Kinder Now National Embarrassment

Kinder has always been Missouri's little embarrassment. Most people couldn't tell you who our Lt. Gov. is and only see Kinder doing silly little things like doing Matt Blunt's dirty work.

Well, that's all done now. Kinder's many mistakes have now made Daily KOs - one of the most read blogs in America. Daily KOs picked up on a story from Gone Mild. From employing perverts to hiring folks of questionable ethics from the Blunt email scandal, Kinder's ethical errors are now nationwide.

Here's hoping that Dr. Sam Page gets elected in November.

Blunt Fears Talboy

According to Tony's KC, Gov. Matt Blunt was to do an entire portion of the Lou Dobb's show, only to back out to the last 4 minutes just so he would not have to face off against Rep. Mike Talboy (D - KC).

Gov. Blunt has never been good at conversations with the media - he always says what he thinks. Blunt was to talk about his strong stance on immigration and Rep. Talboy was going to expose him for the fake that he is.

Congrats to Mike for his strong stand on what is right and to Tony's KC for breaking this.

Harris Champions Sunshine Law

The CCP has proudly endorsed Rep. Jeff Harris for Attorney General. Jeff is a person of substance (check out his 5 point plan on strengthening the Sunshine Law) and character. Instead of of apologizing for votes with Gov. Matt Blunt, Jeff has been holding Gov. Blunt accountable for his destruction of emails in violation of Missouri's Sunshine law - exactly the same type of thing Jeff Harris will do when he is elected attorney general of the State of Missouri.

An insult by a Republican is a compliment to a Democrat

When Republican Matt Blunt insulted Democrat Jeff Harris, candidate for Attorney General, he takes it as a compliment. You will recall that Gov. Blunt is being investigated and sued by just about everyone for not giving up his emails. His solution - go after a real to life Democrat, Rep. Jeff Harris.

Why Jeff? Because for all of the last 4 years, Jeff Harris has been a pain in the side of Matt Blunt. When Jeff was in charge of the House Democrats, he held Blunt accountable for such evil things as cutting the poor off health care and the sale of MOHELA. So, Blunt is giving a dig back.

Here's an email I got from the Harris campaign.



Last week, Governor Matt Blunt sunk to a new low. For the past several months Governor Blunt has been the subject of an investigation into whether he ordered two state employees to destroy public records, a clear violation of the Sunshine Law.

As a strong believer and proponent of this law, I spoke out on the House floor last Tuesday, in defense of the two employees who refused to buckle under pressure from the Governor to destroy public records. Too often, state employees are used as scapegoats, and I wanted to commend them for doing the right thing.

So what was the Governor’s response to my speech? He had his office issue a Sunshine request for every document created in my office and every email ever sent or received since 2003.

The Kansas City Star said this was “a childish stunt,” and the Joplin Globe said Blunt is making a “mockery” of the Sunshine law.

This is a clear attempt to distract, bully and intimidate me.

But I've never been intimidated by this Governor. My office will fully comply with his request, because I have nothing to hide.

It's pretty obvious who this Governor does not want as our next Attorney General. Me. I consider that a badge of honor. I fought him when he slashed health care for thousands of Missourians, and he knows that I won't let this email scandal die when he leaves office. He knows that as your next Attorney General, I will make it a priority to find out exactly what happened in this Governor’s office with regards to any order to destroy public records.

As a Missourian, I am disappointed in what we’ve seen from this Governor, and I know that like me, you expect better than vindictive partisanship from your state’s elected officials.

If you agree with me, that Missouri needs a strong champion for open government in the Attorney General’s office, then please join our campaign today. By making a modest contribution of $5 or $10 or whatever you can afford, you can help demonstrate that you won’t back down when it comes to fighting for what’s right.

http://www.electjeffharris.com/contribute/

I’m ready to take on Governor Blunt or anyone else who stands between you and your right to a fair, open and accessible government. Please join us today, and help me put some real teeth behind the Sunshine Law.

Gratefully,

Jeff

BARNES to Graves: Answer One Little Question

BARNES TO GRAVES: "IN ECONOMIC TIMES LIKE THESE, JUST ANSWER ONE QUESTION"

Kay Barnes, 6th District Congressional Candidate, called on incumbent Congressman Sam Graves to answer one simple question.

Barnes asked, "Congressman Graves, do you agree with President Bush's statement yesterday that the United States is not in a recession. Or do you agree with the 74% of Americans who believe we are in a recession?"

CNN reported yesterday:
"President Bush denied Tuesday that the United States' economy is in recession, calling it instead a 'slowdown'."

CNN reported in March:
"Seventy-four percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey say the economy has entered a recession."

Here's betting that Graves/Roe won't disagree with the Bush/Cheney machine. Graves has been their water boy for the last seven years, he's not going to start slapping the hand that feeds him now. Since Graves is the only congressman in America to get a fundraiser by both Bush and Cheney - the economy is just fine in the Graves world (especially with the Graves family getting all those fee offices from Blunt).

Missouri’s judiciary is under attack, AGAIN

From an editorial by Skip Walther in the Columbia Tribune about unfair attacks on the judiciary by SOME Republicans:


I remember the agony of studying into the early-morning hours for that all-important civics exam in seventh grade. How many members in the House of Representatives? Who succeeds to the presidency if the president and vice president suddenly die? Which branch of government must overturn an unconstitutional law? Remember the answer to that question? It’s OK if you don’t; neither does the governor of Missouri.

Unfair, you say. OK, let’s see. Go back to 1820. That is the first year when our soon-to-be state adopted its first constitution. In that year, in that constitution, is found the idea that no law retrospective in its operation can be passed. Our state cannot pass a law that creates a disability for past actions. That makes sense, doesn’t it? It has made sense since 1820, which is the year before Missouri became a state. That has been the law without interruption.

Fast-forward to Feb. 19, 2008. The Missouri Supreme Court published an opinion on a law deemed to be retrospective. The law relates to sex offenders, who are not a popular group in any setting. In 2006, the Missouri General Assembly passed and our governor signed a law that prohibited sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school. Unfortunately, the law applied to anyone who, since 1979, moved to a house after the school was built. In other words, even sex offenders with the same residence address for two decades must move if that address is close to a school. Failure to move is a felony. Our Supreme Court said the law violates the state constitutional provision in effect since 1820 that prohibits retrospective laws. In so deciding, our Supreme Court took a path that it must take, which is to say it followed the rule of law, regardless of the political consequences and regardless of public opinion. Our society demands nothing less.

Gov. Matt Blunt wasted no time in denouncing the Supreme Court. Mere hours after the opinion was published, our governor decried the "outrage that our state’s highest court has ruled in favor of sex offenders." I can honestly say I do not think I have ever read a more ignorant statement from an elected official, ever. Our Supreme Court did the job it has done since statehood, which is to elevate the constitution above any law passed by the legislature.

Those who paid attention in junior high civics remember the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided legislative enactments that violate the U.S. Constitution must be struck down by the judiciary. This is not rocket science. It is called separation of powers. The people adopt the Constitution. The legislature passes laws, and the executive enforces the laws. If a law violates the Constitution, the judiciary strikes down the law. So the answer to the seventh-grade civics exam question is: The judiciary is the branch of government that overturns unconstitutional laws.

In striking down the sex offender law, our Supreme Court gave life to the Missouri Constitution, which the citizens of this great state adopted long ago. Attacking the judiciary on this elementary example of constitutional law is a political ploy that Gov. Blunt is using once again in an attempt to re-energize a disinterested political base. He wants our judges to be subservient to politics instead of the law.

Unfortunately, this attempt is one of many. At this moment, members of the Missouri General Assembly are trying to close the courthouse doors to our citizens (HJR 41); attempts are under way to politicize the judiciary (HJR 49 and 52); and to give the legislature control over the courts and disrupt the flow of serious and intelligent lawyers seeking a judicial position (HJR 66 and SB 968). The legislators who are trying to pass these laws do not seem to understand the role judges play in the separation-of-powers scheme that has made our country the greatest on Earth.

This is not a minor event, nor is this an insignificant problem. Ignorance of the separation-of-powers concept is creating needless tension among the branches of government. This tension has led to the introduction of a number of bills that threaten the integrity of our courts. Until we, as citizens, tell the legislature to learn that its job is to pass laws that are consistent with the constitution and to respect the co-equal role the judiciary plays in our system of government, the agony of studying for a test will pale compared to the pain all of us will experience when our courts become dominated by politics.

KC Star Says Keep Politics out of Judiciary

Some on the very far right wing of the Republican Party have decided attacking judges, turning neutral arbitrators into partisan hacks, is good politics. It may be good Republican politics to pander to your base under the Karl Rove/Jeff Roe theory, but it is not good government.

Here's the the KC Star Editorial from February 7, 2008:

Some Missouri lawmakers persist in trying to inject politics into the selection of judges, a truly bad idea that could lead to buying and selling of justice. The latest assault on the judiciary in Jefferson City involves constitutional amendments that could seriously damage the state’s much- copied system of keeping politics at arm’s length from the judiciary. A nonpartisan panel of lawyers, representatives of the public and a judge screen candidates for a judgeship in the state’s largest cities and at the appellate level. Three names are sent to the governor, who makes the final choice.

It’s a good system.

Rep. Jim Lembke, a St. Louis Republican, wants a panel of Democrats and Republicans to make the nominations. He also wants senators to approve the governor’s selection. Those changes would allow politicians to essentially pick judges. Rep. Stanley Cox, another Republican from Sedalia, wants the governor to have a greater say in choosing the nominees. That could result in only candidates who are political associates of the governor — and possibly campaign contributors — making it to the bench.

Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith this week pointed out to legislators that the non-partisan system is in place because largely Republican lawmakers and civic leaders once led a voter initiative. It’s puzzling that GOP lawmakers — backed by Republican Gov. Matt Blunt — now want to depart from that historical achievement.

They apparently haven’t thought very far ahead. They may well regret their efforts if the next governor is a Democrat. Missouri’s system has served the state well since 1940 and there were no complaints about the overall quality of judges until Blunt and current legislative critics of the system got into office.

The nonpartisan system isn’t what is off-base here. These ideas for politicizing the judiciary should be rejected.

The far right wing of the Republican Party love to talk about "strict constructionist judges," which is code word for reversing Roe v. Wade. The Republicans talking about this are not the business types who want even, fair & consistent rulings on contract cases. It's not the fiscal conservatives who just want Bush to stop running up trillion dollar deficits. It's only those folks who understand that if they can stop courts from enforcing our civil rights, then they can eliminate the right to choose.

Right wing folks fear McCain because he formed the Gang of 14 to work through Bush's efforts to appoint extremely conservative judges. Pat Buchanan, writing in the American Conservative, in an article entitled The Great Betrayal, is at least honest about it - Buchanan says that he wants the next Republican president to appoint someone to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In 1993, McCain voted to confirm the pro-abortion liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain formed the Gang of 14, seven senators from each party. All agreed to vote to block the GOP Senate from invoking the “nuclear option”—i.e., empowering the GOP to break a filibuster of judicial nominees by majority vote—unless the seven Democrats agreed.

With this record of voting for Clinton justices and joining with Democrats anxious to kill the most conservative Bush’s nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain would nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

Democrats don't talk about the need to pack courts with political hacks. We don't ask judges to pre-judge or pre-commit to their rulings on important civil rights issues. It looks like the Republican Party has lost control of their far right wing again.

Kick Start the Economy

Since the last business cycle peak in March of 2001, 63% of the job growth in this country has come from two sectors of the economy...education and health care. Together they have created 3.7 million new jobs. (28 million jobs and 20% of total workforce)

By comparison, the next biggest source of new jobs, the leisure and hospitality industries added only 1.7 million.

If a recession is imminent and many think we are already in a recession does it make sense to for state governments to CUT these areas of the economy?? In fact, could the restoration of those 100,000 cut off medicaid by Blunt and the Republicans in 2005 be not only a moral and right thing to do but also be one of the best things to help Missouri's economy? Could adding more nurses, teachers and hospital orderlies, higher reimbursment rates and increasing funding for student loans and grants in medical and education actually hold off or smooth out the recession?

Hulshof is Blunt-lite

Congressman Kenny Hulshof looks like the favorite Republican in the run for governor - favorite of the Blunt/Abramoff/Corporate crowd.

Learn a little more about Hulshof from this video.



Congressman Hulsof was looking at the governor's race 4 years ago when Congressman Roy Blunt (then majority WHIP - ouch) got Kenny to back in line. At least whatever promises were made 4 years ago are being kept now.

Blunt Won't Seek Reelection!

Blunt Won't Seek Reelection.

Look for Roy to retire, the Republicans put Matt into that lay up spot and Sara Steelman to run for governor! Don't forget Jim Talent or Congressman Kenny Hulshof.

Here's Matt's statement that he has done everything he promised - including kicking 100,000 people off Medicaid.

The Chair of the Republicans said "I also appreciate Governor Blunt’s commitment to ensuring the next governor of our state is a Republican who will continue to employ the principles of personal responsibility, fiscal conservatism and limited government so that we can be assured Missouri’s brightest days are ahead.” Ya, because Blunt was going to get beat and if the Republicans have any chance of winning, it would be without Blunt.

Rothenburg Sums up Graves v. Barnes

Here's the (almost) unedited report from Roll Call

“At-risk” incumbents come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes their vulnerability follows from their voting records or their personal lives. Other times, it has nothing to do with them personally and everything to do with the quality of their opponents or the makeup of their electorates. And sometimes, it’s the fault of broad national trends.

Republican Rep. Sam Graves (Mo.) has more than one of these problems this cycle, and he’ll need all his political skill to fend off a high-profile Democratic assault on his seat.

Graves, who served in both the Missouri state House and state Senate, was first elected to Congress from his Northwest Missouri district in 2000, when he won an open-seat contest against Steve Danner, a Democratic state legislator who was trying to succeed his mother, retiring Rep. Pat Danner (D).

Graves hasn’t had a tough race since, winning with more than 60 percent of the vote each time. His 2004 opponent, Charlie Broomfield, was hyped for a time by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as a challenger with deep pockets and the potential to upset Graves. But that race never developed.

Missouri’s 6th district is politically competitive, but it isn’t quite the tossup district that Democrats like to portray it. Most of the state legislators who represent it in Jefferson City are Republicans, and George W. Bush carried it handily (winning all 26 counties in the district), with 57 percent, in 2004.

But Graves definitely is in for a fight for his re-election.

First, he has drawn a formidable opponent in Kay Barnes (D), who served two terms as mayor of Kansas City, the largest city in the state. She left office last May.

Barnes takes credit (and has received plenty of it) for revitalizing the city’s downtown, and like many Democrats, she is offering a “time for a change” message that should resonate with voters. She already has the backing of EMILY’s List, the pro-choice Democratic fundraising group, and she has the look of a feisty campaigner and a strong fundraiser.

Second, the national and state environments are not likely to benefit Graves. The president’s poll numbers are low, Congress is not held in high regard, and the state’s sitting governor, Republican Matt Blunt, who is up for re-election in November, has more problems than GOP strategists would like.

Third, Graves has not always helped himself. While the state’s senior Senator, Kit Bond (R), has endorsed the Congressman for re-election, the two GOP officeholders have not always had the warmest of relations.

In December, a Roll Call investigative piece by reporter Paul Singer raised questions about free use of an airplane that the Congressman received from a contracting firm in his district. Graves’ office has said that there is nothing wrong with him borrowing a plane. But in the wake of several recent articles about his financial holdings, Graves has amended his personal financial disclosure forms to clarify his family’s investments in ethanol plants.

One of Graves’ campaign consultants/ strategists, Jeff Roe, is so controversial — The Kansas City Star said he has a reputation for “ruthlessly laying waste to his opponents” — that he has rubbed even some Republicans the wrong way. For example, Missouri Speaker Rod Jetton (R), who has had his own run-ins with Roe, has been more than kind to Barnes’ Congressional bid.

Barnes portrays Graves as too conservative, criticizing his votes against the Democrats’ SCHIP proposal last year, against a bill that would have strengthened penalties against those involved in dog fighting and against a Democratic proposal to increase the minimum wage. And she promises to outwork him.

If Barnes is correct, the 6th district’s rural areas are accounting for less and less of the Congressional district’s vote, and even those voters in the rural areas have shown a greater willingness to vote for popular Democrats.

Democratic strategists are absolutely euphoric about Barnes’ candidacy, and during my interview with her late last year I found her to be both energetic and articulate.

But while Barnes is a strong challenger, she certainly isn’t a perfect one. Democrats seem to gloss over her weaknesses and liabilities in their understandable enthusiasm for her.

For example, while her work in Kansas City is an asset, only part of the city is in the 6th district, and it’s the more Republican part. Most of the city is in the very Democratic 5th district, which won’t help Barnes.

Unlike the last Democrat to hold this Congressional seat, Barnes will have trouble presenting herself as a cultural moderate. Her support from EMILY’s List means campaign cash, but it also tags her as pro-choice in a district that is culturally more conservative.

And Barnes’ appearance on the cover of a magazine published by Kansas City’s gay- lesbian-bisexual-transgender community isn’t likely to go over well in the district’s rural counties, where she hopes to make inroads because she was born and raised in St. Joseph.

Finally, Barnes’ “change” argument may not be so easy to sell as she hopes. Not only is she 25 years older than Graves, but she may not be helped by the kind of “change” epitomized by the Democratic presidential nominee, whether that is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

Democrats view Missouri’s 6th as an example of their ability to widen the playing field in 2008 by putting into play districts that were not seriously contested in 2006. They are right about that. But it’s too early to know whether they really can win it this year. Neither party can take this race for granted, which makes this a race worth watching.

Romney the Flip Flopper

Mitt Romney, the guy who loves pharmaceutical companies because they sell drugs to Canadians for less than they sell to Americans, now that's a guy that should be President.

Remember him telling the citizens of Massachusetts that he was going to be more liberal than Ted Kennedy? How about this one, when he was speaking to Southern GOP conservatives about gay marriages in Massachusetts, Romney said "Some are actually having children born to them." Oh, no, not procreating!!

Thank goodness Romney's got Matt Blunt on his team!! The Democrats are blessed to have 3 great candidates for president. Go Edwards, Go Obama, Go Hillary.

Blunt Still Kicked 100,000 folks off Medicaid

Last night in the State of the State address, Governor Blunt talked about restoring health care to "some of" the 100,000 folks he kicked off Medicaid.

Blunt introduced a new government program called Insure Missouri, that does not get those 100,000 people out of extremely expensive emergency rooms. Pro Vote has set up a web site to give real Missourians a chance protest this politically opportunistic health care plan by Blunt. Go check it out.

Families USA, a non-profit from DC, has reviewed the plan and issued a report. The well reasoned report says that too many Missourians are left out, the cost shifting to consumers is too high and the coverage is too low. Sounds like much of the rest of the Blunt administration!

Don't be fooled. If you kick 100,000 people off and then let 10,000 half way back on, there is still a bunch of sick Missourians going to emergency rooms. Jay Nixon has a specific plan to restore health care to the sickest and poorest of Missourians. Go, Jay, Go.

Blunt's Numbers STINK

On the eve of his annual State of the State address, Missouri governor Matt Blunt has a 41% approval rating, a 54% disapproval rating, and a Net Job Approval of Minus 13. In 33 months of SurveyUSA tracking, Blunt’s Net Job Approval has ranged from a high of Plus 2 in July 2007 to a low of Minus 30 in February 2006.

Research conducted for KCTV-TV in Kansas City.

Blunt Bankrolls Attacks on Missouri Plan

In a fine piece of investigative journalism, the Springfield Newsleader points out how Matt Blunt is financing attacks on the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. Fired Up Missouri takes it one step further and connects the dots on how not only does Blunt reward his faithful soilders with cash, but also with appointments.

Here's the deal - The Adam Smith Foundation is run by James Harris - Blunt's former appointment secretary. According to Missouri ethics reports, the J. Harris Company gets paid lots by Blunt. Jeremy Ketterer gets paid money by Blunt, too. Jeremy Ketterer co-writes an article with Prof. Bill Eckhardt concluding the Missouri Plan stinks. Jeremy Ketterer sends op-eds to the Newsleader from both the J. Harris Company and the Adam Smith Foundation, proving that the hacks are not acting independently or in good faith. Blunt appoints Ketterer to the Board of Truman State.

If there is any doubt, "the Adam Smith Foundation is a shill for the governor's campaign, and not an independent group," according to Blunt's hometown newspaper, the Springfield Newsleader. Let's hope that the New Year's resoultions for Republicans are to figure out how to use email and stop trying to purchase the judiciary.

Prayers for Huckabee

Born again Christians may have made up to 60% of Republican Iowa caucus. These ladies and I shared a prayer; that Huckabee would win. Nothing like the Republican party being torn apart by the corporate guys (who only want to allow hedge fund managers to be taxed at 15%) who fund the party and the religious right who get led around with gay marriage and abortion carrots.

For the record, Matt Blunt supports Romney. Jeff Roe and State Senator Matt Bartle support Huckabee. Sen. Kit Bond backs Guiliani. Let the blood letting begin.

Religious Right Tears Apart Republican Party via Huckabee

The Buzz on A2 of the KC Star had this little tid bit:

Arianna Huffington writes that Huckabee's poll surge is partly the result of decades of Republicans capitalising on evangelical voters as "just a resource to be cynically exploited every few years in demagogic anti-gay get-out-the-vote campaigns.

"But now the holy-rolling monster the GOP's Dr. Frankensteins have created has thrown off the shackles, fled the lab, and is currently leading in Iowa. And the party doesn't know what to do."

In Missouri we are all too familiar with the religious right's hold on the Republican party. Right here in Jackson County we see Senator Matt Bartle attacking on Warren Erdman (former chief of staff to Senator Kit Bond) for an appointment to the board of curators because of right to life issues. We see Sen. Chris Koster quiting the Republican party based, in part, on the stem cell issue. We also see the far right's favorite political consultant, Jeff Roe, being retained by Huckabee to push him on his blog, The Source. It should also be noted that the religious right - who is already disenchanted with Gov. Matt Blunt - can't be happy with Blunt backing Mitt Romney. There are too many examples of the religious right dictating Republican policy to even mention.

The Republicans have a problem here in Missouri. Folks are tired of Jeff Roe attacks. They are sick of extreme candidates. In Missouri, swing voters decide every election and suburban women ain't going to vote for a Huckabee. Here's hoping Huckabee gets the nod.

Representative Nathan Cooper (R) gets 15 months in the big house

You will recall that Republican State Representative Nathan Cooper pled guilty to federal charges that he steered temporary work visa to illegal aliens for his clients in in the trucking industry. Republicans love profiting off illegal aliens!!

This blog discussed Nathan Cooper several times. You know, things like Rep. Nathan Cooper and Rep. Jerry Nolte determining that abortion is the cause of illegal immigration. KC Blue Blog was the first to call on Cooper and the Republicans to give the tainted money he raised in a single golf tournament (65,000) to charity.

Fired Up pointed out the Cooper got half the sentence recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines, passed in part of 32 letters of support that were filed under seal. Don't you wonder which Republicans went to pat for their pal? Which Republican with ties to Blunt think we should go light on an attorney who uses his political power to help corporations profit off of low wage illegal immigrants?

I think Matt Blunt, who called for openness during Supreme Court nominations, should call for openness during the sentencing of some one who supports profitable illegal immigration. Surely Blunt's buddy, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway, would listen and petition the court to make the letters open.

Republican Poll Shows 71% of Missourians Like the Nonpartisan Court Plan

This blog spends lots of time talking about the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, mostly because it is being attacked by the radical fringe of the Republican Party, including Governor Matt Blunt, Jeff Roe and the Adam Smith Foundation. Who can blame Blunt, his ship is sinking and judges are easy to pick on. Attorney General Jay Nixon is raising just as much money as Blunt in the governor's race (now that campaign contribution limits are back in place) and Blunt's choice of Mitt Romney isn't selling well with the Religious Right in Missouri.

Public Opinion Strategies - a Republican organization - conducted the study for Justice at Stake, Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts, and the Missouri Institute for Justice.

A few highlights of the poll:

Bipartisan majorities oppose many of the proposals to change the system recently floated by critics, while 73 percent of those surveyed want Missouri judges to be independent of elected officials like the Governor and state legislature.

By a ratio of more than two to one, voters believe that the Supreme Court of Missouri makes its decisions based on the state’s laws and constitution, not the personal beliefs of its seven members. Self-identified Republicans are the most likely to feel this way – 68 percent of Republicans polled feel law trumps ideology for decisions made by the state’s highest court.

Only 1 of every 50 Missouri voters see changing the way state judges are selected as a top priority for the Governor and state legislature. Voters are far more likely to cite health care, taxes and government spending, and public education as top priorities.

Don't look for the fringe to give up - until they can get thier wackos on the bench, they won't be happy. The Rule of Law is not the goal, its obtaining thier version of justice (which ain't justice for all).

Rats Abandon Sinking Ship - Herschel Resigns

The KC Star is reporting Henry Herschel, the general counsel for Gov. Matt Blunt, has followed former Chief of Staff Ed Martin out the door.

Henry Herschel presided over the Sunshine Law debacle of destroying emails, Scott Eckersley being trashed by his own party, Ed Martin making a fool of himself and the entire administration being knocked off track. I'm sure Henry will be welcomed back to Jefferson City for his deposition in Eckersley's case.

Makes perfect sense that he is exiting stage left, but do you really want a new chief of staff, a different general counsel and a bunch of strangers running around while Matt Blunt has the biggest race of his life on the line?