Seems like Jason Kander’s qualifications and persistence have struck a larger Democratic nerve as he runs to take the the Senate seat currently occupied by GOPer Roy Blunt. Roll Call speculates that Kander is one of:

… two other Democratic recruits who could forge paths to victory in the right political environment: Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona and Secretary of State Jason Kander in Missouri. Both are adept politicians who face strong GOP incumbents in states that lean Republican in presidential years, but could swing the Democrats’ way in the event of unforced Republican errors.

The Roll Call writers, Emily Cahn and former Missourian Eli Yokley, also discuss the potential of the presidential race to influence the outcome for candidates like Kander:

An unpalatable GOP presidential nominee could also shift the tide towards Democrats, giving them an opening down the ballot. With businessman Donald Trump – who has broken nearly every convention in running a presidential campaign as he’s offended significant segments of the electorate – as the Republican front-runner, there’s a chance that could happen.

There’s even more evidence that Kander is getting some serious attention. Even though the Daily Kos analysis of the potential outcome of the 2015-16 Senate races lists the Kander/Blunt race as “likely Republican,” they define that category as a race in which the GOP has “a strong advantage and is likely to win, though the race has the potential to become more competitive.”

That’s relatively good news given how entrenched Blunt has become over the years. Missouri voters (and the Kander campaign) just have to activate that potential.  And of course, given the  current polling results, as Cahn and Yokley suggest, it’s possible the GOP base itself just might take care of the whole Trump issue in a way that would help Kander and maybe free us from Blunt’s version of pay-to-play legislating.

Just to give you an idea about what a Kander victory could mean to us, here’s the text of an email he send out to his supporters today:

Did you watch last night’s Republican presidential debate?

For a good portion of the proceedings, the candidates were all attempting to outdo each other over who would shutdown the government fastest in an effort to deny women health care needs like mammograms, Pap tests, and STD screenings.

And the truth is, our dysfunctional U.S. Senate is steamrolling straight toward this fight. It’s going to happen.

But there are a few people who can stop this travesty by publicly standing up to bombasts in the chamber like Ted Cruz, and one of them is my opponent, a member of Republican leadership, Senator Roy Blunt.

Call on Senator Roy Blunt to tell Ted Cruz to stop his crusade to shutdown the government over women’s health care.

A government shutdown would cost our country billions of dollars, cut the paychecks of millions of workers, and possibly cause delays for many veterans who rely on disability pay and education benefits.

Senator Blunt has the power to stop the Ted Cruz wing of the Republican Party. If you make your voice heard, I am hopeful that he will.

Although Blunt has been one of the leaders of the effort to defund Planned Parenthood and has shown a willingness in the past to attach unrelated partisan legislation to must-pass appropriation bills, he has already spoken out against using the Planned Parenthood fracus as an excuse to shutdown the government. He might, as Kander suggests, be open to constituent opinion. His most recent statements indicate that he is trying to have his metaphorical cake (pandering to anti-abortion Republicans) and eat it too (stopping short of a shutdown throwdown):

Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of GOP leadership who also faces voters next year in his conservative state, said it makes sense to try to push a provision in a spending bill to defund Planned Parenthood on the Senate floor, even if there’s little chance of success.

“Sometimes, you have to go through an exercise in futility a time or two to truly prove it is an exercise in futility,” Blunt said.

But Blunt cautioned: “What I wouldn’t want to do is change the topic here from focusing on the conduct of Planned Parenthood to focusing on a shutdown … If we made a strategic mistake here, it would be changing the topic.”

This strategy is dangerous and could easily backfire. Kander is to be commended for using his candidacy to urge Blunt’s constituents to call upon the Senator to back away from the  extremists in his party. Kander should especially be commended for his civil and conciliatory tone toward his rival for office. It is clear that Kander cares more for the outcome than reaping political advantage by sliming the eminently slimeable Blunt.

It is also clear which of these two has the potential to be a real statesman, a man worthy of representing Missourians. And it isn’t the guy who’s trying to balance craziness against common sense and in the process risking the well-being of the country. Speaking of “unforced errors, maybe it’s Blunt’s participation in the GOP shutdown stunts that will help shift the balance in Missouri – and Jason Kander’s “I think I can” will become “Yes, I did it.”

* Last sentence edited for clarity.

I wrote yesterday about the scrambled logic employed by former state Rep. Cynthia Davis to defend Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refuses to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I found it hard to believe that anyone could be as obtuse as Cynthia Davis seems to be. However, as Michael Bersin pointed out earlier, current State Rep. Vicky “Running God’s Way” Hartzler is also an admirer of the Kentucky county clerk.

Hartzler not only speaks up for Kentucky’s premier religious bigot, she is, as Steve Kraske of the Kansas City Star notes, the only one of Missouri’s congressional delegation to publicly defend Davis. I suspect that the only reason that she doesn’t go as far over the top as Missouri’s Cynthia Davis does is because her pronouncements so far have been brief (and if she decides to say more, she’ll have her staff to keep her coherent – something that Missouri Davis lacks). Hartzler nevertheless, misfires just as badly when she focuses on freedom of religion without acknowledging the civil rights of those in Davis’ religious cross-hairs, declaring that:

I stand with Kim Davis. It’s a sad day when we imprison someone in America because of their beliefs. Freedom of religion is our first right.

However, both Hartzler and Missouri Davis have even more distinguished company in their desire to defend Kentucky Davis: GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. And unlike Hartzler, Huckabee doesn’t hold back. He’s as over the top and poorly informed as Davis (although a bit more fluent in English). He attempts to draw parallels with the 19th century Dred Scott decision, claiming that it is still the law of the land – even after being informed that it was overturned by the 14th amendment:

“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?'” Huckabee said. “Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”

After correcting Huckabee, Medved then asked the candidate if he would attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling with a constitutional amendment.

“I don’t think that’s necessary,” Huckabee replied. “Because, in the case of this decision, it goes back to what Jefferson said that if a decision is rendered that is not borne out by the will of the people either through their elected people and gone through the process, if you just say it’s the law of the land because the court decided, then Jefferson said, ‘You now have surrendered to judicial tyranny.'”

“The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law and they made it up out of thin air. Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution which was the law under which she was elected but she’s operating under the fact that there’s no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her,” Huckabee said before Medved cut him off for a break.

That, I believe, is similar to the wannabe constitutional argument that our own Cynthia Davis is trying in her labored fashion to promulgate. So what does this mean about Huckabee – and by extension folks like Hartzler and Davis? As Steve Benen remarks:

… I don’t expect Huckabee to be a legal scholar. He’s not an attorney; he has no background in legal scholarship; he’s never even been an elected lawmaker.

But Huckabee is falling short of a junior-high-school level of understanding of the American constitutional system – which is generally not an appealing trait for someone seeking the nation’s highest office.

[…]

Huckabee’s bizarre mistake would be easier to dismiss if similar mistakes weren’t so common. The former governor and Fox News host has somehow convinced himself, for example, that federal “enabling legislation” is necessary in response to court rulings, or they don’t count. He’s also endorsed pre-Civil War nullification schemes and suggested he might deploy federal troops on U.S. soil to prevent women from exercising their reproductive rights.

It’s one thing to have a right-wing governing agenda, but it’s something else when a candidate invents his own brand of crackpot civics and pretends it’s real.

Cynthia Davis is a small time political has-been who has to resort to her own Internet talk show to try to peddle her silliness and Vicky Hartzler is basically just another lack-luster GOP hack. But Mike Huckabee is running for president – president of all of us, not just evangelical Christian fanatics.

Of course, on the other hand, why am I surprised that a GOP presidential candidate sounds a lot like a dim-witted local ex-politician? These individuals are members of a party in which Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate, and which tried to make Sarah Palin Vice-President. They’re members of a party that has turned its back on science, that denies the reality of climate change, that would subjugate foreign policy to partisan political considerations, that endorses discredited Voodoo economics, that would enable tax-cuts for the rich and impose greater tax-burdens on the poor, that is willing to suppress voting rights in the name of non-existent “voter fraud,” that denies that contraception is a health issue, that tries to rewrite history books to support present day ideological druthers, and that has no compunction about trying to impose a myriad fantastical theories and beliefs on the rest of us. Davis, Hartzler and Huckabee are maybe just a little less subtle than some of their other colleagues.

From Catherine Hanaway’s “How to become Governor of Missouri” checklist:

1. Goal: Find a simpatico billionaire to pave the roads with gold.

Achievements to date:

— Nearly $1 million dollars from one donor, megabucks political meddler, Rex Sinquefield.

Next steps:

— Ask Rex what he wants; submit bill.

2. Goal: Make nice with GOP crazy wing.

Achievements to date:

— Channeled the spirit of Todd Akin; attributed poverty, depravity and pedophilia to female sexual autonomy.

— Kudos from Constitutional Party, holly-rollier-than-thou, Cynthia Davis who responds to the Akin imitation with thanks to “brave women, like Catherine Hanaway, for having the courage and moral fortitude to speak the truth” about the sluts who “who have been beguiled into making their bodies available to men outside of Holy Matrimony.”

Next steps:

— Continue talking about keeping the sluts barefoot, pregnant and under Big Daddy’s thumb.

— With the understanding, of course, none of that talk applies to educated, rich Republican women who run for office.

3. Goal: Make nice with Missouri GOP power-brokers.

Achievements to date:

Endorsements:

— Former Missouri Governor and U.S. Senator Kit Bond – will put loyalty to former employees and friends over policy differences.  

— Former GOP National Committee Missouri member Ann Dickinson – goes where Kit Bond leads.

— Very connected U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner – all in for Hanaway – and why not since she’s the GOPs A-1 talent scout for women who can mouth the Republican anti-women line without retching.

— State Rep. Ed Emery, ALEC’s main man in Missouri.

Next Steps:

— Take a loyalty oath to ALEC.

— Hit the country club circuit.

4. Goal: Squash the other main GOP primary contender, Tom Schweich, like a bug.

Achievements to date:

— Long Version: Read former U.S. Sen. John C. Danforth’s eulogy for Tom Schweich to get the whole story.

— Short Version: Read TPM’s description of the way the old, political one-two works – or what Hanaway supporters and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Bill McCellan want to call politics as usual.

— Issued statement after announcement of Schweich’s suicide about what a mensch he was … oops! Make that what an “extraordinary man with an extraordinary record of service to our state and nation.”

Next Steps:

— Suspend campaign, lie low and maybe State GOP Chair and former Hanaway oppo researcher John Hancock will take all the heat.

* Edited slightly; inadvertently omitted text added back under achievements on 4th point.

I’ve been amused by the not inconsiderable number of individuals who sanctimoniously point out that if people in places like Ferguson, say, don’t like what’s going on in local government, or if they have a problem with the makeup of that government, then all they need to do is trot off to the polls and vote. Take, for instance, this letter printed in a recent edtion of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

You want change? Prove it. Those signs people are carrying that say “Black Lives Matter” should be saying “Black Votes Matter.” Marching in the streets may get some attention short term, but where you can really make a difference is on Election Day by marching into the voting booths and casting a ballot for people who can address your concerns. March into the county Board of Elections and register to vote. March into the town hall meetings, the school board meetings, the state legislature and tell your stories. Because these officials have to know how their actions affect you personally. And if their actions show they aren’t listening, then vote them out. Run for office, get involved, pay attention.

Although I don’t think protests vs. votes is an either/or situation – in this case, we probably need both – the writer is, of course, right on a basic level.  We get the government we deserve. When large majorities of the citizens of Missouri – and I’m not necessarily talking about “those people” singled out by the letter writer above – failed to turn out to vote in 2014, the result has been legislators like those currently in Jefferson City who seem hell-bent on trashing the state as fast as they can.

But there’s a bigger story here than the one about apathetic voters. There are a number of socioeconomic factors that influence whether people vote and how they vote. And it’s this last fact that gets us to a whole other open can of worms. There are those who have noticed that who people are, their race, economic status, gender and age, corresponds to their partisan leanings. Lots of those people are Republican politicians or the people who give them money. The result has been a growing effort to keep the wrong people, who often tend to be “those people,” from voting. And it’s happening right here in Missouri. As Rebecca Rivas at the St. Louis American reports:

Just as many are stepping out of the movie theaters with images of the 1965 March on Selma fresh in their minds, Missouri state legislators are hearing about proposed Voter ID laws.

“On the anniversary of the March on Selma, the fight for voter rights have [sic] been exposed and celebrated,” said state Rep. Stacey Newman (D-87). “But they’ve also taught us that this never ends.”

On Tuesday, January 27, the Missouri House of Representative’s election committee listened to community members and experts testify about two voter identification bills, introduced by state Rep. Tony Dugger (R-141). The bill HB 30 would requires voters to show a “valid government-issued photo ID” at the polls, with some exemptions. Dugger is also proposing the bill HJR 1, which would amend the constitution to require voters to have government-issued photo IDs.

[…]

Voter ID laws have been criticized and found unconstitutional because they disproportionately impact people who don’t often have state-issued IDs – often people of color, people with disabilities, seniors and young voters.

In 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down Missouri’s Voter ID law. According to the court opinion, the Secretary of State’s analysis in August 2006 estimated that approximately 240,000 registered voters in the state may not have the required photo ID.

Rep. Dugger offers a comically unlikely hypothetical concerning possible voter fraud to justify his (likely ALEC inspired) obsession with the photo ID project that he has repeatedly tried to enact:

Missouri’s Voter Rolls are severely inflated due to various reasons,” Dugger said. “There are 15 counties in Missouri with 95% or more of their eligible voters registered to vote,” said Dugger. “One county, Reynolds County, actually has more registered voters than eligible voters. With that problem out there, the potential for fraud is quite prevalent. There is no verifiable way to ensure that a voter voting on Election Day is who they say they are without some sort of a photo ID requirement.”

You really think that some sinister somebody is going to go through the rolls, figure out who doesn’t belong there, and then send ringers to impersonate them? Lots of effort for very little return, I’d say. Photo IDs only prevent this type of in-person voter fraud, and as reported in The Washington Post:

A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.

But Photo ID laws do pose an often insurmountable barrier to voting:

Since 2008, states across the country passed measures to make it harder for Americans – particularly African-Americans, the elderly, students and people with disabilities – to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot. Over thirty states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Studies suggest that up to 11 percent of American citizens lack such ID, and would be required to navigate the administrative burdens to obtain it or forego the right to vote entirely.

The irony should not be lost on anyone that we are hearing so many disapproving sounds about the failure of “those people” in Ferguson to turn out and vote rather than rampaging in the street, while at the same time our GOP lawmakers are trying their hardest to keep them from the polls.

In Dostoyevsky’s novel, The Idiot, one of the characters,  Nastassya, who has been seduced by a rich nobleman, is offered the chance to redeem her social standing through marriage to an ambitious young man, Ganya, whom the nobleman has offered a large sum of money to marry her. In an act of mad defiance Nastassya, in the presence of most of the individuals involved in her situation, refuses not only Ganya, but a disinterested offer of marriage from the hero, Prince Myskin, takes money offered to her by another admirer, Rogozhin, in return for the promise of her favors, throws it in the fire, telling Ganya to pull it out and take it if he wants it. She then leaves with Rogozhin, cementing her future as a demimondaine, exiled from respectable society. Through her act she denied the nobleman, Totsky, a way to escape his guilt for, in the terms of the time, “ruining” her, as well as showing up the moral emptiness of her society.

Nastassya’s grandiose, self-destructive gesture has always fascinated me. Was the momentary satisfaction worth it? She herself, after all, embraces the world view that will put her, as the mistress of Rogozhin, beyond the social pale. But powerless though she may be against the male-dominated world she lives in, she  has, nevertheless, asserted her autonomy and embraced  her destiny through her own free will.

Why am I talking about a nineteenth century novel now? In a word, Ferguson, and all the fallout thereof. If the connection doesn’t seem that obvious to you (and why should it?), just bear with me – although I may come  up short on the melodrama when compared to Dostoyevsky.

One manifestation of the Ferguson fallout is today’s news that a coalition of African-American officials in St. Louis County have decided not to support the Democratic candidate for St. Louis County Executive, Steven Stenger, but rather to endorse Republican Rick Stream. Yes, that Rick Stream. Proto-Tea Partier, pal of the corrupt, massive beneficiary of lobbyists, sharia-fearing fantasist, cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face type of right-wing ideologue, etc., etc. Just the kind of guy who’ll be doing his best for the rich and powerful in St. Louis County, and to hell with the type of folks who’ve been out in the streets protesting the treatment African-Americans have received from the power structure.

But hey, it’s a poke in the eye for Steve Stenger and the Democratic aparatus that supports him, and to those doing te poking, I’m sure it feels as glorious as when Nastassa watches Ganya grovel in the fire for Rogozhin’s money. The coalition members claimed that they were angry about “what they characterized as “years and years of disrespect” by party leaders.” I’m sure that’s true. The timing of this announcement suggests, however, that Steve Stenger’s firm support of the County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s role in overseeing the investigation into the Michael Brown shooting may have been just one slight too many. According to one of the coalition members, “Steve Stenger’s unbreakable alignment with Bob McCulloch shows he will be unable to run the executive office independently and without influence.”

Maybe. I personally am not impressed by Stenger’s support for McCulloch which smacks of an effort to appease those folks who think a few nights of rioting in Ferguson are vastly more horrifying than the shooting of an unarmed teenager by a man entrusted with the safety of the public – and who were, no doubt, more than ready to toss a black county executive out on his backside. Nevertheless, the old cliche leaves us to believe that there is such a thing as out of the skillet and into the fire. Do these black officials really believe that Stream represents a party that will be inclined to show them much respect in the long run? Do they really think that he’d abandon McCulloch if given his druthers – no matter what  he might say behind closed doors?

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not criticizing these folks. If I had the wherewithal, I’d be willing to jump from my own skillet into the GOP fire. For me the target would be Rep. Keith English (D-68), the SOB who sold out his party and gave legislative Republicans the last vote they needed to override Governor Nixon’s veto and enact SB509, a rich-man’s tax cut that has the potential to wreck the state’s social and economic infrastructure. That’s not all. He’s a real piece of the smelly stuff. He has, for instance, played an active role in the Missouri front of what is usually a strictly GOP war on female reproductive choice. In 2013 he brought SB298 to the floor of the Missouri House, a bill that would “require an ultrasound to be conducted and reviewed with the pregnant woman prior to the 24-hour waiting period for an abortion.” A real sweetheart for sure.

English was unopposed in last month’s primary and will likely win another term in the legislature. While, as I indicated above, he’s bad news, I do have to admit that he probably has the potential to vote occasionally in ways that are preferable to  his Republican opponent, Rehka (Becky) Sharma. He’s been a reliable vote for labor in the past. Nevertheless, what he did in regard to SB298 is so egregiously bad that if it were up to me, he’d be exiled to the ninth ring of Hell.

Since I don’t live in the 68th district, English isn’t really my direct problem. But, while I don’t think I could tell people they should vote for Sharma, I couldn’t tell them to “suck it up” and vote for English either, which is almost as bad as voting directly for the Republican. So, I do understand just why the anti-Stenger officials have done what they did, and while I wish they were better, smarter than me, I can’t condemn them. I’d love to see Keith English burning in Hell and if they’d like to see Stenger twist and turn a little, I can’t play holier than thou.

And if, because we’re self-indulgent, we, in our little ways, help hand the state over to the GOP wrecking crew, to borrow an image from Thomas Frank, maybe it’ll be all for the best in the end. Maybe the sooner the Republicans take us the full Kansas route, the sooner Missourians will throw the clowns out. There was no happy ending for Nastassya, but, perhaps the inevitable, crashing right-wing failure will be enough to finally put Missouri back on the right track – even though we’ll all have to pay dearly for the nasty little detour we will have taken.

* First sentence of 5th paragraph amended slightly for clarity.

Worth reading today: the New York Times editorial titled “A Senator Fights Back.” The Times piece describes the unfair fight facing Claire McCaskill as she opts to try to fight back against the GOP SuperPACs that are pouring money into Missouri to try to unseat her.

The money (literally) quote:

Republican interest groups are outspending Ms. McCaskill and other Missouri Democrats by a 7-to-1 ratio; Ms. McCaskill herself is being outspent by 3 to 1. Though she has raised nearly $10 million, the amount could be dwarfed by the unlimited money at the disposal of Republican-oriented groups.

A sample of what the money is buying:

“Fourteen thousand dollars,” one Crossroads GPS ad intones, while a beleaguered father holds his head in his hands. “Under President Obama and Senator Claire McCaskill, that’s what every man, woman and child in America owes in new government debt.” The ad wrongly suggests that individuals will “owe” the government a check for that amount, and of course never mentions that Mr. Rove’s patron, President George W. Bush, was responsible for nearly five times more of the current debt than President Obama.

What the Times thinks about the situation:

Crossroads GPS claims to be a tax-exempt social welfare group, so it does not have to disclose its big corporate donors. That lie is no less outrageous than it was in 2010, when these groups first started sheltering their political activity under a tax loophole. It is long past time for the Internal Revenue Service to begin investigating and prosecuting this clear violation of the law.

Meanwhile, while a few politicians and pundits fret about the situation, those of us in Missouri and other similar states can sit back and watch the unedifying spectacle of corporations trying to buy our democracy.

The issue for politicians like Claire McCaskill is that the opposition, thanks to their unlimited funds, can keep lobbing lies like Groucho Marx used to lob his jokes, so fast and furiously that it doesn’t make any difference if a few miss their mark. Or, in the current case, so fast and furiously and with such relentless repetition that it becomes impossible to respond effectively or to lay any particular calumny to rest. No matter how fast you clean off spitballs, enough of them will leave a sticky film.

The issue for the rest of us is that the attacks on both our democratic process and the governmental structures that have shored up the American middle class are subject to such a fast and furious onslaught that we are unable to focus and set priorities. We are always rallying to put out brush fires and never get to the major conflagration that is threatening us.

Surely, though, pushback against the conditions that permit the subversion of our elections by big money has to be our most important focus. Electing officials who have our interests at heart is essential if we are to form a bulwark against the current GOP attack on essential social structures.  Sadly, as the Times observes on the topic of legislating greater transparency in campaign finance, the fight may already be nearly lost:

Congress could also require disclosure of donors, and end the coordination between outside groups and political parties. That is increasingly unlikely, however, as long as some members of Congress owe their elections, and their allegiance, to the same groups.

I whole-heartedly support Claire McCaskill for re-election. I say this although, as regular readers of the blog may know, I’ve been disappointed with her careful adherence to that perceived sweet spot that the GOP’s careening lurch to the far right has allowed many to designate the new center of our political spectrum. She’s certainly had her good moments; on women’s and union issues, for instance, she’s been really fine. But, her failures and her virtues aside, I support her for  three reasons: Todd Akin, Sarah Steelman, and Jon Brunner, not to mention the absolute need to deny control of the Senate to the lock-step-marching GOP which is more than capable of neutralizing its own more moderate members.

However, if Greg Sargent is correct, McCaskill may want to put her sensitive finger to the wind once again – it might just be shifting direction, albeit slightly. Noting the defeat of two blue dog Democrats in yesterday’s primaries, he observes:

The question here is how these results, and any other moderate setbacks in other primaries this year, will be interpreted by Democratic politicians. Will they see it as just a couple of redistricting-inspired flukes? Or as a warning shot to Democratic elected officials who care more about avoiding the “liberal” label than they do about supporting policies that primary voters prefer?

Of course, Sargent also argues that liberal  Democratic primary victories will not provide the desired exemplar if progressives fail to engage in the inevitable “spin” war. But if we progressives do our part, the rewards could be big:

If liberals want to duplicate this from the left, and make these two wins matter beyond the district lines, their work is cut out for them. They need to win the spin, and they need to keep it going in other districts this year and in future election cycles. The stakes are certainly high enough.

Imagine a scenario in which Democrats again win unified control of government – and instead of having to deal with dozens of Members who are terrified of voting for the mainstream liberal agenda, there are dozens of Members who are terrified of opposing it. Compared with 1993 or even 2009, that would be whole ‘nother ballgame.

Note the emphasis on “future election cycles.” We’re not going to win this fight this year. I’m sure it’s not necessary to remind you that that conserdems like McCaskill should only be called to account in primaries – and only then when we’ve got a smart plan and a smart candidate – not in general elections when the alternatives are part of a putsch aimed at upsetting the New Deal and taking us back to the bad old days of  economic laissez faire policies and the social Darwinism  of the corrupt, gilded age when the rich got richer and the poor …. well, you know the rest.  

If you were really all that, would you be afraid to stand up for what you represent? FiredUp! points out that Roy Blunt not only didn’t respond to Robin Carnahan’s invitation to debates – he later tried to tell the faithful who tune into the Jamie Allman program that Robin is the one who is afraid to debate! Say what you will about integrity, you can’t say Daddy Blunt lacks brass.

And of course, there’s Ed Martin, the archetype for frat boy trickmeisters everywhere, who is so afraid of debating Russ Carnahan that he schedules pretend debates. An understandable ploy – it’s so much easier to make points against your opponent if you don’t actually have one.

Today, again via FiredUP!, we learn that Billy Long, the Republican running for Roy Blunt’s House seat, is not only trying to get out of a series of debates with his opponent, the putative Democrat, Scott Eckersley (and, like Roy Blunt, lying about it), but he won’t even participate in an environment only dreamed about  by other GOP candidates. As of this writing, Long just doesn’t seem to be able to find time for a debate sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and moderated by a chamber member who will, get this, “ensure that we remain on topic and that it doesn’t turn into a debate format.” A debate that doesn’t have a debate format and candidates who would want that to be the case – am I missing something here?

Which brings us to the eponymous question: Why are Republicans scared to debate? I admit that it’s a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. If you were intent on sticking to your focus group tested, to-the-gut-but-well-shy-of the-brain talking points and were incapable of defending said points with facts, you probably wouldn’t want to debate either.

Which is not to say that there isn’t an actual question we should be asking: How can any citizen of Missouri really want to vote for somebody with so little faith in their own policy positions that they can’t stand up in a real debate and defend them?  

It’s almost 11:30 and after looking at today’s election results, it’s clear that what we all knew would happen has happened and Propostion C is winning in the range of 70% to 30%. I promise, I’ll try not to fall into a mad rage every time I hear some wannabe media wise man solemnly talking out of his nether anatomy about what this means for Democratic electoral hopes. I’ve actually got no problem with Tea Party gloating – these fools know as well as I do that they won this one because they’re the biggest part of the tiny fraction that turned out to vote – and they have every right to stick it to us, since we gave it away. Anyway, there’s no way they can be more outrageous and dishonest than they already are.

Of course, there’s always a silver lining – and today it’s the fact that Cynthia Davis went down in her primary, losing to Scott Rupp 45% to his 55%. I’m sure that Rupp is a total ass, but I can’t possibly believe that he could be as offensive as Davis. The only problem with Davis’ defeat is that it means that we lose the most perversely amusing member of the Missouri version of the Insane Clown Posse, also known as our Republican-led state legislature. I’m sure, though, that somehow, someway, she’ll keep right on performing her own special brand of horrorcore in order to change our evil ways –  but not, thank God, in Jefferson City.

OBAMA ANNOUNCES 15 RECESS APPOINTMENTS, SCOLDS GOP

…..union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Republicans had blocked his nomination on grounds he would bring a radical pro-union agenda to the job, and they called on Obama not to appoint Becker over the recess.

On Becker, Republicans have held up his confirmation for months, saying they fear he would circumvent Congress to make labor laws more union-friendly.

Labor unions were especially keen on getting Becker installed on the board that is responsible for certifying union elections and addressing unfair labor practices. Under a Democratic majority, the labor board could decide cases or make new rules that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. The board could allow speeded-up union elections that give employers less time to counter organizing drives

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201…