I’ve never been a fan of hand wringing in politics. Let’s just say I’m a little bit old school. That’s one reason why I just love Kay Barnes’ (D) campaign (and it’s not even my congressional district).
Sam Graves (r) is a tad bit upset that someone is doing phone calls in the district. His campaign demanded that she condemn the dastardly practitioners of First Amendment expression. Here’s a hint Sam: the voters don’t like whiners.
How did Kay Barnes reply to Sam’s plaintive demand?:
Today, Washington Congressman Sam Graves lashed out at Kay Barnes, calling on her to “condemn” phone calls from groups not associated with the Barnes campaign, criticizing Graves’ record.
The Kay Barnes Campaign issued the following statement in response to Congressman Graves’ attack:
“Kay Barnes condemns the status quo in Washington, and Sam Graves’ culpability for record-high gas prices and outrageous tax giveaways to big oil companies. If other folks are also tired of the status quo in Congress and want to talk to Missourians about it on the phone, that’s their business.”
Ouch. That had to have left a mark.
Heh. Old school. It’s nice to have a fighter on our side.
(hat tip to Jesse Lee for this one.) I don’t know if it was the pope’s visit or what, but the New York Times story about the Pentagon’s use of retired generals as propaganda puppets seemed to get lost in the shuffle this week. If you haven’t heard, these high-level retired military officers relied on access to the Pentagon to work in a second career as consultants to defense contractors. The Pentagon used that fact to pressure them to stay on message to support the war in Iraq, as many of them also found themselves in high demand as defense experts for network and cable news. Well, Ike Skelton was appropriately outraged.
Full remarks below the fold.
Chairman Skelton: “Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the front page of the New York Times included a story about the efforts of the Pentagon’s public affairs operation to influence retired military officers now working as military analysts for some of our nation’s largest media organizations.
“I am very angry about the issues raised by the New York Times’ story, as are many of my colleagues who have called me aside to discuss it. The story does not reflect well on the Pentagon, on the military analysts in question, or on the media organizations that employ them.
“Mr. Speaker, maybe I am too idealistic, but this story is appalling to me on a number of levels. For me, it all comes down to trust and credibility. And it would be a dangerous thing for the American people to lose trust in the Pentagon, in our retired officer corps, and in the press, each of which has a critical role to play in preserving our nation’s freedoms.
“Through the years, I have frequently urged our military services to improve their efforts to tell America about the good work that is being done by our country’s sons and daughters in uniform. Our military services have an important story to tell, and public affairs offices are critical to that task. But credibility is paramount. Once lost, it is difficult or impossible to regain.
“There is nothing inherently wrong with providing information to the public and the press. But there is a problem if the Pentagon is providing special access to retired officers and then basically using them as pawns to spout the Administration’s talking points of the day. There are allegations that analysts who failed to deliver the message required by the Administration mysteriously lost access to future briefings and information. I find this deeply troubling. We deserve to be able to trust the actions of the Pentagon.
“We also deserve a retired officer corps that is worthy of the respect it receives from the American people, who place great faith in their judgment and loyalty to our nation. Americans trust our active duty and retired military, and rightly so.
“I know a number of the retired officers employed by the media as military analysts to be honorable people. But the special access they are alleged to have received and the circumstances of their employment, without proper disclosure of their outside interests or biases, raise a number of uncomfortable questions that deserve serious answers.
“Which master do these analysts serve?
“The United States Government, which supplies their retirement pay?
“The Pentagon, which may reduce the amount of analysis they actually need to do by providing detailed talking points promoting the current administration’s message agenda?
“The defense contractors, who pay them for serving on boards or for their defense expertise, and perhaps more to the point, for their Pentagon connections?
“Will their analysis, either by design or just by lucky coincidence, result in contracts or other advantages for the companies from which they take home a paycheck?
“It hurts me to my core to think that there are those from the ranks of our retired officers who have decided to cash in and essentially prostitute themselves on the basis of their previous positions within the Department of Defense. I would hate to think that because a few people have blurred ethical boundaries and cashed in on their former positions that we might tarnish the military’s hard won reputation for professionalism and objectivity and love of country first and foremost.
“Finally, I think our media have a serious responsibility to disclose potential conflicts of interest when they do their reporting. This applies to all of their stories, of course, and not just those that include retired officer military analysts. I understand that different organizations have different rules, but perhaps it would not be out of order for our journalism schools and professional journalism organizations to develop ethical guidelines for dealing with such issues.
“Mr. Speaker, our nation’s military exists to protect America’s freedoms for citizens today and for future generations. The First Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans, including retired service members and members of the press, to speak freely and without restraint. But with our rights come responsibilities to act honestly and ethically. I have no doubt we will continue to discuss these matters in the days ahead.
An enterprising soul has drawn up a county-by-county electoral map for the 2008 Democratic primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It’s most interesting because it allows you to look at where each candidate has concentrated support without regard for state borders.
Click on the link for a larger map
The map is imperfect because different states vote at different times and in different formats, so you see things like Clinton shoring up support in Northern and SW Missouri vs. their demographically similar counterparts in Southern Iowa and SE Kansas. Still, it’s striking how Obama dominates the Missippi Valley, except for parts of Missouri, especially the Bootheel. Even in Arkansas, the only state where Clinton broke 60% of the vote, Obama managed a majority in a few counties on the Mississippi.
Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.
The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.
Now we come to the good part:
Asked to respond to the survey, EPA spokesman Shradar said, “We have the best scientists in the world at EPA.”
How’s that for a non sequitur? It would make more sense if the writer, Josef Hebert, had added the rest of the quote: “But we don’t have to listen to them.”
Usually, I’m irate that journalists play “he said/she said”, quoting generals, CEOs and other establishment types as if they had any credibility. And at first I figured that’s what Hebert intended to do in this case. But then I got to thinking about it, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he took some sly joy in quoting Shradar. I mean, how much stupider could that Bush spokeshole have made himself look? But Hebert can shrug innocently and say, “I didn’t force the guy to sound like a nincompoop. All I did was quote him.”
(I think by virtue of the fact that you are stepping up and running for office you get to come to the front page. –BG – promoted by –Blue Girl)
I have been debating for the last several months whether or not I wanted to start a blog or diary on this site. I recieved an email a few days ago inviting candidates to join the blog so since I was invited I will post a diary or a blog every once in a while.
But first I have a couple of rules
-I am not the best writer so if something is spelled wrong or is not grammatically correct. Im sorry just look past it.
-I am not perfect. Although we sometimes expect our candidates to be. So if I say or do something you disagree with im apologizing for it now.
Now since this is my first post I guess I should start off by introducing myself.
More below the flip. -Clark
I am Anthony Arton, but please just call me Art. I was in born in Kansas City, Mo and spent the first ten years of my life there. I went to Hartman elementary in the Waldo area and then Calvary Lutheran for a year until my parents divorced. I was dragged to Warrensburg with my mother and began school there. As a result of my mother somehow contracting the hepatitis c virus my mother was unable to work throughout most of her 30’s. I was a product of free school lunches and the Missouri welfare system. I probably would not be here if not for those programs. During my senior year of high school the doctors informed my mother that the hepatitis c virus had come out of remission. She spent the next few months drinking her life away and finally took her life in April of 2002.
I wasnt the best high school student. I dont know if it was because of the problems at home, or my attention was more on sports and girls but because of my low grades I was initially denied admission to CMSU. I decided to join the volunteer fire department and enrolled in an EMT course out in Higginsville. After taking the class I became an EMT in Sweet Springs. I earned my firefighter 1 and 2 license as well that year.
This was also the year I started becoming very interested in politics. A good friend of mine David Pearce “who even used to come and watch me play tennis-but I think you guys know him as the automotive deer hunting advocate??” was running for State Representative and I saw this an oppurtunity to get involved. I began going to Republican meetings and helping out David in any way that I could. David became Rep. Pearce that year and I finally got accepted to CMSU.
So I was given a fresh start and started off college with much better grades than in high school. As a result of my academic success an oppurtunity arose to intern with Rep. Pearce in the spring of 2004. Rep. Pearce got me even more involved in politics. With his help I attended the Leadership Institute (brain washing facility) the Republican National Convention, (I was just a guest) and the Republican Central Committee in Johnson County,, oh and I also became the President of the College Republicans. (hate me yet? just wait) and then in fall of 2005 I was appointed to be on the Board of Governors at CMSU by Governor Blunt. (Ok now you can hate me)
But,,
As time went on I started becoming more and more concerned with the Republican Party both at the state and national level. Being a board member really opened my eyes as to how the Republican Party views education. The cuts to Medicare/Medicaid really ticked me off because that was me six years ago and I also started becoming more and more concerned about the environment and global warming. Last summer I finally had enough and handed over my RNC tie and cufflings to Rep. Pearce.
A few weeks later I decided to run for State Rep. “Rep. Pearce is running for the Senate”
There are too many outside interests that think they have a right to influence our state government, and that p*sses me off most righteously.
What the hell business does Ward Connerly have interfering in our state government? He lives and pays his taxes in California, but he has a bit in his teeth and wants to outlaw Affirmative Action in Missouri. This pompous jerk thinks he has the right to tell us we should amend our constitution! And I gotta repeat – he is not a Missouri taxpayer, so where the hell does he get off?
The trip is being pitched as a “1-2 week paid ‘vacation.'” Travel and meals would be paid for. And like professional circulators, Minutemen would receive a small fee for each signature they collect.
Of course, organizers know it’s not money that drives Minutemen. The activist group, comprised of private citizens, has been monitoring the U.S.-Mexico border for illegal immigrants since 2005.
“The tie-in with immigration issues is very strong,” Minutemen organizer Stuart Hurlbert e-mailed his fellow members last week.
“About 3/4 of all immigrants and probably more like 90% percent of illegal immigrants, are immediately eligible the minute they cross the border or get off the plane, on the basis of their ‘race,’ for preferential treatment by all sorts of federally mandated programs.”
Connerly is also pushing a similar agenda in Arizona, but he isn’t recruiting hate-mongers to gather signatures there.
“Why not?” you may ask.
Because, dear reader, Arizona has a common-sense law on the books that prohibits petitioners who are not registered voters in the state from circulating and collecting signatures.
Missouri needs a law like this. Fortunately, the people in my part of the state had the good sense to send Jolie Justus to the state senate, and she is on the case, working to get similar legislation passed right here in Missouri.
Please contact your state representative and state senator and encourage them to support legislation that would close our referendum process to outside interests pushing personal agendas.
UPDATE — 8:15 p.m.
Via that other blog devoted to the correct (left) side of Missouri politics, we learn that one of Ward Connerly’s minions, a fellow named John Wynne, was interviewed by police in Wentzville when he ducked monitors who intend to assure that signature gatherers are honestly representing the petitions they are collecting signatures for.
In the course of conducting their interview and investigation, the Wentzville police learned that Mr. Wynne is wanted in three states on misdemeanor voter fraud warrants. He has quite a history of misrepresenting the position of petitions he gathers signatures for.
Because the charges are not extraditable, he was not arrested and so far as anyone knows, he is continuing to duck the monitors and collect signatures while misrepresenting the petition he wants Missourians to sign.
Have you called your state congresscritters yet to put a stop to petition gatherers like this creep?
Kay Barnes’ campaign asked the following simple question:
…Kay Barnes, 6th District Congressional Candidate, called on incumbent Congressman Sam Graves to answer one simple question.
Barnes asked, “Congressman Graves, do you agree with President Bush’s statement yesterday that the United States is not in a recession. Or do you agree with the 74% of Americans who believe we are in a recession?”
Like his buddy George W. Bush, John McCain believes that the economy is essentially good, and that all those of who are hurting just need to suck it up just like he did over the summer, when his campaign was flailing. The DNC does a good job of highlighting this disconnect in their newest ad:
And even leading Missouri Pepublicans object to the slender policy fixes that McCain actually has.
Look at Jo Ann Emerson’s piece in the SE Missourian on April 13th, for example. McCain’s big bugaboo is government spending, especially earmarks. (McCain has vowed to veto every bill with earmarks.) Yet as Emerson points out, earmarks are necessary for vital infrastructure, like roads and ports, all over the country.
Members of Congress, on the other hand, can be good advocates for the districts they represent. If not for our ability to check and balance the executive branch by raising local issues, life would be very different in rural America. In the 8th District, for example, the only way to ensure the roads we need get built is to insert an earmark – a guarantee the money will be spent for its intended purpose. Four-lane construction of U.S. 60 depends on earmarks for steel and concrete. OMB would never call this project a priority, and without federal funds it never would have happened.
Emerson also points out that the US Constitution gives Congress the power to appropriate funds. It’s good to see a (Republican!) member of Congress siding with Congress against the executive branch for a change. I hope she’s not just rehearsing for next January, when the rest of the Republican caucus will suddenly discover oversight.
I’ll add that even given the overly generous definition of earmarks McCain uses to buttress his argument, there are only $52 billion in congressional earmarks, hardly enough to offset the current budget deficit AND McCain’s proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. That definition of earmarks also includes American aid to Israel and funds for military housing. Can anyone see a McCain administration cutting funds for either of these items? Straight talk indeed.
More below the fold.
I don’t often agree with Kit Bond, but he’s correct about McCain’s flaky gas tax holiday. McCain proposed that we halt the 18.4 cents federal tax on each gallon of gas for the entire summer. But Bond exclaims, “I don’t see how cutting funds to fix bad roads and fight congestion helps families.” The lost tax revenue would deprive the federal highway fund of $8.5 billion. The lowered price would also spur demand for gas, which would only bring the price up even more over the long haul. Maybe McCain thinks that the traffic jams and crumbling roads will dampen demand. He’ll eventually fill us in with some straight talk, I suppose.
What we really need is a greater investment in alternate sources of energy and a larger commitment to conservation. These will actually create jobs, unlike the pennies McCain is throwing at the poor.
It appears that Wes Upchurch (L) hasn’t filed any campaign finance reports with the Missouri Ethics Commission.
Robin Carnahan (D) filed her first quarter 2008 campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 15th:
Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report
Committe[e]: ROBIN CARNAHAN FOR MISSOURI
1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $1,012,571.76
2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $186,310.00
3. ALL LOANS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $0.00
7. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD (SUM 5A + 6A) $190,638.66
8. FUNDS USED FOR REPAYING LOANS THIS PERIOD $0.00
9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $1,203,210.42
10. TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $536,350.62
14. TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES MADE THIS PERIOD (SUM 11A + 12A + 13A) $70,642.19
5. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $606,992.81
28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $635,159.35
[emphasis added]
And where did the money come from?:
Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received
Committee: ROBIN CARNAHAN FOR MISSOURI
Report Date: 04/15/2008
114th Legislative Democratic Committee Jefferson City, MO 03/14/2008 $1,300.00
114th Legislative Democratic Committee Jefferson City, MO 03/28/2008 $3,900.00
134th Democratic Committee Springfield, MO 03/26/2008 $2,450.00
138th Legislative District Springfield, MO 03/31/2008 $6,250.00
140th Legislative District Committee Springfield, MO 01/22/2008 $6,250.00
15th Senate District Democratic Committee St. Louis, MO 01/05/2008 $600.00
15th Senate District Democratic Committee St. Louis, MO 01/15/2008 $1,250.00
15th Senate District Democratic Committee St. Louis, MO 03/17/2008 $3,000.00
19th District Democratic Senatorial Cmte Columbia, MO 03/28/2008 $6,600.00
23rd District Democratic Legislative Cmt Columbia, MO 03/18/2008 $6,250.00
25th District Democratic Legislative Cmt Columbia, MO 03/18/2008 $6,250.00
2nd Senatorial District Legislative Committee St. Charles, MO 02/01/2008 $6,200.00
52nd Legislative Democratic Committee Independence, MO 03/31/2008 $6,000.00
82nd Democratic Legislative District Comm. St. Louis, MO 03/31/2008 $3,625.00
8th Senatorial District Democratic Comm Independence, MO 03/31/2008 $6,000.00
Johnson County Democratic Central Comm. Warrensburg, MO 03/25/2008 $6,650.00
Sixteenth District Leg. Committee St. Charles, MO 03/19/2008 $3,100.00
Thirteenth District Leg Committee St. Charles, MO 02/01/2008 $6,200.00
Twelfth District Legislative Committee St. Charles, MO 02/01/2008 $6,200.00
Webster County Democratic Central Comm Fordland, MO 03/26/2008 $2,450.00
9. AMOUNT OF ITEM 8 THAT WAS RECEIVED AS MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS $180,120.00
13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $6,190.00
There are also quite a few individual contributions.
And what was some of that money spent on?:
Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made
Committe[e]: ROBIN CARNAHAN FOR MISSOURI
Report[ ]Date: 04/15/2008
Research Associates, Inc. Washington DC 02/14/2008 Research $14,000.00
Research!
Mitch Hubbard filed a Statement of Committee Organization (pdf) with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 1st (hand delivered!). Yet another brick is added to the mythology of the lost cause…
Eleven! Can I say it too often? That’s how many seats Dems need if they’re going to to take the House. And HD 16 in St. Charles is one of the 17 or 18 chances we have statewide to reach the magic number. So Kristy Manning’s candidacy matters. And it just got stronger, because her primary competition, Tom Fann, has dropped out in order to run for the St. Charles County Council.
Opting for the County Council race was a smart move for Fann. He stands a better chance of winning that contest, and he improves the chances of us getting the state rep seat. Here’s why: Fann, who just lost the special election there on Feb. 5th, wouldn’t, realistically, have been likely to succeed on the second try.
Manning, though, has a credible shot at it, and Fann’s withdrawal strengthens her prospects.
The DPI number (Democratic Performance Index) for that district is somewhere between 46 and 47. It’ll take more than 47 percent, of course, to win that election, but consider these additional factors in Kristy’s favor:
There’s a Democratic groundswell this year. That oughta be worth a point or two. Note that 52 percent of the primary voters in HD16 took Democratic ballots.
Furthermore, conventional wisdom holds that a well organized field campaign is worth somewhere between two and five points. The full name of the only Democrat left in this race is Kristy Organized Hard-working Manning.
Her opponent, Mark Parkinson, did some field work in his matchup with Fann, though it’s not easy to get a handle on just how much. Because Republicans typically have more cash to spread around, they’re more likely than Dems to throw money at a race. But since Parkinson will only have eight months worth of incumbency under his belt come election day, he might feel vulnerable enough to hit the streets. Count his field game as an unknown factor in the race.
Then there’s Kristy herself: energetic, articulate, attractive. On paper, she and Parkinson start about even. Both are thirty-something and newly married, with little on their resumes beyond having been legislative aides (she for Joan Bray, he for Kit Bond). But Kristy says that when she talks to people at their door, she surprises them by not being easily pigeonholed. I asked if she could give me an example.
Sure, she said. She doesn’t run from the fact that she’s pro-choice, but people tend to assume that that stance implies a whole slew of other beliefs, like being for gun control. Kristy points out that if you’re going to grant that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose, perhaps you should also grant that it protects the right of citizens to own guns. She tells people that just as she believes there should be laws to regulate abortions and make them safe, there should also be laws to regulate guns and make their use safer.
She also plans to stress, in talking to people, that she has experience in how state politics works. One important lesson she’s learned is how necessary it is to have conversations with the other side and find the areas where compromise will work.
Manning is a fine candidate, with an odds-on chance of taking that seat.
One curmudgeon at Political Fix expressed doubts when she filed in late March:
Fann will win the primary and lose the general, again. And if by some fluke he doesn’t win the primary, Parkinson’s margin of victory against Manning will be even greater than it would have been against Fann.
No use in waiting 4 months, start crying in your beer now Manning supporters. Let the games begin.
We’ll see if “Jackson” is right, but I don’t think so. Manning is a smart money bet.
