( – promoted by Michael Bersin)

Today, Roy Blunt shows why we Missourians should be appalled that he represents us in the US Senate.

The following is taken from a posting on the Huffington Post.

As we all know, the CBO report did not say jobs would be lost because of the ACA.  So the new talking point is that the ACA discourages work. Today, on Fox News Blunt said the following:

“I think any law you pass that discourages people from working can’t be a good idea,” Blunt said. “Why would we wanna do that? How does that allow people to prepare for the time when they don’t work?”

If Blunt really believes that, then why do we have ANY law that discourages people from working?

After all, Social Security and Medicare allow people to stop working. Personally, both laws will allow me to retire before I die. Likewise, limiting the working week to 40 hours discourages work.  And, let’s not forget we have laws against child labor.

As we will see this week, Republicans used to think something must be done about job-lock, but not anymore.

Now, because the Republican MUST oppose anything Democrats propose, a law that makes it easier for people to change jobs or choose to retire before they die is destroying the American Dream (as (re)defined by the GOP).

I did not know that the American Dream was for all of us to work literally all of our entire lives.

Why is ANYONE a Republican today?  

It is always instructive to read the writing of an important, fair and balanced reporter in the Show Me State. Steve Kraske, the chief political correspondent, does an admirable job reporting the concerns of the junior Senator from Missouri.

These concerns that the junior Senator has are important because Kraske, an important stenographer correspondent for one of the important newspapers in Missouri, notes that Blunt “is known as a “reasonable” Republican who understands compromise. But he’s clearly beyond frustrated with the president just days before Obama’s second inauguration.”

Below the fold is what frustrates the “reasonable” Republican.  

Blunt was asked about the raising the debt limit.

“If you’re the president, you can’t just say in an authoritative way, ‘This is the way it’s going to be.’ If you’re the dictator, you can say that. If you’re the king, you can say that. If you’re the omnipotent power, you can say that.”

But Obama has to work with Republicans, who still control the House. Yet he demanded anew on Monday that Congress unconditionally increase the debt limit. No negotiations, the president said. No agreement to raise the ceiling in exchange for an equal portion of spending cuts, even though that’s what’s happened before.

Just raise the limit, Obama said.

. . .

The problem is, Blunt and other Republicans don’t take kindly to dictates. They don’t take kindly to Obama setting all the rules. It’s a tone thing that rubs them raw – that professorial attitude Obama has been criticized for.

“How do you get anything done if you immediately start telling the other side that has to work with you, ‘I’m not going to work with you on this’ ?” Blunt said. “Now what kind of start is that to a new administration?”

As a good stenographer reporter, we can be certain Kraske got Blunt’s irritation right.  

In another world not inhabited by the Kraskes who do such an admirable job in reporting the irritation of a “reasonable” Republican, it might have been interesting to ask the irritated junior Senator what Republican president negotiated on raising the debt ceiling.

Some other questions that might have been asked:

When the junior Senator was in the House, did he ever negotiate with the president on what must be done before he got his vote to raise the debt ceiling?  

Didn’t Obama run and win on not cutting Medicare and Social Security, so why should he now negotiate on what he will cut on those programs?

Of course, isn’t it dictating to the president if he doesn’t give you what you want you will not raise the debt limit at all?

Apparently, I don’t have any knowledge of how a serious reporter is to do his job.  

Robin Carnahan (D) stays ahead of Roy Blunt (r-“I swear I had a health care plan in here somewhere”) in Nate Silver’s prognostication of the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Missouri:

12.31.2009

Senate Rankings, Decemeber [sic] 2009 Edition

by Nate Silver @ 4:20 AM

Races are ranked in order of their likelihood of changing parties by November 2010, accounting for all factors such as potential retirements, primary challenges, and so forth…

…3. Missouri (R-Open) — Robin Carnahan’s polling has been very stable, continuing to show her with a very slight lead. That’s probably because her opponent, Roy Blunt, is a rather vocal member of the sitting Republican Congress, which is losing popularity just as quickly as the Democrats in Congress are. He’s the wrong candidate for this type of cycle…

Rough translation: being an obstructionist republican hack does not bode well, even in an off year election.

It all makes perfect sense – the campaign would revolve around highlighting their gubernatorial accomplishments.

Sarah Palin (r) on July 3, 2009:

Palin Announces No Second Term

No Lame Duck Session Either

…And we are doing well! My administration’s accomplishments speak for themselves. We work tirelessly for Alaskans…

…With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election… I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell; and I am willing to do so, so that this administration – with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future – can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success…

Matt Blunt (r) on January 22, 2008:

Gov. Matt Blunt won’t run for re-election

…”The habit of politicians is to remain in office, and the desire to prove oneself in the next election is strong,” Blunt said. “After a great deal of thought and prayer, and with the knowledge that we have achieved virtually everything I set out to accomplish, and more, I will not seek a second term in the upcoming election,” he said.

“Because I feel we have changed what I wanted to change in the first term, there is not the same sense of mission for a second…”

And their administration could include South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (r) as Secretary of State. After all, it’s the international experience that counts.

There is so much irony on so many levels.

…Since the Nixon administration, a mantra repeated during many scandals has been, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up…”

The Kansas City Star has an online copy (pdf) of the lawsuit filed in Cole County by Special Investigator C.E. Fisher against Governor Matt “baby” Blunt in the e-mail destruction/obstruction case. It’s kind of nice that the paper saved us a drive down to Jefferson City to get a copy. The document provided by the paper does not have the case number nor any filing stamp on the header. tiny URL

Oh, yeah. The Kansas City Star did a front page story (below the fold) in this morning’s Kansas City Edition. tiny URL

It’s on the Missouri Courts case system:

08AC-CC00370 – STATE OF MO EX REL V MATTHEW R BLUNT ET AL

Judge Assigned: CALLAHAN, RICHARD G

Date Filed: 05/05/2008

Location: Cole Circuit

Case Type: CC Declaratory Judgment

Disposition: Not Disposed

There are some interesting revelations:  

First, someone in the Blunt administration who was concerned about the law spilled the beans on the Blunt administration:

…30. On November 1, 2007, after hearing the aforementioned confrontations with Ross, an employee of the Office of Administration contacted a member of the Attorney General’s office and confidentially reported the activities of Ross to the Office of the Attorney General. After receiving this information, the Attorney General took steps to begin an investigation…

Second, that big bill for the records request was not exactly a big bill for the records request:

…63. On February 8, 2008, Mr. Holstein provided his supplementary response to his January 8, 2008 correspondence. In his response on behalf of Defendant Blunt and the Office of Administration, Holstein communicates an estimated cost of $540,940.00 to determine which records Defendant Blunt is required to produce, said amount not including any costs of copying or electronic formatting. Of the $540,940.00 estimated costs, $467,840.00 was for attorney time to review the records…

It was a big bill for attorney’s fees.

What’s the lawsuit all about?:

…73. In order to complete the instant investigation, Plaintiff must review the records of e-mail transmissions and other records currently in the custody of the Office of the Governor and the Office of Administration…

The big revelation?:

…89. Defendant Blunt or those acting on his behalf, under his control or at his direction have violated or attempted to violate the provisions of Chapter 610, by:

a. instituting and overseeing practices to delete email transmissions from forty-three (43) computers located in the Office of Governor…

…b. attempting to compel employees of the Office of Administration to place backup tapes containing public records back into a rotation cycle after Sunshine Law request had been made for such records which would prevent the proper disclosure of public records…

Uh, oh.

And why did they do it?:

…90. The actions set forth in the preceding paragraph where taken to mitigate potential personal and political damage to Defenfdant Blunt and not in furtherance of any legitimate governmental interest…

Yeah, read the “Exhibit 3” attached to the lawsuit.

“…it’s the cover-up”

The case of the missing e-mails continues.

There was this little item in today’s Kansas City Star:

Across Missouri: Judge in Sunshine Law case resigns

Daniel Max Knust resigned Wednesday, two weeks after the former Webster County judge was appointed to help determine whether Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration violated the state Sunshine law.

In a letter to Attorney General Jay Nixon, Knust attributed his resignation to criticism leveled by Gov Matt Blunt’s office that questioned whether Knust, a Republican, was part of a Democratic witch hunt…

tiny URL

Jo Mannies in today’s St Louis Post-Dispatch:

New lead lawyer in email probe says he won’t rush to judgment

…Knust wrote in his resignation letter to Attorney General Jay Nixon, “I did not anticipate that my independence would be doubted by the Governor’s staff. My parents were devout Republicans, and I have held office for 28 years as a Republican…”

[The title of the article refers to the appointment of Chet Pleban to replace Knust]

tiny URL

The Missouri republican party website [Eeeew!] also aimed its wrath at Knust. [I’m not providing a link, just be thankful that I went there to read it so you don’t have to. Eeeew! Can’t get the bad taste out of my mouth. Uck.]  

The moral of the story: If you do anything that  makes Governor Matt “baby” Blunt look less than saintly he will release the hounds.

On November 15th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll taken in Missouri from November 9th through the 11th which shows that “baby” Blunt still does not have the best of approval ratings in Missouri. The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Matt Blunt is doing as Governor?

All

44% – approve

50% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Democrats [40% of sample]

23% – approve

70% – disapprove

7% – not sure

republicans [28% of sample]

68% – approve

30% – disapprove

2% – not sure

Independents [26% of sample]

47% – approve

45% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Since the October poll “baby” Blunt’s numbers have continued to decline among republicans, but remain almost the same among Democrats. His numbers have improved among Independents. The “not sure” responses among Democrats and Independents increased.

Memo shows attorney challenged Blunt’s policy before firing
Saturday, November 10, 2007
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD ~ The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS — A former staff attorney for Gov. Matt Blunt sent an internal office memo challenging his boss’ stance on deleting e-mails just weeks before the attorney was fired, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The memo’s existence and content contradict public statements made by Blunt and his top officials after the attorney was fired in late September. Blunt officials have repeatedly said Scott Eckersley never challenged — verbally or in writing — their policy of deleting office e-mail and brought up the issue only the day he was fired….

This is a textbook case of how not to handle a political windstorm, unless…

…you’re worried that you’re going to go to jail for doing something really really bad.

…On Friday, Chrismer reiterated that Blunt’s office has “no record that Scott Eckersley ever wrote or stated that the practices of our office were inconsistent with any law or standard on record retention….

Heh. Do you think maybe that lack of record is because it was deleted? A classic “non denial denial” if I’ve ever seen one.

RSMo 610.010

(6) “Public record”, any record, whether written or electronically stored, retained by or of any public governmental body including any report, survey, memorandum, or other document or study prepared for the public governmental body by a consultant or other professional service paid for in whole or in part by public funds, including records created or maintained by private contractors under an agreement with a public governmental body or on behalf of a public governmental body; provided, however, that personally identifiable student records maintained by public educational institutions shall be open for inspection by the parents, guardian or other custodian of students under the age of eighteen years and by the parents, guardian or other custodian and the student if the student is over the age of eighteen years. The term “public record” shall not include any internal memorandum or letter received or prepared by or on behalf of a member of a public governmental body consisting of advice, opinions and recommendations in connection with the deliberative decision-making process of said body, unless such records are retained by the public governmental body or presented at a public meeting. Any document or study prepared for a public governmental body by a consultant or other professional service as described in this subdivision shall be retained by the public governmental body in the same manner as any other public record;

RSMo 610.011

Liberal construction of law to be public policy.
1. It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.

2. Except as otherwise provided by law, all public meetings of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in section 610.020, all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes of public governmental bodies shall be recorded as set forth in section 610.015.

Rough translation: “when in doubt, save it” 

Hat tip to Scooby Doo for the title.

Meanwhile, the Kansas City Star‘s resident stenographer [tiny URL] gets distracted by the shiny bauble in the “fair and balanced – we distort and decide” school of poltical reporting.

…Democrat Jay Nixon is facing Republican charges that he broke the law by using his taxpayer-funded car for his political campaign.

Republican incumbent Matt Blunt is up to his nostrils in the Scott Eckersley caper. Eckersley is a former Blunt administration lawyer who was fired Sept. 28. Democrats and Republicans are in unison on that much….

One of these things is not like the other. Uh, Jay Nixon has dealt with the car thing. Matt “baby” Blunt just continues to spin, and spin…

Except, of course, the stenographer is way behind the curve in the alleged access to Eckersley’s private e-mail accounts:

Questions remain over access to e-mails

The attorney for the former deputy counsel for Gov. Matt Blunt has requested an investigation into potential criminal wrongdoing in the governor’s office.

Springfield attorney Steve Garner of the Strong Law Firm, who represents fired state attorney Scott Eckersley, wrote a letter Thursday to two top Blunt officials requesting an investigation into possible “criminal” actions related to the access of Eckersley’s personal e-mail account after he was fired….

Ruh-Roh!

Where to start? A young attorney who works for the governor points out that the governor’s office isn’t following its own written policy on archiving office e-mails. Later, that same young attorney is fired “for cause” – that is, for inappropriate e-mails which were forwarded to his state e-mail account.

The irony is astounding. Think about it. The governor’s office managed to save those particular e-mails.

Blunt lawyer claims fired because questioned office handling of emails [tiny URL]
By Jo Mannies
POST-DISPATCH POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
10/28/2007

A former lawyer in Gov. Matt Blunt’s office says he was fired last month after he raised questions about how the governor’s staff was handling office e-mails and public records requests….

….”I believed I was fired for pointing to written office policy which … contradicted how the office was handling record requests,” Eckersley said….

….To back up AuBuchon’s assertions about Eckersley, the Office of Administration had sent unsolicited to the Post-Dispatch, by overnight mail, a box containing hundreds of pages of Eckersley’s office e-mails. The e-mails included those dealing with his father’s business and the one e-mail from the sex site.

The box was sent Friday, before the newspaper made any calls to Blunt’s office about Eckersley’s firing….

Ah, the “baby” Blunt administration, a paragon of  Missouri Sunshine Law efficiency. You no longer have to request the records, they’ll just anticipate your needs and forward it all to you. Such service. Especially when it comes to self-serving damage control.

I’m wondering if the governor’s office thinks all the spam e-mail they get is an indication that a lot of people really like them. Nah.

It gets more interesting:

Attorney speaks out about being fired [tiny URL]
….Martin’s buildup to a charge of accessing an inappropriate Web site took about a week. On Friday, Sept. 21, Eckersley had a verbal confrontation with his boss, chief counsel Henry Herschel, over a policy matter in the governor’s office. Eckersley thought Herschel had spoken to him in an inappropriate fashion, and he told Herschel as much.

The state’s rendition of that meeting says it was Eckersley who “shouted and ranted and made threatening motions toward his boss….”

The “baby” Blunt administration – the gang that can’t fire anyone without tripping over their untied shoelaces.

I’m surprised Eckersley wasn’t accused of participating in an international financial scam – you know, with all those overseas bankers sending random e-mails to people asking for help in transferring their funds.