• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Neil Gorsuch

On the ballot: an act and its consequence

06 Sunday Nov 2022

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, election, Kansas City, missouri, Neil Gorsuch, protest, Roe v Wade, sign, Stare Decisis don't mean shit anymore, U.S. Supreme Court

May 4, 2022:

What to Know About the Leaked Supreme Court Abortion Draft Opinion, and What’s Next
[….]
Roughly half of the states will ban abortion almost immediately, and half the states will continue to allow abortion. But it’s important to understand that the long-term agenda of abortion opponents doesn’t end with overturning Roe. What they want is a nationwide ban on abortion. So if you’re in a state like New York or California, where you believe you will have access to abortion even if Roe is overturned, that is true in the short term. But the plan from abortion opponents is to continue to push for a nationwide ban, so that could change.
[….]

May 8, 2022 – abortion rights rally in Kansas City:

“They fucking lied…”

“…and I’m fucking pissed”

A half century of women’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and health care agency are gone.

Vote accordingly.

Ann Wagner’s Missouri values

20 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ann Wagner, Claire McCaskill, missouri, Neil Gorsuch, Senate race, Values

Word is that U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2) may be planning to challenge Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in next year’s midterm election. She’s also taking lots of heat for refusing to hold real, in-person town halls – and, no, hyper-managed tele-town halls don’t count. This fact explains her defensive response to Senator McCaskill’s recent jibe indirectly referencing Wagner’s now-notorious fear of being confronted by less than tame constituents in an environment that she cannot control. McCaskill – who spent the recent congressional recess on a listening tour of the state has plenty of standing on this issue. She’s held numerous Town Halls and listening sessions, even during the most virulent Tea Party period, which means that she’s earned the right to assert that folks who haven’t got what it takes stand up before angry constituents in an open forum and take responsibility for their actions aren’t fit to hold office.

The nettled Wagner promptly attempted to deflect McCaskill’s very palpable hit. She rushed to attack, peevishly declaring that, “I believe what makes you unfit for office is when you don’t represent Missouri values; and Sen. McCaskill’s vote against [Supreme Court] Justice Gorsuch last week told millions of Missourians that she simply doesn’t share their values.”

So what are these “Missouri values” of which Wagner speaks? Based on her performance over just the last few months, I’m willing to make an educated guess that Wagner’s own special Missouri values include the following:

— Shafting Missouri consumers, especially senior citizens: Wagner’s untiring efforts over the past few years to repeal the Obama era fiduciary rules and to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) speak for themselves.

— Standing up for her big political donors: See the above point and then consider the piles of dollars that Wagner has raked in from the likes of Edward Jones and other big hitters in the financial services industry.

— Going along to get along, decency be dammed: During the campaign, Wagner made it clear that the stench of Donald Trump made her gag – until she realized that the red-meat folks she had to rely on to get elected thought he smelled like chateaubriand. Now she’s all smiles and compliance.

— Talking feminism while shafting women: Wagner makes a big deal about her efforts to fight sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking. But she voted against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – because it was too comprehensive. And issued a public statement that made it sound like she hadn’t. Hypocrites, we shall know ye by your words.

And then there’s Wagner’s vote for Neil Gorsuch a corporatist in originalist clothing– who is straight-out bad news for women and a disaster for working and middle class Missourians. If that vote represents Missouri values, it’s only because a lot of poor fools have been sold a bill of goods.

No wonder Country Club Ann is scared to face the rowdy hoi polloi in an unconstrained environment. She clearly knows nothing about our values.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): doing the right thing

31 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in US Senate

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

"No", Claire McCaskill, Donald Trump, filibuster, missouri, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court, U.S. Senate

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) will be supporting the filibuster and voting “no” on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [2012 file photo].

Senator McCaskill’s (D) statement:

Gorsuch: Good for Corporations, Bad for Working People

This is a really difficult decision for me. I am not comfortable with either choice. While I have come to the conclusion that I can’t support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court — and will vote no on the procedural vote and his confirmation — I remain very worried about our polarized politics and what the future will bring, since I’m certain we will have a Senate rule change that will usher in more extreme judges in the future.
I cannot support Judge Gorsuch because a study of his opinions reveal a rigid ideology that always puts the little guy under the boot of corporations. He is evasive, but his body of work isn’t. Whether it is a freezing truck driver or an autistic child, he has shown a stunning lack of humanity. And he has been an activist — for example, writing a dissent on a case that had been settled, in what appears to be an attempt to audition for his current nomination.

Then there is Citizens United, the single most corrupting force in the history of politics in this nation. I cannot and will not support a nominee that allows dark and dirty anonymous money to continue to flood unchecked into our elections.

I reject this nomination because Judge Gorsuch would continue an activist position that states that corporations have the same rights as people. The men who wrote our Constitution would reject that nonsense, since they were highly suspect of corporations as the tools of royalty. Corporations don’t cry or laugh or marry or worry about sending their kids to college. Judge Gorsuch’s allegiance to corporations disqualifies him from the highest court in the land.

And finally, this judge does not reflect the promises that Donald Trump made to Missourians. The candidate Donald Trump farmed out this important decision to a right-wing group that fronts for large corporations and special interests. Donald Trump promised Missourians that he would look out for the little guy, for working people, for the forgotten. He promised he would drain the swamp of the special interests, the lobbyists, and politicians who have overlooked the working people in this country. This judicial nomination breaks those promises.

The President who promised working people he would lift them up has nominated a judge who can’t even see them.

You’ve just got to love the comments on social media from right wingnuts asserting that Claire McCaskill has lost their vote because of this. As if they ever have or would vote for her.

Besides, the republicans in the U.S. Senate have already established the precedent that a president shouldn’t nominate an individual to a vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court during the last year of their term in office.

Playing coy with Gorsuch will get McCaskill nowhere

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court

Missouri’s biggest problem is that her Republican politicians burn red hot while the Democrats run lukewarm at best. That contrast is on full display as the zero hour for Judge Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed approaches and our Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill has to make up her mind about whether or not she is willing to reward Republicans for stealing a Supreme Court seat from a first-rate centrist and giving it to a die-hard radical ideologue with an instinct for affable obfuscation.

And make no mistake, Gorsuch is a rightwing advocate in originalist clothing. Analysis of his votes on the 10th circuit indicate that he “is to the right of both Alito and Thomas, and by a substantial margin.” His tenure will be a disaster for working people, the middle class, women and those interested in separation of church and state.

But his views, although important, are not the main issue. The other Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland is. As Gary Legum asserts in an article in Salon, the Republicans’ exercise of raw power to deny Judge Garland a seat on the court and what it presages for democratic government is the challenge that Democrats are facing:

This is not about grabbing back a “stolen” Supreme Court seat. This is about a principle of republican government that the GOP has smashed. Had the party considered Garland’s nomination and then shot him down in a fair and open vote, Democrats would have no argument here. But the unprecedented obstructionism of the Republican Party makes Gorsuch’s confirmation a proxy in a larger fight that is about the nature of political power, not ideology. And the language of power is the only one the modern Republican Party seems to understand.

Sadly, it doesn’t look like Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill is up to dealing with folks who speak that language. As I write this, she’s coyly flirting with both conservatives and progressives. According to Politico , the lady won’t commit. There are rumors that some centrist Democrats are trying to broker a deal that would let them confirm Gorsuch in return for a few scraps from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Whether or not McCaskill is part of that group – who knows? When it comes to Gorsuch, maybe she will or maybe she won’t, she’s not saying.

McCaskill has, of course, been subjected to enormous pressure to give Donald Trump a victory, and she’s not blind to the fact that Missouri went overwhelmingly for Trump – a fact that Missouri’s GOP waves around like a cudgel. As State Rep. Paul Curtman, one-time* Tea Partier extraordinaire, proclaimed, “Sen. McCaskill can show Missourians she understands the message Missouri voters sent last November by voting to confirm Judge Gorsuch.”

Maybe. Though McCaskill might do better to consider those of us who rejected that message. As well as the fact that we may be joined by more than a few disillusioned Trump voters. Along with some of those who sat out the election to protest the picture of Hillary Clinton painted by Russian provocateurs. Lots of those folks realized what they’d done on Nov. 9. Buyers remorse is a real thing.

One thing’s for sure. No one who voted for Paul Curtman will ever vote for Claire McCaskill. And if she votes to send Gorsuch along his merry, aw-shucks way to the Supreme Court, lots of folks who voted for Hillary Clinton might be of a similar mind.

The real shame, though, is that I’m obliged to cast this issue in terms of realpolitik when it’s the moral dimension that is compelling. Missouri blogger Duane Graham makes the case for what this nomination means for those of us who depend on McCaskill to stand up for our values:

In any case, what we need now is a fierce stubbornness in this fight. But we also need a fierce patience to compliment that stubbornness. John Dryden said, “Beware the fury of a patient man.” Kierkegaard said, “Patience is necessary, and one cannot reap immediately where one has sown.” Today we filibuster an injustice. Tomorrow the filibuster may be gone. And some fine day in the future we will decide, with a simple majority, who sits on the Court.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Mitch McConnell will not want what’s left of his reputation to die on a hill with Tr-mp’s tattered and tainted flag planted on it. Maybe he will keep the filibuster, Gorsuch will go back to the Tenth Circuit, and we will have a more moderate, less Scalia-like nominee. We will never know, though, unless Democrats stand up and fight like hell. …

Why doesn’t McCaskill understand that lukewarm won’t do it this time?

*I say “one-time Tea-Partier” because I’m not sure the Tea Party is a thing anymore. Doesn’t tbe fringe of the fringe now label themselves differently? A little embarrassed because of past excesses perhaps?

Oh sure, everyone thinks they can reason with the Barbarians when they first show up. Then they burn your village to the ground.

08 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Resist

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Donald Trump, Merrick Garland, missouri, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court

Uh, Merrick Garland?

Today on Senator Claire McCaskill’s (D) Facebook page:

clairemccaskill020817

Last April, Claire met with President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, after strongly urging her Republican colleagues to do their job and consider the President’s nominee. Today, in that same spirit, she met with President Donald J. Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

As a former Jackson County prosecutor, Claire sat down with Judge Gorsuch to hear from him on his record and views. “I was glad for the opportunity to sit down with Judge Gorsuch,” said Claire. “I’m looking forward to seeing his confirmation hearing.”

In case you haven’t noticed yet, Claire, they’ve already lit their torches.

Previously:

A message for Claire McCaskill (February 1, 2017)

How about a primary challenge? Jason Kander v. Claire McCaskill? (February 6, 2017)

How about a primary challenge? Jason Kander v. Claire McCaskill?

06 Monday Feb 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Democrats, Jason Kander, missouri, Neil Gorsuch, primary elections, Supreme Court

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted that Claire McCaskill is being cagey about how she’ll vote when The Orange Simpleton’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, comes up for a vote. The article notes that she’s in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. The state went for Trump in a big way, but she still needs the Democratic base support she’ll likely lose if she breaks ranks with her party, rolls over and gives Gorsuch the thumbs up.

This analysis is probably true. Nevertheless, the decision ought to be a no-brainer for McCaskill. Does she think she’s going to get any of that Trump vote? Ever? Or that moderates are really impressed by wish-washy, to hell with my principles and my party voting?

And speaking of that base and what they might to do if McCaskill stands with the GOP and hands the Supreme Court over to the corporations and Christian fascists, maybe it’s time for a real primary challenge? Somewhere along the line fainthearted Democrats have to learn that there’s a price to pay for playing the odds. I know I’m tired of a congressperson who doles out her votes in a one-for-them, one-for-you kind of way.

I am aware that talk about primary challenges has in the past seemed like crazy talk. Who could we even put up against Claire McCaskill? The Democratic bench in Missouri isn’t exactly rich in strong, charismatic progressives. But right now there is one proven political player in Missouri who’s currently out of a job: Jason Kander.

— Would Kander run against such an established Missouri leader? Who knows. I certainly don’t know enough about the how political incentives work behind the scenes here in Missouri to even hazard a guess, nor do I know anything about Kander’s proclivities. I do recollect, however, that McCaskill herself primaried Bob Holden back in 2004. And won. And then lost.

It’s worth noting in this context that Kander is definitely making sounds that indicate he doesn’t plan to fade into the woodwork. He’s sending out regular emails to Democrats that suggest he’d like to lead the Missouri resistance to the GOP Trumpathalon. He’s hit upon important themes such as voter ID that resonate with progressives in his public appearances subsequent to the election.

—Could Kander win a primary and in the general election? Again – who knows. But I bet he’d put up a notable fight. He’s shown that he’s a smart, very able campaigner and has good ideas about how Democrats can win. Despite the 2016 Missouri Trump juggernaut, he came within three points of unseating a very well-established sitting senator, earning 228,000 more votes in Missouri than Hillary Clinton. He’s recently been lauded as a “celebrity in national Democratic politics.”

As for the general election, there’s also the chance that as Trump’s incompetence becomes more manifest and as folks realize what the real Republican agenda has been all along, there may be a backlash against knee jerk Republicanism that will be potent even against gun love, religious authoritarianism and bigotry. I concede that this may be wishful thinking, but if it pans out, even just a little, add that to Kander’s native appeal and you might have a big winner.

— But, but Kander’s not a progressive. Wouldn’t we be trading one “centrist” Democrat for another? Maybe. But this is Missouri after all. During the campaign, Kander expressed views that are weak in some of the same areas where McCaskill lets us down – he claims to support a balanced budget amendment, for God’s sake – and he showed a tendency to pander when it came to minor memes flogged in the right-wing press. The proof, however, will be in the pudding and we might as well get ourselves a new pudding – especially when the act of getting it sends a message to saggy puddings everywhere.

— Would voting for Gorsuch be enough to totally zero out McCaskill, or should we give her another chance? Maybe. But I know that I’ve been giving her one more chance again and again. Sometimes she comes through, but on the biggest issues she’s often not where we need her to be. The bill has to come due sooner or later.

As for the Gorsuch vote specifically, the thing to remember is that this issue is bigger than just this individual and does not even take into account Gorsuch’s extreme, non-mainstream judicial views, unsavory racist associations, as well as possibly exaggerated resume claims. All this aside, no self-respecting Democrat should even consider rewarding Republicans for defying their constitutional obligations and shutting out President Obama’s nominee, the well-qualified moderate Judge Merrick Garland. Ever.

Republicans broke the process, and we can’t pretend like it’s old times again. Now is the time to say no, say it loud and proud, and if McCaskill isn’t up to saying a forceful no, then maybe that’s what we have to say to her come 2018. Maybe Jason Kander could be the way we say it. Maybe not.

JCN extols Gorsuch on Missouri TV; will McCaskill waver?

04 Saturday Feb 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Dark money, JCN, Judicial Crisis Network, Neil Gorsuch, Political advertsing, Supreme Court

The Donald announced the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court just last Tuesday night. Tonight, Friday, I saw an ad on my TV that presented him as the love child of Solomon and Betty Crocker, just that wise and wholesome. Interesting, I thought, that the ad was airing here in Missouri where there’s a vulnerable Democratic Senator who might be inclined to resist the nomination, but who also might be susceptible to a little public pressure to go along if somebody could gin it up. And somebody wasn’t wasting any time.

That “somebody” is the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN). This is the group that ran a $4 million TV, radio and Internet campaign last year opposing President Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, the centrist Judge Merrick Garland – who was, by any non-political measure measure, every bit as qualified as Gorsuch. They’ve also run ads thanking Senate judiciary Chair, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) for “holding the line” against Garland, and thanking Trump for promising to select a Scalia clone for the Supreme Court. You get the idea.

The JCN is the creature of Republican activists Neil and Ann Corkery and California real estate mogul Robin Arkley II. It is part of a network of interlocking organizations dedicated to moving the judiciary in the conservative, pro-corporate direction desired by the web of dark-money donors who  keep it charging ahead. OpenSecret.org writes that that the JCN:

… fought to block Obama’s nominees to the high court, but it has spent millions to sway state judicial elections and attorneys general races, helping to uphold state laws backed by conservatives, nurture like-minded talent in the states, and advance pro-business, limited-government legal agendas aligned with its donors’ leanings.

To expand its influence in state elections, JCN has emerged as a pipeline for secret money to other, better-known dark money groups like the Wisconsin Club for Growth and the American Future Fund which, in turn, have spent big bucks in state Supreme Court and AG races.

Here it is folks, the Great Right Wing Conspiracy, judicial branch. And the only thing we’ve got to fight it with is our progressive grassroots and a Democratic congressional minority. Where are our TV ads, I ask? Where is George Soros when we need him? Certainly not in the dark places occupied by  JCN donors.

Pray that Senator McCaskill will stand strong. The stakes are high. Mischa Haider and Bruce Hay sum up the urgency of the situation in The Guardian, observing, correctly as we all know, that the Supreme Court is the only thing standing between us and a viciously authoritarian Trump administration:

The American republic under Trump is moving towards a possible constitutional collapse, and the magnitude of its inertia is commensurate with our republic’s colossal proportions. No one can know when the erosion of democratic institutions will reach the point of no return.

Trump is already pressuring congressional Republicans to abolish the filibuster if Democrats use it against Gorsuch; doubtless he will do the same for his next nominee. There is nothing to be gained through appeasement.

The time to push back and deliver the full force of resistance is now, because we have no idea what the future holds. The Democrats may not succeed in preventing Gorsuch’s appointment, but our democracy is worth the fight.

Take that JCN!

* Post publication edits: Phrase “to go along” added to next to last sentence in 1st paragraph; “non-political” inserted in first sentence of 2nd paragraph (2/4/17, 1:48 pm).

A message for Claire McCaskill

01 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Democrats, Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch, political strategy, Supreme Court

Steve Israel, former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), is reported to have remarked that “Republicans have always been better than Democrats at playing the long game.” It’s likely that Democrats are experiencing the consequences of that shortsightedness today. But never despair. Democrats have a chance to show that they can formulate long-term strategy and carry it out just like the mean kids did during the past eight years. And maybe a chance to even reap the rewards that accrue to astute and hardheaded political execution.

Of course, Democrats so far have, as usual, dithered. They promised a united front against Orange Dumbo’s cabinet nominees from hell and then they broke ranks and scattered to the wind. But never mind. The most important test was set last night when President Circus Barker announced the winner of his Most Extreme Supreme Court Nominee contest, Judge Neil Gorsuch, on national television (winner and loser summoned to Washington to heighten the suspense). Now we get to see if our Democrats are not only capable of developing a viable strategy, but have sufficient discipline to carry it out.

Elections have consequences, we hear, but Republicans taught us through eight years of obstruction, that those consequences need not always be what they’re supposed to be. The GOP rammed this fact home even more brutally when they sat out the clock on President Obama’s SCOTUS nomiee, Merrick Garland. It took them a whole year, but they hung on. It’s time for Democrats to give them a dose of their own medicine.

But, but, you sputter, we are people of principle. We condemned the naughty Republicans (or at least some of us chided them gently) for doing what you suggest. We stand for civility and good government. To which my response is that that model of government has been well and truly broken, the mean kids broke it, they’re proud of doing it, and will continue to grind the pieces to dust if Democrats don’t begin to get just as down and dirty.

And that means doing whatever is necessary to keep Judge Gorsuch off the Supreme Court. Or at least make it clear that no Democrat in good conscience can countenance his presence there – Republicans will have to own this extremist. And this has to be the message that Missouri progressives and Democrats send to our desperate to be bipartisan Senator Claire McCaskill.

Nor are we being obstructive for the pure hell of it. There’s lots of reasons to stand against Gorsuch apart from the fact that he is being given the seat that should have gone to Merrick Garland – and would have gone to him had Democrats had any sense of urgency about the outcome of the election. Far from a neutral, non-ideological approach to the constitution, Gorsuch’s brand of originalism shows him to be in opposition to most of the jurisprudence of this and the later part of the last century – even the more conservative rulings. The adjective that is consistently used to describe his judicial exercise is “hostile”:

  • He is hostile to the power of the Federal government to protect the well-being of its citizens against powerful economic interests. He has expressed opposition to commonly accepted Chevron doctrine that allows agencies to enforce regulations. Even Justice Scalia refused to go where Gorsuch goes in this context.
  • He is hostile to the interests of consumers and workers and has ruled consistently and aggressively in favor of corporations and business.
  • He is overtly hostile to women’s reproductive rights.
  • He is hostile to challenges against the use of excessive force by police.
  • He is hostile to environmental regulation.
  • He is hostile to the demands of the disabled.

Gorsuch is an ideologically extreme candidate nominated by a president who failed to achieve an electoral majority and whose election was further tainted by almost certain foreign meddling. This is not a president who has a mandate to appoint a destructive ideologue to the people’s court – especially when he is taking the rightful place of the equally well-qualified centrist whose nomination was not even allowed to come to a vote.

If Democrats – and, since I am in Missouri, by Democrats I mean Senator Claire McCaskill – don’t fight this nomination to the bitter end, they will have forfeited any claim on our support. They’ll lose, you say. Who cares? The GOP will kill the filibuster rule, you say. So what? Who needs a a filibuster you can’t use because they’ll take it away from you? And anyway, if they were to do that, employ the nuclear option, it’ll come back to bite them in the behind – and lots of them know that just as well as we do. That’s the way political karma works and it’s time for Democrats to get a little Karma going.

What do we do? Missourians need to keep calling and writing Claire McCaskill. Don’t let up. Let her know that we’ll support her if she supports us. This is not the time for self-interested politicians. And we’ll remember, whatever happens, for good or ill, we’ll remember what all the players did.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 736,297 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...