turned around a $1 Billion inherited state debt to show three years of surplusses, that spending on education had been boosted, and that 90,000 new Missouri jobs had been created.  He even planned to claim that he had transformed a broken health care system.  

The messages crafted at the Big Cedar Lodge formed the foundation for the State of the State address he delivered on January 15.  

Those in attendance were convinced that the message could be framed successfully, even though Jay Nixon would assail the governors record of kicking poor people off the Medicaid rolls, warn that the economy was shaky, and the education system was still lagging.  

So what happened?  

It wasn’t money – Blunt had a proven ability to rake in massive amounts of cash, and some people present thought he could take in as much as $20 million for his war chest.  He had raised almost $10 million since being elected in 2004, although his campaign warchest was sitting at about $4 million, and he still needed to return $2.3 million  in excess contributions.  After the reimbursements were made, he and Nixon would be on a level playing field.  

So again, what happened?  

There are plenty of instances of wrongdoing to point to.  Those who haven’t done anything wrong are not usually inclined to spend $89,000 in legal fees in a single quarter.  You may recall that the Eckersley scandal broke in the last quarter.  In case you have forgotten, Scott Eckersley was a staff attorney for the governor who was fired for having  the temerity to tell Baby Guv  he needed to follow the law and archive email, not delete, delete, delete.  Of course, Baby Guv lashed out.  

Or maybe the money he took from Jack  Abramoff for his 2000 Secretary of State campaign has finally caught up with  him?  

Or did his pioneering work in vote caging catch up to him?  When he was still Secretary of State, he instructed county election officials to provide him with lists of absentee voters, and then forwarded those names to Republican campaign operatives, and the GOP began contacting those voters.  This ploy by a graduate of the Naval Academy disproportionately disenfranchised military personnel who were serving overseas in a time of war.

Or perhaps something came of the probe into his 2004 campaign for governor, when he used $48,000 of the public funds to run ads to encourage the citizenry to go to the polls. This scheme gave Blunt an unfair edge over his opponent,  and allowed him to win by a nose.

Of course, there is the fact that former state representative Nathan Cooper was due to report to prison just days after Blunt’s announcement, and of course it is just a coincidence that Cooper hearing those doors slam behind him has now been delayed.  

Could it be that Nathan is singing like a canary,  and Matty B knows there is an indictment in his immediate future? Dare I hope?  

Or could it be the fee office scandal?  I’ve been waiting almost two years for an indictment on that mess.  There is just no way that little arrangement among insiders was on the up-and-up.  

Whatever the reason for his sudden one-eighty, there is one thing for sure – I’m not buying the whole “spend more time with my family” smokescreen.  Unless he is trying to soak ’em up now before he goes to the federal pen for some corruption charge or another, and the wife goes back to Virginia from whence she came.

This is a sad story about the perceived role of women in a small town. On the part of some. (Somehow I thought this would be a slow news week. It looks like I picked the wrong week to…)

Warrensburg, Missouri, population approximately 16,000, is the county seat and home of the University of Central Missouri. Whiteman Air Force Base, the primary base for the B-2 bomber, is 9 miles to the east of Warrensburg.

Aaron Podolefsky became the president of the University of Central Missouri in July 2005.

…President Podolefsky is married to Ronnie Lynn (Shapiro) Podolefsky, a well-respected attorney specializing in civil rights, employment law, and mediation…

Excellent – a smart, accomplished professional.

December 7, 2007

Former players sue Warrensburg district, coach for alleged abuse

By ALAN SCHER ZAGIER

Associated Press Writer

Six female students at Warrensburg High School and their parents have sued the school district and a girl’s basketball and softball coach over what they call a pattern of verbal abuse and sexual misconduct.

The students, identified individually only as Jane Doe in the lawsuit, say school officials dismissed their complaints and declined to investigate for more than one year – in part because of possible negative public reaction to another well-known coach getting in trouble. The school fired its football coach in 2006.

“They have ignored the complaints. They have not protected the kids,” said Warrensburg attorney Ronnie Podolefsky, who represents the students and their families. “It’s beyond belief the way they have not taken action…”

[emphasis added]

Then, this week, another part of the local story gets carried by media across the nation – except for the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal. Even the student newspaper (a weekly) at the University of Central Missouri carried this:

Abuse claims divide small town

By Alan Scher Zagier

Associated Press Writer / January 18, 2008

…The teens have been called liars, bullies and even white trash (three of the players who have sued the white coach also are white, three are black). They’ve been insulted to their faces and on Facebook and MySpace pages. Their parents’ jobs have been threatened. And the involvement of their attorney, who also happens to be the wife of the University of Central Missouri’s president, has sparked a backlash that includes efforts to oust the college leader…

…The police officer whose daughter is part of the suit said that an opposing parent tried to get him fired. Another plaintiff’s parent, who runs a store in town, said some customers have stopped shopping at his place…

…By the estimation of Hough’s supporters, the college president’s wife is out of line. They want her to stop representing the players, and if that means firing her husband — Aaron Podolefsky — then so be it…

“…It’s nothing new when the disgruntled resort to the old stereotype of an uppity wife who doesn’t know her place,” Ronnie Podolefsky said. “My career is independent and separate from the university…”

[emphasis added]

“…They want her to stop representing the players, and if that means firing her husband… then so be it…” As if this type of intimidation would accomplish anything. Those individuals appear painfully ignorant of the legal system and the obligations of legal counsel.

Well, Ronnie Podolefsky is an attorney. She’s doing her job.

If it’s not even covered in the local paper, how can the town “be divided”? You think every one of the approximately 16,000 individuals in the ‘burg have taken a “side” on this, let alone have any awareness of what has transpired? The grapevine can only do so much…  

Let’s take a look at some other cases from the past:

Protecting the Rights at Home of Those Who Defend Freedom Abroad

…Mark is pursuing a complaint against his former employer because under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), a federal law, an employer can not discriminate if an employee is called into military active duty. Additionally, the state of Iowa has a Military Code that imposes criminal charges if an employer fires or denies leave to a Reservist who is ordered to temporary active duty.

His attorney, Ronnie Podolefsky, is outraged: “The men and women being activated and deployed to Iraq deserve the assurance that the jobs this takes them from will be there when they come home. It’s not only contemptible to fire someone called up to serve our nation, it’s against the law.”

[emphasis added]

That’s a noble enterprise, don’t you think?

Here’s another one:

Case Archive Subject: Greer v. Beck’s Pub & Grille et al., No. C03-2070 LRR (N.D. Iowa, Jan. 4, 2006)

Legal Momentum Role: Represented plaintiff.

Subject Matter: Right of victim to protection from employer retaliation for having obtained a restraining order against abusive boyfriend/coworker.

Legal Momentum filed this case on behalf of Antonette Greer, a woman who was fired from her job as a dishwasher the day after she obtained a protective order against her abusive co-worker/boyfriend.

This case resulted in the first-ever ruling by a court in Iowa allowing an employee to sue for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy based on allegations that she lost her job because she got a protective order.

While the district court dismissed additional sex discrimination claims – claims that were based on the fact that the employer fired our client, Ms. Greer, while continuing to employ her abuser, despite his criminal convictions arising from the abuse – the wrongful discharge claim made new law in Iowa. The case was subsequently resolved.

Legal Momentum was co-counsel in this case with Iowa attorney Ronnie Podolefsky, and subsequently Iowa attorney Paige Fiedler.

[emphasis added]

That’s my kind of legal counsel. She’s doing her job. She’s not supposed to walk three steps behind, and to the right.

It is time to remind our ‘Democratic’ Senator just who, exactly, she works for.

Telecoms may be able to contribute more than we can – but they can’t vote.  That is the exclusive province of us lowly rabble, the American citizenry, and with the blogosphere gaining prominence in the political arena every single day, it is a stupid politician indeed who sells out his or her constituency for thirty pieces of silver – and so far, that is precisely what Claire McCaskill has done.

She has drained my  well of good will, and  if she doesn’t get her act together and start acting like a true-blue Democrat who deserves to occupy Harry Truman’s seat –  right freakin’ now –  she will face the wrath of angry bloggers who will have spent five years calling for her political head when she runs again, and I promise her this:  I will be leading the charge.  She needs to do a gut-check right now – the FISA issue and telecom immunity alone will destroy her chances for reelection – and she can take that to the bank.

The name of this blog is Show Me Progress, not Show Me Perfidy, after all.

Here is her contact information – ring her phones off the hook.  Make her fax machines squeal non-stop and flood her inboxes.  Let her know just how pissed-off you are.

Click the link below to send her an email:

http://mccaskill.senate.gov/contact.cfm

And here are her phone and fax numbers:

Washington, DC

Phone: (202) 224-6154

Fax: (202) 228-6326

Cape Girardeau

Phone 573-651-0964

Fax 573-334-4278

Columbia

Phone:573-442-7130

Fax:573-442-7140

Kansas City

Phone: 816-421-1639

Fax: 816-421-2562

Springfield

Phone: 417-868-8745

Fax: 417-831-1349

St. Louis

Phone: 314-367-1364

Fax: 314-361-8649

Now get busy, Missouri, and get her damned attention.  Our Constitution is in jeopardy and our Senator is doing absolutely nothing to save it.  Let her know you are watching, documenting and pissed off!

Say it ain’t so. Jeff Smith has taken $9,750 from Rex Sinquefield’s shell committees. It looks bad, not so much because it could make Jeff look corrupt as because it legitimizes taking money from someone who is skirting campaign finance law in Missouri.

As for the corruption issue, that one’s easy to rebut. Although Jeff has taken money from Sinquefield, we need not worry that the cash will influence Jeff to support vouchers. Jeff has always opposed vouchers and has proven it. After accepting the money from Sinquefield, he turned around and declined to sponsor Derio Gambaro for the State Board of Education, thus effectively deep sixing Gambaro’s nomination. Refusing to sponsor Board of Education nominees is practically unknown, but that was the second time in a year that Jeff declined to sponsor a nominee from his district, and in both cases the specific reason was that the nominees were pro-voucher.

Sinquefield is not buying a vote for vouchers with his contribution to Jeff’s campaign.  

Instead, the Sinquefield contributions come from committees working to advance the cause of charter schools and to bring more highly qualified teachers into the St. Louis City school district. Both of those are causes Jeff has always espoused. In 2000, he helped form and still promotes a charter school in the city, Confluence Academy.

As for obtaining more qualified teachers for city schools, I’ve written about Jeff’s proposals to allow teachers to opt into a voluntary pay for performance program, to certify teachers without education courses if they are highly qualified in their subject area, and to offer $5000 bonuses to teachers in areas with the most critical shortage of qualified people.

Okay, so Jeff’s not corrupt, but is he wise? There’s still that niggling question of taking money from a man who is skirting campaign finance law in an attempt to privatize more of our educational system. If Sinquefield has his way, the public school system in this state will be weakened because our tax money will enable parents to send their children to private schools–a topic I’ve also written about.

Jeff responded to that criticism in a phone conversation we had, pointing out first that taking money from groups who are skirting campaign finance laws is nothing new. That particular gambit has been going on for years.

In the city of St. Louis, for example, Pyramid Construction creates a new LLC for every new development it gets involved in. There are probably fifty of them, and the money goes overwhelmingly to Democrats–people like Yaphett el-Amin, who ran against Jeff for state senator, alderman Lewis Reed, alderman Mike McMillan, and Mayor Slay. Unions do the same thing. Each local will have a different PAC or several PACs. One union might give to a candidate out of a dozen different PACs.

Sinquefield and his 100 PACs are nothing new. He’s just a bit more brazen than real estate, insurance, and development firms and unions.

And besides, Jeff notes, “I’m not using any of this money for myself. I’m using it to get other Democrats elected.” In a year when he isn’t running, he plans to use the money to help in five senate races he has his eye on.

I’ll give away over 99 percent of the money I take in. In fact, I didn’t ask for the money for myself. I asked for it for the caucus or campaign committee and they ended up writing it to me, which I didn’t know was going to happen.

Furthermore, Jeff says that, as the senator in charge of getting more Democratic senators elected this year, he’s not willing to handcuff himself. If he only accepted money from people with whom he always agreed, he’d only be able to accept about 20 percent of the money he now gets. As Michael Bersin pointed out to me, turning down that other 80 percent would be like unilateral disarmament.

Ain’t that an ugly system? Yes, indeedy, and Jeff knows it. That’s why he’s introducing a clean elections bill this year. It’s modeled on the laws that a few other states have enacted to good effect. It basically offers public financing to legislative and gubernatorial candidates who collect a given amount of seed money in small contributions to prove that they’ve got an acceptable level of public support.

The bill doesn’t have a prayer in this legislature, of course, and might not have even if Dems were in charge. (Keep in mind that Democratic state senators Tim Green, Florissant, and Chuck Graham, Columbia, co-sponsored the bill that lifted all the campaign finance limitations.) Until there’s a groundswell of public outcry for such legislation, it will get nowhere. But still, Jeff’s putting the idea out there.

Note: On this blogsite, I’ve been hard on candidates over this campaign finance issue. I’ve criticized Chris Koster for taking Sinquefield money, and after all Koster insists he’s not pro-voucher. (But then again, considering Koster’s legislative record, why would I trust him?) I’ve come down hard on Hillary and Obama for taking more money from big pharma and defense contractors than any other candidates, Republican or Democratic. (Their records seem less progressive to me than Edwards’s, so I find their huge campaign warchests suspect.)

Have I been too much of a purist? Couldn’t say for sure. I do know that I find myself giving Jeff Smith the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that’s just because I’ve known him since 2003 and did some phone calling for him in his attempt to take Gephardt’s open seat in 2004. The bottom line is that I like him personally and I appreciate his fervor for helping his constituents.

So I’ll take refuge in Walt Whitman: “Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself.”

The first governor in the entire history of the state not to seek re-election backed down, he says, because he’s already accomplished everything he set out to do. He’s already kicked a hundred thousand poor Missourians off Medicaid, he’s already handed out state business to his brother Andy’s lobbying clients, he’s already gotten himself embroiled in the Jack Abramoff scandal, he’s already been sued by his own lawyer for deliberately and illegally deleting state e-mails.

His satisfaction with his accomplishments puts me in mind of a passage from my favorite book, Catch-22. The protagonist, Yossarian, is a World War II bombardier who is in trouble with his superior officers for forcing his pilot to take him over a target twice.  

Colonel Cathcart doesn’t know how to save himself the humiliation of admitting that one of his officers went over the target twice. But Cathcart’s intelligent, unprincipled subordinate, Colonel Korn, has an idea:

“Why don’t we give him a medal?” Colonel Korn proposed.

“For going around twice? What can we give him a medal for?”

“For going around twice,” Colonel Korn answered with a reflective, self-satisfied smile. “After all, I suppose it did take a lot of courage to go over that target a second time with no other planes around to divert the anti-aircraft fire. And he did hit the bridge. You know, that might be the answer–to act boastfully about something we ought to be ashamed of. That’s a trick that never seems to fail.” (p.143)

The bolded words could almost be a summary of all Republican chutzpah, from Bush to Blunt, from Rove to Ed Martin, from Cheney to Rod Jetton.

There is a difference between Korn and Republicans, though. He was proposing to act boastfully about something that actually was worthy of a medal. Yossarian had been brave.

Matt Blunt doesn’t deserve any medals. Misourians knew it and they weren’t going to re-elect him.