Previously:

That’s Liza with a Z, not Lisa with an S… (May 18, 2013)

We’re covering the Jackson County Democratic Committee annual Truman Days celebration at the Holiday Inn Coco Key in Kansas City this weekend. Last night the hospitality suites were open:

Jessica Podhola  (right), Executive Director of the Jackson County Democratic Committee.

Working people!

You got that right.

Judy Baker.

A young Democrat.

Crystal Williams, President of the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus

Tonight the featured speaker is U.S. Representative, Congressman Raúl Grijalva of Arizona. Other scheduled speakers include Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, State Treasurer Clint Zweifel, Secretary of State Jason Kander, and Attorney General Chris Koster.

Remember when folks were saying that Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2) was the GOP anti-Akin – that is to say a respectable face for the GOP as opposed to the Akin-style looneytunes? Such observations, alas, are always relative. Wagner may not be quite as stupid as Akin, but she’s still a good little GOP trooper and will toe the crazy line when required and when the opportunity offers – and most recently that means getting in on the Benghazi pileup.

In a recent interview on the Dana Loesch show (where else can Missouri pols so easily lie with impunity?), Wagner claimed that the “stand-down” order that putatively prevented a team of special forces servicemen from coming to aid the embassy in Benghazi would have had to come from none other than the President. Although she doesn’t make the link herself (at least so far as I could determine), rightwing conspiracy buffs, who have been all over this otherwise ignored statement during the past few days (just google “Ann Wagner” and “stand down”), are treating her statement as authoritative based on her stint as Ambassador to that major hot spot, Luxembourg.

Alas, Wagner is either wrong or incompletely representing the chain of command to suggest something that she does  not want to state directly:

— First of all, there was no “stand-down” – a stand-down implies a cessation in offensive activities that were already underway. However, even the GOP star witness, Gregory Hicks, who was supposed to finally blow the “cover” off the Obama administration’s alleged failures, admitted during the latest round of House Benghazi hearings that this just wasn’t so (in fact, congressional Democrats had to demand that Hicks’ testimony, which actually supported the administration narrative, be included in the record in its entirety):

During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed – not to join the fighting at the CIA annex – but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

— Second, is it really true that an order to stand-down would have to be issued by the President? Nobody else, including plenty of folks who could be expected to be “in the know” seems to think that’s the case – which is why conservative condemnation  has been aimed at Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. While searching for some information on military protocols, I came across this statement from a person claiming to be a retired army officer which suggests that tactical decisions such as those governing the deployment of special forces need not go all the way to the top:

Since most of you guys have never worked in a TOC (Tactical Operations Center), let me fill you in on who gives the orders to ‘stand down’.

We have SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) that we follow when an Embassy, a Base, or a Post is being attacked. Part of those procedures do NOT include calling the White House to ask for advice or permission to take action.

The Battle Captain in that TOC makes the initial call to alert the QRF or CIF. Once the immediate chain of command is notified, a Colonel or a General (as in this case) will make the final decision as to ramp up, execute, or stand down. Again, we don’t ever call the White House to ask for permission or guidance in these matters. That’s why we have Colonels and Generals.

High ranking officers get paid the big bucks to make these type of decisions on the battlefield and I hate to break it to you guys but the President is NOT part of that decision making process. The President and high ranking officials like Hillary, Panetta, and Petraeus are eventually notified of situations like this and updated thereafter. However, it’s the Combatant Commander that is responsible for that area who makes the final call to execute mission or ‘stand down’. In this case, the AOR (Area of Responsibility) was AFRICOM and the Combatant Commander for AFRICOM was GEN Ham.

I haven’t verified this description of standard procedure, but it rings a lot truer to me than the statements of a retired Ambassador to Luxembourg – an assignment, incidentally, routinely given to big campaign donors and supporters because it’s so insignificant that it’s hard to endanger any important U.S. foreign relations (although recent Obama appointee Cynthia Stroum managed to mismanage internal embassy operations so badly that she was recalled). This account of emergency procedure also jibes with statements by both critics and supporters of the administration’s handling of the Benghazi incident.

— Third, if one carefully parses Wagner’s statements, you will notice that she does not say that the President ordered the special forces to stand-down:

Rep. Wagner did not actually claim that Obama had ordered a “stand down” and there has been no evidence presented that President Obama ever gave a “stand down” order during the Benghazi attack.

Many accounts noted that Wagner’s smug suggestion had gone unnoticed. Part of the reason for this lack of attention may have been the venue – Loesch is, by any definition, a small-time player on the fringe of the fringe and garners little interest outside her chosen milieu. But it is also quite possible that Wagner’s dog-whistle to the legions of obsessive rightwing Obama haters has been ignored because it reflects an exaggeration of the real way that things work and, as such, would only serve to further discredit the already tattered Benghazi non-scandal. Her willingness to dance the GOP crazy tango should, however, be of interest to Missourians who thought that they had at last put the embarrassment of Todd Akin behind them.

UPDATE:  Wagner’s even worse than I thought. Here’s more Ann Wagner Benghazi misrepresentation from Twitter:

Ann Wagner ‏@RepAnnWagner 16 May

The #Benghazi emails directly contradict what @PressSec told the American people and I’m appalled at the lies that were told.

This in spite of CBS’s revelation that the release of the emails proved that the GOP altered the content of White House Benghazi emails they had seen in order to serve their efforts to trump-up a scandal.

We’re covering the Jackson County Democratic Committee annual Truman Days celebration at the Holiday Inn Coco Key in Kansas City this weekend.

Last night we visited the hospitality suites and visited with old friends. The food is good, too.

A pseudonymous (left) and an anonymous (right), albeit quasi famous Twitter denizen, political bloggers.

“Who are you with?” “Progress Missouri?” “Uh, no, we’re Show Me Progress.”

“Are You Sean?” “Uh, no.”

Either the other photo didn’t turn out, or the editor controls the camera memory card. You pick.

Heh.

Luminarias to signify the human impact of Medicaid Expansion at the Capitol on May 16, 2013. Photo courtesy of Progress Missouri.

From Progress Missouri:

Resolute Missourians Illuminate Human Cost of Failure to Expand Medicaid

1,500 luminarias lit at Capitol Thursday night to signify human impact of Medicaid Expansion

Jefferson City – As the General Assembly prepares to finish a legislative session defined by the failure to expand Medicaid for working Missourians, frustrated citizens gathered on the steps of the Capitol to light 1,500 luminarias to represent the lives that would be saved every year if legislators fully expand Medicaid to 138% of the federal poverty level.

“Medicaid Expansion is a moral imperative, and our commitment to this issue will not end with this legislative session,” said Rev. John Bennett of Jefferson City.  “Missourians’ lives are at stake, and we will continue to demand our legislature pass full Medicaid Expansion for our uninsured neighbors and family members.”

“Since our state motto is, ‘The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law,’ shouldn’t we care about the living conditions of our neighbors?” said Rev. Theresa Danieley of St. Louis.”For Christians, I believe the answer is a resounding yes. In Matthew 22, Jesus teaches us that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. In the Episcopal Baptismal Covenant, we promise, with God’s help, to love our neighbors as ourselves, to respect the dignity of every human being, and to strive for justice and peace.”

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found full Medicaid Expansion will save thousands of lives for impacted consumers; in Missouri, 15,000 lives would be spared in the first full decade of expansion.

The state of Missouri has an opportunity to expand Medicaid coverage to Missourians making up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level. Federal funding will cover the costs of this expansion for the first three years and the state of Missouri will never pay for more than 10%. Estimates are that this expansion would allow more than 260,000 uninsured Missourians to gain coverage and create more than 24,000 new jobs in Missouri. However, the state legislature must act to extend this critical coverage to Missouri families.

Previously:

It’s the last week of the session (May 14, 2013)

May as well (May 15, 2013)

KC-Area Faith Leaders on SB29, Paycheck Deception (May 15, 2013)

Faith, Hope, Charity…and Persistence (May 15, 2013)

As the House considered SB 224 in yesterday’s session it became a vehicle for adding amendments (provisions that existed in other amendments in other bills or for bills which are languishing in legislative purgatory).

SB 224 [….]

Last Action: 5/16/2013 – Requests to Recede or Grant Conference Calendar–SCS for SB 224-Curls, et al, with HA 1, HA 2, HA 3, HA 4, HSA 1 for HA 5, HA 6, HA 7 & HA 8 (Senate requests House recede or grant conference)

[….]

[emphasis added]

HA 5 to SB 224 was introduced by Representative Rick Brattin (r). Representative Jeff Roorda (D) raised a point of order, pointing out that this particular amendment was going to be a vehicle for something else (it was). From the House Rules:

Must Be Germane

Rule 69. [pdf] No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

The Speaker ruled against the point of order.

Representative Jeff Roorda (D).

Sure enough, Representative Holly Rehder (r) was recognized and introduced HSA [House Substitute Amendment] 1 to HA 5 to SB 224.

Representative Roorda (D) asked in his inquiry of Representative Rehder (r) if the substitute amendment was another vehicle to apply “right to work” to public sector first responder unions (specifically, the bill would apply to Kansas City Police). Representative Rehder (r) answered, eventually, that the amendment would indeed do so. A request was made for a recorded vote (with at least five members standing to agree). The recorded vote was granted.

Representative Holly Rehder (r).

Curiously, Representative Rehder (r) is Chair of the Issue Development Standing Committee on Workers Freedom of the House. That’s so 1984.

Meanwhile, Representative Rick Brattin (r) watched the proceedings:

Representative Rick Brattin (r). Yes, that Rick Brattin.

Representatives Eric Burlison (r) (left) and Holly Rehder (r) (right).

The amendment was approved 85-71 in a roll call (recorded vote).

The republican anti organized labor agenda will keep returning like zombie b-movie sequels.

Previously:

It’s the last week of the session (May 14, 2013)

May as well (May 15, 2013)

In the House chamber.

If one spends any amount of time watching the House in action during the last week of the session you are bound to witness a moment or two of legislative drama.

In this morning’s session Representative Karla May (D) introduced HA 3 to SB 73 (Judicial Procedures). Her amendment would allow an individual convicted of the felony of non support (not paying child support) who made complete restitution and after waiting eight years to go through the process of expunging their felony conviction for the purpose of job application. That is, a qualifying individual would not have to report their non support felony conviction on a job application if they met all the requirements stated in the amendment.  

Representative Karla May (D), introducing HA 3 to SB 73 in the House this morning.

Representatives Karla May (D) and Stanley Cox (r).

Representative Stanley Cox (r) spoke against the amendment. After the previous question was invoked the amendment was defeated in a voice vote.

There was an amount of frustration and exasperation exhibited on the floor with that outcome.

This is a story about persistence and bouncing back.

Later in the morning Representative May took the opportunity to attach the same amendment language to another germane bill, introducing HA 2 to SB 224 (Law Enforcement Agencies). Hope.

Representative Karla May (D), introducing HA 2 to SB 224 (the same as HA 3 to SB 73

which was defeated in an earlier voice vote) in the House this morning.

Representative Stanley Cox (r) again spoke against the amendment.

Representative Stanley Cox (r).

Then Representative Gina Mitten (D) spoke in a rapid exchange in the form of an inquiry with Representative May.

Representative Gina Mitten (D).

And, later, Representative Nick Marshall (r) (a former assistant prosecutor) spoke at length in support of the amendment, citing his experience prosecuting these cases, a felony where there can be no criminal intent on the part of the defendant (they may have lost their job, they have no resources to pay child support).

Representative Nick Marshall (r).

Persistence.

The tide turned. The amendment was approved overwhelmingly in a recorded vote.

The board for HA 2 for SB 224 right before the vote was closed. Yes votes in green, no votes in red, not voting/not yet voting in amber.

No votes included Representatives Stanley Cox, Dean Dohrman, and Denny Hoskins. They do represent contiguous districts in west central Missouri.

Representative Dean Dohrman (left) and Representative Denny Hoskins (right).

What, again?

I spoke with Representative Karla May (D) about her amendment in the recess between the morning and afternoon sessions:

Show Me Progress: ….Could you just briefly explain the purpose of your amendment?

Representative Karla May (D):  Well, the purpose of the amendment is to give gentlemen who have been convicted of criminal non support  a second chance. Um, we have a very punitive correctional system. It’s overcrowded. It’s costing the state billions of dollars.

Um, these guys go to jail, it’s a, it’s one crime that can, you can be convicted with a Class B felony with no criminal intent. Um, these guys have, uh, my amendment is basically saying that, okay, after you’ve decided to admit to the crime, come into court, and they call it suspended imposition of sentence, you come in, they give you a suspended imposition of sentence, you get convicted with a Class B felony.

So, a felony, everybody knows, prevents people from getting employed. You have different companies that don’t hire people with felonies. Period. You know, so, it prevents them, and you can’t get any professional licensing, real estate licensing, things like that. You can’t, no longer work.

Show Me Progress: And, so, so, and so the amendment is, after somebody’s gone through this whole process, they’ve paid their debt, they’ve taken care of everything, spend a long period, and this would allow them to actually be, when they apply for a job they didn’t, wouldn’t have to say that they’ve been convicted of a felony? And, therefore [Representative May: “Yes.”] they could be somebody who will continue to contribute to society.

Representative May: Exactly. Pay taxes, buy a house, you know, continue to contribute to society.

And the thing about it is, you know, some, the court gives suspended imposition for five years and sometimes ten years. So, you have to complete that ten years and then wait eight years before you can even come in to get a one time, one time only expungement. It’s not like we’re opening the flood gates or anything. It’s, a, giving people an opportunity, it’s even giving them an incentive.

Show Me Progress: Well, well, it was an interesting turn of events on the floor [of the House] today when the first time the amendment was offered on one bill it, it went down. And then some people spoke very eloquently in support in, across party lines. [Representative May: “Yes.”]  And, and then there was overwhelming support for the bill. [Representative May: “Yes.”]

And, so, the next step is it goes, it’s attached to a bill which will end up going through the Senate.

Representative May: Yes, it’ll go to the Senate. It’s attached to [Senator] Kiki Curls’ bill.

Show Me Progress: Okay. And, uh, do you have good hopes for this?

Representative May: I’m a praying person. My hopes rest with God.  I was like, if you want these fathers to have this opportunity it’s up to you. I just walk by faith.  I did what I was supposed to do, now the rest is up to him.

Show Me Progress: Well, thank you very much for your time.

Representative May: No problem. Thank you.

Faith.

The entire bill goes back to the Senate. Hope, again.

On a vehicle in central Missouri:

Disappointment.

On a vehicle in west central Missouri:

Trying too hard. And, still, an awkward construct.

It worked out for the best.

Covering the Missouri House of Representatives from the side gallery puts you in close proximity with the members on the floor. If they want too they can walk over to the side gallery and engage you in conversation.

This afternoon as I was photographing members in the chamber Representative Mark Parkinson (r) noticed me talking a picture of him. He walked over to the side gallery, we shook hands, and we had a pleasant enough conversation. He asked me if the photo would be on the blog.

What the heck, here it is:

Representative Mark Parkinson (r).

Representative Parkinson’s grandfather was recognized by the House in his visit to the chamber yesterday. In our conversation this afternoon Representative Parkinson told me that his grandfather’s previous visit to the House was in the 1930s. I asked him if he had asked his grandfather if he thought the chamber had changed much in appearance. Representative Parkinson replied that his grandfather said that it looked pretty much the same.  

Previously:

Rep. Mark Parkinson (r): great moments in projection (April 10, 2010)

Representative Mark Parkinson (r): I know you are, but what am I? (April 11, 2010)

Reading is fundamental… (October 1, 2011)

It’s all about jobs, right? (Otober 2, 2011)

Jefferson City: in the House – March 21, 2012 (March 21, 2012)

HB 617: you are what you eat (February 16, 2013)

Maybe the second time is the charm (February 17, 2013)