In case you were wondering, Representatives Todd Akin (r), Vicky Hartzler (r), Jo Ann Emerson (r), Sam Graves (r), Billy Long (r), and Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) are co-sponsors (along with 173 others) of HR 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”.

The bill contains a curious use of language:

…SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

     `The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion–

           `(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

           `(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself…

Pregnant female?

Kay at Balloon Juice:

…as a not-now-pregnant female who was included in anti-choice statutory language up until yesterday, I’d sure like to know why “pregnant females” have all of a sudden been carefully set apart from the larger category of “women”.

Any guesses? Is it meant to include the people formerly known as “girls” or is it some brand new poll-tested language intended to divide? The last time I recall using the phrase “pregnant female” I was talking about a hamster.

[emphasis added]

In Missouri, SB 95 [pdf], as introduced, line 8:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs [for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet] shall provide each covered dog…

Also, SB 113 [pdf], as introduced, line 8:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 131, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than [ten] one hundred female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 281, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 94, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

And HB 99, and HB 332.

Why is it that the sponsors of HR 3 in Congress didn’t see fit to use the term “woman” and/or “girl” in that passage of their bill?

But, pregnant female?

The Missouri General Assembly, even in the following example of anti-choice legislation (HB 213), doesn’t use that convention of language:

…the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or when continuation of the pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman…

[emphasis added]

Or, in SB 65 [pdf], as introduced, line 13:

…a condition which, on the basis of a physician’s good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman…

[emphasis added]

Curiouser and curiouser.

When you run for any office you raise money and fight the fight from the day you announce your candidacy to the last minute that the polls are open on election day. You owe that to democracy and to the voters. Unless, of course, you’re part of the inside the beltway conventional wisdom cocktail weenie circuit:

Most Outrageous, Absurd Candidates of 2010

By Stuart Rothenberg

Roll Call Contributing Writer

Nov. 18, 2010, Midnight

….Tommy Sowers (Missouri). The Democrat raised just shy of $1.5 million through Oct. 13 and yet drew only 29 percent of the vote in a campaign that stands out for being about nothing but smoke and mirrors.

….Still, even I am stunned at the absurdity of the campaign.

….Another Feifs e-mail [from Sowers’ campaign], this one on Nov. 1, the day before the election, went further: “In thousands of conversations with undecided voters in the district, Republicans and Independents tell us that they’re voting for a Democrat for the first time.”

As with most direct mail, the assertions here are propaganda, exaggeration, distortion and fiction. Still, isn’t there something at least a little wrong with prying cash out of people by leading them to believe that you can win when you can’t? Or were the Sowers folks so politically inept that in late October they thought their candidate could win?….

[emphasis added in original]

“…by leading them to believe that you can win when you can’t?…” Says who? That’s why we have an “election day” where people “vote” for candidates.

What’s absurd is that the punditocracy thinks that incumbents anointed by conventional wisdom should be given a free pass or face token candidates who just go through the motions.

Asshole.

I’ll take a candidate like Tommy Sowers any day.

Several commentators have recently remarked on the irony of Tea Partiers’ ostentatious flaunting of the Constitution at the same time that when they get down to specifics they and their congressional surrogates are more likely to want to trash the constitution than to preserve it. In order to construct a constitution more to their liking, various fringewing GOPers have proposed more than 42 constitutional amendments, not to mention extensive tinkering with existing amendments. They have proposed repealing the 17th Amendment (they prefer to have Senators appointed by state legislatures rather than stand for election); the 16th Amendment (which provides for direct taxation of income); “restoring” the 13th Amendment (the changes to the original Amendment were made to ban slavery); and changing parts of the 14th Amendment that permit definitions of citizenship that are worrisome for the anti-immigrant GOP.

In regard to the 14th Amendment specifically, Missourians worried about the hordes “swarming across our border,” in the words of Nevada Tea Partier Sharon Angle, in order to have “anchor babies,” will be happy to know that, according to analyses performed by the folks at ThinkProgress, almost all of our Missouri GOP House delegation have supported changes which would eliminate a guarantee of citizenship for individuals born in the U.S.  

Roy Blunt (R-07), Sam Graves (R-05), Todd Akin (R-02), Jo-Ann Emerson (R-08) are among the 130 Reublicans who support changes in the 14th Amendment.  If the GOP retakes the House they may actually get their way:  

Ending birthright citizenship is no idle belief in the GOP caucus. Rather, Republicans have been pushing this idea for nearly two decades, introducing 28 separate bills to eliminate birthright citizenship since 1995.

The people to whom our Missouri GOPers are pandering are the same people who welcomed the Obama presidency by stockpiling weapons in order to defend their hallowed 2nd amendment rights, though that poorly worded Amendment – or its current interpretation – may be the only part of the Constitution that they do respect. (The 10th Amendment and a few other sections might seem to enjoy the same status, but only if the Tea Party is allowed to interpret them according to their druthers, the possibility of which is still open to question.)

The other interesting fact about this near-universal support to prevent “anchor babies” from being conceived, is that these Missourians are willing to tinker with the constitution to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist. According to an article on RealClearPolitics:

… Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the U.S. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.  

A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule. Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy. The parents are not eligible for welfare or for citizenship until after the child turns 21.

The Form 6 forty-eight hour campaign contribution reports filed by federal candidates with the Federal Election Commission always make for interesting reading. Sometimes there are fascinating distinctions between the donor bases for the candidates.

First, a few recent reports from the campaign of Tommy Sowers (D), the challenger in the 8th Congressional District race:

Committee: TOMMY SOWERS FOR CONGRESS

Tavy Dumont

San Jose, California

Employer: self-employed

Occupation: attorney

Date Contributed = 10/22/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

David Oliver

Arlington, Virginia

Employer: EADS North American

Occupation: Executive

Date Contributed = 10/22/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Total Itemized Contributions = [$]2000.00

[emphasis added]

There are additional smilar reports in the past week from the Sowers campaign:

Committee: TOMMY SOWERS FOR CONGRESS

Thomas Bradley

Sikeston, Missouri

Employer: New Madrid County

Occupation: Treasurer

Date Contributed = 10/20/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Jeffrey Cunard

Washington, DC

Employer: Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

Occupation: Attorney

Date Contributed = 10/20/2010

Amount Contributed = 2400.00

Becky Draper

San Francisco, California

Employer: Self Employed

Occupation: Investments

Date Contributed = 10/19/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

John Woollam

Lincoln, Nebraska

Employer: University of NE – LIncoln

Occupation: Professor

Date Contributed = 10/20/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Total Itemized Contributions = [$]5400.00

[emphasis added]

Committee: TOMMY SOWERS FOR CONGRESS

Theodore Roosevelt, IV

Brooklyn, New York

Employer: Barclays Capital

Occupation: Managing Director

Date Contributed = 10/18/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Kevin Wall

Los Angeles, California

Employer: Control Room

Occupation: Chief Executive Officer

Date Contributed = 10/18/2010

Amount Contributed = 2400.00

Total Itemized Contributions = [$]3400.00

[emphasis added]

That Theodore Roosevel, IV:?

Theodore Roosevelt IV Opts Out of G.O.P. Race for Senate

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Published: November 24, 2009

Few people knew that he was thinking about it in the first place, but Theodore Roosevelt IV, a wealthy investment banker with serious credentials on environmental issues and in foreign policy – and of course, that famous name – now says he will not seek the Republican nomination for the Senate from New York in 2010.

Mr. Roosevelt, the great-grandson of the 26th president, worked at Lehman Brothers and is now a managing director at Barclays Capital. He said he began studying a run against Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat, over the summer and was encouraged by talks with Republicans including former Gov. George E. Pataki, Representative Cynthia M. Lummis of Wyoming and Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the party’s senatorial campaign committee.

Calling himself a “liberal Republican,” Mr. Roosevelt, 66, a former chairman of the League of Conservation Voters who lives in Brooklyn Heights, spoke harshly on Tuesday about the party’s conservative national leadership and lamented that the state Republican organization was a “series of fiefdoms,” though he said he was confident that he could have won the nomination…

Uh, yep.

Committee: TOMMY SOWERS FOR CONGRESS

Ken Maddox

Clarkton, Missouri

Employer: The MACO Companies

Occupation: Chief Executive Officer

Date Contributed = 10/14/2010

Amount Contributed = 1597.30

Jenny Tomkins

Sycamore, Illinois 601788808

Employer: Self Employed

Occupation: Inn Keeper

Date Contributed = 10/14/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Total Itemized Contributions = [$]2597.30

[emphasis added]

Committee: TOMMY SOWERS FOR CONGRESS

Morris Ostin

Encino, California

Employer: Warner Bros

Occupation: Chairman

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Maureen Pettibone Ryan

San Jose, California

Employer: Quinn Emanuel

Occupation: Attorney

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1500.00

Joan Weatherly Ragsdell

Columbia, Missouri

Employer: N/A

Occupation: Retired

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Total Itemized Contributions = [$]3500.00

[emphasis added]

Jo Ann Emerson (r), the incumbent, has a distinctly different donor base:

Committee: TEAM EMERSON FOR JO ANN EMERSON

Wayne Gott

Salem, Missouri

Employer: Town & Country Corp.

Occupation: Vice Chairman

Date Contributed = 10/23/2010

Amount Contributed = 2400.00

Total Itemized Contributions = [$]2400.00

[emphasis added]

Committee: TEAM EMERSON FOR JO ANN EMERSON

Diane Franco

New Orleans, Louisiana

Employer: none

Occupation: Homemaker

Date Contributed = 10/21/2010

Amount Contributed = 2400.00

Laura Law

Cape Girardeau, Missouri

Employer: homemaker

Occupation: Homemaker

Date Contributed = 10/22/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

National Telecommunications Coop Assoc.

Telecommunications Education Com.

Arlington, Virginia

Date Contributed = 10/21/2010

Amount Contributed = 3000.00

NEMPAC

National Emergency Medicine PAC

Washington, DC

Occupation: Manager

Date Contributed = 10/21/2010

Amount Contributed = 1500.00

Total Itemized Contributions = [$]7900.00

[emphasis added]

PACs. It’s also interesting to see individuals show up from other locales who appear to be “go to” contributors for republican candidates across the country.

Committee: TEAM EMERSON FOR JO ANN EMERSON

American Sugar Cane League PAC

Thibodaux, Louisiana

Date Contributed = 10/20/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

DRS Technologies – Good Gov. Fund

Parsippany, New Jersey

Date Contributed = 10/20/2010

Amount Contributed = 3000.00

John Johnson

Nashville, Tennessee

Employer: Mid South Wire Company

Occupation: President

Date Contributed = 10/19/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

William McCoy

Springfield, Missouri

Employer: Xaxax Analytics

Occupation: Principal

Date Contributed = 10/19/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Steve Obermann

Cape Girardeau, Missouri

Employer: SEMO Ready Mix

Occupation: President

Date Contributed = 10/20/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Total Itemized Contributions = 7000.00

[emphasis added]

PACs.

Committee: TEAM EMERSON FOR JO ANN EMERSON

AT&T PAC

Washington, DC

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 3000.00

Bryan Cave Political Fund PAC

Washington, DC

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Cargill PAC

Washington, DC

Occupation: Chairman

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Charter Communications, Inc. PAC

Washington, DC

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 2000.00

Edward Jones PAC

Saint Louis, Missouri

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 2000.00

FLUOR Corporation PAC

Washington, DC

Employer: FLUOR PAC

Occupation: Sr. VP Government Relations

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Great Lakes Sugarbeet Growers PAC

Bay City, Michigan

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Theodore Kettlewell

Columbia, Missouri

Employer: OCCI, Inc.

Occupation: Executive Vice President

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

R.o. Maly

Columbia, Missouri

Employer: self

Occupation: Developer

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Tatum Martin

Boonville, Missouri

Employer: Information Requested

Occupation: Information Requested

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

National Active and Retired Federal

Employees Association – NARFE

Alexandria, Virginia

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 2000.00

The National Postal Mail Handlers

c/o Laborers Political League

Washington, DC

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 2500.00

Jason VanEaton

Columbia, Missouri

Employer: Spectrum Consulting

Occupation: Consultant

Date Contributed = 10/15/2010

Amount Contributed = 1000.00

Total Itemized Contributions = [$]19500.00

[emphasis added]

PACs.

It’s their world, the rest of us only get to live in it.

If there’s one thing you can say about Tommy Sowers (D) campaign style in the 8th Congressional District race – he obviously thrives on engaging with the people in the district:

From Tommy Sowers’ campaign:

…out on the ground with Tommy doing our third Boots on the Ground operation (BOTG III) and it’s been fantastic.  Tommy was waiting tables in St. James today and talking to voters about the need for new blood in Congress (and their lunch order, of course.)…

Tommy Sowers (D) is challenging long time incumbent Jo Ann Emerson (r) in the 8th Congressional District. The district has the highest poverty rate in the state:

Missouri 8 20.5% (124,990) [poverty rate] 30% (43,283) [child poverty rate]

* 72,661 women (22.54 percent) in the district live in poverty

* 9,177 African-Americans (36.19 percent) in the district live in poverty

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson

And the unemployment rate ain’t exactly stellar either.

You’d think that the sitting U.S. Representative would be looking out after working people.

Nope.

Jo Ann Emerson has a history of voting against legislation for fair pay for working people:

H.R.12 [2009]

Title: Paycheck Fairness Act

Sponsor: Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] (introduced 1/6/2009)      Cosponsors (200)

Related Bills: H.RES.5, S.182, S.3772

[….]

SUMMARY AS OF:

1/6/2009–Passed House without amendment.    

[….]

Paycheck Fairness Act – (Sec. 3) Amends the portion of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) known as the Equal Pay Act to revise remedies for, enforcement of, and exceptions to prohibitions against sex discrimination in the payment of wages.

Revises the exception to the prohibition for a wage rate differential based on any other factor other than sex. Limits such factors to bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.

States that the bona fide factor defense shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (1) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (2) is job-related with respect to the position in question; and (3) is consistent with business necessity. Avers that such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that: (1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential; and (2) the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.

Revises the prohibition against employer retaliation for employee complaints. Prohibits retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee or another employee in response to a complaint or charge, or in furtherance of a sex discrimination investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, or an investigation conducted by the employer.

Makes employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or (except for the federal government) punitive damages.

States that any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent.

Authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to seek additional compensatory or punitive damages in a sex discrimination action….

The vote:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 8

H R 12      RECORDED VOTE      9-Jan-2009      1:19 PM

QUESTION:  On Passage

BILL TITLE: Paycheck Fairness Act

—- AYES    256 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

Skelton

—- NOES    163 —

Akin

Blunt

Emerson

Luetkemeyer

—- NOT VOTING    14 —

Graves

[emphasis added]

Then there’s the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Again, Jo Ann Emerson is no friend of working people:

H.R.11 [2009]

Title: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 1/6/2009)      Cosponsors (195)

Related Bills: H.RES.5, S.181

Latest Major Action: 2/11/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

[….]

SUMMARY AS OF:

1/9/2009–Passed House amended.

[….]

Title I: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 – Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 – (Sec. 3) Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to declare that an unlawful employment practice occurs when: (1) a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted; (2) an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice; or (3) an individual is affected by application of the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid. Allows liability to accrue, and allows an aggrieved person to obtain relief, including recovery of back pay, for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to practices that occurred outside the time for filing a charge. Applies the preceding provisions to claims of compensation discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

(Sec. 4) Amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to declare that an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the decision or other practice, or when a person is affected by the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid….

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 9

H R 11      YEA-AND-NAY      9-Jan-2009      1:28 PM

QUESTION:  On Passage

BILL TITLE: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

—- YEAS    247 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

Skelton

—- NAYS    171 —

Akin

Blunt

Emerson

Luetkemeyer

—- NOT VOTING    15 —

Graves

And that paycheck fairness issue? There’s a history of votes against it, in 2008:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 556

H R 1338      RECORDED VOTE      31-Jul-2008      7:33 PM

QUESTION:  On Passage

BILL TITLE: Paycheck Fairness Act

—- AYES    247 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

Skelton

—- NOES    178 —

Akin

Blunt

Emerson

Graves

—- NOT VOTING    9 —

Hulshof

[emphasis added]

And against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2007:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 768

H R 2831      YEA-AND-NAY      31-Jul-2007      2:40 PM

QUESTION:  On Passage

BILL TITLE: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

—- YEAS    225 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

Skelton

—- NAYS    199 —

Akin

Blunt

Emerson

Graves

Huslshof

—- NOT VOTING    9 —

[emphasis]

Yep, that’s consistency for you – looking out for anyone but working people.

GOP candidates have been running their mouths a lot about jobs, mostly in relation to lower taxes for their favored, well-off constituencies. Roy Blunt’s campaign for Senate, for instance, has produced a “Jobs Plan,” that is long on GOP boiler-plate (and equally long on “solutions” that seem designed to play well with the energy and telecom industries who support his political ambitions so generously). Rhetoric aside, what does the current GOP record actually look like when proposals that would really have an impact on employment are put on the table?

A rarely discussed structural problem that contributes to the current jobless recovery is that many of the good-paying, manufacturing jobs have been outsourced over the past decade – good for corporations that can exploit the poor in third world countries with impunity, bad for the U.S. employment picture. Roy Blunt doesn’t even mention this problem in his jobs plan. GOP Senate team-player, Kit Bond, voted just this week to keep a bill from coming up for a vote that would have imposed tax penalties on companies that outsource their production. Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, voted to end debate and permit a vote on the legislation.

Small business owners often cite tight credit that discourages expansion to explain their failure to hire new workers. However, Republicans, who talk endlessly about the importance of small businesses for recovery, have for months stonewalled legislation designed to address just that issue.

The long-stalled small business lending legislation was passed in the Senate only recently with the help of two Republican Senators who plan to retire at the end of their current terms, which means that they no longer need fear repercussions from the NO party’s leadership or its Tea Party-addled base. However, Missouri’s retiring Republican Senator, Kit Bond, good GOP soldier that he is, kept faith and continued to march in lockstep with the Party of NO (jobs).

On the House side, Roy Blunt was so busy out on the campaign trail running his mouth about jobs creation that he couldn’t manage to even vote on the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010. But Blaine Luetkemeyer, Jo Ann Emerson, Sam Graves, and Todd Akin made up for Roy’s indisposition, and handily voted against the interests of the small businesses they love to talk up as the real job creators. You want to know how Missouri Democratic Reps. Carnahan, Cleaver, Clay, and Skelton voted? If you even have to ask, just click on their names and learn who really stands with the middle class.

There are lots of clichés that reflect how strongly Americans feel abut personal integrity: walking the walk, talking out of both sides of your mouth, putting up or shutting up – you can probably supply many more. Today’s question is, when it comes to jobs for ordinary, middle class Americans, as opposed to more moolah for the GOP’s corporate sugar daddies, how many Republicans can you point to who walk the walk, talk straight, and put up when push comes to shove. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see too many in our Missouri GOP congressional delegation.

Tommy Sowers: I’m Tommy Sowers. This is my truck. And this is a ton of horse manure that’s been dumped on me by Jo Ann Emerson.

Emerson took money from special interests to make up lies about me because she doesn’t want to talk about bad trade deals that sent our jobs over to Mexico and China. She doesn’t want to talk about that she’s an insurance lobbyist that voted for the big bank bailouts. Jo Ann Emerson has been in Washington too long. She’s part of the problem.

I’m Tommy Sowers and I approved this message.

The Sowers campaign sent out the following release:

Tommy Sowers releases “Horse Manure” ad

“She can dump all the horse manure she wants.

The voters aren’t buying it.”

[….]

….Campaign Manager Jonathan Feifs issued the following statement:

“The ads that Congresswoman Emerson has been running are horse manure. Instead of making up lies to scare voters, Emerson should answer for her ties to lobbyists, her vote for the Wall Street bailout, and her continual support of foreign trade deals that have devastated the economy of Southeast Missouri.”

Tommy Sowers commented:

“Congresswoman Emerson has been in Washington too long. She’s part of the problem, not the solution. She can dump all the horse manure she wants. The voters aren’t buying it. They know it’s time for new blood and they’re ready to retire Congresswoman Emerson this November.”

###

And there may be some movement in the polling, to boot:

…But those numbers aren’t quite as good as an April poll by the same firm that showed Emerson leading 71 percent to 18 percent, suggesting Sowers has made inroads…

….Joe Scarborough: All right, so Tommy, uh, man, you didn’t pick a good time to run as a Democrat, did you?

Mika Brzezinski: Yeah, except [crosstalk]…

Joe Scarborough: Oh six.

Mika Brzezinski: …he’s got good cred.

Joe Scarborough: Got, you got great street cred, but it’s tough out there for Democrats, isn’t it?

Tommy Sowers (D): Well, I tell you I think it’s the best year possible for a guy straight out of the military without a lot of political experience to be running for Congress. Throughout the Eighth Congressional District everything I hear is the demand for new blood. And it’s very party neutral. I, I was at a, uh, patriot rally about thirty-six hours ago and a guy came up to me and said, you’re that guy running for Congress. I said, yes I am. He said, now, you’re not the incumbent are you? Said, no I’m not. Well that’s good, you’ve got my vote.

Mika Brzezinski: That was the first question? [crosstalk] Oh boy.

Joe Scarborough: Well, we’re talking about, we’ve been talking about Afghanistan all morning. Should America get out of Afghanistan?

Tommy Sowers (D): Yes, we should. I mean, part of my campaign is ending the war in Afghanistan, and it’s because what they, what they teach in the military are the principles of war. And you just discussed it. The objective is one of the first principles they teach you.

Joe Scarborough: That’s what they teach at West Point [crosstalk]. Right away.

Tommy Sowers (D): Well, yeah. They teach that to you. And when you look at our objectives there right now, it is to train up the Afghan military and police so that one day we can high five them and leave. The problem of course is a question that Congress has been derelict in not asking. It’s who will pay for that military once we leave? The Afghans can’t, America won’t forever, and our allies won’t. So training up four to six hundred thousand Afghan tribesmen that will one day be looking for a paycheck is not in our nation’s long-term strategic interest.

[….]

Joe Scarborough: Tommy, is it time for a draft?

Tommy Sowers (D): Well, I, I disagree, Mike, at least in my district. In my district, when I, there’s seventy thousand veterans in my district, and when I am doing a town hall and I ask how many of you are veterans or related to somebody that’s currently serving, almost the entire room raises the hand. So, you know, this is why Afghanistan at least from, from my district, it matters in twenty-ten. It matters on a fiscal per, uh, perspective. When we are, we’re spending four hundred dollars a gallon for every gallon of gas we put into a humvee in, in Kabul, people are worried about that. When we’re building infrastructure halfway around the world when we should be building it right here at home, people want that to end. So it’s, it’s a very personal I agree with you…but from my district they they want us investing back at home….

Just asking.

Jo Ann Emerson (r), the incumbent in the 8th Congressional District, is running an ad attacking challenger Tommy Sowers (D) for his support of health care reform.

…Jo Ann Emerson fought the health care bill…

[Jo Ann Emerson Fought Obamacare]

…and is working for repeal…

[emphasis added]

That’s interesting.

On August 24th the Congressional Budget Office responded by letter [pdf] to a request for information from Senator Mike Crapo (R) concerning the effect on the deficit if health care reform legislation were to be repealed.

Their answer? Repealing health care reform legislation would increase the deficit by $455 billion:

…Health Care Savings under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act

Finally, you asked what the net deficit impact would be if certain provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act that were estimated to generate net savings were eliminated specifically, those which were originally estimated to generate a net reduction in mandatory outlays of $455 billion over the 2010-2019 period. The estimate of $455 billion mentioned in your letter represents the net effects of many provisions. Some of those provisions generated savings for Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and some generated costs. If those provisions were repealed, CBO estimates that there would be an increase in deficits similar to its original estimate of $455 billion in net savings over that period.

[page]

CBO’s earlier estimate was based on the forecasts of economic conditions, health care spending, and other technical factors that CBO published in 2009. Since that time, CBO has prepared new baseline projections consistent with updated economic and technical information, and has also extended its baseline to include 2020. We have not updated the estimate of health-related savings reported in March, but CBO has no reason to believe that such an estimate would differ substantially from the original one.

I hope you find this information helpful…

“…I hope you find this information helpful…

Uh, I don’t think any republicans will. Just guessing. Do you think Jo Ann Emerson (r) will change her campaign ad? The answer to that is probably no. After all, republicans are getting a lot of mileage out of noise and distortion. Why should Jo Ann Emerson (r) be any different?