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.  

It has certainly been a banner weekend for the political writers at the Kansas City Star.

First Dave Helling breathlessly strained credulity with his overt and unintentionally funny attempt to promote a distraction over Claire McCaskill’s recent introduction of a bill about CEO compensation limits for TARP beneficiaries (and caught grief from Blue Girl for “gumming Claire McCaskill’s ankles”). Do go to Helling’s post and read the comments.

Then this morning I opened the Sunday paper and happened to read the stenographer‘s fawning over Missouri House Speaker Ron Richard (r). Oh great.

…A couple of weeks before, he ended a conversation by giving me his cell phone number…

Ain’t that a sweet thing to put in an article.

But not this:

Ooh! Look what I found at the Missouri Ethics Commission, part 3

…ORDER

It is the order of the Commission that Respondents shall not be required to return the contributions of $1,275.00 or less received between January 1, 2007 and July 19, 2007 which would, but for the prospective application of Trout in this case, be required to be returned to contributors or paid as fees under Section 130.032.7, RSMo.

It is further the order of the Commission that if the General Assembly does not pass a repeal of or an increase in the contribution limits in Section 130.032, RSMo by the end of this session or if the Governor vetoes such a bill, then the Executive Director shall provide written notice to Respondents of the contributions of more than $1,275.00 received between January 1, 2007 and July 19,2007, as listed in paragraph 10 of the Findings of Fact, which were in excess of the retroactively applied limits, and the excess amounts of those contributions would then have to be returned to those contributors within ten business days after receipt of that notice or else the Respondents shall pay to the Commission for each such contribution a surcharge and fee of $1,000 plus the amount equal to that contribution.

It is further the order of the Commission, however, that if Ron Richard has an opponent in either the primary or general election in 2008, then unless Respondents choose to return the amounts of the excess contributions referenced in the previous paragraph, the Commission will convene another hearing in this case and allow any other candidate or candidates for the same office to intervene and present evidence and argument on how to deal with level-playing-field issues as set out in the Trout decision.

SO ORDERED this 14th day of March 2008.

MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION

By: s/

Warren Nieburg, Chairperson

Or this:

So much for “post partisan” cooperation in Jefferson City

…In a late-night meeting between Republican and Democratic senior staff, Speaker Ron Richard’s office characterized Rep. Jason Kander (D-Kansas City), an attorney and Afghanistan veteran, as a “political problem” for the Republicans. Accordingly, the Speaker took the extraordinary step of blocking Kander’s appointment to the powerful professional licensing and registration committee…

People who wield political power have proved to be, interestingly enough, quite adept at getting and protecting it. You don’t become the republican Speaker of the Missouri House because people like you, you get there because people owe you and they’re very afraid of the political consequences if they don’t pay up.

So the Speaker isn’t a thug? How nice. That’s probably an improvement. But the stenographer’s column reads like it’s all sweetness and light in Jefferson City. That is definitely not the case.

The fawning. It’s the fawning:

…He’s unusually accessible to lawmakers and reporters alike, and he’s planning breakfast sessions to keep correspondents up to speed….

I wonder if I’ll get an invitation.

A sitting governor intervenes in the parole process, setting up the release of an individual who then goes on to commit another horrible crime. Sound familiar? Well, our political media will only cover a story like that if that governor is running for president, right? Think again.

The Kansas City Star’s resident political stenographer writes this gem in today’s paper [tiny URL]:

….Stick this one in your bonnet: Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will win either the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary.

Whaaaat? You’ve never heard of Huck?

Get him on your radar screen. Huckabee has supplanted John McCain as the hot GOP contender on the circuit these days….

Of course, our political chattering classes can’t be bothered to do a little bit of research:

….Suttlar noted that just prior to Huckabee’s appearance before the board the board had voted 4-1 against Dumond’s parole. After Huckabee’s board appearance, her colleagues largely reversed themselves, voting 4-1 for Dumond’s release.

“Why did all the votes change?” Suttlar asked. The board members knew the governor’s position. And Huckabee knows what influence a governor has over a board. Who’s going to turn down a governor?”

A board member, who only agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said, “We are not talking rocket science here. The board jobs are known to some degree [to be] political patronage…

Why would the Star’s Kraske jump on the Huckabee hype bandwagon? Stenography.

Fun While It Lasted [tiny URL]

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 26, 2007; 11:13 AM

….My view of the Huckabee hype is fairly simple: Reporters have run out of things to say about Hillary, Barack, Rudy, Mitt and the gang. Every conceivable story has been written, from cleavage to laughter to multiple marriages, and it’s only October. We need a dark horse to shake up the race. Reporters like Huckabee. So he becomes the flavor du jour….

Lazy stenography.

Saturday, October 27, 2007
Gail Collins: There To Make MoDo and Bobo Look Smart

….DuMond was released not out of some independent sense of compassion but because a wingnut campaign on his behalf was launched because the woman DuMond raped was a distant relative of Bill Clinton…

And the Missouri connection? You know, something that maybe, just maybe, a so-called Missouri political reporter should know?

…Saturday, June 30, 2001

Arkansas parolee is charged in killing of Missouri woman

LIBERTY (AP) – Prosecutors on Friday charged Arkansas parolee Wayne DuMond with first-degree murder in the death of a Missouri woman and said they had not ruled out seeking the death penalty for the convicted castrated rapist.

DuMond, 51, is charged in the Sept. 20 death of Carol Shields, 39, of Parkville, who was found suffocated in a friend’s Clay County apartment about 10 miles from DuMond’s home.

The woman was killed about seven weeks after DuMond moved to the Kansas City area…..

Missouri Courts

7CR101002894 – ST V WAYNE E DUMOND

07/25/2001  Docket Entry:  Filing:
Text:  1 – 1002100 – MURDER 1ST DEGREE – Class A felony – EMPTY CHARGE CODE SECURITY FIELD
  Docket Entry:  Judge/Clerk – Note
Text:  RELATED CASES FIELD: LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
  Docket Entry:  Filing:
Text:  Indictment filed : BOND DENIED : warrant issued MJM….

….7CR101002894 – ST V WAYNE E DUMOND

Date Filed:  07/25/2001
Location:  Clay 
Case Type:  Criminal/Infract.- see Charges
Disposition:  Jury Verdict – Guilty
Date of Disposition:  01/09/2004…

As for Mike Huckabee intervening in the parole of an individual who later goes on to commit murder in another state? Our dysfunctional media has rules about covering those kinds of things in their political reporting. IOKIYAR.

(it’s okay if you’re a republican)