The state Democratic Party put together this video of Hulshof clips, showing basically that Kenny has no ideas … not yet anyway … but that he likes the way Matt Blunt performed.

He what?!

Yes, indeed, Hulshof says that Blunt is his good buddy and that the guv has left the state better off than he found it–with hundreds of thousands more Missourians lacking health insurance, with state government wracked by so many ethics scandals that it’s hard to say whether Matt will escape being indicted for something, with Baby Blunt’s approval numbers the lowest of any governor in the nation.

Okay, Hulshof only said the first part of that sentence. I added the rest. But he oughta know what a loser he’s identifying himself with.

This is the leader of the Republican pack? Sheesh.

Matt Blunt and Department of Natural Resources Director, Doyle Childers drove four hours to Joplin to try to talk the Joplin Globe out of its editorial policy opposing CAFOs.

It is not at all unusual for a Governor or an MDNR Director to call the Kansas City STAR or the St. Louis POST-DISPATCH about some real or perceived slight or mis-reporting. But, it is extremely rare for the Governor or MDNR Director to show up personally in newspaper offices. This had never occurred at the offices of relatively small newspapers, such as the Joplin Globe.

For all the good it did the guv. Which was none. You can read all about it on Ken Midkiff’s site.

Missouri’s embattled juvenile-offender of a governor has announced that he will not seek reelection in November.  

It also raises a lot of questions…

What brought this on?  There have been allegations of abuse of power – there is the Eckersly scandal.  There were allegations that the Abramoff tentacles reached all the way to Missouri and throwing the taint of corruption on one of Baby Guv’s campaigns.   There is the six-Suburban caravan that schleps his feckless ass from Springfield to Jeff City every business day because his wife “doesn’t like the mansion.”   There was the incident where one of his goons shoved Kit Wagar and caused a three-reporter pile up on veterans day.

There is the fact that Missouri as a whole is pissed off at him for myriad of reasons.

He said that he has accomplished everything he set out to do –

Sure, if he was setting out to destroy the social safety net and finish wrecking the economy, he has been a stellar success.  

I’m sure the fact that he has been sucking Jay Nixon’s draft since inauguration day has nothing to do with his decision to not lose in a landslide…

UPDATE from Clark: A statement from Jay Nixon on Blunt’s  announcement:

“My campaign for Governor has always been about moving Missouri forward.  I will continue to focus on changing the direction of our state so that more Missourians have access to health care, more Missourians can find good-paying jobs and more Missouri children can get the quality education they deserve.

“I wish Gov. Blunt and his family all the best in the future.”  

UPDATE from Michael Bersin: The press release and statement by Blunt on the flip:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290

With Campaign Promises Fulfilled, Gov. Blunt Will Not Seek Second Term

Gov. Blunt Releases Television Address to Missourians

JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Matt Blunt today released a television address to Missourians announcing that having achieved virtually everything he set out to accomplish when he ran for governor he will not seek a second term.

In his address, Gov. Blunt cites among his accomplishments turning an inherited $1.1 billion deficit into three straight surpluses without a tax increase, cutting taxes, ending the education cuts of the past and providing budgets that will deliver $1.2 billion to universities, classrooms and students, rescuing the broken Medicaid system and transforming it into a network of care for vulnerable Missourians and helping turn record job-loss into nearly 90,000 new jobs.

The governor called a news conference tomorrow morning at 9:30 am where he is expected to discuss his announcement.

A video file of the governor’s television address is attached and is also available at http://youtube.com/GovernorMat…

The following is a transcript of Gov. Blunt’s television address:

Fellow Missourians.  Let me speak directly with you.

In 2004 I promised leadership, vision and change.  It was more than a slogan, it defined a mission.  You elected me to chart a new course.

And together we are creating a future of greater opportunity for all Missourians.

We inherited a budget that was $1.1 billion dollars in the red and turned it into three straight surpluses without increasing taxes.  In fact, we cut taxes.

In contrast to the old education withholdings and cuts, my budgets will have delivered 1.2 billion new dollars to our universities, classrooms and students.

A broke and broken Medicaid system is being transformed into a network of care offering vulnerable Missourians healthier lives at a cost taxpayers can afford.

We have turned record job-loss into nearly 90,000 new jobs.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in waste has been eliminated and we reduced the size of government.

What we set-out to achieve four years ago has been accomplished.

Once when asked if he were running for re-election another governor responded, “Yes, I like being governor.” When I read that I thought at the time that I never wanted to run for any office just to hold it. I did not run for governor to have a title, but to bring change to state government.

The habit of politicians is to remain in office and the desire to prove oneself in the next election is strong.  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.  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.

At the end of my term, I will have served twenty years in public service, ten years in the United States Navy followed by ten years in state government.  Melanie and our son William Branch mean the world to me. I have spent more time away from them than I would like.  We are ready for the next chapter in our lives and I am looking forward to spending more time with them.

Some will wrongly think that this is a retirement from the effort to improve the lives of Missourians.  But they will have failed to understand that the greatest and wisest leadership of our state is not housed within the ornate offices of the Capitol.  It springs from our citizens, communities, churches and institutions of private life.

There are new and important initiatives we can achieve this year.

Their success will help keep the change working for Missouri families.

I will focus on these initiatives.

To serve as your governor is a great privilege. I will continue to work every day to be worthy of the faith and confidence you have placed in me.

Thank you for listening, and may God continue to bless our great state.

UPDATE from Clark again: Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder is in:

“As Lt. Governor and President Pro Tem I have brought fundamental change to state government. I have served as a change agent my entire career and look forward to continuing my positive leadership. Missourians deserve a strong economy to create new higher paying jobs, a world class education, and affordable and accessible health care. I am the right person to deliver the positive change Missourians deserve.

I am heartened by the outpouring of support and I will be formally announce my plans for Governor in the coming weeks.”

Heh. It’s been a while since I’ve had to type that. Usually it’s “Scott Eckersley and Matt ‘baby’ Blunt…”

Meanwhile, back at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

28 candidates hope to keep campaign funds

By David A. Lieb

ASSOCIATED PRESS

01/15/2008

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Twenty-eight candidates from around the state are seeking to be exempt from refunding money they received in excess of Missouri’s campaign contribution limits…

…Beetem heard arguments Tuesday on a lawsuit by Rep. Margaret Donnelly, a Democratic attorney general candidate from St. Louis who claims the hearings must be open under the Missouri Sunshine Law. Donnelly wants the judge to issue an injunction barring the closed hearings…

tiny URL

It’d probably be easier to go through the 4th quarter filings and see who hasn’t returned the excess contribution amounts. With a little persistence I bet you could discover the “twenty-eight” in there somewhere.

Okay, back to Jay Nixon and Matt “baby” Blunt and their campaign finance reports:

Jay Nixon (579 pages)

Committe[e]: NIXON FOR GOVERNOR

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $1,747,859.12

Matt “baby” Blunt (180) pages

Committe[e]: MISSOURIANS FOR MATT BLUNT INC

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $4,009,541.03

Since they’ve been returning those excess amounts of contributions, the “money on hand” numbers tell us more than “total receipts”. It is interesting to note that Jay Nixon’s report has more than three times the number of pages – the difference is in the number of small contributors.

The really interesting reading is in the “Addendum Statement” in “baby” Blunt’s report:

Addendum Statement

Committe[e]: MISSOURIANS FOR MATT BLUNT INC

…Non-Itemized contributions were received from 314 donors…

…The following previously reported contributions were drawn on a joint checking account and thus re-attributed as follows: Contribution: $100,000.00; Re-attributed amount: $1,275.00; Dated: 03/14/07; from Rex Sinquefield….to Jeanne Sinquefield…; Contribution: $25,000.00; Re-attributed amount: $75.00; Dated: 03/04/07; from Samuel Hais…to Susan Hais…; Contribution: $50,000.00; Re-attributed amount: $75.00; Dated 03/04/07; from Rudolph Farber…to Dorothy Farber…

The following previously reported contributions were drawn on a joint checking account and thus re-attributed as follows: Contribution: $25,000.00; Re-attributed amount: $1,275.00; Dated 06/29/07; from John L. Nau…to Bobbie Nau…; Contribution: $40,000.00; Re-attributed amount: $75.00; Dated 03/04/07; from Howard Wood…to Joyce Wood…; Contribution: $100,000.00; Re-attributed amount: $1,275.00; Dated 03/26/07; from Dennis Jones…to Judith Jones…

…Other disbursements include $2,210,760.00 payable to donors who contributed over the maximum limitation…

[emphasis added]

And they had expenses:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: MISSOURIANS FOR MATT BLUNT INC

Report[ ]Date: 1/15/2008

B. ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

…American Viewpoint Alexandria, VA 10/23/2007 Research $40,900.00

American Viewpoint Alexandria, VA 12/6/2007 $4,000.00…

…(14. TOTAL: ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES THIS PERIOD: $658,123.44)…

Almost $45,000 for polling. Heck, they could have paid me half that and I would have been able to tell their candidate the same thing: “It doesn’t look very good.”

A few details from Jay Nixon’s report:

Addendum Statement

Committe[e]: NIXON FOR GOVERNOR

The refunds listed below were issued in compliance with the reinstated campaign contribution limit of $1275…..[list of refunds]…

Committe[e]: NIXON FOR GOVERNOR

Report[ ]Date: 1/15/2008B.

ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES ALL OVER $100 AND ALL PAYMENTS TO CAMPAIGN WORKERS

…Bennett Petts & Blumenthal Washington, DC 11/29/2007 Public Opinion Research $20,000.00…

…(14. TOTAL: ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES THIS PERIOD: $449,253.39)…

There’s a reasonable opinion research bill…

Before Christmas, Matt Blunt was busily trying to get past his Ebenezer Scrooge image by announcing three different forms of state government largess that he is proposing.

The first is a $121 million dollar increase in state aid to education–four percent more than the state is spending now. Blunt neglected to mention, though, that the added funds are hardly prompted by the Mother Teresa portion of his soul. Rather, it is a raise mandated by the new school foundation formula.

The other two examples of his munificence and his concern for the poor have to do with his two replacement programs for Medicaid. MO HealthNet is Medicaid under a jazzy new name–and covering fewer people than the old program did. Insure Missouri is for the working poor.

Blunt is recommending that doctors treating patients under MO HealthNet receive more appropriate compensation. In 2006, they got only 45 percent of what doctors were paid for treating Medicare patients. The 2007 budget bumped the payout up by $66 million, so that doctors received 55 percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate. Blunt is proposing to add another $52.8 million a year starting July 1, so that doctors treating Medicaid patients would receive at least 65 percent of the Medicare payment rate.

Blunt’s recommendation to raise MO HealthNet compensation is, like his proposal to raise education spending, disingenuous, since the bill that created MO HealthNet dictated that the minimum rates would rise. It’s not like the governor woke up one morning and decided to raise those rates so that more of the poor could find doctors who would treat them. The bill already spelled that out.

Still, despite the guv trying to take credit where it isn’t due, it would be heartening to see a more reasonable rate of compensation, because many doctors have begun refusing to treat Medicaid patients. Don’t hold your breath, though. The increase in payment rates to doctors isn’t likely to happen anyway because the money for it probably won’t be there. And Blunt knows that.

No matter what a given bill says the state must spend on something, states aren’t like the federal government: they may NOT engage in deficit spending. First and foremost, they must balance their budgets. And Missouri is on a list of thirteen states that are projected to have a budget shortfall in fiscal 2009, which begins this July.

And no matter what the MO HealthNet bill may have mandated, the money for paying more to doctors of Medicaid patients hasn’t been included in the budget. If we have a budget shortfall–as the downturn in the economy and the housing market makes more than likely–some programs will have to be cut (or taxes raised–as if). And the programs that are at least in the budget to start with–like the increased money for education–are more likely to get the funding. Raises for doctors of Medicaid patients will be left out in the cold like orphans.

Finally, on the list of Blunt’s recent bounty, we come to Insure Missouri, the health insurance program for the working poor.  The first of its three phases, for working people who live below the poverty line, is budgeted and due to start this February. But the other two phases still have to get through the legislature. Lotsa luck.

Fiscally conservative Republicans liked the way those Medicaid cuts two years ago helped the budgeting process, and they’re not inclined to undo what they accomplished. They’ll oppose it. That might not be a problem if Dems would vote for it, but they’re not itching to give Blunt that kind of legislative victory in an election year, especially since they figure he’d fund it just long enough to get himself elected and then let it wither. That’s what he did in 2004 with Medicaid–promised during the campaign that he would continue to fund it and then axed it in 2005.

So don’t count on the next two phases of Insure Missouri to materialize. Blunt will make all the noise he can about his fiscal beneficence. But however much he crows, the noise may only serve to remind taxpayers what a stingy ass he was three years ago.

It’s a tough call for the governor: shut up about health care and pray for short voter memories or try to undo the lingering pr damage. Looks as if he’s opting to brag.

Crow, Chanticleer.  

Photo courtesy of Missourinet

Matt “baby” Blunt sent the following memo to State employees declaring Christmas eve a day off for State Employees. Could there be some point he is trying to make in using the word “Christmas” five times in such a brief memo? This on the heels of another memo on Christmas which actually made the Michael Feldman’s show in the “Thanks for the memos” section.

Not to be a grinch here, but I wonder how much Missouri taxpayers will be forking over in overtime pay for 24/7 State operations to fulfill the Gov’s campaign to “Save Christmas”. Here is the memo:

Dear State Employee:

I hope you are enjoying the Christmas season.  As you are probably aware, Christmas Eve falls on a Monday this year.

Today, I signed an executive order closing state offices on Monday, December 24, 2007.

I hope that my directive will help you with your plans for the Christmas season and will give you more time with family and friends.

I am grateful for your continued efforts to improve Missouri government and service to Missouri taxpayers.  Melanie, our son William Branch and I hope you have a wonderful Christmas holiday.

Merry Christmas!

Sincerely,

Matt Blunt

I don’t know whether there’s a secret handbook Republicans follow that instructs them to act as if it’s illegal for them to answer questions when they’re on the hot seat or whether it’s the innate response of liars, but if there’s a manual, both Bushco and Bluntco have been doing their homework.

Blunt, fearful that Scott Eckersley was about to talk to the press, smeared Eckersley and then, when Eckersley protested his innocence by revealing the real reason he’d been fired–that he didn’t go along with Blunt’s illegal practice of deleting state e-mails–the governor’s office filed an ethics complaint with the Missouri Bar against Eckersley for a “breach of confidentiality.”

The trouble is that the boxes of Eckersley’s e-mails that Blunt’s office sent to two newspapers as part of the smear included e-mails between Eckersley and his attorney, Steve Garner.  Their presence in the boxes revealed that someone in the governor’s office had broken into Eckersley’s private e-mail account.  That’s illegal.

Now that Garner is responding to the ethics complaint and pointing out the governor’s ethical–and legal–lapses, Blunt’s spokeshole is clamming up.  Jessica Robinson refused to comment on Garner’s responses to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, claiming it would be “inappropriate” to comment on an ongoing ethics investigation.

Doesn’t it all remind you of the way Bush/Cheney put out their lies about Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, and then when Scooter Libby got caught lying about their original lies, Bush and his press spokeshole, Scott McClellan, kept saying that they couldn’t comment on an ongoing investigation/court case.

Once again, Blunt is following in the steps of his role model.  

Another one bites the dust. Henry Herschel out as general counsel after only a year.

When it comes to the Scott Eckersley firing, “mistakes were made”. Ed Martin fired the young lawyer and then, “with the full knowledge of the governor,  … orchestrated a taxpayer-funded character assassination unlike anything ever seen before in Missouri government.”  None of that should have been done.  

Luckily, our governor is not one to pawn off the blame on someone else.  Sure, Martin screwed up, but Blunt was cognizant of the smear that was publicized and the e-mails that were hidden, so he shouldered the responsibility, or … at least appeared to:

“I’m the governor, I’m responsible for what happens in state government.”

How very manly of him, except that he’s still not admitting to the lies that were told and the e-mails that were concealed behind attorney/client privilege.  

NPR’s “Media Matters”, speaking last spring about Alberto Gonzales’ stonewalling, offered a critique of political non-confessions:

COMMENTATER BOB GARFIELD:  So in the long tradition of politicians in whose hands cookies have been found, the passive voice was invoked. Because in Washington, that’s how things are done. The magical construction was popularized during Watergate by Nixon spokesman Ron Ziegler and since has become a Washington tense unto itself, dubbed by CNN political analyst Bill Schneider “the past exonerative.”

In January, for instance, on the subject of Iraq, the past exonerative was invoked by President Bush.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

BOB GARFIELD: Mind, that’s not the same as “my fault.” It’s more like “the buck stops here.” But it wasn’t put here by me. I didn’t even touch the thing. I mean, the thing wasn’t even touched by me.

And here’s Ronald Reagan in his 1986 State of the Union Address when the Iran-Contra scandal was discussed.

RONALD REAGAN: It’s obvious that the execution of these policies was flawed, and mistakes were made. I know the stories of the past few weeks have been distressing. I am deeply disappointed this initiative has resulted in such a controversy, and I regret it’s caused such concern and consternation.

BOB GARFIELD: That was a special historical moment because in the non-confession were combined the past exonerative with its non-apology cousin, responsibility once removed. In that case, one need never acknowledge wrongdoing, only others’ unhappiness that perhaps a wrong has been done.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was accused of pawing a number of women, for instance, he was heard to utter the classic, I’m sorry if anyone was offended – which didn’t really address his conduct but apparently was deemed more politically advantageous than, but they were so hot!

Now, it’s been pointed out in the editing process that all the examples you have just heard concerned Republicans. If anyone sees this as unfair, I regret it. I accept full responsibility, but I assure you no mistakes were made.

The only real mistake that was made in the Eckersley/Blunt/Martin fiasco was made by reporters who kept pressing for solid information.  And Blunt gave them the sort of answer that such impertinence deserves:

“If you’re confused, that’s my intent.”

How are you at deciphering political-speak?  Here’s some that needs decoding from the news story about Ed Martin’s departure from the governor’s office.  Blunt said that Martin “wants to pursue other opportunities” and spend more time with ….”  You could finish that sentence without my help, right?  Spend more time with his family, of course, just like Karl Rove.  Like Odysseus returning home from twenty years of war and adventures, the conquering hero just wants to snuggle up to Penelope and while away his dotage.

Translation:  He put us on the hot seat once too often, so we had to can his ass.  But don’t worry, he’ll end up working for the Archdiocese in St. Louis again.  And if that doesn’t pan out, we’ll find a slot for him in some think tank or agency.  We Republican high muckety mucks are loyal to the other big shots. We always find a wingnut welfare slot for our recently disgraced.

That’s what Matt would say if he dared.  Not that he does dare, but, in fact, he came perilously close to being honest.  When reporters pressed him to say whether he had fired Martin, he started out with, “Ed Martin resigned.”  (And he’s a wonderful person, blah, blah, blah.)  Translation:  Change the subject; I’m not answering that question. 

But reporters continued to press.  After they had asked the question four times, Blunt finally said:  “If you’re confused, that’s my intent.”  Impressive.  That’s more plain speaking than I would have expected from him.  It’s almost as if he didn’t want to flat out lie,  but considering his track record, that would be puzzling.  This late in the game, why get finicky about a little fib over firing Martin?

Whatever.  However the governor wants to explain (or not explain) it, Martin’s gone.  Too bad in a way:  The man had a talent for getting his boss in trouble, and he will be missed.  He was one of those family values people without any civic virtue, one of those abortion moralists who believed in lying, underhanded tricks, one of those people … who got caught at it.