Sarah Palin just needs to be more awesome, and then she will win.

Via this lovely interview with P-D’s Political Fix:

Blunt also thinks that Palin would benefit from more interviews on the “interview circuit”. Not because the practice would make her comfortable and well-rehearsed, mind you, but because a couple of gaffes during a few highly scrutinized interviews are blown out of proportion, while mistakes made over a series of interviews go unnoticed.

Unfortunately, I think he’s probably right.  

As soon as Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri announced that he would not be seeking a second term “because he had accomplished everything in one term” that he set out to achieve; we were immediately suspicious and doubted his claim because there are still a few people receiving Medicaid.

Almost immediately my phone started ringing, and every single call laid out a plausible scenario for an impending indictment, most of them based on the fee-office fiasco from his first months in office. During every single one of those calls I made some notes, and then filed them away, waiting for corroboration that never came.

Most recently, the rumor has been pervasive – he is going to be “outed.”  

On Friday, I got an email from a prominent attorney friend of mine with the subject line URGENT! CALL ME ASAP!!! so I did – I tend to always comply with urgent messages from attorneys – and I got some details.

Now folks, I can’t stress this enough –  it is still just a rumor until you read it in the Post-Dispatch – but here is what we have on good authority will be substantiated in the coming days…

The governor has had an ongoing homosexual relationship with a 29-year-old real estate broker from the St. Louis area.

Apparently, Matty B is one of those self-loathing gay people who publicly rail against their inner selves, almost like they are engaging in some form of exorcism – “if I say it enough, and believe hard enough, I won’t be gay any more.”

I tried to dig up some quotes and comments from both Matt and his father Roy. All I felt was ill.

I am the mother of three fantastic children – and the youngest one happens to be a lesbian. This does not make me love her any less, nor do I think she should “change” because some people are narrow-minded and priggish. My daughter is gay. She is also well adjusted and healthy and happy because she grew up in an environment knowing that she was loved unconditionally and that would never change.

Some of her friends in the gay community are not so lucky – many of them were dragged to therapists and psychiatrists and medicated against their will by parents intent on “fixing” them. Many more were unable to cope and acted out – cutting and self-mutilation, drug abuse and self medication – kids kicked out of the house and onto the street while still in high school for the sin of being born gay.

Revisiting some of the hateful spewings that have emanated from Roy Blunt just broke my heart after I put it in the context of a little boy, just entering adolescence, who is starting to figure out his sexuality and suspects he might be different. It’s enough to make you want to break down and sob.

What really pisses me off is the fact that adults, intent on absolute control, damage their kids for not being what they, the parents, envisioned.

Parents, love your kids. Unconditionally. And if you don’t have the capacity to do that, then you have no business even attempting to parent.  

So the Republican National Committee just did a conference call with local reporters to counter Obama’s St. Louis visit. Often you’ll get a prominent Missouri politician to give the talking points of the day. So who was the lucky attack dog?

Governor Matt Blunt? Nope. He’s unpopular, and caught in his most recent scandal over destroying e-mails.

Lt. Governor Peter Kinder? I don’t think so. His chief of staff was just caught in a sting making explicit online exchanges with a 13 year old.

Leading Republican candidate for Governor Rep. Kenny Hulshof? I don’t think so. Kinder’s chief of staff used to be his district director.

How about Senator Kit Bond? He has decent approval ratings, at least, right? Sorry, but he doesn’t really like McCain, most recently criticizing McCain’s gas tax holiday. So he’s out.

Maybe somebody out of state but in the region, like Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley? Well, McCain apparently doesn’t like him, once calling him a f—-ing jerk.

So that leaves… Frank Donatelli? Donatelli is the liaison between the McCain campaign and the RNC, and he’s also a party hack and megalobbyist. He’s lobbied on behalf of Ethiopia’s government, continuing the tradition of McCain associates who lobby for bad regimes. He’s also lobbied for PhRMA, Exxon Mobil, AT&T, Verizon, and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

This is just getting ridiculous. Has McCain dropped all pretense at being a reformer?

For years, my cousin seemed uncomfortable, to say the least. She was bright and outgoing as a child, but soon after she hit adolescence, she withdrew, almost seeming anguished when any attention was focused on her. I didn’t think much of it at the time; after all, it’s hardly unusual for a teenager to become moody and self-conscious. But this “phase” lasted for years, until well after graduation, and the years didn’t visibly alter her moods. She was probably about twenty when my sister, who is much closer to her than I am, told me the reason for my cousin’s anguish. She’s a lesbian in a small town, and she couldn’t count on anybody in her environment, whether at home, school, or work, to understand what she felt. Now things have changed for her. She’s told the family about her sexual orientation, and after some adjustment, most of us now accept her as she is. She has a committed partner now. While I have no idea if they would have plans to get married if that were possible, they are probably more committed to each other than some married couples I have known. She is really happy now, the same bright, outgoing person I knew her to be as a child before being interrupted by the confusion of teenage years. And I’m happy she is happy, and I’d like to keep it that way. Which is why I get so angry when the LBGT community gets tossed around like a football every time an election comes up. And why I’m upset with Jay Nixon right now.

More below the fold.

In case you somehow missed it, the California Supreme Court in mid-May struck down the ban on gay marriage in the state. In reaction, conservatives in California will put a ballot initiative forward asking voters to approve or deny a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Matt Blunt and Kenny Hulshof have been taunting Jay Nixon for a few days to file a brief asking the California Supreme Court to delay implementing its decision until voters can weigh in via the ballot initiative.  And on Wednesday, Nixon gave in.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Republicans over the last 8 years, it’s that they don’t care if you give in, if you agree with them, or if you cave on an issue. They’ll still call you a gay terrorist-lovin’ atheist abortionist. And true to form, Blunt gloated when Nixon caved:

“Though it is nearly a week overdue, I am glad Nixon finally answered my call and joined with other attorneys general as he should have done last Thursday,” Gov. Matt Blunt said in a statement. “Missourians overwhelmingly believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and they deserve an attorney general who stands up for traditional marriage because it is the right thing to do, not because they receive pressure from others.”

At a minimum, why couldn’t Jay Nixon have pointed out that this is a non-issue in the state and the Missouri voters have serious matters before them, like a looming recession, skyrocketing gas and health care prices, and a housing crisis? Pragmatically, I realize that Nixon is not going to push for the repeal of DOMA or the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but to go out of state to fight against same-sex marriage, well, that just feels like he’s kicking my cousin.

I was going to point out that the Democratic AG candidates would also face similar challenges on same-sex marriage from the Republicans, but in glancing at the news before finishing this post, I see that Jeff Harris has already answered Republican Michael Gibbons on just this matter:

“As Attorney General of the State of Missouri, I will consistently work to support and uphold the constitution that governs our state.

“However, the issue being raised by Senator Gibbons is not one that presently affects our state. Senator Gibbons is attempting to distract the voters – notably in the very first press release of his AG campaign – with rhetoric that is more about divisiveness than substance. These are actions I cannot and will not support.

“If I had Senator Gibbons’ record of caving in to corporate interests instead of fighting to protect consumers, I think I would rather talk about a California court ruling, too.”

That’s good. I’ll update if and when anybody else chimes in.

This kind of got lost in hotflash’s Friday night post about the pre-convention reception, but just as Jeff Harris told her then, he quickly replied to Blunt’s e-mail request, saying that he’s willing to immediately turn over the 75,000 documents Blunt requested at a cost of $10,000 to the taxpayer. One extra wrinkle – the House generally maintains that individual members of the House are not in of themselves public bodies and therefore not open to scrutiny under the Sunshine Law. Harris maintains that his willingness to comply has nothing to do with the validity of the House opinion.

I’m not sure why Blunt is going this route. Maybe he’s hoping that Harris can’t produce all of the documents, or that Harris might have some skeletons buried in those hard drives. But it’s egg on Blunt’s face if Harris can produce and nothing of consequence surfaces. Meanwhile, Harris gets extra press and an opportunity for a fundraising ask – Harris sent out an e-mail to his list calling Blunt’s attack a “Badge of Honor” and asked for a small contribution on behalf of the guy standing up to Blunt.  

Apparently piqued at Harris’ support for the Sunshine Law, Matt Blunt asked Attorney General candidate (and current State Rep.) Jeff Harris to turn over all correspondence sent to or from Harris’ office.

Interesting how Blunt’s chief of staff Trish Vincent started the letter:

“In your campaign for attorney general,” the letter began, “you have announced your ardent support for Missouri’s Sunshine Act. I wanted to provide you with the opportunity to demonstrate that commitment by fulfilling the below open records request.” [emphasis mine]

So now Jeff Harris gets to prove his personal commitment to an issue he talks about quite a bit. In fact, on that first blogger conference call last fall, Harris talked at length about the possible interactions between an Attorney General Harris’ office and the Sunshine Law.

Harris didn’t waste any time in responding, either:

“I am a strong believer in the Sunshine Law, and that’s why I’ve sponsored legislation to make sure that records are open to the public and that Missouri’s public officials govern openly,” said Harris. “Whether they are on a town council or they are the governor of the state, public officials must understand that government records belong to the people, and not to them.”

Harris, a Democratic candidate for Attorney General, said he will comply with Blunt’s request, but he questioned obvious political motives behind the request. Blunt’s request came just one day after Harris, in a speech on the House floor, commended two state employees for standing up to the governor, whose office investigators allege made an illegal request to destroy public documents.

The full statement is below the flip.

Columbia – Today Governor Matt Blunt, in his latest shameless attempt to mask potential criminal wrongdoing in his own office, issued a Sunshine Law request for all documents from Representative Jeff Harris’ office dating back to 2003. The request is based on nothing but a blatant political effort to deflect attention away from the Governor’s own behavior.

“I have always been willing to stand up to this Governor when important principles are at stake,” said Harris. “I will continue to call for him to be held accountable for his alleged illegal actions in ordering the destruction of public records after a Sunshine law request had been filed with his office.”

Harris has been a strong champion of the Sunshine Law. He sponsored the Sunshine Law Electronic Upgrade Act, which made clear that electronic records like emails fell under the Sunshine Law. During this session, Harris has sponsored HB 2177 that would make it easier to prove Sunshine Law violations and would have expanded the scope of the law to include emails sent on wireless devices, campaign accounts, and other private accounts that directly pertained to public business. Harris has also pledged to create a Sunshine Law Enforcement Unit when he is elected Attorney General.

“I am a strong believer in the Sunshine Law, and that’s why I’ve sponsored legislation to make sure that records are open to the public and that Missouri’s public officials govern openly,” said Harris. “Whether they are on a town council or they are the governor of the state, public officials must understand that government records belong to the people, and not to them.”

Harris, a Democratic candidate for Attorney General, said he will comply with Blunt’s request, but he questioned obvious political motives behind the request. Blunt’s request came just one day after Harris, in a speech on the House floor, commended two state employees for standing up to the governor, whose office investigators allege made an illegal request to destroy public documents.

In 1974, SCOTUS ruled, 8-0, that Nixon’s claim of absolute executive privilege was unconstitutional. But the court didn’t say anything about Missouri, so Matt Blunt is claiming that privilege in his legal skirmish with Scott Eckersley.

The Post-Dispatch has this observation:

If we follow this argument correctly, it means that if Mr. Blunt or his minions, acting in their official capacities, intentionally smeared the character of an idealistic 30-year-old lawyer, there’s nothing the lawyer can do about it.

They can allege, as they did, that he used state computers to visit a group sex website. They can hint, as they did, that he had drug problems. They can say, as they did, that he improperly conducted private business during office hours with state computers and that he had a violent temper. They can say all this, even if they knew it wasn’t true, and trash a young man’s reputation and ruin his career, and nobody can touch them.

We have but one word for this argument: hogwash. (It’s not the word we wanted, but it will have to do). The divine right of kings went out in the 16th century.

Beautiful, baby!

Charlie Shields admitted to the media last week that Republicans in this state don’t care who knows how bought they are. Fired Up! has more proof of it, as if we needed any:

Matt Blunt’s Department of Insurance is reportedly poised to implement new insurance regulations that were written by the insurance industry. Those rule changes (in 20 CRS 100-7 and 100-8) will receive a public hearing on June 12th of this year. According to insiders, these new rules will allow for an effective administrative deregulation of the insurance industry in the state, boosting insurance company profits.

Why would Blunt have his Department of Insurance cronies concoct new industry-friendly regs as he makes his way through the final lame duck months of his term? Money, of course.

$300,000 over the last three years or so. You can see the exact contribution amounts, dates and donors at Fired Up! Think of the list as a receipt for services rendered.

This article is reprinted by permission of the author:

WHAT IF THEY THREW A STATE GOVERNMENT

AND NOBODY CAME?

by Rory Riddler

A Tale Of Two Cities

Every year thousands of Missouri school children travel to Missouri’s State Capitol on field trips.  One of the highlights is to meet their State Representative and have a photo taken to remember the visit.  Representatives are keen to spend time with these future voters, so eager to learn just what goes on in Jefferson City, beneath that imposing dome of Missouri’s State Capitol.

But children from the 18th State Representative District (comprised mostly of the older portions St. Charles North of Interstate 70) can stay home.  You see we don’t have a State Representative.  There is no one there to show these young people around, let alone represent the over 27,000 people who live in the 18th District.

So a small desk and chair, on the floor of the Missouri General Assembly, sits empty.  No green or red light goes up on the electronic voting board to indicate how our representative voted.  We don’t have a vote.  Laws are being passed, vital issues debated and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, without the voters and taxpayers of this portion of St. Charles having one word to say about it.

The fact is that two seats became vacant in St. Charles County last year.  But only ours remains unfilled.

One seat opened up in the City of St. Peters when State Representative Carl Beardan resigned to pursue other interests.  At the same time, a vacancy was created in the City of St. Charles when former State Representative Tom Dempsey was elected to the State Senate.

When such vacancies occur, it is the responsibility of Missouri’s Governor to call a Special Election to fill the unexpired term.  That is exactly what happened in the City of St. Peters.  The Governor called a Special Election, the Democratic and Republican District Committees selected their respective candidates and an election was held the first Tuesday of [February].

The voters of that district elected a new State Representative who was promptly sworn into office.  But no notice came from the Governor’s Office about the 18th District.  No explanation was ever forthcoming as to just WHY we weren’t entitled to the same treatment as the voters and taxpayers of St. Peters.

It wasn’t as if we weren’t going to the polls that day anyway.  The Special Election in St. Peters was held on Super Tuesday, the Presidential Primary in Missouri.  A record 40% of voters turned out on a cold day to make their voice heard.  It would have cost the State of Missouri next to nothing to have held a Special Election in the 18th District to fill Tom Dempsey’s vacant seat.

Yet money is the only half-way excuse anyone ever offered.  The Republican Party Chairman in St. Charles County was quoted in an area newspaper as saying that if the Democrats were complaining about the cost of running these special elections then maybe the seats would just sit empty till the next regular election.  But, of course, that isn’t what happened in St. Peters or elsewhere around the State.  To his credit, behind the scenes, I heard that he had urged the Governor’s Office to do the right thing and call the election, knowing the Republican Party would be blamed for seemingly punishing the voters of St. Charles.

But what exactly did we do to deserve punishment?  In every really good mystery there is a motive that is revealed in time.  Now seems to be as good a time as any.

What great sin did we commit to be stripped of our representation?  It seems the Missouri Republican Party didn’t trust us to elect another Republican State Representative.

Demographically the 18th District is becoming slightly more Democratic in its voting patterns.  It has been that way for a while.  It explains why former Representative (now State Senator) Tom Dempsey had to outspend challenger Joe Koester four to one to hold on to his seat in November 2006, just to get 54% of the vote.

The Republican Party has been able to hold on to this vital swing seat with old familiar family names and big money for the last few elections.  But they didn’t have a similar candidate waiting in the wings this time and they knew the Democratic Party had two good candidates to choose from with lots of name identification.

So knowing they might lose the 18th District, the Republican Governor was “advised” to leave the seat vacant.  I use the word advised, because I can’t fathom that a Governor from Southwest Missouri, would know anything about the lay of the political landscape here, and make the critical decision to deny us representation without depending on some expert local advice.

Which begs the question, why didn’t our newly elected State Senator Tom Dempsey insist that the Governor call an election to fill this vacancy?

I will leave it to your own imaginations.

So there you have our tale of two cities.  St. Peters voters have a brand new State Representative and St. Charles voters can have their school age children take a picture standing next to an empty desk on their next field trip to Jefferson City.  At least they will learn something about how government truly functions in a State where politicians put partisan interests ahead of the public interest.

It’s such a treat to watch Republicans form a circular firing squad instead of wincing as we do it. They’re currently cocking their pistols over stem cell research.

Jo Mannies reported last week that Matt Blunt, who had received a bundle of boodle from a pro-stem cell PAC in Kirwood, had been forced, because of the resurrected limits ($1350), to return most of it. The PAC, Supporters of Health Research and Treatments, had given him a quarter of million dollars, as a reward for his pro-stem cell stance in ’06.

So when Blunt sent the PAC a check for everything over the limit–basically all of it–they, in turn, sent the Republican Governor’s Association a check for $250,000. You know: if they couldn’t reward him one way, they’d do it another. They knew full well that the RGA would send that money right back to Blunt’s campaign.  

But oops. Blunt withdrew from the race. And lo, the two gubernatorial candidates–Hulshof and Steelman–are anti-stem cell research. Those people in Kirkwood had to be thinking, what a bite. We shell out a quarter mill and it’ll be given to our opponents?

Not to worry, though, because the anti-stem cell people are throwing a fit at the notion of Hulshof or Steelman taking money from those people.  Fired Up! reports that the “anti-cures, anti-hope, anti-research community” considers any money the RGA might give their candidates “tainted” because of those pro-stem cell PAC contributions.

So whoever wins the GOP nomination for governor will be faced with a difficult choice.  Hulshof or Steelman will have to decide whether to accept funding from the RGA –a critical source of campaign cash and independent expenditure support– and face losing the support of thousands of anti-progress partisans from the Republican base, or to honor the wishes of research opponents and forgo hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and expenditures from a key Party organization.

[Insert smug grin here.]

But the grin turns grim when I remember that the a-single-cell-is-worth-the-lives-of-thousands-if-I-say-it-is fanatics are collecting signatures for a constitutional amendment “limiting stem cell research.” “Limiting” they call it. “Limiting”, huh. The petition ought to read “reversing the stem cell research amendment that we couldn’t stop two years ago.” They want to call creating stem cells “cloning” and then ban cloning.

I wish those inflexible, judgmental, I-won’t-give-up-until-everybody-does-it-MY-way ideologues much joy of their high flown principles. Not only do I hope they fail in their sneaky, sore loser quest to undo the amendment allowing stem cell research, I also hope their stubborn refusal to allow Hulshof or Steelman to take “tainted” funds sinks the Republican nominee next fall.