FiredUp! has done a great job of chronicling Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder’s lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Just go to the FiredUp! Website and search “Peter Kinder suit” and you’ll get the whole ugly story. It seems obvious that the suit is a maneuver to spark some enthusiasm on the part of Missouri’s roiling Tea Party masses for a future run by Kinder for governor. If so, perhaps he should reconsider.

In the wake of last night’s primaries, Think Progress notes that:

Every single health care plaintiff in a contested primary for governor lost their election – hopefully this will inspire future candidates to abandon their counterproductive opposition to health reform.

Wanna bet Knder won’t get the message that opposing “Obamacare” isn’t the way to the governor’s mansion?  Poor baby’s in too deep for anything but denial.

Robin Carnahan has maybe realized that she really stepped in it when she voiced her support for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans last week. After all, it isn’t as if retaining the tax cuts is even a popular position, but quite the opposite. According to Jo Mannies at the St. Louis Beacon, Carnahan:

… clarified her position on the Bush tax cuts by saying that she eventually may support a phaseout of tax reductions for the wealthiest Americans once the economy was back on track.

Can we take that as an effort to wade out without losing face?

She’s still seriously wrong. The tax cuts for the wealthy –  which, as Paul Krugman points out, means cutting “checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country” – will cost us big at a time when government revenues are seriously depleted, and give us little to nothing in return. However, given that she’s facing off against Roy Blunt, arguably one of the most corrupt wheeler-dealer blasts from the BushCo past, we may have to accept it for what it is.

Aside from this pander – which, by the way, in light of the cost of the tax cuts, directly contradicts the point of her earlier deficit pandering – Carnahan is preferable to Blunt on so many levels it almost hurts to think about it.  The same Beacon article, for instance, quotes her remarks at a meeting of the National Educational Association (NEA) where her views on No Child Left Behind legislation not only seem sane and sensible, but also underline the role Roy Blunt played in its failure:

Carnahan said that Blunt deserved part of the blame because he had voted for No Child Left Behind but also voted against the additional money that backers say was needed.

As little as it may be, this type of distinction is important. Think for a minute about Social Security. Do you have any doubt that Blunt would gut it, privatize it, whatever, in a heartbeat?  Carnahan’s recent performance might make some worry about how easily she would cave in a hard fight, but at least there’s a good chance she would do the right thing. Nor is the question academic since I guarantee this particular fight will be coming to a theater near you soon.

So the sad moral of this story is (enthusiasm deficit, anyone?): Boo Blunt! Go Carnahan! But maybe, jut maybe, Robin, try to stand up for Democratic principles in the future – then maybe you won’t have to back down with your dinner all over your chin. I promise that there are some of us who won’t extend the benefit of the doubt a second time.  

The opposition to a solitary big bucks conservative’s drive to gut the finances of Missouri’s two largest cities, via Proposition A on the November ballot – United for Missouri’s Priorities:

…A billionaire has already spent over $1 million out of his pocket to fund a statewide ballot initiative that will force devastating cuts to public services in Missouri’s two largest cities.

This ballot initiative will eliminate the earnings tax Kansas City and St. Louis rely on to provide basic services including police officers, fire fighters, snow removal, garbage pickup, street repair, services for lower-income kids & adults, and medical and emergency care.

By eliminating the earnings tax, this billionaire’s initiative will force massive budget cuts to St. Louis and Kansas City and will lead to increased sales and property taxes…

Their contributors, not as cash flush as the anti-tax billionaire, are gearing up to oppose Proposition A. Via the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101069 UNITED FOR MISSOURI’S PRIORITIES [pdf] 8/20/2010

SEIU Missouri Kansas State Council

St. Louis, MO

8/20/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101069 UNITED FOR MISSOURI’S PRIORITIES [pdf] 8/19/2010

Washington University in St. Louis

St. Louis, MO

8/19/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101069 UNITED FOR MISSOURI’S PRIORITIES [pdf] 8/18/2010

Missouri National Education Association

Legislative Crisis Fund

Jefferson City MO

8/17/2010

$10,000.00

AFSCME International

Washington DC

8/17/2010

$15,000.00

[emphasis added]

Working people, teachers, and higher education. Hmmm.

These amounts are paltry in comparison to the proponent’s committee – second quarter campaign finance report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 15th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: LET VOTERS DECIDE

ReportDate:

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $1,000,545.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $5,818,000.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $6,902,692.67

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $5,317,303.25

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $1,585,238.06

[emphasis added]

That’s a lot of cash on hand.

Ah, it’s the golden rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Working people, teachers, and higher education on one side – a billionaire on the other. Class warfare anyone? With that kind of money, wouldn’t it have been easier to run for Governor or U.S. Senate? Just asking. It’d be less obvious.

…because they’re usually not delusional.

From our good friends at Fired Up:

Ten Show-Me State Blogs You Should Be Reading (If You Aren’t Already)

My mom tells me that Fired Up! Missouri is the best blog in the world, and she’s probably correct in that assessment.  But that doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of other great blogs in Missouri that you should be consuming on a regular basis.  None of them approach the quality or brilliance found here, but they’re worth perusing nonetheless….

…The good folks at SMP just celebrated their third anniversary of progressive news and commentary.  A solid group blog with writers unafraid to take on leaders in all parties…

Heh.

By the way, our moms say otherwise.

Tommy Sowers‘ (D) campaign is airing this latest ad:

Tommy Sowers: When I served in Iraq I wasn’t alone. I had my fellow soldiers and this combat Bible. I’m Tommy Sowers, a veteran running to bring new blood to Congress.

Announcer: Jo Ann Emerson sold us out.

[Jo Ann Emerson]

Voted for job killing trade deals and the Wall Street bailout.

[Bad Trade Deals, Wall Street Bailouts]

Now Emerson is backing another one hundred sixty-five billion dollar bailout scheme and taking money from big city special interests in return.

Vote Sowers and stop Emerson’s latest bailout.

[Shotgun]

Tommy Sowers: I’m Tommy Sowers and I approved this message.

[Sowers, SowersForCongress.com

Aaproved by Tommy Sowers, Paid For By Sowers For Congress]

Heh. The shotgun is a nice touch.

Via our good friends at Fired Up:

[….]

…Vicky Hartzler (r): Ike Skelton, under his leadership, has seen a decrease in the defense budget, have, has, had missile defense, uh, cut.

[….]

We have the, the smallest navy here that we have had since nineteen, uh, the early nineteen sixties.

Congressman Ike Skelton (D): I don’t understand what she’s saying, huh, Missouri’s naval presence?

[….]

I don’t think Vicky Hartzler does either, Ike.

Oh, and her campaign spokesperson had a thing or two to say:

“….The impression you get from watching the Channel 41 report is Vicky Hartzler is suggesting that Missouri somewhere has a naval base, and that is, of course, ridiculous….”

He, of course, went on to say that Ike Skelton looked bad, too. Great campaign strategery there, bub.

And missile defense? You mean Saint Ronnie Raygun’s boondogle? Yeah, Edward Teach is gonna start lobbing projectiles at us from the Caribbean.

There be pirates in Harrisonville! Aarrgh!

Last month, when Michele Bachmann put out the list of the first members of her new congressional Tea Party Caucus, I noted the predictable presence of Teetotaler Todd Akin (R-2nd), and asked where the rest of the Missouri Republican delegation was. The answer is that, with one exception, Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9th), they are still missing.

It might be that Roy Blunt (R-7th), Jo Ann Emerson (R-8th), and Sam Graves(R-6th) still have some capacity for embarrassment. Or that, lacking the sincere conviction that practically oozes from, say, Todd Akin, they want more wiggle room. They may well be worrying about constituents who would think twice about a congressperson whose goal is to “serve as a listening ear to tea parties.” (Are you, like me, wondering what kind of ears aren’t “listening” ears?)

However, a report from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) suggests that those who haven’t yet joined the Tea Party Caucus membership might want to reconsider in the future since:

… analysis shows that the top contributors to the 50 members of a newly-established congressional Tea Party caucus — which so far includes only Republicans — are health professionals, retirees, the real estate industry and oil and gas interests.

Furthermore, donations from health professionals, oil and gas interests and Republican and conservative groups are, on average, higher for Tea Party caucus members than for members of the House of Representatives in general and even their fellow House Republicans.

I have to admit my first reaction was so what? These are exactly the groups I would expect to be lavishing funds on legislators on the Tea Party bandwagon – and many of the Missouri politicians that haven’t joined the caucus get plenty of moola from those groups as well (you can check out their totals by industrial and other donor groups on CPR’s OpenSecrets.org).

However, I began to get the point when I read further:

Tea Party activists have already established political action committees to fund favored candidates. But the formation of the caucus may make it easier to track which industries’ interests are aligned with the movement.

If the pattern of giving that CRP has described becomes more marked, perhaps we’ll see more movement toward the Tea Party caucus from the rest of the Missouri GOP in the future. Political scientist, Jim Hensen, claims that “The guys that are forming the caucus in Congress are trying to, you know, ride the train …”. Could that be the gravy train he’s talking about?

…because in the end, even if you carry their water for them, they’ll reward you by endorsing your opponent.

Farm Bureau rejects Skelton, endorses Republican for first time in 14 years

By: Darrell Todd Maurina

Posted: Friday, August 20, 2010 9:52 pm

SEDALIA, Mo. (Aug. 20, 2010) – For the first time since the mid-1990s, U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton has lost the endorsement of the Missouri Farm Bureau’s political action committee.

The trustees of Missouri’s 4th Congressional District FARM-PAC announced Friday morning that they’ll be endorsing Vicky Hartzler, a former state representative from Harrisonville, over Skelton…

“…He had a favorable record on voting with ag issues of importance to Farm Bureau. The questions that came up again and again in the discussion was how over the past four years Congressman Skelton has voted like 95 percent of the time with (Speaker of the House) Nancy Pelosi,” Bassett said…

[emphasis added]

Yeah, Ike Skelton voted for agriculture, but you use a right wingnut front organization’s attack ad talking point to explain your endorsement of a republican? Party hack.

Ah, for the days of hardball politics, when this kind of blatant partisanship at the expense of actual issues was rewarded with a permanent sojourn in the wilderness of irrelevance. “Congressman, Farm Bureau is on the line.” “Put ’em on hold, and leave the phone off the hook.”

Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) via Twitter:

Talked to Mayor Bloomberg’s office a month ago and told them Ground Zero mosque was a bad idea.     6:03 PM Aug 18th  via mobile web  

An even better question:

…one question has not been adequately addressed: what makes a mosque near ground zero offensive?

Just asking.