Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission Senator Mike Parson (r) received a large campaign contribution for his gubernatorial campaign from a supporter of Tom Schweich:

C091129 05/10/2015 PARSON FOR MISSOURI John Danforth 911 Tirrill Farms Rd St Louis MO 63124 Bryan Cave Attorney 5/9/2015 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

There was this in 2014:

C111150 12/30/2014 FRIENDS OF TOM SCHWEICH John Danforth 911 Tirrill Farms Rd Saint Louis MO 63124 Bryan Cave LLP Partner 12/29/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Add another one to the list (May 4, 2015)

Campaign Finance: a December to remember (January 18, 2015)

When I was about thirteen years old, I used to faithfully watch the TV series Leave it to Beaver. The series centered on a family, the Cleavers, who, according to Wikipedia, exemplified “the idealized suburban family of the mid-20th century.” I, however, watched because I thought Beaver’s big brother, Wally, was the cutest boy ever. My crush didn’t last too long, but I can still remember all the characters on the show. Which is why I had a real aha moment when Jonathan Bernstein noted the resemblance between a character on the show, Eddie Haskell, and GOP Veep candidate Paul Ryan. After some thought, it occurred to me that both Eddie and his sidekick on the show, Lumpy Rutherford, foils to the too-good-to-be true Cleaver boys, have a lot in common with many members of today’s Republican Party.

For those of you who are too young to have watched Leave it to Beaver, which aired between 1957 and 1963, this description of Eddie captures the critical points:

Eddie’s two trademarks are his unctuous politeness to adults and his weasly, sharp-tongued meanness to everybody else. He is a model white-collar delinquent, a creep who goads people into trouble rather than perpetrating the crime himself. He was a born shirker, not worker, and a strain on any parent, especially his own long-suffering mother and father, Agnes and George. […] but really, when it comes to Eddie, when you’ve said “creep,” you’ve said it all.

Just think of Ryan trotting his 78 year old Mother out before the old folks in Florida, talking up the need to keep Medicare safe from Obama, with nary a word about his plan to destroy the program in all but name. Or think about all his smarmy lies during the Republican convention. Pure Eddie. Missouri’s Roy Blunt also has his Eddie Haskell moments, kissing up to rich, corporate types, sidestepping the hard questions with GOP talking points and pious bromides, delivering a swift kick in the behind to those who have nothing he wants, while pretending, after years as a Washington socialite, that he’s still a down-home boy. Romney, himself, the etch-a-sketch king of mendacity, surely qualifies as the archetypal Eddie.

Clarence “Lumpy” Rutherford, the second Leave it to Beaver character that comes to mind, is an equally common type in the GOP. Lumpy has been described as follows:

… he is the first bully that the Cleaver boys must deal with. Pretty soon his true cowardly, lumbering self shows through, and they see him for a kind of harmless buffoon. As he continues to “swell up,” everybody gets a good laugh at Lumpy’s expense, but as long as he’s getting his three squares and a few snacks in-between and his father is not yelling at him to much, he’s a happy enough boob, sporting a silly sort of dodo’s grin. When things are going poorly, which is most of the time, he still whines for his “Daddy.

Although Lumpy happily carried out Eddie Haskell’s mean-minded schemes without a thought, he never really understood the goals of the underlying plan. He just wanted to hang with the guys and be accepted.

We’ve got lots of Lumpys here in Missouri. If Ed Martin were fictional, I’d have suspected that the author based his character on Lumpy. Jim Lembke? Maybe. Brian Nieves is perhaps a tad too angry, potentially violent and unstable, but otherwise he fits the criteria – although on second thought, he’s actually more like a Lumpy who thinks he’s an Eddie.

On the national scene, I’d suggest politicians like Joe Walsh, who thinks the way to answer Sandra Fluke’s critique of the GOP is to tell her to get a job, and Steve King. They’re both mean, not too bright, and more than willing to do the dirty work that comes their way. King actually tried to come to Todd Akin’s rescue until he figured out that the big guys weren’t heading in that direction and it was wiser to back off. Romney recently endorsed his re-election effort, declaring that “I want him as my partner in Washington!” Eddie and Lumpy, together again.

There are, of course, folks in the Republican Party who aren’t conniving or bullies, people more like the Cleaver boy’s parents. They’re conventional, kind, if a bit smug, not at all evil, but just somewhat blinkered when it comes to reality. For example, just like Wally and the Beaver’s dad who was always kind to the hapless Lumpy, elder GOP statesman John Danforth endorsed Ed Martin. While these folks seem to find the Eddie Haskells and Lumpy Rutherfords in their party distasteful, they are also mostly unwilling to risk the wrath of these new GOPers who have usurped the more genteel Republican party of yesteryear.      

So Roy Blunt finally decided that the chorus condemning Todd Akin had reached sufficient decibel level that he could safly join in. Not all on his lonesome, however, but safely ensconced in a group of other of Missouri’s mainline GOP establishment, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Senators Kit Bond, John Danforth and Jim Talent, who, jointly, want us to know that:

We do not believe it serves the national interest for Congressman Todd Akin to stay in this race. The issues at stake are too big, and this election is simply too important. The right decision is to step aside. …

Blunt, it seems, is also willing to let it be kown that, as a very influential Republican, he has spoken to Akin privately several times since he (Akin) managed to put the GOP’s anti-women policy proposals in the spotlight, “urging” him to, basically,  get the hell out of Dodge.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the GOP has been preparing its 2012 electoral platform. And guess what? Except for the pseudo-medical mumbo-jumbo that half of the GOP probably believes – at least when safely in private – there’s almost no light between what Akin was saying about abortion policy and what the rest of the GOP wants to enshrine in the document that is intended to encapsulate what they stand for:

CNN reported on Monday that the draft of the GOP’s official 2012 platform calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exception for rape and incest survivors — the same policy Akin was trying to defend when he asserted that victims of “legitimate rape” have a natural bodily mechanism that prevents them from getting pregnant.

Nor could there be when you stop to think about it. After all, the VP pick, Rep. Paul Ryan, very publicly joined Brother Todd to promote legislation that would have denied federal funding for abortions in the case of “forcible” rape – a somewhat more precise way to say what Todd meant when he was talking about “legitimate” rape. Ryan has also sponsored “personhood” legislation that would effectively give the full panoply of legal rights to a fertilized cell, while denying the rights of the woman involved in hosting it.

And even worse, the personhood part of this radical anti-abortion brew has been endorsed by Mitt Romney. Arguably, the “personhood” strategy is even more dangerous than the “forcible rape” ruse to limit abortions. Some critics hold that personhood legislation could be used to even ban contraceptives. Of course, all that was before Akin’s ineptitude turned up the heat, and Romney’s campaign decided that he’d better forget about his former pandering to the radical anti-abortion base and pretend to be “moderate” – at least for now.

The real question for Messrs. Blunt, Ashcroft, Talent, and Bond is to ask how they can unload on poor, dim Akin and still support the GOP platform this year. And then we will want to know if Roy and his pals will ask Romney and Ryan to once and for all, forcefully repudiate their past, embarrassing radicalism – or step down for the good of the party?

Our good friends at Fired Up! get a hat tip at Think Progress:

Former Republican Senator: The GOP Presidential Field Is ‘Embarrassing’

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Dec 1, 2011 at 5:25 pm

Republican John Danforth, who served as a senator from Missouri for nearly 20 years and later as George W. Bush’s ambassador the United Nations, is not happy with the slate of Republican presidential candidates. “I’ve been watching some of these Republican debates and they’re just terrible. Terrible,” he told KTRS in St. Louis yesterday. “It’s embarrassing for me as a Republican to watch this stuff,” he added, calling out audiences for applauding the candidates’ morbid boastings…

Because you’ve never been a part of the problem…

Journalists who saw the fool in John Danforth go on to great things

By David Martin Mon., Jun. 6 2011 at 2:10 PM

….Danforth seemed to lose his mind during the confirmation battle. At one point, he wanted to peddle a theory that Hill suffered from a condition known as erotomania, which enabled her to sound so convincing when describing Thomas’ sexual interest in her. (In his own book about the events of 1991, Danforth admits that he “fought dirty” but defends his actions by describing the terrible injustice done to Thomas.)….

Former Senator John Danforth at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 2 (June 19, 2011)

….Question: …Do you have any regrets in terms of your career and, if so, what’s your biggest one?

John Danforth: Do I have any regrets? Uh [laugh], I, uh, my net, net answer is I do not. I mean, I really enjoyed being in public office and I hope I did a good job at it. I, I know that I enjoyed it. Are there, are there votes that I took or issues that I championed at the time that, looking back on it from a little bit of distance, I ask myself, why did I do that? Yeah, you know. I mean, I, I’m not, I could, I want to bore you with all, with, with some of them, but, are there issues where if I had to do it over again I would have done it differently? Yeah, sure. But, do I really have regrets about it?  No, I don’t. I, I really don’t. But, I, I really enjoyed it and I hope I did well. [applause]….

Spare us.

In response to the GOP-led madness in Washington D.C., Steve Benen asks an interesting question:

… where are the “sane Republicans” willing to “stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst”? Where are Bob Dole and John Warner? Why can’t John Danforth and Colin Powell express their disapproval for what their party is doing? Maybe some of Reagan’s old guard, like Ken Duberstein, could speak up? […]

We’re not talking about GOP officials taking a hard line on some random piece of legislation, or nominating some radical for a key public office. We’re talking about congressional Republicans who’ve decided to play a game of chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States – something no American institution has ever done in more than two centuries – and who are fully prepared to trash the constitutional principle next week as part of a hostage strategy gone horribly awry?

Made me think about the silence of Missouri’s “respectable” GOP establishment in regard to the Tea Party debt ceiling shenanigans. (N.B. “Respectable” as I use it here means there is some sense that the person is at least minimally rational and occasionally sincere. Consequently the Tea Party representatives are excluded.)

Let’s start with Danforth since Benen called him out by name. If you will remember, this is the elder GOP statesman who felt impelled to hold his nose and endorse Tea Party trickster Ed Martin in the last congressional election – so I guess there’s  probably no point looking for integrity from this particular quarter.

Compared to wheeler-dealers like Martin, his opponent in the 2nd district congressional race, Ann Wagner, seems to have some slight sheen of respectability left. But notice how she has rushed to grovel before one of the main instigators of the madness, Grover Norquist?

Don’t even bother to bring up the recently retired Kit Bond.  Not only was he in high pander mode before he retired, most of his pronouncements were so sclerotic that it was hard to take them seriously even when one sensed he was trying to do the right thing. He actually proposed using the debt ceiling to secure budget cuts last April. Hope he likes the mess he’s helped to create.

Roy Blunt? The guy’s sane – and he’s on the record for raising the debt ceiling. He’s also on record for not raising it unless we get insane cuts at a time when the economy is at risk from just such a retraction of federal spending.  So far, when Roy walks a thin line, he’s far more apt to stumble down on the side of a Tea Party pander than common sense. The only hope Blunt offers is that he’s so in hock to his pet “job creators” that he’ll do their bidding in financial matters when push comes to shove.

Who else in Missouri can speak for the traditional GOP establishment? Anyone? What are the odds that any of them have more backbone than the quartet above? Surely there are some Missouri GOPers who put the welfare of the country above the welfare of the party, who will be willing to stand up to the brain-dead morons that the Tea Party sent to Washington?

*Fourth paragraph slightly edited for clarity.

Previously: Former Senator John Danforth at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1 (June 16, 2011)

Former U.S. Senator and U.N. Ambassador John Danforth speaking on the stage of

Hendricks Hall on the campus of the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg on Tuesday night, June 14th.

Former Missouri Attorney General, U.S. Senator and U.N. Ambassador John Danforth was the keynote speaker and recipient of the George W. Lehr Memorial Speakers Chair at the American Legion Boys State of Missouri in Warrensburg last Tuesday night, June 14th. After his speech Senator Danforth took questions from the audience.

“…but, are there issues where if I had to do it over again I would have done it differently? Yeah, sure. But, do I really have regrets about it?  No, I don’t. I, I really don’t…”

Journalists who saw the fool in John Danforth go on to great things

By David Martin Mon., Jun. 6 2011 at 2:10 PM

….Danforth seemed to lose his mind during the confirmation battle. At one point, he wanted to peddle a theory that Hill suffered from a condition known as erotomania, which enabled her to sound so convincing when describing Thomas’ sexual interest in her. (In his own book about the events of 1991, Danforth admits that he “fought dirty” but defends his actions by describing the terrible injustice done to Thomas.)….

“…You know, I, I am getting, you know, government retirement, I’m getting Social Security, I’m getting Medicare and I don’t think I should get so much. But I, I think that it’s pretty hard to sell that to the public. But this is the big debate we’ve gotta have…”

From 1979:

Nation: Show and Tell

Monday, May 28, 1979

…Runner-up was Missouri Republican John Danforth, who said his assets actually declined last year because the family business, the Ralston Purina Co., suffered a dip in profits. Danforth said his current holdings amount to between $6.9 million and $17.2 million..

The second part of the transcript:

….Question: …I’d like to know your, uh, position on the death penalty.

Former Senator and Ambassador John Danforth: On the death penalty?

Question: Yes.

John Danforth: Um, well, I’m , I’m opposed to the death penalty and, and my, my reasoning for it is that the only, the justification for the death penalty is that you save lives by taking lives. But that’s never been shown to be the case. Uh, it never has been shown to have an effect on law enforcement or preventing capital offenses. And therefore, I think that, so what’s the reason for it other than sort of the blood lust of, of people who want it to exist? So, I do not agree with the death penalty. Now, let me say that’s how I voted in the Senate as a, as a legislator. But I also spent eight years as state attorney general and the job of attorney general is a lawyer’s job, not legislator’s job and they’re very different. And if you’re the attorney general of the state your job is to defend the state law as it exists, not to pretend you’re a, a legislator trumping what the legislature does. So, when I was attorney general my office did seek and get the death penalty in capital cases, but as a matter of policy I don’t agree with it. [applause]

Question: Thank you very much…

…Question: …Do you have any regrets in terms of your career and, if so, what’s your biggest one?

John Danforth: Do I have any regrets? Uh [laugh], I, uh, my net, net answer is I do not. I mean, I really enjoyed being in public office and I hope I did a good job at it. I, I know that I enjoyed it. Are there, are there votes that I took or issues that I championed at the time that, looking back on it from a little bit of distance, I ask myself, why did I do that? Yeah, you know. I mean, I, I’m not, I could, I want to bore you with all, with, with some of them, but, are there issues where if I had to do it over again I would have done it differently? Yeah, sure. But, do I really have regrets about it?  No, I don’t. I, I really don’t. But, I, I really enjoyed it and I hope I did well. [applause]

Question: …I was just, uh, wanting to ask, uh, the do not, don’t ask, don’t tell policy was talked about earlier and I was wanting to know what are some, uh, future repercussions you think might happen know that that’s repealed?

John Danforth: I think that the military will adjust to it. And, uh, do their job as the military and that it will have no effect at all. [applause]

Question: Thank you.

Question: …What must our current leaders in the U.S. do in order to improve the financial position of, for our generation?

John Danforth: Well, I think, you know, when you talk about economics and fin, the financial situation for your generation you’re talking about the big issue that is before our country right now. The biggest issue before our country right now has to do with the debt, the deficit, federal spending, what to do about it. And there is a lot of philosophy in this. But, my, my view is that the central question is, what percentage of the total economy should government spend? Now this is a big deal issue. Now, President Obama would say that it should be about twenty-three or twenty-four percent of the economy. I think it should be about twenty percent of the economy. Doesn’t sound like much, three percentage points, but it’s a lot. And it really, the question is, how big should the federal government be? How expensive should the federal government be? And, what point does it get so big that it becomes a dead weight on the rest of the country? My view is it’s there. It is too big. We have to cut down the cost of government, we’re not going to tax our way out of the hole. Start with the question of how much government spends and in my view, get that percentage substantially below where President Obama wants it to be. [applause]

Question: …Can we look at other countries with good health care, economic systems, and education and learn from them to help better the United States?

John Danforth: Can we look to other countries, um, on those various issues?

Question: Their systems like, good, countries with good systems of health care, education, and good economies.

John Danforth: Well, you know, you can always look to other countries and, and say they’re doing it better or they’re not doing it as well as we are. I think that that’s, that’s fine to look at them, but I think, really, what we’ve got to do is to, is to make some fundamental decisions. And the most fundamental of them all is the one that I was just talking about. And that’s how much government do we want, particularly at the federal level? And how do we afford this? And I think that one of the problems we’ve gotten ourselves into as a country is that largely the government at, at all levels, has become a check writing operation. So, when the President talks about, okay, we’ve got to invest in education and we’ve got to invest in transportation or whatever he wants, capital investments in the future. This is not what is consuming government. What’s consuming government is we’re writing checks. What’s consuming, uh, us is that between the retirement programs, the pension programs, the health care programs for retirees basically it’s just money going out which is not investment. And I think that that’s where we’ve got to look to get i
t under control. And politically it’s gonna be very unpopular to do that. Because most of us, you know, want ours. Send me my check. You know, I, I am getting, you know, government retirement, I’m getting Social Security, I’m getting Medicare and I don’t think I should get so much. But I, I think that it’s pretty hard to sell that to the public. But this is the big debate we’ve gotta have. I don’t think we’re gonna solve the debate by looking at what other countries are doing. I think we’ve gotta look inside. [applause]

Question: Thank you.

Question: …He was talking in the introduction about how you examined the situation at Waco with the Branch Davidians and a lot of people today they were talking about how militias and those sort of groups are becoming a problem again. What do you think the government can do to solve that problem and stop citizens becoming disenfranchised and becoming violent?

John Danforth: Uh, the situation in Waco was a, was a religious cult, um, with, uh, a kind of charismatic person who had a following. And, uh, he was, he was, he was gathering a large stock of weapons and the, um, ATF – Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms – part of the federal government, was trying to serve a, a search warrant on his compound in Waco. And they opened fire and they killed four federal agents. And then there was a standoff for fifty-one days. And it ended in just terrible bloodshed and that’s what my investigation was about. It wasn’t about politics. It was about a religious cult. So, it, it’s really different. I, I would hope that in our country people would feel that, you know, you can speak out, you can vote, you can have differences of opinion and you can also respect opinions that are not your own. And I think that’s what we’re, we’re really lacking is a sense that, that the other person deserves respect even if we don’t agree with them. And, and part of it is, you know, when we, when we view politics as though it were religion. And, you know, I’m right, or I’m on God’s side, or I’ve got this issue, and, you know, I’m so totally committed to it and therefore you’re wrong. So, where, where do you make the political arrangement in that kind of situation? And I think this is, this is too bad. Now, right now I think in our country there is, as I, as I said earlier there kind of a disappearance of the center. And so you’ve got people, the loudest people are the people with the most far out views. And, so, say somebody wanted to win the nomination of his party. He’s gotta be some kind of nut, you know, to get people to vote for him. He’s gotta appeal to the true believers in that party. And we’ve lost, we’ve lost the center. So, that’s what I’m for. I’m for trying to reestablish the center in American politics. I am for trying to recreate civil discourse in politics so people can agree to disagree and believe that they had a hearing even if they don’t turn out to be on the winning side. I think, you know, politics is the art of compromise. I’m all for it. Because I don’t think any of us has a monopoly on truth. And if we act as though we do then we, really we are aching for a breaking and, and I think that’s too bad. [applause]

Question: …Now, you spoke a lot at the beginning of your speech about the significance of energy within politicians. I was wondering, do you feel as though the current members of Congress are doing a good job of doing their job with energy and passion that you spoke so much about in the beginning?

John Danforth: Well, I think that the, a personal quality of somebody in politics is a high energy level. I mean, whether they’re liberal, a conservative, or , or terrific member of Congress, or, or something less than that, all of them have a high energy level. And all of ’em are, at least, supposed to be working hard. I hope they are. And I, I know that, you know, the hours are long. And, and the weekends, you know, I mean, really, you’d rather be home with your family and you’re not. So, I think that that was kind of the first test that I’ve put to people, do you have that energy level that you want to devote to politics? I don’t think that there’s anything to do that, that can create it. It, it just, you either have it, or you don’t have it.

Question: Thank you very much. [applause]

Question: …Since becoming a world power after World War Two America has developed a, a slow growing economy, poor test scores, among, oh, among developed nations and the number one obesity rate in the world. Oh, is our gradual decline in the international standing a result of an attitude of superiority we developed after the war?

John Danforth: Is that the reason for it? Uh, I, uh, that hasn’t occurred to me. No, I, I wouldn’t think so. Um, you know, I mean, I think that that’s more of a foreign policy question, uh, rather than, you know, as everything else that you can point to in the country depended on how America views itself in the world. It, and it, it’s a very interesting question, now. I mean, it’s should the U.S. have gone into Libya, for example. That’s an interesting question. Should the U.S. have gone into Afghanistan? And, and on and on. So, I think that that’s worthy of debate. And there are people who have, you know, who have, who have written on the subject and the, the history of, of hubris in, in American foreign policy going all the way back to the days of Woodrow Wilson. And, um, and, and what that has done to our foreign policy, and it’s a matter of debate. But I would not lay all of the, sort of, domestic issues like obesity and so on on America’s view of itself in the world.

Question: Thank you, sir. [applause]

Question: …I was wondering what your, uh, opinion is on the, uh, [Congressman] Weiner scandal. [laughter]

John Danforth: Uh, my opinion is that the country isn’t all Washington and the country isn’t all statutes and laws. And the country is basic standards of, of decency. And that it’s the responsibility of people, all of us, not just people in public office, but all of us, to uphold standards of basic decency. And to act as though, you know, the way we behave is the standard for other people. And that’s why I think really the question should be for all of us, is, do we intend to be admirable people? Is that what we want to be for ourselves? Do we want to be admirable? If you want to you can be. You know, even if you’re not the smartest person or the best athlete you can be an admirable human being. And I think for somebody to be, at any point in life, and to be disreputable, but particularly somebody who is highly visible, I think it’s just, it’s a disservice. I mean, when you talk about like the, the previous question had to do with America’s view of itself in the world post World War Two and how that had to do with our values, I don’t know that that has much to do with our values. But, I think how we conduct ourselves does. I think that does. And, uh, I think that, I think that Congressman Weiner is probably sick [laughter][applause], but certainly, but, but, but whatever the reason, whether it’s some mental illness or something else [laughter], he’s disreputable. [applause] And he shouldn’t be there.

Question: Thank you.

Question: …I like to ask how your Christian values affected how you served in public office.

John Danforth: Um, well, uh, I am what I am. And, uh, and the whole time I was in public life anybody who wanted to know anything about me knew what I was. You know, I, I am a, I went to, I graduated from divinity school. I’m ordained in the ministry of my church. That’s what I am. But nobody, the whole time I did it, twenty-six years I was in public office nobody expected me to be their pastor. They expected me to be either their attorney general or their senator. And I represented a state made up of people of all different religions and of no religion at all. And it was my responsibility to serve them. Not to check my religion at the door, because as I say, you are what you are. You know, you’re not just one way for an hour on Sunday and t
hen different the rest of your life. But, if you try to import your religion into your politics nothing is more divisive for our country. And that’s why our founding fathers kept the two separate and they should remain separate. [applause]

[….]

Question: …I was just wondering, uh, a lot of the speakers this week really inspired me to get going with international affairs. And, uh, your actions in all these countries you talked about tonight really impressed me. Uh, I was wondering how a younger kid like us could get involved with countries like that, uh, now, like before we enter Peace Corps or, uh, Food Reserves and all those.

John Danforth: Yeah, well, I, I , now, I mean, just take an interest in it. And, uh, and read the papers and try to know what’s going on in the world and understand, you know, what’s happening in other countries and how the U.S. is related to other countries. And then, you know, think about it when you go to college. I mean, think about the possibility of programs that, that offer, um, international relations, maybe a foreign service school, something like that. And just keep your options open. And, and see where it leads.

Question: All right. Thank you very much. [applause]

Question: …A man who’s job requires so much sacrifice of time and energy, how is it that you have managed to maintain such a strong family basis in your life? How do you juggle between political and family man?

John Danforth: Thanks for asking it. I, I think that this is, you know, as I said earlier, I think it’s really important to keep your priorities right and to know that, you know, you’re, you’re more than just sort of a politician. You’re a human being with all the interests that you have and, um, I, I tried very hard with the help of just a wonderful wife to make it clear to her and to our children that they came before my job. And I wrote a book a few years ago and, and one of the chapters was called family values and it wasn’t about, you know, the political, politicization of family values, but about my family. And I asked all of my children and, and my wife, I interviewed them. And they, they said, you know, one of the best things I’ve ever heard and that is, that they knew that they came first. And they did. And they do. And it’s just where are your priorities, you know? And, and keep them where they should be.

Thank you all very much [applause], really exciting to be here.

Former Missouri Attorney General, U.S. Senator and U.N. Ambassador John Danforth was the keynote speaker and recipient of the George W. Lehr Memorial Speakers Chair at the American Legion Boys State of Missouri in Warrensburg on Tuesday night. After his speech Senator Danforth took questions from the audience.

“…Here’s just a little, a little fact which I think is impressive. By the year twenty twenty-four, so you’re talking thirteen years from now, not long, four, thirteen years from now Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest payments on the debt will consume one hundred percent of federal revenue. Nothing will be left over for anything else…”

Leave Social Security out of the deficit debate! (May 16, 2011)

….Social Security can not, by law, run a deficit. It can only make payments it has the funds in reserve to cover. The only option Social Security has is cutting benefits if it gets into fiscal difficulty. In plain English, this means that Social Security does not — can not, by law — contribute a single dime to the deficit, and that is why it should never be a part of any deficit reduction deal….

“…I, I, haven’t given up on the two party system. I, I think that it’s served our country well. But, I don’t, I don’t think it’s working so well right now. And it’s, it’s interesting to try to analyze why that’s the case. Some people say that with congressional redistricting we’ve created these safe districts and, and so the result of that is that politicians aren’t competing for the center of American politics they’re just trying to please the base of their political party. And the base of each party has tended to get just extreme…”

Campaign Finance: the republican establishment always votes with a check book (June 9, 2011)

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

C091145 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER [pdf] 6/9/2011

John Danforth

911 Tirrill Farms Rd.

St Louis, MO 63124

Bryan Cave LLP Attorney

6/9/2011

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Former U.S. Senator and U.N. Ambassador John Danforth speaking on the stage of

Hendricks Hall on the campus of the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg on Tuesday night.

This is the first part of the transcript of the audience question and answer session:

Question: …In your broad view of the world, in the country, do you foresee an atomic bomb being dropped somewhere in the world within our’s, citizens of Boys State, lives?

Former Senator and Ambassador John Danforth: Could you say that again? I, I’m sorry I [inaudible]. [laughter]

Question: Do you think that an atomic bomb will be dropped somewhere in the world within the lives of everybody here watching?

John Danforth: Oh, I , I, I [laugh] , boy, I sure hope not.  You know something, it’s not just atomic bombs, as you know, it’s flying planes into buildings, and it’s, uh, it’s using chemical weapons and that kind of thing and it’s, it’s weapons that are not, see, I mean, the days of fearing atomic bombs that was really the time of the Soviet Union when there was this big force in the world. But, um, not crazy. And now, you know, there’s with these fanatics and, uh, and these groups, they really are crazy. And it’s very, very hard to predict. So, I can just say, I hope not. I doubt that it’s going to be an atomic bomb.  I think that it’s more likely to be terrorist acts sometimes using, uh, the kinds of weapons that can cause a lot of damage, but probably not an atomic bomb.

Question: Thank you very much. [applause]…

…Question: …Now that, uh, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been repealed and we allow both gays and lesbians to serve openly and die for our country do you still believe that marriage should not be defined in the Constitution and we should deny these people basic human rights?

John Danforth: I think that marriage should not be defined in the Constitution. I think that the only time that the Constitution was used to try to get into a purely social issue was, uh, at the time of prohibition. And that provision in the Constitution lasted exactly thirteen years. So the problem with putting almost anything in the Constitution is that it becomes rigid, ossified. It’s stuck. That’s the way the Constitution is. And I think on a question like marriage, it’s the sort of thing that should evolve from, um, the social standards of the people and not be written in the Constitution language. [applause]

Question: …You talked about, uh, honesty and integrity. Why do you think that, uh, people in politics and, and higher power sometimes use that power to better themselves instead of, um, using it for the public and public service?

John Danforth: Um, it’s the human condition, you know, or religious people would say it’s original sin,  I mean, what all of us think about ourselves. And a person in business wants to succeed in business, the customer’s always right. A person in politics wants to succeed in politics by telling people what they want to hear and, uh, to get to win the next election. So, it’s, it’s the nature of politics. And I think that, you know, the, the, the real question really is an ego question, and is there something more than getting yourself elected. Is there some standard beyond that? And I think, you know, for a politician to be told, look, I don’t agree with you, but I respect you, I think that’s the best thing you can say to a politician. [applause]

Question: Thank you.

….Question: …You mentioned how Harry S Truman advocated that people should learn a lot about American history and, um, when I entered high school, because I went to high school in Independence, I became really fascinated with American history and, uh, I saw, I explored a lot about, uh, you know, acts of civil rights and what not. I became really fascinated with that. I wanted to know, um, for those who can’t get into politics, but for those who can act in civil rights ways, you know, to advocate civil rights movements I wanted to know, um, is civil disobedience justified when a government acts unjustly? And in today’s day and age with today’s status quo in this age of conservatism do you think there will ever be a chance of some sort of civil disobedience or civil rights movements?

John Danforth: Well, you know, I think that the way our country functions and the way it was intended to function when our Constitution was written was to, to create a system where different interests could express themselves and be heard without taking to the streets. And, I believe in that system. I mean, think about what was in the mind, in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. They were trying to hold together what was then thought of as a diverse country with mercantile interests, agricultural interests, large states, small states. They were trying to create a system that accommodated those different points of view. That’s the way that American, America should function. Not one side saying, I win, you know, you lose, you’re out to lunch. But one where everybody gets at least some stake and ability to speak out, then even
tually somebody’s gonna win or lose. Could I conceive of civil disobedience? Sure, in a repressive country, but I don’t think our’s is a repressive country. So I would say work within the system. [applause]

Question: …Our nation has a vast and expanding national debt. Uh, politicians greatly differ on how they feel this debt should be dealt with, but that’s not my question to you tonight. Uh, my question is this, what effect will this debt have on the future of our country.

John Danforth: I, well, it’s unsustainable for the future of our country. And, um, there’s, um, it, it’s, it’s ruinous, you know, I mean, eventually it would, it would create, um, uh, a devaluation of, of the dollar, massive inflation, we’d lose our credit rating, interest rates would go up, the, uh, the economy would be seriously crippled and it would get worse and worse and worse. And my generation can survive this way, it’s very, gonna be very difficult for your generation. Here’s just a little, a little fact which I think is impressive. By the year twenty twenty-four, so you’re talking thirteen years from now, not long, four, thirteen years from now Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest payments on the debt will consume one hundred percent of federal revenue. Nothing will be left over for anything else, nothing for education, nothing for research, nothing for the military, nothing for law enforcement, nothing for anything else government can do. All of it is going to be consumed by these three big entitlement programs plus interest on the debt. It is not a sustainable situation and the consequence is gonna be felt by your generation more than by mine.

Question: Thank you very much, sir. [applause]

Question: …You talked about, um, marriages for, um, um, men and women of the same, of the same sex which, um, made, made me think of a question. Um, what do you think about the protests that are going on in Kansas where people are openly protesting military funerals for homosexual military men and women?

John Danforth: I think it’s disgraceful and sickening. [applause] [cheers] My view is that marriage, I’m not talking about, you know, legal issues like visitation rights and inheritance and that kind of thing, my view is marriage is a religious issue. And in my view it is between a man and a woman, but I think that that’s the kind of social issue that should be worked by the people rather than be something that is written into the Constitution. [applause]

Question: …Uh, what brought you into politics and did you have a teacher that pushed you and made you love politics?

John Danforth: Um, well, what brought me into politics, that’s the first question? What was the beginning?

Question: Yes, sir.

John Danforth: Yeah. Uh, well, when I was ten years old my parents took my brother and me to Washington. And we sat in the gallery of the U.S. Senate and I can remember saying to myself, I want to do that some day. And I, my, my family was not political. But, I can remember saying that to myself. And I can remember as we were leaving the Senate gallery I can remember exactly the words my father said. What a bunch of windbags. [laughter] But, but I, I liked it and, and because of that my family encouraged it even though they weren’t very political. And the same was true of teachers in my school. You know, they kind of, they, they, they let me do it and encouraged me. So, any time there was a mock political convention or a model U.N. General Assembly or anything like that I was always part of it. I was not, unfortunately, part of Boys State. I don’t know why not. But, I was always part of almost any other program you can think of. [applause]

Question: Thank you, senator.

Question: …With you experience and work in international politics did you ever find that bipartisanship and party politics to have as much influence in the United Nations and around the globe as they do in the U.S.?

John Danforth: Oh, it’s very different, you know, I mean, the U.S. it’s Republicans and Democrats and positioning themselves for the next election. The U.N. is, is just really different from that. It’s not like that at all. The only thing in the, the only part of the U.N. that has real power is the Security Council. And there are fifteen members of the Security Council, five of them have the veto power which means you can’t pass anything over the objection of one of them. So, Security Council resolutions tend to be kind of mushy. But, uh, it’s, that’s really different from, from Washington I think.

Question: Thank you. [applause]

Question: …Given your experience as an ambassador and your experience in the Sudan, um, what advice do you have for us who are interested in pursuing a career in international relations?

John Danforth: What, what about pursuing a career?

Question: What advice do you have for those of us interested in international relations [crosstalk]

John Danforth: Yeah, I, I think, you know, maintain an interest, read the papers, uh, try to keep up with what’s going on in the world, think about what’s going on in the world, and then look for the kinds of opportunities once you’re, uh, in college, where would that lead. I mean, what kinds of things would that lead you to? One possibility ids the Foreign Service which is, uh, just a terrific, you know, terrific experience. There are other things as well, there’s, uh, USAID which is, um, which is a food relief to various parts of the world. There’s the CIA which is very interesting. Uh, then there are nongovernmental organizations, uh, Refugee’s International and so on, that are, that are involved in what’s going on in the world. So I’d just find out what these opportunities are and I’d pursue them and see what, what’s the best fit for you. [applause]

Question: Thank you, sir.

Question: …President Obama recently made some remarks about, uh, Israel. Uh, what, what are your views on those?

John Danforth: Um, I think that  [pause], I couldn’t , I couldn’t understand why he said what he said. And particularly when he said it, when the Prime Minister of Israel was either in the U.S. or about to come to the U.S.  And he said that he thought the, that, you know, with, with adjustments Israel should return to the same, uh, geography, the same lines that existed before nineteen sixty-seven. Israel is not going to do that. Israel is not going to agree to be a country that’s nine miles wide. It just will not happen. And I don’t get why the President said that at that time. So, I think it was a mistake. [applause]

Question: …Whenever you face difficult times in your career in public service where did you draw your inspiration for strength?

John Danforth: Where did I draw my inspiration? Well, you know, I , one of the things that I tried to say in my remarks is that I think, I think it’s important to have a bigger world than just your political life. And, uh, I think you can get that from your religion, and I think you can get it from your family, and I think you can get it from other interests that you have.  And I, I think that it’s very important to recognize that, you know, if you’re in politics someday you’ll be out of politics, probably. Or, you might lose and you gotta be willing to lose and then, what is your life? I mean, are you so invested in being a politician that that’s all you are? Because if that’s, if that’s the case then, first of all, it’s sad, and secondly, it makes you a desperate person and, I think, not a very good public servant. So, it, it really is important to, to have values beyond your own political ambition. And I think that those will sustain you. [applause]

Question: Thank you very much.

Question: …You have a reputation for being an incredible statesman and I’d like to know what young people can do today to become more involved in statesmanship.

John Danforth: Thank you very much for the compliment. Um, how to become more in
volved? Just do it, you know, just do it. But, I mean, just show up. And, for example, people in, let’s say, members of Congress have what they call town hall meetings and they come, they come home all the time and they, they are accessible. And people show up at the town hall meetings, usually people mad about one thing or another, but they show up at the town hall meetings. Show up. And if you’ve got a question, ask the question. And if you’ve got a point that you want to make, make the point. And, if you think that the, that your representative in government is doing a good job, say so. And I, I think just participating in, in being active and not being just sort of a lump is really, is really important and it’s, it’s important for you and it’s a gift to the country to be engaged in it. Because you don’t want to have the only people engaged, the people who have just some axe to grind or some interest to serve by doing it. And, and if you’re, if what you’re interested in is good government and the country being better and the country having a future then you participate and, because, otherwise, the people who make the biggest demands on government, and the politicians  pander to them, are people who, who want something, you know. They want, send me a check, or hire me, or something. And, if you are, if you, if you’re not just what’s in it for me, you’ve got a lot to offer and it’s by way of counterbalancing people who do have more of immediate interests. So, show up. [applause]

Question: …One of my main things I think that’s wrong with the economy now is the lack of manufacturing in the United States. Over the last few decades there’s had like a huge decline in the kind of things that we do manufacture and we’ve turned into importing more and more things. I guess I just kind of wondering what are your thoughts on that and do you think that made in the U.S.A. still means something around the world.

John Danforth: I think that the prosperity of America depends on letting the system work, rather than government trying to manage the system. And, I think when government tries to impose, you know, trade barriers to what’s coming in from abroad that’s government management of the system. And it doesn’t work very well. So, my view is that government should have a relatively light touch and let the system work. [applause]

Question: Thank you.

Question: …Obviously the two party system has caused a lot of dissent, especially within the, uh, within the Assembly, so do you think that the two party system is the superior system, or would we do better to have a multi-party system, a two, three, more?

John Danforth: I, I, haven’t given up on the two party system. I, I think that it’s served our country well. But, I don’t, I don’t think it’s working so well right now. And it’s, it’s interesting to try to analyze why that’s the case. Some people say that with congressional redistricting we’ve created these safe districts and, and so the result of that is that politicians aren’t competing for the center of American politics they’re just trying to please the base of their political party. And the base of each party has tended to get just extreme. And the center has been, has been pretty well marginalized in American politics. And one of the results of that is that the, in the two parties, let’s say in Congress, I think people are just saying, okay, what’s it take to win the next election. Which means, what’s it take to energize my base supporters, rather than how can you work things out. Uh, I, you know, I don’t want to just say, be this old guy talking about the good old days, but it is true that when I was in the Senate I had to work closely with members of the other party. I had to do it. And some of my closest social friends were Democrats. And the people I worked with, for example, on the Senate Finance Committee to get anything done, Democrats. So, I mean, Tom Eagleton, my, my colleague in the Senate from our state was a very good friend and we worked together even though, you know, we frequently disagreed on things. And in the Finance Committee, Democrats like Lloyd Bentsen and David Boren and David Pryor and Pat Moynihan and these people, you could deal with them. Now, I was told by a Senate wife not too long ago that when Senate spouses go on, you know, like bus trips to, say, a museum or wherever they’re going, when they sit on the bus they sit by party. So the Democrats are sitting next to Democrats, the Republicans are sitting next to Republicans and I just think that’s, it’s wrong. You know, it’s more than, it’s weird. But it’s also just plain wrong. And, and we’ve got [applause] to try and recreate the center in American politics. [applause, cheers]….

The second part of the transcript will follow in a subsequent post.

Now that the various doofi and charlatans elected through the efforts of the “angry” (befuddled?) Tea Party faithful are doubling down on their efforts to kill the New START nuclear arms control treaty – which had  strong Republican support before the great GOP unwashed bought lock-stock-and-barrel into partisan, anti-Obama obstructionism for its own sake  – those GOPers who retain a minimum of intellectual integrity are starting to see the light. Speaking of a growing Tea Party-led movement to punish Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) for pointing out that opposition to START for political purposes is dangerous to the welfare of the U.S., former Missouri Senator John Danforth indicated his belief that things are getting out of hand, observing that if a politician of Lugar’s stature and foreign policy expertise “is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

It doesn’t seem to be just the old-line GOP elite like Danforth who feel this way. For example, the “Letters to the Editor” section in today’s St. Louis Post Dispatch consisted entirely of letters deploring and debunking the arguments put forward in an anti-START op-ed by former Missouri Senator Jim Talent.  Not one letter supported Talent’s position.

Yet in spite of the near consensus of informed opinion and the growing public awareness of the issue, Missouri’s new Senator-elect, Roy Blunt has decided to run crazy with the GOP herd, calling for a delay in the START treaty because “no bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union or Russia has ever been ratified during a lame-duck session.” He says lame-duck, I say lame. Even certified fools recognize the old stall if you can’t dredge up a substantive objection ploy.

We can only hope that if Harry Reid wants to play at bi-partisanship, he’ll listen to those few remaining GOP pols with some integrity – perhaps Richard Lugar himself who, unlike Blunt, doesn’t seem to feel that working during the last months of a duly elected Senate is a failure to respect his states’ voters, but just doing business. Consequently, Lugar has called for a swift vote in the lame-duck congress and has implored his fellows to “Please do your duty for your country” – something that, novel as it may be for him, Roy Blunt ought to try now that he has been promoted to the supposedly more august Senate.  

UPDATE:  Steve Clemons writes in The Washington Note that Blunt’s position is seriously wrong:

Senators “elect” Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rob Portman (R-OH), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)** have written to Senator Reid stating, as reported by Joshua Rogin:

On Election Day we were elected to represent the constituents of our respective states in the Senate. Out of respect for our states’ voters, we believe it would be improper for the Senate to consider the New START Treaty or any other treaty in a lame duck session prior to January 3, 2011.

Too bad guys!

You are not yet elected and the incumbent Senators seating in seats they “won” previously have ALL the powers embedded in their positions until 12 noon, January 3rd.

Your efforts to impose your will beforehand are extralegal, irresponsible, and unconstitutional

Of Roy Blunt specifically, he has this to say:

Roy Blunt — this was clever, but you know it was wrong. Dial down please.

But isn’t that always the way with Blunt?  We all know that he, unlike some of the latest crop of GOPers,  knows that what he is doing is usually wrong and what he says about it is, to use the polite term, crap, but he does and says it anyway. Didn’t I say something abut charlatans above?