We received this:

Somebody doesn’t like Kurt Schaefer (r).

We understand it can get noisy in Columbia.

Previously:

April 2016 – candidate campaign finance reports – Attorney General (April 17, 2016)

GOP Planned Parenthood grandstanding will cost Missouri taxpayers (April 20, 2016)

Teresa Hensley (D) and Jake Zimmerman (D) at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (April 2, 2016)

Kurt Schaefer just cost Missouri $8 million dollars (April 25, 2016)

President Obama’s weekly address:

The transcript:

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered
Weekly Address
The White House
April 30, 2016

Hi, everybody. It’s now been 45 days since I nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Judge Garland is a man of experience, integrity, and unimpeachable qualifications. Judge Garland is someone who Senate Republicans are on record saying is “a man of accomplishment and keen intellect;” a man who’s “honest and capable;” a man whose “reputation is beyond reproach.” Those are all quotes from Republicans in the Senate.

But so far, most Senate Republicans have refused to even meet with Judge Garland. Which means they’ve also refused to do their job and hold a hearing on his nomination, or an up-or-down vote. But they’ve still found time to head home for recess over the next week.

This is an abdication of the Senate’s responsibility. Every Supreme Court nominee since 1875 who hasn’t withdrawn from the process has received a hearing or a vote. For over 40 years, there’s been an average of 67 days between a nomination and a hearing. This time should be no different. This is not about partisan politics – it’s about upholding the institutions that make our democracy work.

There’s a reason Judge Garland has earned the respect of people from both political parties. As a young lawyer, he left a lucrative private firm to work in public service. He went to oversee the federal response to the Oklahoma City bombing. For the last 19 years, Judge Garland has served on the D.C. Circuit Court – often called “the Second Highest Court in the Land” – and for the past three years, he’s served as that court’s Chief Judge. In fact, Judge Merrick Garland has more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. With a brilliant mind, a kind spirit, and a good heart, he has dedicated his life to protecting our rights, and ensuring that the voices of everyday Americans are heard.

So there is absolutely no reason for Republican Senators to deny him the basic courtesy of a hearing and a vote – the same courtesy that has been extended to others. This refusal to treat a Supreme Court nomination with the seriousness it deserves is what makes people so cynical about Washington. That’s why poll after poll shows a majority of Americans think Senate Republicans should do their job; give Judge Garland a hearing; and give Judge Garland a vote.

For all of our political differences, Americans understand that what unites us is far greater than what divides us. And in the middle of a volatile political season, it is more important than ever that we fulfill our duties – in good faith – as public servants. The Supreme Court must remain above partisan politics. I’ve done my job – I nominated someone as qualified as Merrick Garland. Now it’s time for the Senate to do their job. Give Judge Garland a hearing. Give Judge Garland an up-or-down vote. Treat him – and our democracy – with the respect they deserve.

Thanks for listening, and have a great weekend.

###

Somehow we’re still not convinced that Senator Roy Blunt (r) is inclined to listen.

Previously:

Originalism in a time of argle-bargle (February 14, 2016)

Jason Kander (D): the Supreme Court and Roy Blunt (r) (February 15, 2016)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): can’t be bothered to even attempt to appear to do his job (February 23, 2016)

Jason Kander (D) to Roy Blunt (r): #DoYourJob (February 25, 2016)

Tell Roy Blunt to do his job (March 4, 2016)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r) won’t do his job and the sun also rises (March 17, 2016)

President Obama: on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court (March 20, 2016)

Steve Benen remarks today that:

It took a surprisingly long time, but Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) yesterday finally agreed to forgo a donation from disgraced former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The Missouri Republican gave the contribution he received from Hastert to a local charity.

Benen may be surprised by Blunt’s reluctance to return Hastert’s money, but I’m not. Actually, I agree with Blunt’s earlier position. If politicians felt they had to give back tainted money, they’d all be broke.

Money from Wall Street? Fossil fuels? Real estate developers? Communications? You name it, and if you look carefully enough, you’ll find lots of dirty deeds behind the dough – and, even worse, there’s usually an intent to influence the politician who is the recipient. Do you really think that money cajoled from ruthless corporate favor seekers is somehow nastier because the person who extracted it sexually abused children? Nobody says Blunt should give back his Montsanto money although it reeks of corruption.

Occasionally you find folks like the Bernie bros (and sisters) who say they won’t vote for a politician, in this case Clinton, because she took Goldman Sachs money or some such. While the desire for purity is understandable, sane folks know that unilateral disarmament is suicide. (And why is it usually the left that is determined to jump off a cliff?) Until the system changes, and the Blunts of the political world are barred from receiving, say, AT&T’s nearly unlimited financial blessings, politics will operate on tainted money.We just have to vote for politicians whom we trust to try to work for change in the way we finance our politicians.

In the meantime, can we call Blunt’s change of heart the Kander effect? You can’t blame him for not wanting to let his unexpectedly strong Democratic challenger use his name in the same sentence as the words “convicted sex offender.”

Yesterday evening in each of Missouri’s eight congressional districts the Missouri Democratic Party held conventions with township and county level delegates to elect allocated delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The delegates allocated to each of the two presidential candidates was determined by the vote for those candidates in the March presidential primary within each of those congressional districts. That distribution of delegates does not change no matter who shows up.

An important part of the process is the documentation. Each county level delegate must have proper documentation on file. Each individual seeking to run for an already allocated national delegate slot for a particular candidate must also file (Form F) and must have been vetted by their chosen candidate’s campaign. In the Congressional District Convention the Hillary Clinton county level delegates (they signed a Form B of support) can only vote for the national delegate candidates running for the allocated Hillary Clinton national delegate slots. Likewise, the Bernie Sanders county level delegates can only vote for the national delegate candidates running for the allocated Bernie Sanders national candidate slots. There is no such thing as delegate “flipping” in the Missouri delegate selection process.

Getting ready to sign in congressional district delegates.

Because there several hundred people involved (county level delegates and alternates) the sign in process has to be methodical and accurate. If an elected county level delegate doesn’t show up an elected alternate is assigned to take their place. This takes time. In Warsaw the local Democrats hosted a barbecue (the brownies were top notch) starting two and a half hours before the schedule start of the meeting. It’s an opportunity for individuals running for the national delegate slots to work the room and campaign for votes. At this point everyone was in the same room, regardless of which candidate they supported.

Waiting to sign in.

Conversation.

Campaigning for a national delegate slot.

One statewide candidate, one congressional district candidate, and several General Assembly candidates took the opportunity to work the room.

Judy Baker, a Democratic Party candidate for State Treasurer.

Gordon Christensen, the Democratic Party candidate in the 4th Congressional District.

Conversation.

Bought the t-shirt, actually showed up.

The respective groups of delegates and alternates for the two candidates met in two separate rooms to elect their candidate’s national convention delegates.

Waiting in the Hillary Clinton caucus.

With the delegate sign-in, the seating of alternates, and short speeches by candidates for the national delegate slots the process (officially) took two and a half hours.

Collected ballots.