• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Letter to the Editor

It’s not a waste if it’s actually working…

15 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaogn finance, General Assembly, Kansas City Star, Letter to the Editor, missouri, Rex Sinquefield

A letter to the editor in today’s Kansas City Star:

Improving Missouri

I have a surefire, can’t-miss idea for improving Missouri government. Simply anoint Rex Sinquefield king and replace the legislature with the Show-Me Institute.

It would save all that time wasted now telling the legislators how to vote and what to think, and it would save Mr. Sinquefield the millions he’s wasting buying them.

Mark Hastert
Kansas City

Ah, maybe it’s all about eliminating the middle man and improving efficiency.

Politics as performance art

04 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, Daily Star-Journal, Letter to the Editor, missouri, spin, VAWA, Vicky Hartzler, Warrensburg

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not too many people are buying it (March 5, 2013)

Piling on Vicky Hartzler (March 7, 2013)

Hartzler’s Deception (March 7, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): a VAWA letter to the editor (March 8, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): still another VAWA letter to the editor (March 8, 2013)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) had a (sort of) defender in a letter to the editor [subscription required] in yesterday’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal. We’re not quite sure. It could just be performance art:

4/2/2013 10:18:00 PM

Editor not fair to Hartzler

Letter to the Editor

This letter is in response to your March 11, 2013 editorial, again taking U. S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler to task for her votes on the Violence Against Women Act because you made a mistake in “reading the message” in a press release. I thought Peggy Nuckles’ cogent March 7 letter to the editor, in which she advised, “You owe her an apology,” would have straightened you out. Not so.

[….]

Leave Harry Truman out of it. He was a principled president. He would disagree with your baseless attacks against Vicky Hartzler.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Now those republicans sure love them some Harry Truman (D), don’t they?

Harry Truman, on republicans:

Address at the State Capitol in Denver  

September 20, 1948

….When I talk to you here today about Republicans, I am talking about the party that gets most of its campaign funds from the special interests in Wall Street. I am talking to you about the party that gave us the phony boom of the 1920’s, and the Hoover depression which followed it. I am talking to you about the party that gave us that Republican 80th Congress.

The Republican Party today is controlled by silent and cunning men who have a dangerous lust for power and privilege. The Republican Party is fundamentally the party of privilege. These men are now reaching out for control of the country and its resources….

Heh.

The salient point in the March 7, 2013 letter to the editor from Peggy Nuckles (in part)?:

….Rep. Hartzler set her priorities and voted according to her beliefs. And you made it sound like she thought protecting women from violence was more important than her hatred of gays. You owe her an apology….

[emphasis added]

That there is a “cogent” letter.

Sarcasm can oftentimes escape the irony impaired.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): still another VAWA letter to the editor

09 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, Democrat, Letter to the Editor, missouri, Sedalia, VAWA, Vicky Hartzler

Another letter to the editor [subscription required], in today’s Sedalia Democrat:

[….]

What’s wrong with this press release dated February 28, 2013, posted on her official website and sent out to newspapers across the 4th Congressional District of Missouri?

From US Representative Vicky Hartzler, “View from the Capitol – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler’s Newsletter for the Week of February 25 – March 1, 2013.” – “Hartzler Votes to Protect Women from Acts of Violence – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) has voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)… “I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler. “I supported legislation this week…..”

What’s wrong?  She voted AGAINST it, not FOR it (see official Congressional voting record at http://www.govtrack.us). And if you are a female, or love one, she voted against you and your loved ones.

“I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler.  Uhmmm, apparently not.

From the editor of Warrensburg’s Daily Star-Journal (printed this week):  “The Daily Star-Journal did not realize that what Hartzler’s release called “the Violence Against Women Act” in fact is not what is destined to become law.  In the release, she makes no mention that she did not vote for what would become law and, coupled with the deadline timing, what conclusion could be drawn other than that she voted for what would become law?……I trusted…..I regret that error.”

Exactly.

Why would Hartzler, or anyone for that matter, vote NO on renewing the Violence Against Women Act?  Shouldn’t all women of America be protected? And, why would her press release try to make you think that she voted to protect women when in fact she didn’t?

[….]

[with permission of the author]

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not too many people are buying it (March 5, 2013)

Piling on Vicky Hartzler (March 7, 2013)

Hartzler’s Deception (March 7, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): a VAWA letter to the editor (March 8, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): a VAWA letter to the editor

08 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, Daily Star Journal, Letter to the Editor, missouri, VAWA, Vicky Hartzler, Warrensburg

A letter to the editor [subscription required] in yesterday’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

I had to chuckle when I saw the article carried by The Daily Star-Journal about the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

[….]

Vicky Hartzler, must have winced if she read this article because it seamlessly transitioned to the next paragraph in which she praised the act and took credit for helping it pass. You made it sound like Rep. Hartzler helped codify the law to protect gays and lesbians from domestic abuse.

[….]

When it looked like the version of the bill that she supported would fail and the version that protected gays and lesbians would pass, Ms. Hartzler made her choice. She would rather that no victim of domestic violence receive help from the federal government if lesbians were going to be included in that group. She voted no.

Rep. Hartzler set her priorities and voted according to her beliefs. And you made it sound like she thought protecting women from violence was more important than her hatred of gays. You owe her an apology.

[….]

[with permission of the author]

Public political sarcasm is definitely a high art form.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not too many people are buying it (March 5, 2013)

Piling on Vicky Hartzler (March 7, 2013)

Hartzler’s Deception (March 7, 2013)

Because a footnote in Marbury v Madison (1803) gives Wayne LaPierre the final word?

24 Thursday Jan 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Daily Star Journal, guns, Johnson County, Letter to the Editor, missouri, Warrensburg

Evidently the national mouthpiece for the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturing industry isn’t the final arbiter.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is….

[emphasis added]

Nope, nothing there either about a county sheriff in out state Missouri.

There was a recent splash in the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal about a sternly worded letter from Johnson County (Missouri) Sheriff Chuck Heiss (r) addressed to President Barack Obama. Supposedly there were other sternly worded letters from a smattering of county sheriffs across the country, though definitely not a majority of them.

There was a lead editorial [subscription required] in the January 23, 2013 Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal criticizing the Johnson County Sheriff for using his publicly funded sheriff’s website to express his political opinion.

In addition, there were two extensive letters to the editor in the same January 23, 2013 print edition of the paper taking issue with Sheriff Heiss’ (r) assertions:

Your paper recently published (Jan. 18) the full text of the Johnson County Sheriff’s public letter to the U.S. president. This letter seems very concerned about efforts of the administration to address some of the underlying issues that have led to several recent shootings throughout the U.S. The letter proclaims in a concluding sentence for sheriffs in this state to “rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation or executive order that … diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

Unfortunately a reader of that letter would learn nothing about the scope of this right, nothing about the administration’s proposals that concerns its author, and nothing on alternative policies to the problems of “gun violence in our nation.”

Certainly the letter cannot seriously be suggesting that the rights under the Second Amendment are absolute. It is impossibly difficult to find any constitutional right to be absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court suggested that certain limitations could be imposed on gun use and ownership when it only recently found government restrictions on an individual right to bear arms to violate the Second Amendment. Since these decisions are very recent (2008, 2010) we do not know the actual scope of these rights and thus we cannot know with any great certainty that the administration’s proposals would actually “diminish” Second Amendment rights. These proposals will need to be enacted and tested in the courts to see if they are ultimately unconstitutional. Thus, the letter’s concluding sentence may be little more than hyperbole, unless the author sees himself as having a power to provide an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution.

The letter objects to the “tone of (the) administration.” The reader of your newspaper will look in vain in an attempt to get a clear sense of this “tone”; there is no supporting specificity to this objection to the administration’s proposals. This newspaper’s readers would be better informed on these issues if there had been a mention of this website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issu… Here there is a link to the full text of the president’s plan. Your readers can judge for themselves whether the administration’s proposals would unreasonably restrict a right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and whether they would help to prevent another of these recent horrific acts of violence.

As for policy suggestions, the purpose of the letter may have been merely to defend the notion of a restriction-free Second Amendment. However, it clearly implies that a restriction-free right to bear arms is a significant means to prevent a society from being “overrun with criminal element.” Citing the impact of Mexico’s drug cartels upon that country may not support this argument. Mexico’s constitution guarantees the right to have arms. Though this guarantee explicitly permits restrictions on ownership, yet a significant amount of these cartels’ firearms come from the far less-restricted gun market in the U.S. A further counterbalance to the letter’s cited experiences of other nations are those of the many democratic countries, not so impacted by gun smuggling from the U.S., that do not guarantee an individual unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, and have far smaller homicide rates than the U.S., and are not apparently “ripe for government oppression.”

It would be good for this newspaper to encourage open discussion on this important issue. However, to reproduce only the full text of a public letter to the president that provides no information for the reader with which to assess its many unsupported assertions is disappointing and does little to further public debate.

Don Wallace

Warrensburg

[letter reproduced with the permission of the author]

The second letter:

I’d like to express my strong disagreement with a letter sent to President Obama by Johnson County Sheriff Chuck Heiss, which appeared in Friday’s Daily Star-Journal. In his letter to the president, Sheriff Heiss assumes that the Second Amendment is an absolute right. For example, he says: “Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all out assault on the United States Constitution.” He also says that, pursuant to his responsibilities as sheriff of Johnson County, he will “with great vigor and conviction … urge (his) fellow sheriffs in the state of Missouri and across this great nation to rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes (citizens’) constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2008, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court for the first time in this nation’s history ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry and bear arms – a fact that flatly contradicts Sheriff Heiss’s contention that “(t)he Second Amendment to the United States has long guaranteed our citizens the right to keep and bear arms and is central to our ability to live in a free society.” Nonetheless, the majority opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, recognized that there were limits to the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. “Like most rights,” Justice Scalia wrote, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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.” At the end of this paragraph, Scalia attached a footnote, which reads: “We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.” Moreover, Scalia mentioned the possibility of banning particular types of guns – a subject that is particularly relevant in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Conn., and current discussions about bans on assault weapons and high capacity cartridges. “It may be objected,” Scalia continues, “that if weapons that are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”) But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Thus, nothing in the majority opinion in Heller would prohibit the president and Congress from placing what many people would consider to be reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment right.

Jim Staab

Warrensburg

[letter reproduced with the permission of the author]

That would indeed be a novel approach – letting, you know, actually facts find their way into a national discussion about guns and gun violence.

Previously:

On threading the needle and being in favor of both the Second Amendment and gun control (January 23, 2013)

All over the map

04 Friday Jun 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Arlington National Cemetery, Daily Star-Journal, Letter to the Editor, Memorial Day, missouri, Obama, Warrensburg

A letter criticizing President Obama appeared in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal.

6/3/2010 2:28:00 PM

Plug leaking oil well

Letter to the Editor

….The fishing industry will be devastated in the Gulf and to add to the mockery our very own president (did) not attend ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery. Obama should be ashamed that a sports game is more important.

Our soldiers and sailors have died for this audacity of arrogance.

Arrogance with meaningless speeches.

I kid you not. Go, read the whole thing.

Doesn’t it remind you of when you were little and that crotchety neighbor who was always yelling at the wrong neighborhood kids to keep off his lawn?

Or maybe it’s just repetition of Faux News Channel talking points.

“…our very own president (did) not attend ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery…”

Interesting.

May 28, 2010 7:30 pm US/Central

President Obama To Skip Arlington On Memorial Day

….Last year, President Obama kept with tradition and attended the ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. But this year, he chose to attend a ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Illinois.

The move is not entirely unprecedented. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, was in France on Memorial Day in 2002. He traveled with a bipartisan delegation, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, to American Cemetery in Normandy to pay respects to those who gave their lives on D-Day.

His father, the first President Bush, never attended Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington, and even Ronald Reagan missed two such events there, though for one of those missed ceremonies he went to speak at West Point….

[emphasis added]

I don’t recall similar letters to the editor concerning this issue in the local paper when daddy bush and dubya were in office, do you?

Where did this all come from? The usual suspects.

The punch line?:

….Incidentally, during his eight years in office, President Clinton never missed a single Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington.

You didn’t get the memo, did you?

17 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Daily Star-Journal, Gene Lang, General Assembly, Ike Skelton, Letter to the Editor, missouri, republicans, Warrensburg

Former state representative Gene Lang (r) (who was defeated by Democratic challenger Deleta Williams in 1990) had a letter to the editor in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:

With 20 years legislative experience, I cringe when I hear the term, “up or down.” The legislative process is a messy maze of rules that take divergent people and allow them to pass laws that reasonably govern all. True, you can’t turn the world upside down in a year, but most would agree that is a good thing. When the term up or down is used, someone is trying to force something down the throat of the taxpayer, and the reason for that is that it hasn’t been worked through properly, or even worse, it doesn’t carry the support of the voters…

Uh, I don’t recall a similar letter to the editor when republicans used the same terminology.

…There is plenty of health care reform that could, and should, be quickly agreed to by rational legislators, but those weren’t allowed to be pursued…

Uh, who said what? “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

What color is the sky in your world? Rational republican legislators? I spent the day in Jefferson City today and listened to republican tenthers in debate. That ain’t rational.

…moderates like our own Ike Skelton…

Really? You didn’t get the memo, did you?

There’s no such thing as a “moderate” republican anymore.

Pay for a political “letter to the editor”?

03 Sunday Jan 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

candidates, Cape Girardeau, Letter to the Editor, media criticism, missouri, paid, Southeast Missourian

And we thought our business model sucked.

In the Southeast Missourian:

Letters about candidates

Sunday, January 3, 2010

By Joe Sullivan

For years, the Southeast Missourian has had guidelines for letters that encouraged readers to submit their opinions on topics of general interest. Those guidelines discouraged letters about candidates for public office. A new policy, effective immediately, gives letter writers an option for expressing their opinions about candidates.

The new guidelines create a new category of letter called the Paid Election Letter. For a flat fee of $25, writers may endorse or oppose candidates — in up to 150 words. Longer Paid Election Letters will be considered, but each additional word over the 150 limit will cost 50 cents…

Which particular political party with close to unlimited resources and a history of utilizing astroturf do you think will benefit most from this policy?

The twitter on Twitter is interesting.

Chad Livengood, of the Springfield News-Leader:

Cape Girardeau newspaper (@semissourian) now requires $25 from readers for letters opposing/endorsing politicians. http://tiny.cc/6i1GQ    about 4 hours ago   from web  

Any letter to @semissourian attacking/praising a politician is limited to 150 words for $25. 50 cents more for every extra word.    about 4 hours ago   from web  

Would any #SGF News-Leader, #KC Star or #STL Post-Dispatch readers out there ever pay $25 for a 150-word candidate endorsement letter?    about 4 hours ago   from web

To which I replied:

@ChadLivengood “…pay $25 for a…candidate endorsement letter?” It’d be cheaper to start a blog, with the added benefit of more readers. half a minute ago from web in reply to ChadLivengood

Roy Temple weighed in:

Stupidest idea ever RT @ChadLivengood: @semissourian now requires $25 from readers for ltrs oppsng/endrsng politicians. http://tiny.cc/6i1GQ    about 4 hours ago   from UberTwitter  

Hastening their own irrelevance RT @ChadLivengood: What do people think of the @SeMissourian’s new fee for political letters?    about 4 hours ago   from UberTwitter  

The brilliance of the Southeast Missourian policy? I’d have to say the jury is still out…

Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r):

I charge $25 for my answer[ ]RT: @ChadLivengood What do #SEMO politicians, @PeterKinder think about @SEmissourian’s new political letters fee?    about 1 hour ago   from TwitterBerry  

 

I didn't know that Congressman Ike Skelton (D) was promoting Socialism

07 Friday Aug 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Ike Skelton, Letter to the Editor, missouri, Obama

Really, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

Leland L. Reed from Pleasant Hill had a letter to the editor published in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star Journal, addressed to Skelton and Senator Claire McCaskill (D)::

…President Obama seems to be dead set on leading us into Socialism and you are helping him in every way you can….

And there are three, count ’em, references to the “Democrat Party”. Uh, it’s the Democratic Party.

The best part of the letter:

…You have both voted for the hate crime bill and claim it will not hurt Christians; however, I or anybody else should preach the true Gospel of Christ which condemns homosexuality we could be prosecuted for inciting hate…

Uh, if that were the case, wouldn’t this letter be prima facie evidence of the “crime”? There’s a part of me that wants to forward the letter to the U.S. Attorney’s office to see if it’s true. I almost consider the hypothetical outcomes a win/win situation.

What are the odds? It’s quite interesting, someone with the exact same name from the exact same town posted on the subject of hate crimes [in reference to editorial cartoon(s) about Condoleeza Rice] on the GOPUSA forum:

11-18-2004, 09:08 AM

Leland L. Reed

Junior Member

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: Pleasant Hill, Mo.

[b]Had this been a Republican I am sure the call to prosecute for hate crimes would be loud and clear. Why can’t these so called cartoonist be prosecuted as such. I find it hypocritical for the major news media to print such bigoted and racist things. I cannot bring myself to call them cartoons, they are not funny.

Leland

By the way, not all cartoons are supposed to be funny. Sometimes they’re ironic and at other times they are seriously educational. And yes, they can sometimes be offensive. I guess it all depends on who’s Gore is getting oxed.

That’s not all. The odds are about to become astronomical. In 2005, again, someone with the same exact name and from the same exact town had something to say about dogma:

While talking to a couple of my cousins at our family reunion the other day, one of them remarked that Billy Graham had preached his last sermon after 60 years of campaigning. My reply was that it was about time he quit preaching since all he preached was false doctrine…

That settles it, if Billy Graham is somehow involved it has to be a Communist plot.

A Leland Reed of Pleasant Hill serves on the Cass County Road Advisory Board.

Briefly noted

23 Monday Jun 2008

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Letter to the Editor, snark

Some days the Letters to the Editor can be quite entertaining.

This metaphysical question about license plate slogans appeared in today’s Kansas City Star:

If South Carolina or Florida goes ahead with “I believe” license plates…

…Can you imagine the constitutional implications of a collision between “I believe” and “Show Me?”

tiny URL

Maybe this is yet another reason McSame can’t be in a position to appoint the next Supreme Court justices.

Though you’d think the apparent drive to do so in Florida might have more to do with a corporate mouse and its companion fairy.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Democratic Party News
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Josh Hawley
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 394,734 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.