( – promoted by Clark)

In a district where the vast majority of local elected officials are Democrats, it appears that the prospect of the first open seat since 1976 isn’t going to be a wasted opportunity.

Roll Call reports (via the Columbia Tribune Politics Blog):

A Democratic source in that state said “credible Democrats will emerge” to run for Congress should Hulshof throw his hat into the wide-open gubernatorial race. Such a scenario may complicate state Rep. Judy Baker’s (D) already slim chances, while offering Democrats the best shot at winning with possible candidates such as former Lt. Gov. Joe Maxwell (D) and former state Speaker Steve Gaw (D).

“EMILY’s List would think [Baker’s] done a noble enough job that they’d stay with her, [but] local politicos would abandon her in droves if Maxwell got in,” the Democratic source said. “There’s s a general feeling, ‘God love her for trying to take on Kenny,’ but she’s probably not a great fit for that district.”

The source added: “Maxwell and Gaw are probably better for the cultural leanings of that district.”

So, the prospects?

I say that Maxwell would be a pretty strong favorite to win a primary. He carried the district easily in his last primary (Lt. Governors primary in 2000). He has a strong base in the northern part of the district, and enough prestige to do well in Columbia. Although Maxwell is someone who may still choose to stay out of this race due to his wife (he chose not to run for re-election in 2004 due to his wife’s health)

Steve Gaw would also be formidable to a degree. Gaw also ran statewide in 2000, and lost to Matt Blunt for Secretary of State.

The possibility of the first open seat primary in Northeast Missouri since 1976 is attracting quite a bit of attention.

In 1976, the Democratic primary had 11 candidates and was won by Harold Volkmer of Hannibal with 34.8% (Joe Frappier beat future state senator David Doctorian on the Republican side)

In 1964, the Democratic primary had 16 candidates and was won by William Hungate with 17.65% of the vote. The Republicans had four candidates that year.

But these were primaries back in the days that having an ultradivided August primary wasn’t considered a bad thing. And these were primaries when there was a strong Northeast Missouri base for Democrats in general elections.

So yes, if Hulshof leaves DC.. then there’s going to be a pretty big race in Northeast Missouri.

( – promoted by Clark)

According to the KC Star’s Prime Buzz Blog, Rep. Jim Guest (R-King City) is petitioning the Missouri Ethics Commission to allow him to keep the over-limit contributions he collected.  

Hey, how about that . . . Jim Guest is my representative.  I wonder what is so unfair about compelling him to refund the over-limit contributions?  

When you examine Rep. Guest’s hardship claim, however, it’s pretty laughable.  The only “hardship” appears to be that he would have to raise more money:

Guest said he was fighting to keep the money because giving it back would “deplete” his campaign funds and because the contribution was received “in good faith at the time.”

The Star’s post said that Rep. Guest has $21,833 on hand, and would have to return $15,525 in contributions.  This would leave him with only a $5,000 war chest.

Poor Jim Guest!  Why, with only $5,000, he is only marginally better off than someone who files and decides to run in March.  Oh, the humanity!  Where are his God-given, incumbency-protection rights?

The Fifth District is eminently winnable.  As hotflash already pointed out, the DPI for this district is 48.5 — basically a toss-up.  Guest won reelection in 2006 by 290 votes.  The majority of the district is located in Democratic Clinton County, with the remainder in DeKalb and Gentry counties.  The biggest “city” in the 5th is Cameron.  A Democratic county officeholder (of which there are many in the district) would probably be a formidable opponent, especially if s/he were from Clinton County.

Furthermore, Rep. Guest’s relationship with the Sam Graves political machine is strained, at best.  I wouldn’t count on Jeff Roe & Co. to bail him out should he be caught in a tough reelection campaign.

Representatives LeVota, Storch, Zimmerman, and Talboy: beat those bushes and find a good Democrat we can support in the 5th!

In response to a letter concerning the Bush administration’s constitutional abuses, I received a letter from Claire McCaskill that cautiously acknowledged some of the damage our current president has done.  However, she also indicated that to pursue accountability would, in her view, derail a Democratic agenda that should take precedence:

Like many Americans, I’m disappointed with the direction that the Bush Administration has taken our country. This Administration has repeatedly misled Congress and the American public on issues critical to the safety and prosperity of our nation, such as using false intelligence to lead us into war in Iraq. This Administration has also demonstrated its willingness to test the limits of its Constitutional power. At the same time, Congress over the last 6 years has failed to uphold its Constitutional duty to provide proper oversight of the Executive Branch.

…

We now have much important work that must be done and impeachment or censure proceedings would consume most of the time, resources, and energy of Congress with little likelihood of success.

Well fine and good, I thought.  I can understand making hard choices in order to further important goals.  I thought, however, that I would take a look at what important work that McCaskill has been busy with during her first year in congress, so I took a look at her voting record on Project Vote Smart where I found that she has indeed been been active.  

When McCaskill ran for the Senate last year, I made phone calls for her, put up signs and did whatever I could, given my limited abilities, to help her win the election because I thought she would be be a real improvement on Jim Talent.   And I was right; based on her voting record, she is just that. She has voted to defend reproductive choice, in favor of expanded SCHIP, anti-poverty programs, against the Peru trade agreemnet to name just a few issues where she has been on the side of the angels (to my mind at least).

ALthough not all the votes McCaskill cast in the Senate have been as progressive in nature, I am willing to cut her some slack.  She represents constituents in a red (or at least purple) state afterall, and some of her votes will necessarily reflect that fact–though even here, I think she improves on what Talent would have given us.  For instance, she voted for an agriculture bill loaded with goodies for the corporate farmers, but she did, in contrast to Senator Bond, vote for some caps on those subsidies, albeit absurdly high caps. Admittedly, some of what she has done–voting against removing troops from Iraq, and to defend General Petraeus from all the naughty critics, for instance–stick in one’s craw.

However, in my opinion, the difference between viewing her freshman year as a success or a failure depends on one upcoming vote which will at last take care of unfinished 2007 business.  In August, McCaskill voted with the majority to amend the 1978 FISA bill.  This amendment represented a total capitulation to the  extra-constitutional demands of the Bush/Cheney combine; she excused it at the time on the grounds that it was a stop-gap measure and that permanent legislation would be taken up later. However, I am sure that the falsifications and fear-mongering that the administration was resorting to at the time severely tested the mettle of many of our weak-spined Democrats, Claire among them.

McCaskill assured us that she would make amends when the legislation was rewritten, and this particular IOU is coming due this week or next.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is hell-bent on passing an horrendous FISA bill that extends immunity to the Telecom companies that enabled illegal spying on American citizens.  In the next few days, we will find out whether or not McCaskill will live up to her promises or if she will continue to overlook criminal activity on the part of the President and his enablers. We need to let her know that there is little or nothing in the Democratic agenda she is so dedicated to that could justify a supine response to this issue.  In the last analysis it is not enough to just be better than Jim Talent (a pretty small achievement, come to think of it), she must be the very best she can be and this vote will let us finally learn just how good that is.

UPDATE.  The FISA debate is taking place right now (1/24) and if anyone is inclined to phone McCaskill and ask that she support Senator Dodd’s efforts to oppose this odious legislaiton, now would be the time to do it.  

Follow the money.

On Monday, January 21, 2008 the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal [no link, they’re still in the 19th century] ran a front page story (below the fold) on David Pearce’s 4th quarter campaign finance report. The story in the paper reads like a press release:

Pearce Surpasses $90,000 For Race

“…I am humbled by the overwhelming trust and support that the constituents of the 31st Senatorial District have shown me…One of the things I’m most pleased about is that we have nearly 100 donations from private individuals who gave $100 or less. This shows we have a broad base of support…”

The rest of the release, er story, continues on to list highlights of Pearce’s almost non-existent legislative record (leaving out his advocacy of automotive deer hunting) and also lists a few manufactured honors from organizations like the republican front Missouri Farm Bureau.

Pearce’s press release fails to note that he loaned his campaign $25,000.00, that he’s paid $5,000.00 to a professional fundraiser, and that he only raised $23,735.00 in the fourth quarter. In addition, there is no mention of the $1,500.00 total from five different “astroturf” (fake grassroots) PACs with the same Jefferson City address which show up on Pearce’s recent fourth quarter report but does not show up in the PACs’ reports.

So much for “grassroots” support.

Rumor has it that the republican powers that be don’t consider Pearce an “A-list” candidate. Is he feeling the pressure? Is he padding his report to scare away potential primary challengers? Or is his campaign just incompetent?

Let’s follow the money from those committees that Pearce’s report states gave him money. Who financed them? Is this some grassroots group with a lot of small contributors?

Not hardly:

From the  Missouri Ethics Commission:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: ALLIANCE FOR BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Report Date: 1/5/2007

Central Medical Political Action Committee 101 E. High Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 12/20/2006 $500.00

[emphasis added]

The Central Medical Political Action Committee terminated on  12/20/2006:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CENTRAL MEDICAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

Report Date: 7/13/2006

Capital Health Management, Inc. P.O. Box 7688 Columbia, MO 65205 04/19/2006 [$]10,000.00 [aggregate to date] $5,000.00

[emphasis added]

Who did they give money to?

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: CENTRAL MEDICAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

ReportDate: 7/13/2006

Committee for Common Sense Values P.O. Box 2041 Jefferson City, MO 6510204/18/2006 $1,000.00

Committee for Common Sense Values P.O. Box 2041 Jefferson City, MO 65102 05/17/2006 $1,000.00

Committee for Ethical Reform 1367 Windle Road Cuba, MO 65453 05/17/2006 $1,000.00

Citizens for (John) Burnett 3418 Gladstone Blvd. Independence, MO 64123 06/16/2006 $325.00

It’s an elaborate campaign finance shell game! But, we digress. Getting back to what’s been happening recently:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: ALLIANCE FOR BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Report Date: 10/11/2007

Capital Health Management, Inc. P.O. Box 7688 Columbia, MO 65205 07/17/2007 $24,000.00

22. TOTAL:  ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS (SUM 9, 11, 12 & 13) $24,000.00

23. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS AND LOANS RECEIVED REQUIRING A RECORD OF NAME AND ADDRESS (SUM 9, 13 & 20) $24,000.00

[emphasis added]

Why, there’s that same big contributor!

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: ALLIANCE FOR ELDERLY HEALTH CARE

Report Date: 10/12/2007

Capital Health Management, Inc. P.O. Box 7688 Columbia, MO 65205 07/17/2007 $24,000.00

[emphasis added]

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR INSURANCE REFORM

Report Date: 10/11/2007

Capital Health Management, Inc. P.O. Box 7688 Columbia, MO 65205 07/17/2007 $24,000.00

[emphasis added]

Let’s take a look at who does the paper work for one of these committees:

Date Established:11/2/2005

Date Terminated:

COMMITTEE: MECID:C051259

CITIZENS FOR NEW HEALTH CARE CONCEPTS

101 EAST HIGH STREET

JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101

TELEPHONE:573 634-3244

TREASURER: DONNA SCHELLMAN

101 EAST HIGH STREET

JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101

WORK PHONE: 573 634-3244

HOME PHONE:

DEP. TREASURER: HARRY GALLAGHER

101 EAST HIGH STREET JEFFERSON CITY MO 65101

WORK PHONE:573 634-3244

[emphasis added]

Okay, back to another one of our five curious “astroturf” committees:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR NEW HEALTH CARE CONCEPTS

Report Date: 10/10/2007

Capital Health Management, Inc. P.O. Box 7688 Columbia, MO 65205 07/17/2007 $24,000.00

[emphasis added]

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: COALITION FOR ADVANCED LEARNING

Report Date: 10/10/2007

Capital Health Management, Inc. P.O. Box 7688 Columbia, MO 65205 07/17/2007 $24,000.00

[emphasis added]

Thata’s some serious amount of money. So, who are they? From the Missouri Secretary of State:

CAPITAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. Legal

MISSOURI VALLEY MANAGEMENT, INC. Prev Legal

General Business – Domestic – Information

Charter Number: 00421851

Status: Good Standing

Entity Creation Date: 1/31/1996

State of Business.: MO

Expiration Date: Perpetual

Last Annual Report Filed Date:  3/28/2007

Last Annual Report Filed: 2007

Annual Report Month: January

Registered Agent

Agent Name: Markel, Will A.

Office Address: 206 Peach Way, P. O. Box 7688

Columbia MO 65205

2007 Annual Registration Report

Capital Health Management, Inc.

Officers

Pres  Jeff E. Smith

V-Pres Monica A. Swoboda

Sec’y Will A. Markel

Board of Directors

Jeffrey Edward Smith

…all other officers and directors

Kimberly A. Olden

Will A. Markel

So, what do they do? This appears to be one thing:

WILSHIRE AT LAKEWOOD

600 N E MEADOWVIEW DRIVE

LEES SUMMIT MPO, MO 64064

RELIGIOUS NONMEDICAL HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS SNF/NF (DISTINCT PART)

Beds – Total (Total number of beds in a facility, including those in non-Participating or non-licensed areas): 120

Beds – Total certified (Number of beds in Medicare and/or Medicaid certified areas within a facility): 120

Beds – Nursing facility (Number of Medicaid certified skilled nursing care beds in a facility): 100

Multi-Facility organization name (The name of the multi-Facility organization that owns the facility): CAPITAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT INC

Multi-Facility organization owned (Indicates if a facility is owned by an organization that owns (or leases) two or more nursing facilities): Yes

[emphasis added]

Well, look at this:

Wilshire at Lakewood and Lisa Jochims. Case 17-CA-21564

September 30, 2004

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND WALSH

ORDER

The National Labor Relations Board [pdf] orders that the Respondent, Wilshire at Lakewood, Lee’s Summit, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall

1. Cease and desist from

(a) Terminating employees for engaging in protected concerted activities.

(b) Telling employees that they are terminated for engaging in protected concerted activities.

(c) Interrogating employees concerning their own or others’ protected concerted activities.

(d) Creating an impression among its employees that their protected concerted activities are under surveillance.

(e) Disparately prohibiting employees from telephoning nurses at the facility.

(f) Disparately enforcing its no-solicitation/nodistribution rule.

(g) Maintaining in its employee handbook a disciplinary rule prohibiting the misrepresentation of a material fact in an attempt to obtain a benefit or advantage.

(h) Maintaining in its employee handbook a disciplinary rule prohibiting making a false or malicious statement about a resident, employee, supervisor, or the Company.

(i) Maintaining in its employee handbook a disciplinary rule prohibiting paycheck disclosure.

(j) Maintaining in its employee handbook a disciplinary rule that prohibits soliciting or distributing material during working time or in any work area or resident care area.

(k) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

Did they own this facility in 2004?

It’s amazing what you can see just by following the trail of crumbs from one thing to the next.

David Pearce, did you bother to try and figure any of this out?

(This is unbelievable. – promoted by Clark)

Lil’ Sammy just can’t get this one right — he votes, again, to support the President’s veto on the SCHIP bill.  I wonder why he is such a staunch supporter of the current administration?

Let’s send this joker home.  Send some love to Kay Barnes; here’s a link to my ActBlue page supporting Kay, as well as a link to her campaign’s website.

     In what is quickly turning into a two-headed monster, the Clinton’s have developed a new strategy culled from their victories in New Hampshire and Nevada. The new strategy seems to be to run Bill Clinton for sub-President or assistant President. As I am writing this a crazy thought came to mind, can Bill Clinton be Hillary’s running mate? I have just dispatched our crack investigative team to research this and report back. You have to admit the strategy is brilliant, if not devious. You run a former popular two-term President in areas of his greatest strength against a one-term Senator who has never run a national campaign. Add to this strategy the constant refrain of “the first black” President and you have the possibility of black people voting for the black President that really isn’t black versus the guy who really is black. This could get confusing.

Mr. Clinton will be in South Carolina every day until the primary, often joined by his daughter, Chelsea, as he courts fellow Southerners and black voters. He also attended services on Monday at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s old congregation; Mr. Obama spoke there on Sunday. NY Times

    According to Mr. Obama and many pundits it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell which Clinton Mr. Obama is running against. While I admire the ferocity of Mr. Clinton’s advocacy of his wife, as an ex-President and current leader of the Democratic Party I must take umbrage with the tone of his underscoring the differences in the two candidates. While as an American he has the right to campaign for Ms. Clinton that right must be tempered with the fact of who he is and what he represents. Mr. Clinton it seems is beginning to have flashbacks of his own days on the campaign trail and rather than taking his cues from his wife’s campaign, he seems to be mounting his own campaign strategy for defeating Barack.

    I can understand Mr. Obama’s current level of frustration, it is difficult to campaign against a former popular President who isn’t even running for office or is he? In what could be termed a non-violent coup Bill Clinton could be positioning himself to create a Constitutional challenge. Is there any doubt that Mr. Clinton would be able to exert undue influence on his wife and thus return us to his “glory days”. Does the country really want a retro parade down memory lane with the Clintons as Grand Marshals? I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but I have no desire to return to the past no matter how rosy it may now appear. The thing about trying to recapture the past is that you lose sight of the future. You become fossilized in an isolated moment in history, but the problem is that you have not been frozen in some cryogenics chamber so you are not the same as you were then. Because you are not the same you will not be able to experience it as you once did.

    It’s like adults trying to go back and recreate their missed prom or other lost opportunities, they can never be recaptured. The reason they can never be recaptured is that you will never be that person again, you will never be 17 again. You can never re-experience those feelings of awkwardness, vulnerability, or anxiety. Bill Clinton is campaigning on the myth of returning to the past only with changes. You can’t have it both ways Mr. Clinton you can’t promise the past and promise change. If you change it, it won’t be the past.

    According to my crack research staff, conceivably Bill Clinton could run for vice-President. According to the Constitution he could not be “elected” to the office of the Presidency, but it could be argued that it doesn’t mean he couldn’t “serve” in that capacity. So let’s say he runs as Hillary’s running-mate and they win and something should happen to Hillary he would not be barred per se from serving. The tricky part would be the interpretation of the 12th amendment which states that you cannot run for the office of vice-President, if you are constitutionally ineligible for the office of President. All of this of course would require an interpretation by the Courts and with the current political leanings of the Court I wouldn’t bet on a friendly outcome for the Clintons.

While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear if a two-term president could later be elected-or appointed-vice president. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States Presidential line of succession. Others contend that while a two-term president is ineligible to be elected or appointed to the office of Vice President, he or she could succeed from a lower position in the line of succession which he or she is not excluded from holding. Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election. Neither theory has ever been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency, and thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question. Wikipedia

    So is Bill Clinton running for vice-President? I doubt it. But it’s like having Michael Jordan as your dad and being invited to play a dad and kid pickup game. He may go in with the intentions of going easy on the other teams, but once those old competitive juices get to flowing; look out other teams. Bill Clinton is a political junkie and a master politician he doesn’t know how to take it easy. You invite him into your campaign and you’ve opened Pandora’s Box. If it is his wife’s campaign you really got troubles now. I’m just glad Chelsea didn’t run for class president or something. Could you imagine the tactics Bill would have had her employ? Be careful Bill, were all family here.

In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. – Franklin D. Roosevelt

The Disputed Truth

Brett Penrose – a cartoonist who is quick on the draw…