Then again, that isn’t saying much.

Sue Lowden is a republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada, challenging Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D). She recently touted the virtues of bartering chickens for health care:

…Senate hopeful Sue Lowden’s plan for Healthcare reform is to barter chickens for medical procedures. But you may be unsure how many chickens are required for your medical care. This handy calculator converts many common procedures into chickens so you won’t look like an idiot at your next Doctor’s Appointment…

Lowden Medical Procedure to Chicken Converter

I wonder if Roy Blunt will recommend squirrel instead.

There are three candidates running in the 120th Legislative District – a Democratic Party challenger, a republican incumbent, and a Constitution Party challenger:

State Representative – District 120

Democrat

ZACHARIAH (ZAC) A MAGGI CLINTON MO 630 2/23/2010

Republican

SCOTT N LARGENT CLINTON MO 442 2/23/2010

Constitution

RICHARD HOXSEY BUTLER MO 387 2/23/2010

Zac Maggi, the Democratic Party candidate, filed his first quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 14th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: MAGGI FOR STATE REPRESENATIIVE

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $7,870.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $1,025.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $9,235.00

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $4,161.40

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $5,073.60

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $0.00

[emphasis added]

Not a huge quarter, but decent cash on hand. Let’s take a look at contributions:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: MAGGI FOR STATE REPRESENATIIVE

Report Date: 4/1/2010

9. AMOUNT OF ITEM 8 THAT WAS RECEIVED AS MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS $1,025.00

11. TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED AT FUND-RAISERS AS REPORTED IN LINE 8 ON FORM CD 1A $340.00

Well, contributions from individuals (a few attorneys) and no PACs or institutions.

Expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: MAGGI FOR STATE REPRESENATIIVE

ReportDate: 4/1/2010

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

Advertising $65.77

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

Letter Craft 01/15/2010 Remit Envelopes $247.48

Strike Zone Bowling Alley Clinton, MO 01/21/2010 Fundraiser $500.00

Clinton Post Office Clinton, MO 01/22/2010 $122.58

Minuteman Press St. Charles, MO 03/08/2010 Envelopes and Letterhead $373.54

Boy Scouts Of America Troop 225 Clinton, MO 01/18/2010 Donation $150.00

Ah, fundraising.

The incumbent, Scott Largent (r), filed his first quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 9th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: CITZENS FOR LARGENT

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $17,895.78

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $4,650.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $22,545.78

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $4,395.68

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $17,870.14

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $0.00

[emphasis added]

Ah, the power of republican incumbency? let’s take a look at where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITZENS FOR LARGENT

Report Date: 3/31/2010

RIGHT CHOICE MANAGED CARE INC CINCINNATI, OHIO 01/31/2010 $500.00

UP RAILROAD 02/15/2010 $500.00

SERVEPRO CLINTON, MO 03/31/2010 $3,000.00

11. TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED AT FUND-RAISERS AS REPORTED IN LINE 8 ON FORM CD 1A $0.00

12. TOTAL ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $25 OR LESS $0.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $0.00

[emphasis added]

What is it with republican incumbents and large contributions on the last day of the quarter propping up their fundraising numbers? Just asking. Not very grassrootsie, is it? Take away that single $3,000.00 contribution and the two major party candidates had similar fundraising quarters.

Let’s take a look at the expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: CITZENS FOR LARGENT

ReportDate: 3/31/2010

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

CLINTON FLOWER SHOP SUPPLIES $37.62

What, no t-shirts?

The Constitution Party candidate, Richard Hoxsey, filed his first quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 14th. In a break with tradition for third party candidacies intended as a futile gesture, he actually filed a full report instead of a waiver:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: RICHARD HOXSEY CANDIDATE FOR STATE REP 120TH

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $0.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $200.00

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $103.46

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $96.54

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $0.00

[emphasis added]

There’s no where to go but up.

Let’s guess where the money came from, shall we?:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: RICHARD HOXSEY CANDIDATE FOR STATE REP 120TH

Report Date: 4/13/2010

Richard Hoxsey Butler MO 03/03/2010 $200.00

Yep, you’ve got to admire his spunk.

The expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: RICHARD HOXSEY CANDIDATE FOR STATE REP 120TH

ReportDate: 4/13/2010

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

Office Supply $65.47

Office Supply $37.99

The money game in this district has always been bizarre. The race is gonna be won or lost on the ground – whoever hits the most doors and makes the best one on one contact.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player.swf

The transcript:

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Weekly Address

Washington, DC

It was little more than one year ago that our country faced a potentially devastating crisis in our auto industry.  Over the course of 2008, the industry shed 400,000 jobs.  In the midst of a financial crisis and deep recession, both General Motors and Chrysler – two companies that for generations were a symbol of America’s manufacturing might – were on the brink of collapse.  The rapid dissolution of these companies – followed by the certain failure of many auto parts makers, car dealers, and other smaller businesses – would have dealt a crippling blow to our already suffering economy.  The best estimates are that more than one million American workers could have lost their jobs.

The previous administration extended temporary loans to both companies.  Even so, when I took office, the situation remained dire.  We had to determine whether or not we could justify additional taxpayer assistance.  After all, many of the problems in the auto industry were a direct result of poor management decisions over decades.  So it wasn’t an easy call.  But we decided that while providing additional assistance was a risk, the far greater risk to families and communities across our country was to do nothing.  We agreed to additional help, but only if the companies and their stakeholders were willing to break with the past.  They had to fundamentally reorganize, with new management that would reexamine the decisions that led to this mess and chart a path toward viability.  I knew this wasn’t a popular decision.  But it was the right one.

So, GM and Chrysler went through painful restructurings: ones that required enormous sacrifices on the part of all involved.  Many believed this was a fool’s errand.  Many feared we would be throwing good money after bad: that taxpayers would lose most of their investment and that these companies would soon fail regardless.  But one year later, the outlook is very different. In fact, the industry is recovering at a pace few thought possible.

Just this week we received some encouraging news.  Since General Motors emerged from bankruptcy, the auto industry has actually added 45,000 jobs – the strongest growth in a decade.  And Chrysler announced an operating profit in the first three months of this year.  This is the first time Chrysler has reported a profit since the beginning of the economic crisis.  What’s more, GM announced that it paid back its loans to taxpayers with interest, fully five years ahead of schedule.  It won’t be too long before the stock the Treasury is holding in GM can be sold, helping to reimburse the American people for their investment.

In addition, Chrysler Financial has already fully repaid with interest the loans it received to support auto financing.  And we are closing the books on the temporary program that helped parts suppliers weather this storm – returning this investment to the Treasury in full, with interest, as well.  Finally, we are bringing to an end many of the emergency programs designed to stabilize the financial sector and restart lending so folks could finance cars and trucks – as well as homes and small businesses.

On Friday, in fact, the Treasury Department informed Congress that this financial rescue – which was absolutely necessary to prevent an even worse economic disaster – will end up costing taxpayers a fraction of what was originally feared.  This is a direct result of the careful management of the investments made by the American people so that we could recoup as many tax dollars as possible – as quickly as possible.

These steps, as well as others we’ve taken, have meant that millions of people are working today who might otherwise have lost their jobs.  But these steps were never meant to be permanent.  As I’ve said many times, I did not run for president to get into the auto business or the banking business.  As essential as it was that we got in, I’m glad to see that we’re getting out.

At the same time, even as we have come a long way, we still have a ways to go.  The auto industry is more stable today.  The economy is on a better footing.  But people are still hurting.  I hear from them just about every day in the letters I read and in the cities and towns I visit.  No matter what the economic statistics say, I won’t be satisfied until folks who need work can find good jobs.  After a recession that stole 8 million jobs, this is gonna time.  And this will require that we continue to tackle the underlying problems that caused this turmoil in the first place.  In short, it’s essential that we learn the lessons of this crisis – or we risk repeating it.

Now, part of what led to the crisis in our auto industry – and one of the main causes of the economic downturn – were problems in our financial sector.  In the absence of common-sense rules, Wall Street firms took enormous, irresponsible risks that imperiled our financial system – and hurt just about every sector of our economy.  Some people simply forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business, or save for retirement.

That’s why I went to New York City this week and addressed an audience that included leaders in the financial industry.  And I once again called for reforms to hold Wall Street accountable and to protect consumers.  These reforms would put an end – once and for all – to taxpayer bailouts.  They would bring greater transparency to complex financial dealings.  And they will empower ordinary consumers and shareholders in our financial system.  Folks will get clearer and more concise information when they make financial decisions – instead of having to worry about deceptive fine print.  And shareholders and pension holders will have a stronger voice in the boardrooms of the companies in which they invest their savings.

That’s how we’ll restore trust and confidence in our markets.  That’s how we’ll help to put an end to the cycles of boom and bust that we’ve seen.  And that’s how – after two very difficult years – we’ll not only revive the economy, but help to rebuild it stronger than ever before.

Thanks.

The Friday Post-Dispatch ran a wire story with the headline: “Firms promising to help indebted consumers really hurt, U.S. inquiry finds”.

A new report by undercover government investigators bolsters long-standing concerns that companies promising to help consumers overwhelmed by credit card and other debts often turn out to be financial predators who charge high fees but deliver little or nothing in return.

When investigators for the Government Accountability Office posed as distressed consumers seeking help, so-called debt management companies gave them wildly exaggerated descriptions of the firms’ success rates and sometimes promised savings of as much as 50 cents on the dollar, Gregory Kutz, the GAO official who ran the investigation, told Congress on Thursday.

But after paying big up-front fees – often running to several thousand dollars – many consumers end up deeper in debt than they were before seeking help, Kutz said.

Claire McCaskill put a representative of the trade organization for these scumbags on the hot seat in a hearing Thursday–though, of course, she wouldn’t stoop to using a prejudicial word like “scumbag.” No need to. The facts were enough. Though her voice was level, it still sometimes vibrated with indignation.

You have to understand that the premise of the business is offensive … um, in this way: the premise is that when people are in debt and worried, they are more easily persuaded that someone can help them, because they’re desperate for help. And when someone tells them, “You don’t have to pay your bills anymore, and we’re gonna make a lot of your bills go away, that is like asking a five year old if they wanta get a Happy Meal. It is equivalent to that. And what is hard for me to understand is how your association thinks you can stop the inevitable march of regulation, lawsuits, enforcement actions. Because I don’t think you can produce statistics that show that you’re helping anyone. I have prepared for this hearing. I’m not aware of any statistics that show that you’ve helped anyone. In fact, and let me ask Mr. Lehman this, it’s my understanding, Mr. Lehman, that one of the problems in these lawsuits that are being brought by the attorneys general is the fights over discovery, that it has been very difficult to get the documents, to get the data, to be able to make sure that every fact is uncovered so that first the members of Mr. Ansbach’s organization have due process, but most importantly, if, whether or not these are civil cases for consumer action or whether or not these are fraud cases.

(…..)

You are preying upon the fears of people. You’re making a lot of money, and you’re delivering a substandard product. And many, many times you are engaging in fraud to get the customers by promising them something that you know is not true–that they can quit paying their bills, that you’re gonna settle the debts, and your record of success and you have so few dropouts … and on and on and on.

She finally punched Ansbach with a velvet glove:

If [the attorneys general] have to keep fighting for discovery, I think the United States Congress is going to have their back. So I think the word needs to go out. If you can prove what you say, I suggest you get to provin’ it.

Our friends at Fired Up report further on the rock star escapades of Tom Schweich (r):

EXCLUSIVE: Schweich Camp Contacted The Dandy Warhols Weeks Before Denying Connection To Their Song

Previously:

Don’t quit your day job (April 7, 2010)

Tom Schweich (r) for Auditor: apparently people give big bucks to rock stars (April 14, 2010)

State Auditor: April 2010 campaign finance reports (April 18, 2010)

From Jo Mannies at the St. Louis Beacon:

Schweich denies plagiarism, admits contact with rock band to inquire about ‘parody’

…I have been an amateur musician for 30 years. In an April 9th interview on KMOX radio, I made it clear that I had intended to do a parody of ‘Bohemian Like You’ by the Dandy Warhols. I first heard that song a few months ago as part of the soundtrack to the movie ‘Delirious.’ I liked it because it sounded very much like the Rolling Stones’ song ‘Brown Sugar’ — and the Rolling Stones are my biggest musical influence…

Dude, we know the Stones, and you ain’t them. Maybe you should ask for your money back.

…The accusations of copyright infringement by bloggers opposed to my political views are, in my opinion, contrary to the law and are nothing more than an unwarranted political attack. Notwithstanding their efforts, I will continue to fight for smaller government, less debt, and more personal freedoms.

Uh, we mocked your rock video because we think it sucks.

And what do The Dandy Warhols think (via Twitter)?:

@buddyhead SCANDAL! http://bit.ly/a3scLm     about 5 hours ago  via TweetDeck

Too funny.

There are three candidates in the 122nd legislative District race, two Democrats and one birther/tenther right wingnut republican incumbent.

State Representative – District 122

Democrat

GARY GRIGSBY HIGGINSVILLE MO 799 2/23/2010

HOLMES OSBORNE ODESSA MO 3/1/2010

Republican

MIKE MCGHEE ODESSA MO 583 2/23/2010

The first of two Democratic Party challengers (in alphabetical order), Gary Grigsby, filed his first quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 15th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: GRIGSBY FOR MISSOURI REP

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $561.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $4,595.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $5,156.00

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $654.14

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $4,501.86

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $0.00

[emphasis added]

Okay, that’s a decent fundraising quarter, and much better than the previous one.

Let’s see where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: GRIGSBY FOR MISSOURI REP

Report Date: 4/15/2010

Michael Bersin & Joan Ferguson Warrensburg, MO 02/18/2010 $25.00

4th Congressional District Democratic Committee Gravois Mills, MO 01/23/2010 $900.00

Johnson County Democratic Central Committee Warrensburg, MO 02/25/2010 $300.00

Clark & Tavia Hunt Dallas, TX 03/12/2010 $1,000.00

[emphasis added]

Yeah, those bloggers are big spenders. (Disclosure: I’ve known Gary Grigsby for twenty years. The two of us ran a mom and pop political polling operation in the 90s.) There are additional contributions from a few party committees and a bunch of small dollar contributions from individuals.

The expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: GRIGSBY FOR MISSOURI REP

ReportDate: 4/15/2010

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

Postmaster – Postage $52.80

Filing Fee $50.00

Cass Co. Dem. Central Committee $50.00

JoCo Dem. Central Committee $50.00

ActBlue Missouri $3.95

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

Lettercraft Printing & Graphics Lee’s Summit, MO 01/20/2010 Campaign Envelopes $220.58

Heroes Restaurant Warrensburg, MO 02/18/2010 Reception $226.81

Fundraising!

The second of two Democratic Party candidates, Holmes Osborne, filed his first quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 9th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: OSBORNE FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $0.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $2,485.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $2,485.00

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $981.57

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $1,503.43

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $0.00

[emphasis added]

Okay. Let’s see where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: OSBORNE FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

Report Date: 4/9/2010

Holmes and Candace Osborne Bates City, MO 03/05/2010 $300.00

Paul Bennett Lakewood, CA AT&T 03/27/2010 $500.00

12. TOTAL ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $25 OR LESS $25.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $160.00

Individual contributions, no party committees, and no organizations.

The expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: OSBORNE FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

ReportDate: 4/9/2010

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

Check Printing $19.95

County Clerk $54.47

Priting $69.00

Newspaper Subscriptions $66.39

Advertising $67.50

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

Visionary Marketing Plano , TX 03/22/2010 Printing $507.26

Campaign Secrets 03/31/2010 Web site $197.00

Fundraising?

Mike McGhee, the republican incumbent, filed his first quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on April 15th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: CITIZENS TO RE-ELECT MIKE MCGHEE

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $8,680.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $5,450.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $14,130.00

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $5,204.42

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $8,072.36

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $0.00

[emphasis added.

Okay, that’s some burn rate – and he doesn’t have a primary.

Let’s take a look at where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS TO RE-ELECT MIKE MCGHEE

Report Date: 4/15/2010

Imagine Schools-Missouri Region St. Louis, MO 3/27/2010 $5,000.00

You’ve got to be kidding me – $450.00 in individual contributions and $5000.00 from a charter school special interest. Oh, joy. That’s real grassrootsie, isn’t it?

The expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: CITIZENS TO RE-ELECT MIKE MCGHEE

ReportDate: 4/15/2010

A. EXPENDITURES OF $100 OR LESS BY CATEGORY

Meals $143.14

Advertising $186.00

Filing Fee $50.00

Sponsorship $75.00

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

Higginsville Chamber of Commerce Higginsville, MO 1/23/2010 Advertising/Dinner $200.00

Higginsville Rotary Higginsville, MO 1/29/2010 Advertising/Dinner $375.00

Higginsville Rotary Higginsville, MO 2/13/2010 $125.00

Johnson Co. Republican Central Committee Johnson Co. MO 2/23/2010 Advertising $100.00

Lafayette Co. Central Committee Lafayette Co., MO 3/1/2010 Advertising/Dinner $200.00

Three Trails Winery Lexington, MO 1/16/2010 Appreciation Dinner $140.00

R & R Buttons Pleasant Hill, MO 3/1/2010 T-Shirts $259.14

Food! Ads! T-shirts! Ah, old school political consumption of food seems to be important to Mike McGhee’s reelection campaign. Burp.

Round one: McCaskill vs. secret holds (April 20, 2010)

Secret holds redux (April 21, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) speaking today in the Senate on secret holds:

The transcript:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Mr. President, I came to the floor on Tuesday of this week to, um, do something that I don’t think had been done before under the rules. We had a new law that went into effect, uh, in the early part of two thousand and seven that gave us a mechanism that was supposed to stop secret holds. Uh, and we are all waiting to see if, if by moving all of the nominations by unanimous consent if in fact the owners of the secret holds step forward. While we wait to see if the rule that was designed and passed into law works a bunch of us have been talking. And the, the folks that have been talking about this are the newest members of the Senate in the Democratic Party. There are twenty-one of us that arrived in the United States Senate sometime between now and January of two thousand and seven. It’s a pity, pretty big group of senators. And in discussing the secret holds with my colleagues that have been here for a fairly short period of time we decided well why don’t we just quit doing ’em. Let’s quit worrying about whether you’re identifying yourself in six days or whether you’re gonna play the switcheroo and pull your secret hold and put another secret hold in. Let’s just stop it. No more secret holds.

So, we know have drafted a letter to Senator Reid and Leader McConnell, Leader Reid and lead, Leader McConnell. And we have said, first, we will not do secret holds. We’re out of the business of secret holds. We’re not gonna do ’em. And secondly, we want the Senate to pass a rule that prohibits them entirely. If you want to hold somebody, fine. But say who you are and why you’re doing it. Want to vote against somebody, that’s your right. But this notion that you can, behind closed doors, do some kind of secret negotiation to get something you want from the agency, and let’s be honest about it, that’s what a lot of this is. It’s getting leverage, secretly getting leverage for something you want. Well, those aren’t appropriate secrets for the public business. Uh, we have eighty secret holds right now. About seventy-six of those are Republican secret holds. Four are Democratic secret holds. And by the way, all eighty of the ones I made the motion on, all came out of committee unanimously. We even checked on the voice votes to make sure that no one said no in committee. There were no no votes. Completely unopposed out of committee these eighty nominees. For everything from the Ambassador to Syria to U.S. Marshalls to U.S. Attorneys, these are people that need to get to work. And they’re going to pass here. They’re all gonna pass. So we need to get this done, we need to stop secret holds, we need to get these people confirmed, and we need to change the way we do business around here.

So I am, and I want to once again give a shout out to Senator Wyden and Grassley who worked on this issue for a number of years. We are gonna open up this letter to all of the members of the Senate and hopefully, before we find out, we’re all waiting to see what happens in the six days that are looming for all these secret holds, if people step up into the sunshine. If they don’t, in the meantime we hopefully will get unanimous support from the United States Senators that secret holds are now out of fashion and no longer gonna be tolerated in the United States Senate…

Yesterday, I wrote about Claire McCaskill’s war on the secret holds that Senate Republicans have placed on President Obama’s nominees for judicial and government positions – just one of the ways these petty thugs are trying to hinder the administration from achieving its goals. True to her promise, McCaskill, joined by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), returned to the floor of the Senate last night to ask for unanimous consent to vote on 75 more stalled nominations.

The upshot? Egregious Republican stalling. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) came to the floor and objected to the request for votes on behalf of unnamed, presumably Republican colleagues.

Since a motion for unanimous consent to vote on a nominee requires the Senator who placed the hold to identify him or herself, and send a letter justifying the hold to be published in the Congressional Record, Senator McCaskill promised that:

… she would be watching the Congressional Record and contacting both parties’ leadership offices to track which Members come forward to reveal their holds in accordance with the 2007 rule. McCaskill said she hopes to either reveal the sources of anonymous holds – or end them all together.

“Hopefully by the end of the week we’ll learn who it is in the Senate that doesn’t want them to be nominated, who it is that doesn’t want them to be confirmed,” she said.

Her goal:

… to pressure Senators “to speak out about their objections so that we can answer them and move forward and get these people to work.”

How effective this will be remains to be seen – what we have now may well be a “let the games begin” scenario. According to Ryan Grim and Ben Craw of The Huffington Post, the Republicans who placed the holds:

…may be able to wiggle out of going public by dropping their holds and picking them right back up, or teaming up with other Republicans and swapping the holds back and forth. It’s never been tried before, so where this is heading is anybody’s guess.

At least in Senator McCaskill we’ve got a dogged participant in the game representing our interests. And perhaps we can exert a little pressure too – phone calls to Senator Bond to express our displeasure with this type of obstructionism perhaps? Some letters to the editors of Missouri papers recognizing Senator McCaskill’s efforts to keep government running, and giving a thumbs down to the Republican performance? Just asking …