Author Archives: willykay

No, Chuck Raasch, nobody’s giving Eric Greitens’ scandals short shrift

22 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s Washington correspondent, Chuck Raasch, occasionally indulges in the tired whinging about the Beltway’s (media) neglect of the good, solid folks in “flyover” country, a complaint we often hear, especially from Beltway journos intent on separating themselves from the herd by pretending to have a special line direct to the long-suffering, salt-of-the-earth folks hiding in the heartland (another tired designation for the center of the country). His latest complaint seems to be that, thanks to Eric Greitens, Missouri’s got an honest-to-god, big-time sex and corruption scandal and isn’t getting any credit for it:

For the record, on the day after a scathing legislative report on Greitens, one co-authored by five Republicans in which Republican Missouri House Speaker Todd Richardson labeled allegations against the Republican governor “very disturbing,” the Washington Post did not mention the report in its paper edition. It did, however, have four stories encompassing 140 column inches and five editorials or opinion columns on the resignation of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

For the record, the WaPo did report on latest in the Greitens brouhaha on the next day’s paper edition, just as they – and, as I can personally attest, numerous other national outlets – have reported regularly on the latest developments in the seemingly endless Greitens saga. (And shoudn’t Raasch be more interested in the digital version of the paper which likely has greater reach?)

If larger, coastal newspapers aren’t saturating their front pages with Greitens naughty behavior, as lamented by Raasch and Helaine Olen, whose WaPo article on the subject Raasch references, one of the reasons is that the practical considerations our Missouri scandal raises are probably of greater interest to the citizens of Missouri who will have to live with the consequences than it is to folks elsewhere. And who would expect anything else?

Of course, there’s also the fact that sex sandals are a dime a dozen lately. When the President of the United States is implicated in paying off porn actresses and Playboy models – and stands accused of eleven (or is it more?) instances of sexual assault, Greitens’ efforts seemed to be, at least until the most recent revelations of abusive behavior, essentially subpar.  Olen speculates that Greitens isn’t getting his due measure of shaming:

… partly because the Trump presidency is a news black hole, sucking up so much of our attention that almost nothing else can break through. But it’s also because the Trump administration, by ratcheting up the bounds of what is acceptable — at least to President Trump — is ensuring that actions that would normally shock all of us fly under the news radar.

As for Greitens’ alleged corruption – isn’t corruption the Republican way of life nowadays?

None of which is to say that newspapers have actually failed to report on the ever more salacious Greitens scandal. The issue is that bad behavior, that of both Greitens and Trump,  doesn’t seem to result in serious outrage, no matter how many folks are reading all the sordid details of life in the political fast lane.

Nor should we ignore the judgemental fingers pointed by various pundits over the past weeks. Ruth Marcus, also of The Washington Post, compared Greitens’ situation to that of the scandal-ridden EPA head, Scott Pruitt – three days before Olen lamented the lack of coverage and four days prior to Raach’s article. Like Olen, Marcus credits Trump’s Little of Circus of Horrors for the lack of consequences, declaring, “that Greitens and Pruitt remain in office, as of this writing, says something — not just about them, but about the degraded state of our politics.” Yep. And about Republicans too – don’t forget the prime enablers.

Finally, if Raasch wants Missouri to get credit for it’s own brand of sordid, he’ll definitely be gratified by the fact that Talking Points Memo has awarded Greitens one of its weekly Golden Duke awards. The Golden Duke, “named for former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, is given to a political figure by TPM following an attention-grabbing display of corruption, abuse of power, or risible behavior.” TPM’s editor, Josh Marshall, after detailing Greitens’ offenses, asserts that he deserves the award, because of “his refusal to read the writing on the wall.” He adds:

It’s unclear if Greitens will change his mind and voluntarily step down, be impeached, or attempt to ride out the allegations. But it appears he’ll have to adjust his political ambitions; he will likely have little use for the ericgreitensforpresident.com domain name he registered.

One can only hope.

Getting ironical about Greitens

13 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Are Republicans cynical, confused, or just outright hypocrites?

Cynical: The White House spokespeople, folks who work for Donald Trump, P****-grabber and sexual predator extraordinaire, who are claiming that they find the abuse allegations against the Missouri Governor, who is, compared to Trump, a junior-grade sexual predator, “very concerning.”

Confused: The three Missouri legislators, Republican Senators. Rob Schaaf, Doug Libla and Gary Romine, who are appealing to the same White House predator – who will never in a thousand years resign himself – to force Greitens to go gently into the looming political night. I guess our state-level pols just haven’t been paying attention. Read their letter – except for the parts that glorify Geitens’ Navy SEAL past, it could be describing the antics that have been imputed to the Orange Buffoon himself. Of course, the fool in the White House could end up doing just about anything, depending on the state of his “gut,” so maybe their gambit will pay off.

Outright hypocrite: Then, finally there’s the case of Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2). Wagner couldn’t wait to declare that when it comes to Greitens, she is “disgusted,” and asserts that he “is unfit to lead our state.” But I’m betting that a few of you remember when, in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape, she called on Trump to withdraw and labeled him “predatory and reprehensible.” Didn’t take her too long to reverse herself, though, when she realized which way the wind was blowing among the crazy reds in the Missouri GOP base. Nor is it surprising that she’s spent the last year kissing up to the Orange Buffoon who has showered her financial industry patrons with goodies. So much for her country-club rectitude.

Don’t ever doubt that our Annie will do whatever it takes when it comes to going along to get along. So we’ll wait and see if Greitens manages to hang on whether or not, in the end, all will be forgiven.

Are we tired of 2nd Amendment overkill (and I do mean kill) yet?

24 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

I wasn’t able to attend the St. Louis version March for our Lives in which thousands participated in at least 800 cities over the entire country. An estimated 500,000 showed up for the “mother” march in D.C., there were 20 blocks of marching people in New York – you get the idea; the marches were a big deal. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the downtown St. Louis event (there are other local marches as well) drew at least 10,000 participants, including Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. No Roy Blunt though; he seems to be okay with turning our schools into killing grounds as long as he gets those NRA checks.

There have also been a small sprinkling of pro-gun counter-protests as well, at least fifteen according to one accounting. Counter marches weren’t necessarily that impressive though. The one in Phoenix Arizona only managed to attract about two dozen participants while the Phoenix iteration of the March for our Lives brought out 15,000 marchers. Politicians, take note.

What was impressive about the pro-NRA gun-love demonstrators , though, is how tired and stale their rhetoric has become. It has always been dishonest; what I’m talking about is the fact that it seems at this point to be no more than a parody – and a dull-witted parody at that.

In Montana, which, along with the highest gun ownership rates, has the most gun deaths in the U.S.,  a local politician proclaimed apropos of the student-inspired rallies that:

I have a basic right that’s not granted by society — it’s granted by God — to self-defense, […] I don’t see how people in society can make the argument that they have the right to take a right from me because one person did something bad.

I have to admit that the gentleman’s narrative did differ from the same ol’, same ol’  reliance on an unsupported belief in an alll-permissive 2nd Amendment. This old boy infers that the right to carry guns is, by virtue of a gargantuan leap of logic, God-given. But by the same logic, don’t I and millions of other Americans have a right to defend ourselves from the legion of often hair-trigger fools who think they need guns to stay safe? As a student attending the Helena March for our Lives put it, “We don’t want anybody’s constitutional rights taken away, [… ] but we don’t want those rights to infringe on others’ rights to be able to exist safely in public spaces.”

Mr. Montana Pro-gun Pol himself bolsters my argument when he insists that  his rights might be abrogated “because one person did something bad.” Sorry, but the reason we’re considering regulating guns (as in well-regulated militia, per the Constitution) is that thousands of persons did and continue to do “something bad” with their guns, putting thousands more at risk. The catch-phrase favored by him and his is right. People kill people. Far too often people with guns. It’s just so easy to point and pull a trigger. And when that trigger is on a military-style assault gun – whooee – shooter’s going to town! Consider the fact that since the Parkland, Fla. murder of 17 high school students – a period of 37 days – 73 teenagers have been killed by guns.

Well-indoctrinated gun nuts do usually invoke the Constitution to justify their fury at any suggestion that gun ownership might be regulated in any way, and there were numerous quotes to that effects from folks at the counter-protests who were all hot and bothered because, they contended, the pro-gun control marchers were using their 1st Amendment rights to oppose the 2nd Amendment rights that the pro-gun demonstrators believe they have. Unfortunately, even the Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, that codified the idea of a 2nd Amendment right to private ownership of guns, also seems to have green-lighted common sense regulations of the sort that are currently being promulgated by those folks exercising their 1st Amendment rights:

 On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:  “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” 

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Won’t somebody educate the 2nd Amendment crazies about the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting it?

One attendee at an Indiana counter protest declared with a straight face that, “as a parent I feel horrible for the kids that were killed [… .] But you don’t say, ‘Hey there’s 200 deaths from drinking and driving and now we take all the cars away from people.’”

Newsflash, Dad. Regulating guns doesn’t require confiscation of legal firearms. Nor is the automotive comparison viable. We do regulate (i.e., license) drivers of cars – I personally lack a license because of a physical impairment that makes me a risky driver. You should be glad that I can’t get that license. But plenty of people continue to own and drive cars. There are also age requirements to buy alcohol. These measures may not always be effective or prevent all drinking and driving accidents, but I – and the individual quoted above – are lots safer than we would be because they exist.

When it comes to guns, we know that states with extended background checks, for instance, have had “35 percent fewer gun deaths per capita than those without the requirement. ” And guess what? There are folks in those states, those upstanding gun owners that the NRA likes to pretend that it represents,  who continue to own guns in spite of the stronger gun laws. Nobody took away their guns.

Finally, the  most stupid stance taken by the pro-gun crowd? Over and over they either called the gun-control marchers leftists, socialists, communists, or naive folks manipulated by leftists, socialists or communists.* Big Whoop. First, it’s not true;  polls  suggest that even a fair number of Republicans believe guns should be better regulated and there was Republican support for the March for our Lives. Those tired political labels are losing their power to scare anyone born later than 1960. Armed right-wing militias are lots scarier to many of us.

To borrow a slogan from a sign photographed at one of gun control rallies today, “Guns don’t kill people …. er, yes, they do.”

*ADDENDUM (3/25/18, 2:48): In addition the NRA is claiming the high schoolers are puppets of “Hollywood elites” and “gun-hating millionaires” – which is rich coming from an organization that, along with the  the Kochs and the rest of the dark money cabal, now owns most GOP politicians who are, once again, toeing the NRA line.

 

Has McCaskill chosen the wrong “bipartisan” issue?

11 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

At this still, admittedly, early date, Claire McCaskill, Missouri’s Democratic Senate incumbent, is running eight points, 44-52, behind wet-behind-the-ears AG Josh Hawley, who is probably her best known challenger from among the GOP primary lineup. How can this be, you ask? McCaskill’s got the money, she’s been working hard to make sure that out-state Missourian’s know that she understands rural “Missouri values,” trekking from one town hall to another, tacking carefully and skillfully to the center in an effort to cultivate those famous moderates we keep hearing about – although we rarely seem to see them nowadays.

But recent events leave me wondering if McCaskill’s might have honed in on the wrong issue in order to prove her non-partisan bona fides. I’m referring to her support for a Republican bill that would once again deregulate banks. As Garry Rivlin and Susan Antilla of The Intercept describe it:

… the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, […] represents the greatest threat to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law since its passage in 2010. The bill would relieve all but the country’s largest dozen banks of increased scrutiny and ease mortgage rules imposed after the financial crisis. It would undermine fair lending rules designed to counteract race discrimination and weaken the Volcker rule, which limits a bank’s ability to make speculative trades with federally insured deposits. …

In spite of the fact that bank earnings have continuously surged since 2010, proponents speciously insist that, due to the act, banks “are suffering and so, by extension, are consumers, businesses, and the economy at large.” Part and parcel of the GOP belief, reinforced by the Liar-in-Chief in the White House, that if you say it, it will be so, reality be dammed.

Many of the red-state Democrats who support the bill, like McCaskill, purport to buy into the argument that Dodd-Frank needs to be revised to help suffering community banks that the law has, they assert, disadvantaged. However, as Rivlin and Antilla report, “A 2017 FDIC report shows that deposits in community banks have grown in each of the past six years. Another report showed that 96 percent of the country’s 5,294 community banks were profitable, as of the third quarter of 2017.” If you’re interested in learning more about the problems with this legislation, including the effect on community banks, noted economist Jared Bernstein spells some of them out here in greater – but not too lengthy or ponderous -detail.

The issue for McCaskill, though, could go beyond pandering through bad policy, and might actually cost her politically. Consider, for example, the speculation that banking champion GOP Rep. Ann Wagner may be vulnerable this time around. It’s true that there are several reasons other than her dedication to fighting for the banks that so generously fund her that might leave her in a little shakier position than in the past. Her district has changed somewhat, she plays shy with her constituents in an effort to avoid controversy – and dim any potential sunlight on her priorities. There is, of course, also some indication that the hard-core Trumpies may not totally buy her Trump-MAGA conversion and are likely put off by her coy country club Republican aura.

But it’s equally true that there’s somewhat louder discussion than in past years about Wagner’s single-minded efforts to gut the financial rules, the fiduciary rule that protected investors from dishonest financial advisors in particular. People aren’t always as stupid as politicians think they are, particularly when it involves financial survival issues. And don’t forget, lots of Trump’s so-called populist voters were motivated by anger at Wall-street and the big banks – and there are those among them who are feeling a bit disillusioned right now.

McCaskill should take care – linking herself with folks like Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer, big-time Missouri shills for the banking industry, might just prove to be the proverbial millstone that could harm more than it helps with contrary voters. Oh, and there’s always the damage the actual policy may do to all of us. Don’t any of these Democratic fools playing the bipartisan game remember 2008?

ADDENDUM: Kevin Drum points out that the Dodd-Frank roll-back will also gut provisions that prevent racial redlining, voicing his – and my dismay – that any Democrats – are you listening Senator McCaskill – are supporting this piece of drek.

Trump, Russia, the NRA and today’s tweet storm

18 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

After Donald Trump – and to be honest, most of the Republican political class – totally failed to discuss the gun part of the fact that the children in Parkland, Florida were massacred by a kid armed with a legally purchased assault weapon, there was lots of right-minded noise about how the GOP is a totally owned subsidiary of the NRA. But, nevertheless, I found it odd that nobody – to my knowledge – has brought up this little bit of news from a few days earlier:

But when it comes to funding, the NRA may have finally gone too far: the FBI recently launched an investigation to determine whether a Russian central banker, and Putin ally, illegally funneled money through the organization to help the Trump campaign.

Kind of casts Trump’s worries that the Russia investigation might be eating up too many FBI resources in another light. Also explains his tight-lipped stance when it comes to bucking the NRA line. It might just not be the Russians who may have a few dirty secrets our putative president would prefer to keep quiet when it comes to money laundering.

Of course, given the limited intellectual capacity of the current White House occupant, it’s really not too surprising that he might not believe that the agents of a huge, complex agency like the FBI can walk and chew gum at the same time.

It’s getting scary out there – and our congresspeople are pretending not to see

17 Saturday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Nancy LeTourneau of The Washington Monthly did a first-rate if brief summary of the failed Trump presidency to date. The gist of her piece:

Taking a step back from getting caught up in the latest outrage, a look at what has happened over the last 13 months paints a picture of an utterly failed presidency. Because Donald Trump is incompetent, ignorant and mentally unfit to be president, he is not likely to improve on his performance to date. […]

Even if we ignore all of the obnoxious things he has said or tweeted and focus on his personnel and policy failures, the list is long.

  1. Failed to repeal Obamacare
  2. Failed to pass his immigration plan
  3. Travel ban and recision of DACA have been overturned in the courts
  4. Voter fraud commission disbanded after it went “off the rails”
  5. More than one in three staffers left the White House in its first year
  6. More than 40 percent his first Cabinet-level picks have faced ethical or other controversies
  7. At least 100 White House officials served with ‘interim’ security clearances until November
  8. A record low job approval rating for his first year

Depending on your politics, the fact that Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and the Transpacific Partnership trade agreement would be viewed as major failures. He still hasn’t completed the re-negotiation of NAFTA.

LeTourneau seems to think that Trump can rely on his fake news outlets, the servile right-wing media conglomerate that dances to Trump’s fiddle, to reframe his disastrous tenure. And indeed, the great right-wing echo chamber has been extraordinarily successful over the past decade in persuading low-information, high dudgeon folks that night is day and vice-versa.

That’s bad. But, oddly, what scares me more is what might happen if it doesn’t work. Consider this tidbit – pure gossip, not confirmed, but worth attention nevertheless:

A US National Security Council (NSC) official has reportedly suggested that a limited preemptive strike on North Korea could help the Republican Party in the upcoming midterm elections — a claim rebutted by the White House.

The alleged comment, which was sourced from a scathing opinion column published Friday by the South Korean newspaper Hankyoreh, was also tweeted by a Wall Street Journal reporter.

“Indeed, White House National Security Council senior director for Asian affairs Matthew Pottinger was reported as saying in a recent closed-door meeting with US experts on Korean Peninsula issues that a limited strike on the North ‘might help in the midterm elections,'” read the English-translated version of the op-ed.

[…]

The remarks come as some advisers to President Donald Trump have reportedly suggested limited military action against North Korea to give it a “bloody nose.”

According to all reputable sources, such a scenario would have an horrendous effect – quite apart from it’s effect on the midterms. Given what we know about Trump and some members of his contingent, however, it seems like it might seem to them to be a hunky-dory way to maintain political dominance.

And our congressional representatives? Would they defend us and the hundreds of innocents who are at risk against such an atrocity? Will we ever be able to rely on the GOP, the members of which have, as LeTourneau notes, utterly failed to hold Trump accountable – the very people who have even tried to cover for him in the face of what some think might amount to possible treason.

And as for Democrats, sure some will come out to do battle. But midterms scare lots of swing state Democrats who still think that it’s wise to tack to the middle. And maybe it is, as far as their individual political careers go. Don’t expect any profiles in courage.

My own Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill, is good at this walking the center line game. And usually I’m glad that she is. This is Missouri after all. But there’s lots going on now, and what’s Claire patting herself on the back for doing? In a recent email newsletter that I received, she informed me that her “bipartisan valentine” was the craven, corrupt Roy Blunt:

Since he and I have been in the Senate, we’ve teamed up on 331 bills and resolutions for the Show-me State—and that’s a record I think we can both be proud of.

Despite what you see on the news and online, there are a lot of things Senator Blunt and I agree on, and they’re almost all about commonsense solutions that will help folks in our state. We may not agree on everything, but we can certainly agree that Missourians come first.

Claire’s effort to hog the centrist spotlight is understandable, maybe. Effective in November? I hope. But it does not inspire confidence in the face of the debacle that is taking place in Washington – one abetted by Roy Blunt – although even he can’t resist expressing his doubts about Trump’s competence, at least as far as his ability to to effectively collude with Russia:

My view continues to be that the (Trump) campaign had one asset, which was a candidate that understood the moment and (was) not very capable of anything much more complicated than that.

Evidently, he’s never heard of “useful idiots” as a category. And maybe he doesn’t care, as long as the idiot in question lets him and his corporate clients have their way.

By the way, did Blunt send Claire a bipartisan valentine, I wonder? Will he even say anything nice about her?

Roy Blunt and the NRA: Married on the way to the bank

15 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

According to The New York Times Roy Blunt is one of the top ten “career”recipients of NRA largess in the congress. His take: $4,551,146. That’s right. Our boy got himself over four million of those NRA dollars. And I don’t think anyone would disagree that he’s done himself proud when it comes to earning his fee.

All of which prompts one to ask what he has to say about the latest mass shooting event at a school, a spree that took 17 lives and wounded at least 12 other children. The Sedalia Democrat offers the following quote:

In an interview, Blunt said that “I don’t think we have enough information yet to know that a change in any law would have impacted what happened in Florida.” But, referring to reports that the FBI had been warned by threats that the killer had made on social media, Blunt added: “Whether it is bizarre anti-social behavior or terrorist activity, when people see something they should say something.”You have got a guy parading around in a gas mask with weapons making threats and putting that on social media; that needs to be reported,” Blunt, R-Mo., said. “And the people that is [sic] reported to need to respond to that report.”

Blunt echoed the president in his imputation that the correct way to protect against mass school shootings would be for the “normal” folks to report aberrant behavior on the part of troubled individuals. Happened here, didn’t work, not going to work, just stigmatizes folks with emotional problems.

In the past Blunt has resorted overtly to the tack taken by Donald Trump today which is that it is mental illness that kills people, not guns – in spite of the fact that those suffering mental illness have been shown to more often suffer violence than they are to commit violent acts,  that when they do act out violently, they themselves have frequently been previously victimized, and they are more likely to do so within institutional settings rather than in public.

All of this is just a way to frame the simple-minded NRA bumper sticker that says in one variant or another that “people kill people, not guns.” If Kim Jong-un, who may or may not be mentally unstable, doesn’t realize that he’s dealing with a possible mental case in the White House, push comes to shove, and hundreds of folks, possibly in the U.S. as well as North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia are killed, will Republicans excuse the holocaust with a similar slogan: Crazy people kill people, not bombs? Funny that. Or not.

Of course, the real thrust of Blunt’s response was that he just doesn’t have enough facts to say anything substantive. While I know he’s unlikely to read this screed, I’d sill like to supply him with a few hard and fast facts:

  1. A disturbed young man, who, incidentally, had been reported and investigated by the authorities, was able to legally buy a military-grade weapon.
  2. President Trump, in his haste to destroy any remnants of Obama-style common-sense regulation, stopped a rule that would have made it more difficult for the mentally-ill to buy firearms.
  3. Republicans like Blunt have consistently refused to vote for legislation that regulated civilian acquisition of military-grade weapons in spite of the fact that they seem to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
  4. A conservative analysis by The Washington Post tells us that “more than 150,000 students attending at least 170 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.”
  5. In the first 45 days of this year there have been six school shootings that have injured students.
  6. States are skint. They aren’t willing or able to pay to supply the school security officers that schools are requesting. Florida schools, scene of the most recent shooting, are among those that have experienced growing enrollments but have received less money to pay for necessities like increased security for which they have requested funding.
  7. A spate of studies report that states – and developed countries – with more guns have more homicide deaths and suicides. States and countries with better regulated gun ownership have fewer.

There are lots more facts like these. And I’m willing to bet that Blunt knows a few of them already. He just doesn’t care.

Nor, as Blunt’s GOP pals like to claim, do these facts suggest that gun ownership should be illegal; nobody’s 2nd amendment rights should be violated. But we have to be clear that the Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, authored by conservative, gun-loving Judge Antonin Scalia, specifies that that the right to own firearms is subject to regulation, specifically in the case of “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’.”

So what’s keeping the pot boiling for a dangerously out of control NRA, an organization that wants to persuade us that even talking dirty about guns is not only a violation of a poorly understood 2nd amendment, but an invitation to “jack-booted government thugs” to steal our liberties? Look no further than Senator Roy Blunt and an NRA-whipped GOP.

But hey! Four million dollars is one heckava payout. And Blunt wasn’t even number one on the list.

Missouri GOP having second thoughts about Hawley?

06 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Scuttlebutt is that Josh Hawley’s halo is getting a bit tarnished. Roll call reports:

In recent days, some Republicans have been questioning Hawley’s fundraising and lack of campaign activity in the four months since he officially launched his campaign.

“This is supposed to be the campaign where we righted all the wrongs of Todd Akin and we exorcised all the demons of past campaigns or past attempts to beat Claire McCaskill,” one Missouri GOP consultant said. “And now people are wondering, ‘Are we really going to blow this again?’”

And don’t forget Hawley’s statements about the sexual revolution as the root of sex trafficking. Second helping of Todd Akin anyone?

And then, of course, there’s the business of that mysterious robocall polling Missourians on whether they prefer McCaskill or Wagner? Who’s responsible? Your guess is as good as mine.

Putting on a good face at Lincoln Days

05 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Most of the reports I’ve read about the GOP’s recent Lincoln Days event suggested that most of the state’s GOPers have decided to try and ignore Baby-Governor Greitens sex scandal. There was even mention of cheers as he touted his plans for the Kansification of Missouri.

But you shouldn’t let all this Republican bonhomie fool you. The story seems to be gathering steam; according to the latest reports, a grand jury has been convened to investigate Greitens’ blackmail threats allegedly directed at the lady with whom he was indulging in an extramarital affair:

A lawyer for the ex-husband of the woman who had an affair with Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens says prosecutors have convened a grand jury in their investigation into whether Greitens blackmailed the woman.

Al Watkins, the lawyer, announced Monday that his client was served with a subpoena to provide testimony to the grand jury.

The news may represent an escalation of the probe, which was launched last month.

“The issuance of a Grand Jury subpoena conclusively indicates that the Circuit Attorney’s Office has elevated its undertakings to include Grand Jury proceedings, for which subpoena power and other discovery tools are available,” Watkins said in a statement provided to TPM. “The power of subpoena is an invaluable tool to garner evidence and compel testimony which far transcends that which is accorded investigative personnel not otherwise armed with a Grand Jury.”

So, in spite of efforts to pretend that for Greitens and the Missouri GOP the worst has passed, it’s possible that there’s lots more to come.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

Profiles in courage at Lincoln Days

05 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

GOP Senator Roy Blunt shares a notable characteristic with Missouri GOP AG Josh Hawley, incidentally also a senatorial wannabe, and it’s a characteristic which has also been attributed to Donald Trump. Apparently they don’t read.

Asked about Hawley’s belief that the so-called sexual revolution is the direct cause of proliferating prostitution and sex trafficking – one of the few social evils to excite GOP concern – Blunt answered that he wasn’t familiar with them. Bear in mind here that the offending comments are brief, can be summarized in a single sentence, and have been exciting much merriment in about every national paper.

Blunt added that Hawley’s “a very capable guy and I’m sure he’ll be able to explain his views on these issues in the right way.” This of course is meant to let us know Blunt is leaving Hawley all on his lonesome when it comes to spinning his beliefs into something widely salable. Also, there’s just maybe a hint that Blunt is aware that even degrees from Stanford and Yale can’t actually turn the proverbial sow’s ear into a silk purse – and he wants us to know that he knows that fact.

All of which leaves one wondering whether or not Blunt’s lukewarm comments lend any credence to a report by Jo Mannies on the NPR Website that Ann Wagner might be willing to duck back into the senatorial contest – in the wake of Hawley’s cluelessness, the Akin-burned Missouri GOP, might really be hoping to lure back the veteran Ann Wagner who, at least, knows how to play both ends against the middle in the standard Missouri GOP way. On KWMU’s St. Louis on the Air today, Mannies pointed out that Wagner had in the past successfully worked surburban women, the very people most likely to be put off by Hawlely’s concern about sexually liberated women.

Hawley, in his turn, however, resorted to Blunt’s “read? who me?” dodge when asked about the notorious put-up job known as the Nunes Memo:

Hawley, who is seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., this fall, said that he hadn’t read the widely distributed four-page memo yet but that “I’m in favor of transparency. Get the facts out there.”

Yeah, like a GOP politician, angling for the big-time, doesn’t know all the details of a political sham that most of the rest of us alert non-politicians can recite backwards and forwards.

Which is not to say I’m not sympathetic to Hawley’s dilemma. As long as he can put off responding to the contents of that nothing burger memo he doesn’t have to sully his lily-white conscience by pretending that there’s anything but inept, partisan mumbo-jumbo there. Don’t laugh – there’s bound to be a few right-wing evangelicals who still try not to bear false witness any more than they have to in pursuit of their higher goals.

In this case, of course, Blunt can’t claim ignorance – he sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, after all. So he went a step farther and gave us what is for the carefully laconic Blunt a somewhat longish sound bite that should play well with just about everybody on the right because it says nothing in a grave and measured fashion. The gist: Trump shouldn’t fire Mueller nor should Congress insure that he can’t.

In other words, Republicans will do nothing, the president can do what he damn well wants. As for the obligation of congress to provide checks on executive power and exercise oversight, one gets the impression that as far as Blunt and Hawley are concerned, oversight might be a rare medical condition to be avoided at all costs.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our religious- and Trump-addled Missouri GOP. Poor fools don’t know what to say. So they don’t say anything as a rule, and when they do take off the masks, as Hawley seemingly did, the rest of the state’s GOP apparatchiks run for the hills.