Pass the popcorn.

Senator David Pearce (r) [2014 file photo].

John Hancock refuses to step down as some Missouri GOP lawmakers call for him to quit

By JASON HANCOCK and DAVE HELLING

The Kansas City Star

03/12/2015 10:45 AM 03/12/2015 2:23 PM

[….]

….Gary Romine, Mike Parson and David Pearce held a press conference in Jefferson City on Thursday calling for John Hancock to resign as the chairman of the Missouri Republican Party

[….]

….Negative campaigning, the role of political consultants and unlimited campaign contributions have “led to a very negative kind of campaign that none of us are proud of,” said Sen. David Pearce of Warrensburg….

[….]

Senator Pearce (r) has had significant experience with unlimited campaign contributions. He term limits out and cannot run for reelection in 2016. As far as we know Senator Pearce (r) has not announced he’s running for statewide office (or any other) in 2016. But, according to his campaign committee, there is a possibility:

C010192: Pearce For Missouri

Po Box 202 Committee Type: Candidate

Jefferson City Mo 65102 Party Affiliation: Republican

[….] Established Date: 10/01/2001

  Termination Date:

[….]

Election History

Election Year Primary Outcome General Outcome Political Office

2016 Statewide Office

2012 Successful Successful State Senator District 21

[….]

[emphasis added]

Tradition.

“…The Department of Conservation would pay you $250.00 $500.00 to hunt deer with your car. What’s not to like?…”

A bill, pre-filed by Representative Wanda Brown (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 317 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BROWN (57).

0822H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 252, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to reimbursement for automobile damage inflicted by deer.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 252, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 252.270, to read as follows:

252.270. The department of conservation shall reimburse any automobile owner in an amount up to five hundred dollars for damages sustained to the automobile due to hitting or being hit by a deer. The department of conservation shall establish rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536 and, if applicable, section 536.028. This section and chapter 536 are nonseverable, and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly under chapter 536 to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2015, shall be invalid and void.

[emphasis in original]

It’ll probably be easy to get a sponsor in the Senate.

The republican cult of the victim.

Previously:

Sen. David Pearce (r): fundamentally, a useful idiot (August 30, 2014)

Call yourself what you want, obscure and manipulate language, it still doesn’t change the reality of what you are….

SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)

On the right to privacy:

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

[….]

Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs….

[emphasis added]

ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

….This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation….

[emphasis added]

Last Thursday morning there was a meeting in Warrensburg with Senator David Pearce (r), requested by some constituents, on the subject of HB 1307 and the upcoming override vote concerning the Governor’s veto of the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period for an abortion. An individual in attendance provided us with audio from that meeting.

Senator David Pearce (r) [file photo].

About thirty-two minutes into the meeting there was this remarkable set of statements:

Senator David Pearce (r): ….Some of you have probably seen, um, the Internet, uh, campaign against me. Uh, maybe you’ve gotten the robocalls.  And let me tell you who’s behind that. ACLU. And, uh, it’s not, there’s nothing that talks about pro life or abortion in that. It just says, uh, David Pearce should not, uh, be involved in your personal decisions. You want to talk to him? And then they, they automatically filter those phone calls to my office. Nothing [emphatic] about a seventy-two hour waiting period, nothing about babies being aborted. Nothing like that, so it’s a terribly misleading, um, uh [interrupted by a constituent question]….

Oh, the horror of having to explain yourself to constituents.

Apparently, just mentioning the ACLU is supposed to strike terror in the hearts of your constituents. Think about that for a moment – a politician in a room with a group of constituents that probably includes a significant number of ACLU members and sympathizers relates an anecdote that’s supposed to elicit, what, a negative opinion about the ACLU?

Really? As if anyone engaged in politics is required to use the language and memes of their opponents when they’re engaged in the rough and tumble struggle over issues?

The outrage could maybe be funny under other circumstances. In this case it’s just narcissism.

Uh, the ACLU is concerned about personal privacy. The issue of privacy and abortion was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court over forty years ago. Stare decisis.

Call yourself what you want, obscure and manipulate language, it still doesn’t change the reality of what you are.

Senator David Pearce (r) [file photo].

On the morning of Thursday, August 28th there was a meeting in Warrensburg with Senator David Pearce (r), requested by some constituents, on the subject of HB 1307 and the upcoming override vote concerning the Governor’s veto of the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period for an abortion. An individual in attendance provided us with audio from that meeting:

Constituent: …Thank you Senator [David] Pearce [r] for joining us here today. We really appreciate it. We know you have a lot of things on your schedule. Uh, what we wanted to talk to you about is the House Bill 1307, increasing the wait time between counseling and an abortion from twenty-four to seventy-two hours…

[approximately twenty minutes later]

Male constituent: …I have three daughters….I know in the debate, uh, and I, I heard on the news, uh, one of the rep[resentative]s said, was asked, what the appropriate waiting period would be…and he said, nine months. How absurd. And, and, I, I cannot believe that…

[….]

Another male constituent: …I’ve been a Republican since voting for Nixon, Richard not Jay, so I, you know I’ve supported you. I’ve been proud to do it. I’ve thought you’ve always shared my values in amongst political things and, uh, I, I’ve painted a little broader stroke of this, boxed all my speech, kind of took some lines I was gonna use. But, the Republican Party has, over the years, I went back and the Reagan, Reagan  years and all of those great years. I thought they really represented what I stood for. Leave people alone, let ’em live their lives, lets them do what they want to do. Okay, that’s always been the Republican way. And it seems like they’re drifting away from that, both federal and state level. Right now at the state level is a great concern and this issue of, of womens’ rights, it concerns me. I don’t like abortion.  I think it’s personally disgusting. The next time I get pregnant I probably won’t have one. However, however, I really, really believe it’s that woman’s right to choose, nobody else’s. I don’t want you, or the Republicans, Democrats, Jews, I don’t want anyone to tell me what to do with my body. It isn’t right. It isn’t, it isn’t the way in America. I don’t think it is. And I support the veto in this matter, I really do…

Another constituent: …Can we count on you to vote to sustain the veto of House Bill 1307?

Senator David Pearce (r):  Let me, uh, give some comments first. Um, this is a tough issue. I mean, uh, it is very emotional. It’s, uh, in many cases not a black and white issue and, and all of us have, uh, uh, strong feelings. It’s one of those core values, you know, that, that fundamentally you feel a certain way. And, um, those are things that, that, that don’t change. Uh, I’ve been a pro life candidate since the first time I ran in eighty-six and got defeated and, uh, when I ran in two thousand two, two thousand four, two thousand six, two thousand eight, and two thousand twelve. Um, very strong pro life candidate. Um, I’d just kind of like to talk about a few things I’ve heard and, and, and I appreciate and respect every one of you here, uh, for, for your thoughts. And I think it’s good we can get together and talk. Uh, although in the Senate it was a partisan issue. It was straight down party lines. Twenty-two to nine. In the House it wasn’t. So I don’t think that it’s something you can say it’s a Republican versus Democrat issue. Uh, there were probably at least twenty, uh, pro life Democrats that came to vote for the bill in the House. And so I think that, that would be, uh, somewhat, uh, misleading.  Um, I sat right behind the bill sponsor, David Sater [r]. Uh, he handled the House bill and he was the Senate bill sponsor. And it was a protracted discussion we had on this bill. And, uh, David said that, and, and the reason I bring this up is that you had mentioned to my secretary that, that maybe next year there might be a compromise or maybe there would be a way to, to alter the bill. Um, at two particular times David went to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and offered to go down to thirty-six hours. That was rejected. Uh, went back and said, can we go forty-eight hours, that was rejected. And the reason why the Democrat [sic] leadership said they rejected those bills was, no, we want it seventy-two hours because that will be easier to prove the unconstitutionality of the bill. And so when this was happening there was a chance, there was a dialog, a chance for debate, a chance for compromise and it was flatly rejected. So I think you need to be aware of that. Um, also, uh, just on the political side, just so you’ll get a little bit of background information on this, two very, very controversial bills, this and right to work.  And, and basically the Democratic Party, uh, said, we’ll sit down on the seventy-two hours if you won’t bring up right to work. So, um, this was used as somewhat political leverage on this issue. And so to say it’s a Republican versus Democrat there, there’s a whole lot more to the issue than that. Um, the one thing that, that I feel is lost in this whole discussion is the baby. You know, we talk about inconvenience, we talk about over population, we talk about poor versus wealthy. What about the baby? I don’t believe it’s a tissue, I don’t believe it’s a fetus, I believe it’s a baby. And when you take a life, you take a life. Uh, and so that’s my fundamental belief on that. I am not god, and when we’re talking about how many people should populate this Earth, that’s not our decision. Uh, and so I fundamentally think that somebody needs to stand up for that baby. Because he or she can’t make that decision. Somebody else is making it for them, somebody else is saying, you’re not gonna live. And so that’s why it’s such a huge fundamental core value decision for me and, and for others. And so, to me, I think, I think it’s a good thing when we’re having less abortions in our state. And we have. We’re down to, I believe, less than seven thousand in our state, I think it’s down to sixty-five hundred now. Um, we just have one abortion clinic in the state. I think that’s a good thing. Uh, if we were down to zero abortions I think that would be a positive thing. Uh, and so for those reasons, uh, I will vote to, to, uh, override the veto….

….I do believe in the case of rape or incest that, that abortion should be allowed. Uh, not all folks in the pro life community feel that way, but I do….

[….]

Still another constituent: Would you just address why seventy-two [hours] opposed to twenty-four [hours]?  What is the purpose of that?

Senator David Pearce (r):  Well, uh, both, uh, South Dakota and Utah have adopted that.  Uh, so we would not be the first state, we’d be the third. I think these are important life and death decisions and so the longer [crosstalk] that a, that a person has to reflect that.

Still another constituent: Do you think women make it frivolously?

Senator David Pearce (r):  What’s that?

Still another constituent: Do you think women make that decision frivolously? Because I don’t think they do.  I think they go through a lot of torment before that twenty-four hour counseling. I’m sorry, just my personal experience with people I know….

Still another male constituent: And now you’re making it for them….

[….]

Still another constituent: You didn’t answer why the seventy-two was better than the twenty-four.

Still another male constituent: Yeah, you didn’t answer that.

Still another constituent: And then it’ll be a week and then it’ll be a month. I mean, what is the point of this?

Senator David Pearce (r):  I, I fundamentally think these are life and death decisions. And the more that, that people can reflect and, and ponder on this I think it’s, it’s better. Uh, if it will decrease the number of abortions, uh, I think that’s probably a good thing. Uh, I just think it’s fundamentally something we’re gonna disagree on.

Still another male constituent: So, expand it to nine months.

[….]

“…So, expand it to nine months…”

That’s the goal.

Uh, if no republican voted against the bill and a small number of Democrats joined in to support it, it’s still a partisan issue. You know, there used to be pro choice republicans in the Missouri General Assembly. They were purged.

Uh, offering a “compromise” of thirty-six hours rather than seventy-two hours when you have a  twenty-two to nine advantage to begin with is no compromise. Further that says a lot about the “core value” of those remaining “compromise” hours. One hour, nine months, it makes no difference, does it?

“…went to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and offered to go down to thirty-six hours. That was rejected. Uh, went back and said, can we go forty-eight hours, that was rejected. …”

Think about that for a second. The republican majority offered a “compromise” which was rejected, and then subsequently they offered a worse “compromise”. Accepting the second “compromise” would be gross malfeasance on the part of the Democrats in the Senate. The republicans expected acceptance on the second offer? Idiots.

Interestingly, Senator Pearce’s (r) interpretation of republican dogma on the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period appears to be that the opposition was too clever by half in allowing the overwhelming republican majority to impose the full seventy-two hour period. Idiot.

“…And when you take a life, you take a life…”

“…I am not god, and when we’re talking about how many people should populate this Earth, that’s not our decision. Uh, and so I fundamentally think that somebody needs to stand up for that baby…”

Evidently, with your vote, it is your decision.

Kirk: What does God need with a starship?

If you’re for the death penalty and against Medicaid expansion in the State of Missouri (that intransigence on the part of the right wingnut controlled General Assembly is costing lives) and you’re against abortion you aren’t “pro life”. You’re against women controlling their own bodies. Period. If you’re a republican office holder in Missouri and you’re against the death penalty, you know that Medicaid expansion is the right thing to do, and you haven’t done anything about it then you’re nothing but a coward. Period.

“….I do believe in the case of rape or incest that, that abortion should be allowed. Uh, not all folks in the pro life community feel that way, but I do….”

That’s okay. Since they don’t appear too interested in promoting accessible health care for all and ending the death penalty it’ll fit nicely under their label.

Why seventy-two hours? Interestingly, we didn’t hear a rational explanation on that.

Senator David Pearce (r) is supposedly what passes for a “moderate” in the modern republican party. We haven’t seen any daylight between him and his party. He’s no “moderate”. In reality all he is for the republican majority and republican dogma in the Missouri General Assembly is a useful idiot.

Previously: SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)

Wednesday night, via Twitter:

VirginiaYoung ‏@VirginiaYoung

Sen. Pearce has announcement all were waiting for: Tomorrow is annual Pie Day. 900 slices, from 1-2 p.m. in Capitol, with ice cream. #moleg 8:20 PM – 14 May 2014

Medicaid expansion, not so much.

“…folks that take the different perspective about investment would say, again, in the lesser of two evils there’s still evil…”

Previously: SB 509: the folks back home ain’t buying what they’re selling (April 24, 2014)

University of Central Missouri President Charles Ambrose held an open campus forum on Monday afternoon on the subject of the state higher education budget. The forum lasted three quarters of an hour. President Ambrose took questions and comments from the campus audience made up of staff, faculty, and administrators.

University of Central Missouri President Charles Ambrose speaking at a campus forum on the state higher education budget – April 28, 2014.

Excerpts of President Ambrose’s forum remarks:

University of Central Missouri President Charles Ambrose: ….As of right now, uh, the, uh, the Senate has kind of gone across party lines and we have communicated clearly, uh, to [Senator] David Pearce [R] that as a university community we’ve done all that we can, uh, to create efficiencies and cut costs and save money and hold costs down and so we would have to actively oppose any bill that has the risk of taking money out of general revenue and disrupting funding for higher education. The Missouri School Board [President], uh, looked him directly in the eye and told him the same thing….

….The one difference between us and Kansas is, uh, they [the Missouri general Assembly] can’t change this law once it’s passed, uh, without, uh, basically going to the people. Uh, and, so, it’s a little bit more, uh, self-fulfilling in, in terms of impact where the, the Kansas legislature can go back and, and by an act of legislature reverse that tax policy….

….You know, uh, I’ll, I’ll be very direct with you. Uh, it’s been, uh, especially disheartening in this session, because there is a lot of great things happening, uh, in the state. The economy actually seems to be taking somewhat of a, a positive turn. And if government, I know we hear this on the national level, but if government would decide, uh, maybe just some strategic thinking about what’s most important and how we can maybe get there together we wouldn’t be having these kinds of conversations. Uh, but that’s just not gonna be the case in, in this session….

….I will tell you this, uh, that Senator [David] Pearce [R] believes that thus current bill [SB 509] under consideration is a lot less impactful than… [HB] 253. And he’s also afraid that we could end up with something a lot more onerous than what we’ve, that’s currently being considered. Now, uh, folks that take the different perspective about investment would say, again, in the lesser of two evils there’s still evil…

The University of Central Missouri campus is in the districts of Representative Dean Dohrman (r), House Speaker Pro Tem Denny Hoskins (r), and Senator David Pearce (r), all who voted for SB 509 and who will all likely vote to override any veto by Governor Jay Nixon (D).

Previously:

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)

HB 253: Because those dissolute leeches at the public trough should shut up, that’s why! (August 28, 2013)

Missouri Democratic Party on HB 253: Yes, yes, let’s talk about Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r)…. (August 28, 2013)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates (August 30, 2013)

HB 253: any way you slice it (September 11, 2013)

HB 253: Watch out – It’ll be baaaaaaaaaack (September 11, 2013)

SB 509: once more, with feeling (April 17, 2014)

SB 509: “….We’d like to think that most of them are not simpletons….” (April 18, 2014)

SB 509: Governor Jay Nixon (D) strikes back (April 22, 2014)

SB 509: dueling on Twitter (April 22, 2014)

SB 509: Would you like some whine with your bill? (April 23, 2014)

SB 509: strange gyrations (April 23, 2014)

The Missouri GOP, Evel Knievel and political stuntsmanship (April 24, 2014)

SB 509: the folks back home ain’t buying what they’re selling (April 24, 2014)

SB 509: in a wingnutshell (April 28, 2014)

Governor Jay Nixon (D) addressed the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors at the end of their morning meeting in Warrensburg today.

The press release from Governor Nixon’s office:

Gov. Nixon applauds UCM Board of Governors for freezing tuition for Missouri undergraduates

February 14, 2014

As part of continued effort to make Missouri a leader in college affordability, Gov. Nixon has called on Missouri’s public universities to freeze tuition for the upcoming school year

Warrensburg, MO

Gov. Jay Nixon today visited Warrensburg to applaud the University Of Central Missouri Board Of Governors for answering his call to freeze tuition for Missouri undergraduates for the 2014-2015 school year.  As part of his continued efforts to make Missouri a leader in college affordability, the Governor has proposed a significant funding increase for Missouri’s public four-year universities in his Fiscal Year 2015 and called on those institutions to freeze tuition for Missouri undergraduates.

“The evidence is clear, good schools help create good jobs,” Gov. Nixon said. “By investing in our universities and freezing tuition, we’re going to make sure students graduate from college with the skills to compete for good jobs, not a load of debt.”

Earlier today, the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors voted to answer the Governor’s call and freeze in-state undergraduate tuition for the 2014-15 academic year.

“I appreciate the UCM Board of Governors for taking action to keep college affordable by freezing tuition for next year,” Gov. Nixon said. “I encourage our other four-year universities, who haven’t already, to take action and hold undergraduate tuition flat next year.”

“The significant investments Gov. Nixon is making in higher education will help us to hold the line on undergraduate tuition next year while continuing to prepare students to find good jobs after they graduate,” said UCM President Chuck Ambrose. “The University of Central Missouri offers a world class education at an affordable price, putting a college degree and quality career within reach for thousands of students.”

Gov. Nixon has made the quality and affordability of higher education in Missouri a top priority of his administration. Over the past five years, Missouri has led the nation in holding down tuition increases at its public universities. The College Board’s 2013 Trends in College Pricing report shows that tuition and fees at Missouri’s public four-year institutions increased just 5 percent since 2008, lower than in any other state in the nation.

Gov. Nixon’s Fiscal Year 2015 balanced budget proposal includes an additional $36.7 million in funding for Missouri’s public universities, through Missouri’s performance-based funding model for higher education, implemented for the first time last year.  The Governor’s STEM initiative would also provide an additional $22 million in core funding for Missouri’s public universities to help these institutions purchase equipment, expand lab space and produce more graduates in fast-growing STEM fields.  

To address a critical shortage of mental health professionals in many communities across the state, the Governor has proposed a strategic investment of $20 million investment to help Missouri’s community colleges and universities train 1,200 students in high-demand mental health fields.

Last year, Gov. Nixon set a goal of giving every student in the state the opportunity to earn a Missouri A+ scholarship. Under the A+ program, Missouri students can earn a scholarship to cover the cost of tuition and academic fees for two years at any public two-year community college or technical school in the state. To be eligible for the program, students must meet academic achievement standards, conduct and attendance requirements, and perform 50 hours of tutoring or mentoring service.

Since the Governor took office, 266 schools have been added to Missouri’s A+ Schools program and 99 percent of public high school students in Missouri now have the opportunity to earn an A+ scholarship and attend two years of community college tuition free.

Gov. Nixon’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget proposal increases funding for all of Missouri’s major scholarship programs including Bright Flight, A+ and Access Missouri.

Earlier in the meeting Senator David Pearce (r) and Speaker Pro Tem Denny Hoskins (r), both representing districts which include the campus of the University of Central Missouri, provided a legislative update to the Board of Governors. After their reports Senator Pearce (r) and Representative Hoskins (r) did not stay to hear Governor Nixon speak.

Speaker Pro Tem Denny Hoskins (r) providing a legislative update to the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors

at their meeting in Warrensburg early this morning.

At several points in his legislative update Representative Hoskins (r) commented on Governor Nixon’s (D) revenue projection for the state budget.

Speaker Pro Tem Denny Hoskins (r):  [….]

…Outside of the Governor’s paid staff no one believes in Missouri that our rev, general revenue will increase by five point nine percent…

[….]

…It, uh, it just makes it, uh, very disingenuous, um, the Governor makes recommendations based on a revenue projection that no one agrees with outside of he and his office. And then the House and the Senate take on the heavy task of, of being realists and saying, okay, we’re not gonna have a five point nine percent, and, uh, we have to go through and cut over three hundred million dollars from the government, Governor’s proposal…

[….]

Governor Jay Nixon (D) addressing the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors in Warrensburg this morning.

At the press availability after Governor Nixon’s address to the UCM Board we had the opportunity to ask about Representative Hoskin’s comments:

Question: …Governor, earlier today, um, Speaker Pro Tem Hoskins was here and spoke before the [University of Central Missouri] Board [of Governors] and he stated, “…it makes it very disingenuous,” this is a direct quote, “…it makes it very disingenuous when the Governor makes recommendations based on a revenue projection no one agrees to outside of he and his office.”

Governor Jay Nixon (D): Well, I mean, we feel good about, uh, the way the economy’s moving forward in the State of Missouri. Um, the revenue estimates we based this year’s on is less than last year’s gain, um, as far as, uh, revenue growth this state and, and less than has been historically over the last, uh, forty years. So we feel comfortable, uh, that as the economy is moving back, uh, both, you know, that these resources will be there. We look forward to working, uh, with folks, uh, to, uh, to, to hit the, hit these targets.

Question: What kind of reception have you gotten in the General Assembly that would suggest that they’re going to go for the revenue projections that you’ve got in terms of how they budget?

Governor Jay Nixon (D): Well, I think everybody understands that, uh, that the economy’s moving forward, it’s just at what rate it’s moving forward. Uh, we feel that with some of these significant investments, especially as I mentioned here, in the auto sector, one right here in, in Warrensburg, that we’re seeing, uh, that strong growth. Like I said before, I, I, uh, um, you know, it, uh, it’s important, um, that, that we, uh, make sure that we all understand that the, the best economic development tool, tool there is is education. And I think, uh, rather than, uh, uh, than, I think our focus should be on taking the resources we have and making the most impact with them for the future. And the best way to do that is to, is to adequately fund our education system.

[….]

Question: …The Associated Press reported on your remarks yesterday at the, uh, Governor’s mansion that, uh, you were not, uh, ruling out running for President. I, my follow up question from yesterday is how about Vice-president, uh, have you, uh, talked with, uh, Hilary Clinton about that [crosstalk], that possibility?

Governor Jay Nixon (D): I, I , it’s just, I, uh, um, I’m looking forward to, to campaigning with, with Secretary Clinton should she decide to make the, uh, the run. And, and, uh, focus, my attention is focused on, uh, serving the people of the State of Missouri now and that’s the, it’s, uh, it’s managed to keep me very, very busy serving the people of the Show Me State. And I’ll, I’ll focus my attention there…

…But, uh, no, I think that, uh, I think that the, this is the year in which we, with the economy growing we have resources to, uh, to invest in education. That’s why our, our three pronged attack here has been to say let’s, let’s expand preschool opportunities, ’cause if kids are ready to learn when they start preschool, that’s why we’re tripling the, the availability of dollars [inaudible] preschool project. At the K through twelve level we need to fully fund the foundation formula. And we’re on a path in my budget to get that done over the next two years. And then thirdly, uh, by getting, uh, keeping tuition frozen the way that this board just voted today to do, uh, we’re in a position to continue to keep Missouri as the national leader, uh, in the smallest tuition increases of anywhere in the country, while at the same time expanding both access and quality of those, uh, higher education institutions. And that’s why, uh, uh, folks can, can talk about various budgetary amounts, as long as we keep our eye on the prize, which is making sure that the best economic development tool there is, education and a great education system, is where we’re all working together. Uh, I’m confident that, that we will make a difference that’ll make, uh, a lasting difference for, uh, kids and families of our state.

[….]

Governor Jay Nixon (D) at the press availability in Warrenburg after the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors meeting.

Dancing would definitely be involved.

A letter to the editor, as submitted, in today’s edition of the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal:

To the editors:

One of the worst bills passed in the Missouri General Assembly this year was one that made it a crime for any federal agent to enforce federal gun laws. Representatives Dohrman, Hoskins, and Senator Pearce all voted for this gun nullification bill. Fortunately, Governor Nixon’s veto was sustained.

The headline story in the Star-Journal on Monday, November 18th, that reported the arrest of  eight people in Johnson County on federal charges of illegal drug and illegal firearm possession raises an interesting question with respect to the gun nullification bill. The story quotes both Sheriff Heiss and Warrensburg’s Police Chief Hovey highlighting the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies with federal agents in these arrests.

The bill that Dohrman, Hoskins, and Pearce voted for would have prevented such cooperation with respect to arresting people for violation of federal gun laws. In fact, the bill they supported required local law enforcement agencies to arrest federal agents who attempted to enforce federal gun laws.  

I look forward to reading the explanation that Dohrman, Hoskin, and Pearce have for why they supported legislation that would have made such cooperation next to impossible and whether they will continue to support gun nullification legislation in the future.

Bob Yates

[….]

Warrensburg, Missouri

[with permission of the author]

“…I look forward to reading the explanation that Dohrman, Hoskin, and Pearce have for why they supported legislation that would have made such cooperation next to impossible and whether they will continue to support gun nullification legislation in the future…”

Don’t hold your breath.

Previously:

HB 436: loonier than Wayne LaPierre at a press conference (February 5, 2013)

Ladies and gentlemen, your right wingnut controlled General Assembly (May 9, 2013)

HB 436: nullification – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 10, 2013)

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) – Missouri Boys State – June 17, 2013 – one word (June 17, 2013)

HB 436: we told you so (July 5, 2013)

HB 436: null and void (September 11, 2013)

On unconstitutional gun bills (September 11, 2013)

Missouri politics, where everyone is your friend and everything is all sweetness and light.

Governor Jay Nixon (D), in Warrensburg on the campus of the University of Central Missouri – July 11, 2013.

Yesterday morning in Warrensburg, on the campus of the University of Central Missouri, Governor Jay Nixon (D) signed SB 381 into law. The bill “officially defines in state statute an Innovation Campus as an educational partnership comprised of one or more Missouri public community colleges…one or more Missouri public or private four-year institution of higher education, one or more Missouri high schools or K-12 school districts, and at least one Missouri-based business.” In the scheme of things everyone involved in supporting the bill is patting themselves on the back that this is a good thing for education in the state. The amount of good varies with who you ask.

Governor Nixon (D) signing SB 381 into law – July 11, 2013.

These kinds of public self-congratulatory exercises are a magnet for state legislators in or near the districts where the bill signing takes place. The bill handlers from the Senate and the House tend to show up, too. Senator Will Kraus (r) and Representative Gary Cross (r) were in attendance and took the opportunity to heap praise. Senator David Pearce (r) and Representatives Denny Hoskins (r) and Dean Dohrman (r), who represent the districts most closely connected to the University of Central Missouri, were also in attendance. They, too, praised the bill and the institution.

An excerpt from Representative Dean Dohrman’s (r) brief remarks:

Ah, political science. That’s really interesting, considering that whole nullification thing was settled one hundred fifty years ago.

Representative Gary Cross (r) – July 11, 2013.

Representatives Dean Dohrman (r) (left) and Denny Hoskins (r) (right) – July 11, 2013.

Here’s the all too familiar Kabuki element in Missouri politics: on one hand they’ll show up for the photo op and glory in the credit for one bill which supports an institution in their district, all the while, voting for a more far reaching bill which seriously screws that same institution. They can get away with it because most of their constituents usually aren’t paying attention when the screwing actually happens. And that occurred with HB 253.  

What would HB 253 do to the University of Central Missouri, along with a whole bunch of other institutions and essential programs across the state?:

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

[….]

Governor Jay Nixon (D): With a price tag of at least eight hundred million dollars annually House Bill 253 would undermine our fiscal foundation now and for years to come. It’s the equivalent of cutting all support for higher education, all of it, closing all of our prisons, or shutting down the entire Department of mental Health. House Bill 253 is a dangerous experiment we simply cannot afford. These costs are real and immediate if my veto is not sustained.

[….]

“…These costs are real and immediate if my veto is not sustained…”

And how did those Representatives vote? The vote on HB 253, from the Journal of the House (2339) [pdf]:

[….]

On motion of Representative Berry, SS HB 253, as amended, was truly agreed to and finally

passed by the following vote:

AYES: 103

Allen Anderson Austin Bahr Barnes

Bernskoetter Berry Brattin Brown Burlison

Cierpiot Conway 104 Cookson Cornejo Cox

Crawford Cross Curtman Davis Diehl

Dohrman Dugger Elmer Engler Fitzpatrick

Fitzwater Flanigan Fraker Franklin Frederick

Gatschenberger Guernsey Haahr Haefner Hansen

Hicks Higdon Hinson Hodges Hoskins

Hough Houghton Hurst Johnson Jones 50

Justus Keeney Kelley 127 Koenig Kolkmeyer

Korman Lair Lant Lauer Leara

Love Lynch Marshall McCaherty McGaugh

Messenger Miller Molendorp Moon Morris

Muntzel Neely Neth Parkinson Pfautsch

Pike Pogue Redmon Rehder Reiboldt

Remole Rhoads Richardson Riddle Roorda

Ross Rowden Rowland Scharnhorst Schatz

Schieber Schieffer Shull Shumake Solon

Sommer Spencer Stream Swan Thomson

Torpey Walker White Wieland Wilson

Wood Zerr Mr Speaker

NOES: 051

Anders Black Burns Butler Carpenter

Colona Conway 10 Curtis Dunn Ellinger

Ellington English Englund Fowler Frame

Gannon Gardner Hampton Harris Hubbard

Hummel Kirkton Kratky LaFaver May

Mayfield McCann Beatty McDonald McKenna McManus

McNeil Meredith Mims Montecillo Morgan

Newman Nichols Norr Otto Pace

Peters Pierson Rizzo Runions Schupp

Smith 85 Swearingen Walton Gray Webb Webber

Wright

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 009

Entlicher Funderburk Gosen Grisamore Kelly 45

Lichtenegger Mitten Phillips Smith 120

Representative Frederick declared the bill passed.[….]

[emphasis added]

Senator Will Kraus (r) – July 11, 2013.

And the vote [pdf], from the Journal of the Senate (1512):

[….]

Senator Schmitt moved that SS for HB 253, as amended, be called from the Informal Calendar and taken up for 3rd reading and final passage, which motion prevailed.

SS for HB 253, as amended, was read the 3rd time and passed by the following vote:

YEAS-Senators

Brown Cunningham Dempsey Dixon Emery Kehoe Kraus Lager

Lamping Libla McKenna Munzlinger Nieves Parson Richard Romine

Rupp Sater Schaaf Schaefer Schmitt Silvey Wallingford Wasson-24

NAYS-Senators

Chappelle-Nadal Curls Justus Keaveny LeVota Nasheed Pearce Sifton Walsh-9

Absent-Senators-None

Absent with leave-Senator Holsman-1

Vacancies-None

The President declared the bill passed.

[emphasis added]

Do you think they won’t vote to overturn the governor’s veto? Somebody’s spending big bucks to make sure they do overturn it.

They’re republicans, the outlook isn’t good for the rest of us.