Tag Archives: Election 2018

State Rep. Derek Grier – not so moderate after all?

18 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

I first met my state representative, Rep. Derek Grier (R-100), when he was canvassing in my neighborhood prior to the 2016 primary elections. He seems to have sussed my proclivities, or, perhaps, realized that the formerly right-wing suburbs were changing. His argument to me was that he was a common sense moderate, far less extreme than Mike Allen, his GOP primary opponent and the husband of the former, term-limited incumbent, Sue Allen.

Grier won the primary, ran unopposed, got elected and that was about the last I heard from him apart from periodic “newsletters” that rarely did more than list new legislation or an occasional slap-dash constituent “opinion” survey. However, in a year that saw the success of right-to-work-for-less legislation, tax cuts for the rich, inroads against women’s reproductive rights, failed efforts to regulate legislators’ lax ethical behavior, and secure adequate funding for infrastructure and education – not to mention the resignation of a Republican governor on grounds of moral turpitude, I heard not a peep from Rep. Grier about where he stood on any of these contentious issues.

So imagine my surprise this week when I received a card listing the “accomplishments” of Rep. Grier’s two years in office, gathered under the rubric of “promises made, promises kept.” My first response: what promises? Could it have been that implicit promise he made during the 2016 primary to moderate the far-right agenda espoused by so many members of Misouri’s GOP?

Certainly, if one looks closely at Rep. Grier’s accomplishment list, at least two of the three highlights he selected to campaign on, such as the anti-human-trafficking bill, HB 1246, emphasize bipartisan appeal. What’s even more interesting is what he’s not drawing attention to. He certainly isn’t boasting about the fact that  his legislative voting record in its entirety lines up almost perfectly with the destructive far-right, anti-worker agenda of the state’s GOP majority. Evidently, he doesn’t want to dwell on votes that indicate support for right-to-work-for-less.  Or his support for restrictions on reproductive freedom – the list is long and not at all bipartisan.

Nor, do all of Rep. Grier’ selected legislative activities stand up well under scrutiny:

—  The main jewel in Rep. Grier’s crown, HB 1719 and HB 1710, legislation which he himself authored, in his words, “eliminated regulations [i.e. licensing standards] on professionals in Missouri.” The bills would respectively recognize professional licenses issued in other states, and change minimum age requirements for some professions. Unfortunately, the first bill also contains a provision that forbids any private licensing entity from using the words “certification” or “registration,” a provision that excited the ire of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards (CFPB) and the Financial Services Institute. These groups pointed out that this provision could invalidate the credentials of many certified financial planners in Missouri. The Center for Association Leadership broadened the complaint, asserting that it would have a serious negative impact on a much larger range of professionals, including doctors, lawyers, etc.  Sloppy, sloppy.

— Rep. Grier co-sponsored HB 2540 which he claims “provided a tax cut to citizens and businesses.” It did cut taxes. For rich folks. Already I’m hearing complaints about ballot initiatives, etc. that would raise sales taxes that have already reached 10% or more. These taxes are being levied in order to pay for services that used to come out of general funds. And here’s Rep. Grier bragging about beggaring the state and forcing citizens to choose between regressive taxes or loss of vital services?

— Although he did not include it among his list of accomplishments but added it as an aside, Rep. Grier also takes credit for voting “to fully fund the education foundation formula.” That’s not much of a boast, though, given that the GOP-controlled legislature voted to change the formula to conform better to the amount of spending that they deigned to allocate to schools, rather than allocate the amount required by the earlier version of the formula.

I recently watched on Netflix an episode of the Australian TV series, Rake,  which presents the misadventures of a dissipated, renegade lawyer, Cleaver Greene. Greene asks at one point about an American politician, “So he’s a moderate Republican? He’s just a little bit pro-life, a little bit pro-gun, a little bit anti-gay?” What this series of rhetorical questions imply is that in the real world, when decisions have to be made, folks usually have to break one way or another, and I would suggest, based on his total voting record rather than campaign flim-flam, that Rep. Grier breaks to the not so moderate right whenever it really counts.

Josh Hawley smells blood in the water and attacks Dianne Feinstein

01 Monday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

GOP Attorney Josh Hawley got some bad news today when CNN’s latest polling numbers put him 3 percentage points behind Democrat Claire McCaskill whom he hopes to replace in the Senate. The poll shows McCaskill with 47 percent to Hawley’s 43 percent. The new poll reverses the last polling that put McCaskill 2 percentage points behind Hawley.

Senator McCaskill and Hawley are still within the poll’s margin of error, but those of us who have been thoroughly turned off by the bible-thumping GOP boy wonder are nevertheless cheered by McCaskill’s upwards trajectory. We were particularly pleased after reading about Hawley’s crude effort to prove that he’s not too prissy to be a good little team player:

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R), who’s running against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), is calling for a special counsel to investigate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and her staff over the handling of sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“It raises very troubling ethical question … and that’s why I’m calling today for a special counsel to investigate the conduct of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, her staff and all other relevant party for violating the confidentiality of Dr. Ford and obstructing the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Hawley told reporters on a Monday conference call, referring to the first woman to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

Nothing like jumping on a leaky boat in one’s haste to get in on the action and get a share of the booty. Hawley should probably think it over very carefully before he spews more of this sort of righteous rhetoric; the effort to deflect attention from an ethically very flawed SCOTUS candidate to Senator Feinstein’s hypothetical misbehavior has the stench of pure desperation – not to mention stupidity. Bogus investigations don’t impress anyone but the terminally dim-witted anymore.

Just think about what Hawley is proposing: Imagine that a man, hearing anguished cries, trespassed by entering a vacant building where he discovered a serious crime in progress which he reported. Now imagine that the perpetrator of the crime was ignored by the police when they arrived – apart from a few officers who apologized for causing him distress – and instead the putative trespasser was denounced, investigated and punished for the crime of trespassing, which was described as a serious ethical lapse.

Wouldn’t you want to know why the law refused to focus on the real criminal and instead pursued a possible minor miscreant? Similarly, don’t you want to know why Hawley won’t focus on finding the truth about the SCOTUS nominee, particularly if, as he claims to believe, that, lacking a thorough investigation, the “corroborating” evidence is currently insufficient?

Finally, why is Hawley ignoring the rather strong evidence that Judge Kavanaugh has lied to the members of the Judiciary Committee on numerous occasions during the past weeks? Isn’t perjury at least as serous as Senator Feinstein’s effort to respect the wishes of Dr. Ford? And, incidentally, doesn’t the fact that, Dr. Ford has indicated that she’s not at all bummed out by Senator Feinstein’s actions indicate that Feinstein’s lapse, if any, is pretty damn trivial?

Shouldn’t Hawley try to be a little more honest with us about what he’s really doing? Do you think it could have something to do with those very close polling numbers? Just asking.

Josh Hawley: Not as smart as they thought?

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

So what about Josh Hawley? There’s this little morsel (as noted by Michael Bersin here) which indicates that perhaps the guy just isn’t working with all the lights burning:

In Missouri’s U.S. Senate race, Josh Hawley (R) slammed Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) this morning for “hiding out” in Washington, D.C. For the record, the Senate is in session, which means McCaskill just went to work.

One twitter commentator suggested that Hawley might need a tutorial on how government works. In fact, lots of folks have been wondering this summer if Hawley’s really up to speed when it comes to “work,” and “politics” stuff – an impression that this post-primary awkwardness reinforces. Perhaps a tutorial would be just the thing.

Want more evidence that our hero is a little slower on the uptake than we’d expect from a Yale and Stanford graduate? How about Hawlely’s inability to let us know what he thinks about major issues in Missouri politics like the ballot initiatives that will come before the voters this November: we’ll vote on a higher minimum wage, clean government measures, including fair redistricting reform, increases to the gas tax to pay for sorely needed infrastructure improvements, and legalization of medical marijuana.

“Yes” or “no” stuff for any thinking politician, right? But Hawley seems to be a little worried that he might get somebody’s dander up if he expresses a real opinion on possibly controversial topics, which may be why he’s so willing to temporize. He declares that:

… he needs to read through all of the proposals and is still making up his mind. He said he’s inclined to support medical marijuana, but he said he wants to make sure there are enough protections to limit it to medical uses.

We’ve known that these initiatives would probably be on the ballot for some time – and even if we hadn’t, each of them is important enough, and most have been swirling around in the national conversation with such force, that we should be able expect a serious candidate for statewide office to have well-thought out opinions.

Senator McCaskill, I notice, is able to discuss the propositions straightforwardly without obfuscation or withdrawing into a shuddering heap. What we get are clear cut answers about what she believes will work best for Missourians. She likes all the propositions – expressing serious enthusiasm about clean government measures, something that all ethical politicians should be able to endorse. She even approves of the gas tax – a position that takes courage in these days when a sizeable section of the electorate has been brain-washed to think that you don’t have to pay for what you get – or that the other guy doesn’t deserve what you get.

There is one aspect of the questions raised by the ballot propositions that Hawley is willing to commit to. Our prim, proper and very religious AG is pretty clear that no one should be able to toke up who isn’t suffering from an agonizing or terminal disease. Easy-peasy decision if you’ve got your priorities straight.

Who’s the elite insider? McCaskill or Hawley

09 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Ever notice how politicians who haven’t anything much to deliver try to exploit “culture”?

When Josh Hawley, Missouri’s current Attorney General and, as of last Tuesday, the GOP candidate seeking Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill’s senatorial seat, was in High School, he was driven two hours round trip to the expensive, private, Catholic Rockhurst High School in Kansas City. No reason for the local banker’s son to mix with the hoi polloi in his home town of Lexington, population ca. 5000. There’s no doubt that the banker’s son’s privileged upbringing helped fit him into the rarified east coast circles, first in Yale and Stanford, and later in a high-powered law firm and the conservative non-profit that he inhabited for 15 years prior to returning to Missouri in 2011.

Yet, oddly, now that he is running for office in a rural, agricultural state, he has asserted that folks in cities like New York and Washington D.C. “look down on the kind of upbringing I had.” Even more laughably, Hawley seems to think that growing up in a farming state equals dirt under the fingernails, declaring that “farming is a way of life, it’s a way of life that you live everyday, it’s a way of life that I grew up in … .” Perhaps they inhaled Eau de Manure at Rockhurst High.

Meeting with farmers at a get-together sponsored by the Missouri Dairy Association, the elite lawyer even came in costume: jeans and boots. Maybe he was taking his cue from GOP Senator Roy Blunt’s blue-jeaned, plaid shirted tour of the state in a rented pickup during his 2010 campaign. Hey, it’s worked a few times for elite, high-living GOP pols why not for the otherwise prim and proper-seeming Hawley.

One problem with Hawley’s salt of the earth act? Claire McCaskill’s backstory.

A middle class daughter of the state who worked as a waitress to secure a Mizzou education, and then worked her way up serving in local and state elective offices before running for a federal position, is, from my perspective, in much better position to understand the needs of the state than Johnny-come-back-lately, Josh Hawley.

And even though McCaskill is ending her second term as a denizen of D.C., Babylon reborn to some Tea-Party turned Trumpie types, she’s been undeniably tireless in her efforts to keep in touch with the temper of the region – her listening tours and kitchen cabinet meetings have taken place regularly, even in off-election years. While she’s struggled to remain true to basic Democratic principles, she’s also listened and learned from those who see the issues differently, sometimes angering those among us who are more progressive in our leanings. But I wager that many of us, such as myself, respect her effort to represent as many of her constituents as she conscientiously can.

McCaskill’s work-ethic and her approach to meeting the obligations of her job also contrast with the pampered Hawley’s easy-going approach. In fact, he seems to have handled both the job of Attorney General and his role as a senatorial candidate in such an anemic fashion that, according to some reports, he’s inspired some in his own party to claim that he’s “allergic to hard work.”

Think it over. Who’s really the birth-right elite insider here, the one who lived a sophisticated life among political movers and shakers in Washington D.C for over a decade and came back to Missouri to play the role of the chosen one in state Republican politics. On the other hand, who’s the politician who’s earned whatever insider status she has by working hard and never forgetting the needs of the people who sent her to Washington D.C.  Remember, you usually get what you deserve – which will be determined in the voting booth come November.*

*Paragraph revised to improve clarity 8/9, 11:22 PM

 

The Russian Perils of Claire

26 Thursday Jul 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Who is it who really, really wants to keep the congress in GOP hands? If  you wanna know just take a look at who’s targeting Missouri’s Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, widely perceived to be vulnerable to raging Trumpites when she comes up for reelection this November.

There’s the 1% -the folks like the Kochs who – via their front group, Americans for Prosperity – are throwing $1.8 million dollars in ad buys at her. They think that emphasizing the GOP shaft-the-middle-class tax cut will do the trick. I guess the richest of the rich really like increasing the national debt on the backs of working Americans. (Didn’t Republicans oppose debt once  upon a time? Like when it was a question of providing Americans with healthcare? And there wasn’t any debt increase in spite their efforts to gull the gullible?)

But, hey, we’ve known for years about how wealthy Americans try to purchase elections with their talking – no – their shouting, money. Nothing new to see there. Sadly.

There is, however,  a new wrinkle:  Russians:

The Russian intelligence agency behind the 2016 election cyberattacks targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill as she began her 2018 re-election campaign in earnest, a Daily Beast forensic analysis reveals. That makes the Missouri Democrat the first identified target of the Kremlin’s 2018 election interference.

McCaskill responded with her usual verve:

“Russia continues to engage in cyber warfare against our democracy,” McCaskill said in a press release Thursday evening. “While this attack was not successful, it is outrageous that they think they can get away with this. I will not be intimidated. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a thug and a bully.”

McCaskill was one of three midterm candidates targeted by “spearphishing” efforts. We’ve known that such attacks (and other types of meddling) were likely for some time but our intrepid GOP-majority congress and the Russia-friendly Trump administration  have dithered and done little to forestall the threat. Missouri’s own Secretary of State, jolly little Jay Ashcroft, has said domestic election fraud is a bigger threat in November – despite no evidence to that effect.

But, hey, Senator McCaskill doesn’t need to worry – no less an eminence than our reality star president has acknowledged the threat. He just declared that the Russians are hard at work to help Democrats.  Because he’s so hard on the Russians (not).

Missouri GOP having second thoughts about Hawley?

06 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Scuttlebutt is that Josh Hawley’s halo is getting a bit tarnished. Roll call reports:

In recent days, some Republicans have been questioning Hawley’s fundraising and lack of campaign activity in the four months since he officially launched his campaign.

“This is supposed to be the campaign where we righted all the wrongs of Todd Akin and we exorcised all the demons of past campaigns or past attempts to beat Claire McCaskill,” one Missouri GOP consultant said. “And now people are wondering, ‘Are we really going to blow this again?’”

And don’t forget Hawley’s statements about the sexual revolution as the root of sex trafficking. Second helping of Todd Akin anyone?

And then, of course, there’s the business of that mysterious robocall polling Missourians on whether they prefer McCaskill or Wagner? Who’s responsible? Your guess is as good as mine.

Taking Missouri Blue – which means no more Ann Wagner.

11 Saturday Nov 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

The scuttlebutt is that Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2) is considered “vulnerable” in 2018. It would be a truly marvelous feat to finally dump this classic, hypocritical pearl clutcher who, despite her delicate GOP country club sensibilities, has developed into a colossal President Moron Vulgarian suckup – because who else will help her so vigorously and uncritically in her heartfelt crusade to save wealthy financiers any monetary grief. And how are we going to do it the dumping? We need to prove to the national party financial apparatus that we deserve the resources to do the job. And we do that by mounting a full-bore, hard campaign after we Democrats have chosen one of the excellent candidates who have come forward to contest the seat.

A Forum held last Wednesday allowed many in the 2nd district to get their first look at the likely challengers, Kelli Dunaway, Bill Haas, Mark Osmack, and Cort VanOstran, all together in one place. If you couldn’t make it, here’s a link to video of the Forum.

The Forum was sponsored by the Missouri 2nd District for Change, an organization that is dedicated to getting a the district representation that is actually responsive to the needs of its voters – not Ann Wagner’s cronies. They’ve held several “town halls” to which Wagner has been invited, but, naturally, refused to attend. If you aren’t already part of the group, check out their Facebook page.

And here’s a link to an excellent partial write-up of the proceedings which is particularly concerned with the “bombshell” dropped by contender Kelli-Dunaway, who, after making an excellent case for her candidacy, withdrew for reasons that ought to make us all fighting mad.

Time permitting, after I’ve had a chance to review the video, I’ll post my reactions to what the candidates said and didn’t say – in case anyone is interested.

Mark Osmack’s gonna be a contender

19 Saturday Aug 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Missouri’s 2nd congressional district is relatively wealthy, mostly white and traditionally conservative. For years it was represented by retrograde moron and dominionist Christian, Todd Akin, who worried the issue of something he called “legitimate rape” like a dog worrying a bone until he found himself out of a job. His replacement, GOP Rep. Ann Wagner, who can best be described as a political Mommy Dearest, is preoccupied with the sad plight of bankers and financiers whom she struggles to protect, while cloyingly reassuring her other constituents that she has only their welfare in mind – a position the defense of which has necessitated that she rarely make contact with folks from her district who might be inclined to ask inconvenient questions.

We in the 2nd district may be able to tell a different story, though, after 2018. In past election cycles, Wagner has had few opponents who have been able to go up against her scads of banking industry money and local connections and she has easily prevailed. But all things must pass; change is inevitable.

Democratic strategists see the possibility of an upset in the 2nd – how much of a possibility and how seriously the Democratic party plans to support it has yet to be determined; it’s early days yet. Nevertheless, the party’s interest, coupled, I suspect, with the renewed activism triggered by the truly hideous garden path down which Republicans, led by their Trump man-baby, are taking us, has led to several viable candidates stepping up to take Wagner on.

One of those candidates, Kelli Dunaway, was profiled by Gloria Bilchik of Occasional Planet, and based on Bilchik’s comments, certainly seems promising. Another, Mark Osmark, currently employed as a consultant with Deloitte, met with a few members of the Queeny and Lafayette Townships’ Democratic Club last Wednesday (Aug. 16) and also managed to come across as an excellent alternative to the artificial and subtly doctrinaire Wagner. The following comments reflect my impressions of Osmack and what he had to say, in my language, not his – but if I misstate any facts, I would welcome corrections.

Like Dunaway, Osmack, is a newbie when it comes to running for office, although, again like Dunaway, he’s spent some time lurking on the periphery of the political world, putting in stints with both Claire McCaskill and Tammy Duckworth. He implied that he learned from these two distinctive politicians the importance of persevering in the face of obstacles, as well as more than a little about the realities of political give-and-take – and in spite of that baptism, he still believes that government has the power to make lives better for everyday people.

Osmack is a fluent and graceful speaker. Without once mentioning that he was awarded a bronze star, he was able to convey the importance of his two combat tours in Afghanistan. What he focused on when he spoke about his time in the military, was the importance of stepping up and accepting the challenges of leadership – he was a platoon leader – no matter how daunting it might seem.

Apropos of his experience in the service as well as his readiness to start big and run for the US Congress, he noted that no one would ever do anything if they waited until they’re “ready” for new challenges, but instead, one succeeds by stepping up and purposefully addressing the task in hand. To very loosely paraphrase, he presented his approach to the challenges of public service as something you just do because it has to be done and there’s no alternative but to succeed.

Osmack demonstrated familiarity with the ins-and-outs of the major political issues of the day as well as the lay of the land in the 2nd district. His offered acceptable if not daring answers to specific questions concerning such political danger zones as local racism (he won’t shy away from calling out racism despite the fact that the 2nd is a staid, predominantly white district), and, that major spoiler, reproductive rights (he “hates” abortion, but defends the right of women to choose to have a safe, legal abortion). What was impressive in his answers, though, was the way they were laid out clearly within a fully-fleshed, often personal, context that could help to make them palatable to many who are not firmly located on one or the other ends of the political spectrum.

Osmack’s answer to a question about gun violence was typical of his seemingly anecdotal but still laser-sharp approach to explaining his positions. After establishing his military bona fides as a man who knows about guns, he recounted his experience as the victim of an attempted car-jacking. His made the point that the perpetrator was armed with a gun and clearly understood how to deploy it; had Osmack been carrying a firearm and had he attempted to use it, he said that he is convinced he could now be dead. And had there been a gun concealed in his car, a criminal with one gun would now be, he noted, a criminal with two guns – an important point since most authorities agree that the proliferation of illegal guns on our streets is fueled partly by the theft of legal guns.

Nor is Osmack in denial about the potential roadblocks he may need to overcome to win the Democratic primary and prevail over Wagner in 2018. When asked about Wagner’s war-chest, his noted that money isn’t the whole picture and he doesn’t really need to match her reserves: there’s only so many TV spots etc. that can be purchased. He’s equally que sera, sera when it comes to the question of Democratic Party support and his current primary rivals. As noted above, it’s early times yet, and Osmack let us know that he is aware of that fact.

Given that it is early times, what did I learn last Wednesday? First, Osmack could be a real contender. He’s got serious potential and I hope, no matter what happens in the months ahead, that we see more of him in the Missouri political arena. Second, Democrats in the 2nd may be in the almost unprecedented situation of having an embarrassment of riches when it comes to possible challengers to Wagner. I’m looking forward to a promised panel discussion (or debate?) later on when we are closer to the primary.

Oh yes … I’m also feeling just a little more optimistic about being able to say adiós amiga once and for all to Ann Wagner.

Ann Wagner implies that she’s afraid to run for the Senate – but not for the House

05 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch a couple of days ago Ann Wagner announced that she won’t be the Missouri Republican who will face Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in 2018, but will instead run to retain her 2nd district House seat. It has been widely assumed that she was persuaded (forced?) by Missouri Republican luminaries to stand down in favor of another candidate – Attorney General, Josh Hawley seems to be the current fair-haired child of many of Missouri’s big GOP money and influence wielders.

Wagner offered the usual pablum about family considerations and, in typical treacly Wagner style, “love” for her 2nd district, as reasons for not taking up the cudgel against McCaskill – even though her intentions to do so had been obvious for some time. As the Post-Dispatch observed, she had already hired interns to handle the the added demands of the campaign.

Wagner also, however, seems to have hinted at another reason; the Post-Dispatch article implies that in the wake of the shooting of the Republican House Majority Whip, Rep. Steve Scalise, by a deranged individual a couple of weeks ago, Wagner intimated that she fears violence that could be directed at her and her family. This fear, it is implied, was the “significant event” that precipitated her decision not to run for the Senate:

The source said that Wagner was told after her decision that no one would believe that it was made solely on family considerations, “but that is what happened.”

And a significant event last week led up to it

Wagner visited Scalise, her close friend, in a hospital Wednesday, the source said. Scalise was shot and badly wounded while practicing for the annual congressional baseball game in Alexandria, Va., on June 14.

In an interview with the Post-Dispatch days after the shooting, Wagner said Scalise’s shooting had greatly affected her, and she spoke about threats made against her and her family.

Do you see the problem with this suggestion? Why, if Wagner is really worried by the possibility that a run for the Senate might lead to violence against her and her family, is she still planning to run for the House? Are House candidates magically exempt from threats faced by candidates for the Senate?

And the questions just keep popping up. Has any politician anywhere ever tried to get so much mileage out of a few protesters who are properly disturbed by her failure to acknowledge their concerns? Will Wagner be using this excuse retroactively? Did she, for instance, refuse to debate her last Democratic opponent, Bill Otto, or appear at open constituent meetings because she, delicate creature that she is, was afraid for her life? Will we be hearing endlessly about her fear of the naughty “leftists” during her future congressional tenure – however long that may be – whenever she is challenged to explain her policy preferences?

If Wagner is really that frightened about the consequences of holding public office, shouldn’t we work really hard to bring her home from Washington and let somebody, preferably a brave Democrat, go to Washington in her place? Seems like we’d really be doing her a big favor.

Finally, Does anyone else find this mock-subtle effort to leverage tragedy into political gain as tasteless and disgusting as I do?

Why is Ann Wagner bowing out of the Senate race?

03 Monday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2) laid to rest the wide-spread speculation that she would challenge Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill next year when she announced that she planned to run instead to retain her 2nd district House seat. Wagner’s explanation:

The 2nd District is my home,” the third-term congresswoman added. “It’s where I grew up, went to school, have worked and volunteered, raised my kids, and attend church every week — there is no greater honor than representing a place and people that I love.”

Since there are many who would dispute Wagner’s assertion that she represents “people that I love,” given that she is known to treat her constituents as if they are the carriers of infectious disease and assiduously avoids all but the most controlled contact with them, her mommy-dearest statement leaves the questions about her motivations up in the air.

In recent months influential Missouri GOP figures like John Danforth and money-man Sam Fox have conspicuously snubbed Wagner while trying to persuade the new state Attorney General, Josh Hawley, to enter the Senate contest. Since Hawley is relatively inexperienced and lacks Wagner’s political contacts, many have assumed that the effort to recruit Hawley reflects nothing more than Missouri Republican sexism.

I would suggest, however, that, while sexism may play a role in the considerations that animate the GOP power-brokers in Missouri, what we are seeing is a coherent, hard-headed political strategy intended to optimize the chances to keep Wagner’s House seat safely in GOP hands and capture the Senate seat. It’s all a matter of plugging the right people into the right slots at the right time.

Wagner stays where she is – Republican lock on the 2nd remains strong

Wagner would not necessarily be a shoo-in in a state-wide race. As an elitist, corporate Republican she would likely not generate too much enthusiasm among out-state, red-meat conservatives – the same folks who often take exception to the equally corporatist GOP Senator Blunt. Being a woman may not go over as well with that particular constituency either – which is where sexism takes its obligatory bow as part of the political calculus.

On the other hand, Wagner is still the best bet for the 2nd district House race. She has consistently outperformed former Democratic challengers by a large margin. However, although the district retains a strong Republican bias, the last redistricting introduced a more moderate element into the mix. Add to that the fact that, in contrast to former years, three potentially viable Democratic candidates for the 2nd district have come forward and the state party has indicated that they will be offering more support than in past years – suggesting that folks are smelling blood in the water, and another reason that an erstwhile heavy-hitter like Wagner may have been suborned into staying where she is, for the time-being at least. Bringing in a GOP newcomer to run against a well-funded and attractive Democratic candidate could make retaining the seat quite a bit more iffy.

Hawley goes to Washington

Josh Hawley is not only a male, he’s an ultra conservative lawyer who is described by The Washington Examiner as “a conservative dream candidate ” who is “young, energetic, attractive, an outsider — a Federalist Society down the line intellectual.” His public rhetoric and participation in a rightwing religious “discrimination” Supreme Court case have established his evangelical, God-centered-government credentials. All gold I would suppose, at least in the minds of his advocates.

As for finance, one of Wagner’s strong points, given Hawley’s growing list of supporters in GOP power circles, when it comes to the filthy lucre, he shouldn’t have too difficult a time equaling or exceeding her stockpile. And, of course, there’s the fact that McCaskill, who will be running to defend her seat, is widely perceived to be among the most vulnerable Democratic senators. This could be the right time to bring a newcomer into the GOP Washington stable.

Reality check

Of course, such a strategy depends on lots of variables, some of which might just constitute the proverbial monkey wrench in GOP expectations: Trump’s plunging popularity, possible negative Obamacare repeal & replace blowback, and the degree to which Trumpian and Republican excesses have energized Democratic voters. In April, for instance, Politico noted that Democrats who have been assumed to be particularly at risk are posting “eye-popping fundraising numbers,” including Senator McCaskill whose “$2.8 million haul […] shattered fundraising records in Missouri, raising more than any other senator or Senate hopeful in her state during the first quarter of an off year.”

You know how the old saying goes: you shouldn’t count your chickens until they’re hatched. You can’t blame Missouri Republicans, however, for trying to set up the best hatchery that they can – and that effort, more than misogyny, probably accounts for Wagner’s decision. She’s always been a good little GOP trooper.