Ladies and gentlemen, your Lieutenant Governor.

Note Kinder's personal touches on the retweet. Klassy stuff. Anyway, here are a couple of the lower backs that our distinguished Lieutenant Governor says you MUST see. 

I'm pretty sure this irregular behavior for a statewide public official.

A new web video from the Robin Carnahan campaign:

Yesterday on The Eagle's Mike Ferguson radio program, Roy Blunt was asked by a caller to explain his votes against raising the minimum wage.  Blunt responded by saying he's only voted against a wage hike one time while he's been in Washington. 

CALLER: I'd like to know why he has repeatedly voted against minimum wage increases when that's the level people that are hurting the most right now.  And it's been continuous over fourteen years.

BLUNT: Well, I haven't repeatedly voted against minimum wage. In fact, I think it's been before the House three times. I voted for it twice and against it once.  And I thought the last plan was a bad plan at a bad time.  When you raise minimum wage at a time when this minimum wage vote came around, you're gonna, you're gonna stop opportunities at the very time when people need opportunities.

Listen:

Actually, Blunt voted against a minimum wage increase three times in 2007 and at least four times in 2006 (i.e., repeatedly). 

• HR 2 - Vote 18, January 10, 2007: Blunt voted against the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which passed the House by a whopping 315-116 vote.
• HR 2206 - Vote 333, May 10, 2007: Blunt voted against legislation that would provide $42.8 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the bill raised the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provided $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. President Bush signed this bill into law.
• HR 1591 - Vote 186, March 23, 2007: Blunt voted against increasing the minimum wage from by $2.10 an hour to $7.25 an hour. The measure passed 218-212.
• HR 5638- Vote 308, July 19, 2006: Blunt voted to kill a Democratic attempt to offer an increase the minimum wage during debate of the Estate Tax cut bill. The rule for debating the bill offered by the GOP leadership prohibited Democrats from offering the increase. When Democrats protested, Republicans voted to kill the Democratic attempt. The vote to kill the Democratic attempt passed 226-194, with 2 Democrats and 224 Republicans voting yes, while 193 Democrats, 0 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted no. Watch CSPAN video of the floor debate on the rule here.
• Rule on HR 2389 - Vote 382, July 19. 2006: The rule for debating the bill offered by the GOP leadership prohibited Democrats from offering the minimum wage increase. When Democrats protested, Republicans voted to kill the Democratic attempt. The motion passed 224-200. Watch CSPAN video of the floor debate on the rule here.
• Rule on HR 2990 - Vote 364, July 12, 2006: Same deal. The rule for debating the bill offered by the GOP leadership prohibited Democrats from offering the increase. When Democrats protested, Republicans voted to kill the Democratic attempt. The attempt passed 223-197. Watch CSPAN video of the floor debate on the rule here.
• Rule on HR 4411, Vote 360, July 11, 2006: Same deal. The rule for debating the bill was offered by the GOP leadership and prohibited Democrats from offering the increase. When Democrats protested, Republicans voted to kill the Democratic attempt. The motion passed 214-189.
• Rule on HR 5672, Vote 319, June 27, 2006: Democrats had been fighting to gradually increase the minimum wage by $2.10 -- from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years. The Republican leadership passed a rule that barred Democrats from offering the amendment. When Democrats protested, Republicans voted to kill the Democratic attempt to bring up the amendment. The motion passed 224-188.

As you can see, there wasn't a single up or down vote on a minimum wage hike in 2006 and 2007.  Democrats tried and tried to get the legislation passed, and only finally got the increase signed into law in May 2007. By George W. Bush (!).

Listen to the full interview here.

Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is talking about Peter Kinder's frivolous health care lawsuit more than Peter Kinder is these days.  But Crossroads GPS won't actually say Peter Kinder's name.

From the MOGOP's announcement of "Tom Schweich for Auditor Day:"

Tom is not afraid to stand up to his own party and he will not bend to political pressure because he is dedicated to protecting taxpayers.

Apart from the fact that Schweich folded like a lawn chair when he tried to stand up to his party, this is right on.

<!--break-->

If Schweich was the independent force for change he pretends to be, he'd have no problem talking about what this other Tom Schweich said in March 2009.

THE END OF THE MISSOURI REPUBLICAN PARTY
By Thomas A. Schweich | Posted: Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Across the state, large numbers of forward-looking Republicans are concerned that a small group of Missouri Republican leaders have - without a serious dialogue or discussion about the future of the party - anointed U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt as the GOP candidate to replace retiring Missouri legend Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond. There has been an active effort to crush, pre-emptively, any possible challenger. Yet most of them acknowledge that Blunt will have very difficult time winning.

Roy Blunt is a dedicated public servant, a patriot and a worthy man. But I believe he should not be the nominee of our party for Bond's seat.

As a lifelong Republican and Missourian - and a former ambassador and senior international law enforcement official under President George W. Bush - I am at a loss for why the Republican Party of Missouri would rather be united in defeat than fight for victory. Blunt's vulnerabilities have been discussed widely on talk radio and the Internet. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who has announced her candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the seat, will paint him as a leader of the Congress that delivered us a multi-trillion dollar deficit. She will say he turned a blind eye to the greeding frenzy on Wall Street.

Worse yet, I already can see the advertisements showing grainy pictures of his family members, trumpeting that they are lobbyists for some powerful industries that have hurt ordinary Missourians. And, like it or not, Blunt's son - another well-meaning guy - left the governor's office under a cloud that has not yet lifted. Can you imagine the field day that Carnahan will have? For Republicans, it is in all likelihood a recipe for disaster. Most everyone knows it, yet only a few will say it out loud.

Missouri already has popular Democrats serving as governor, senator and attorney general. If we lose the second Senate seat, the party will be in such shambles that it could take a decade or more to recover. While there is no denying Blunt's commitment to serving his country, he represents the Republican Party of the past, not the party of the future. We need to change direction before it is too late.

The new head of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, has said that the party is looking for fresh faces - people with a lot of energy and a commitment to rebuilding the party with a completely new image. Blunt is the opposite of what Steele has said he wants. I guess we have not learned anything from the elections of 2008.

Moreover, the Missouri Republican Party seems to have no plan for responsible Missourians. Just saying no to what Obama or Nixon wants is not a plan.

We need a party that is devoted to preserving the free-market system against the Obama onslaught on private enterprise, while recognizing that hard-working, responsible Missourians who have lost their jobs and health care should have a pretty strong federal safety net until they are back on their feet. We need to close regulatory loopholes and crack down on economic criminals, not nationalize our financial and auto industries with huge new federal bureaucracies.

We need to stick by our core values of protection of life and the right to bear arms but get out of people's bedrooms and private lives with our mean-spirited moral dictates. And we need a nuanced foreign policy that achieves our security objectives without using tactics that backfire and actually make us even more enemies around the world.

We need a party that is more economically responsible, more tolerant, more energetic, less closed-minded and less judgmental. Blunt cannot credibly take Missouri forward on that sort of a platform.

We should not discourage competition in the race for the Republican nomination for Senate. We should shed some light on the back-room politics of the sedentary, uncreative Republican leadership in this state, which appears to be in denial about the unfortunate route that we are traveling right now. They either should stop crushing the competition and start looking for a new direction or stand aside and let others take on the task.

Thomas A. Schweich is ambassador-in-residence and visiting professor at Washington University. He served the Bush administration as ambassador for counter-narcotics and justice reform in Afghanistan, deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement affairs and chief of staff of the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

The MDP catches Republicans saying outrageously nice things about Ike Skelton.

One of the more amusing microsites I've seen in a while.  Worth the click and a few minutes of your time.

h/t Wonkette

The reaction from the Roy Blunt campaign to fairly tame talk about their candidate's long record of unethical leadership in Washington has been pretty intense.  Andy Blunt and Matt Blunt want people fired (try not to laugh).  Rich Chrismer says that a strong focus on Roy Blunt's glaring ethical problems means the Robin Carnahan campaign has no focus.  Uh-huh. 

Obviously, the strategy here from Team Blunt is to muddy the waters and distract reporters and voters from very real problems in Blunt's record.  It's simply a fact that Blunt has been dogged by questions regarding his leadership in Washington by the press, independent watchdog organizations -- and members of his own party.

For instance, here's a sampling of what's been written by independent watchdog organizations:

• CREW, 2006: "Beyond Delay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress"
  Blunt comes in at #1: "Rep. Blunt's ethics issues stem from the misuse of his position to benefit family members, his connections to Jack Abramoff, and a trip paid for by a foreign agent."
• CREW, 2005: "Beyond DeLay: The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress"
  "Rep. Blunt’s appointment is a case of ‘new boss, same as the old boss.’ While Rep. Blunt may be new to the job, he has long followed Rep. DeLay’s pattern of ignoring campaign finance laws and ethics rules."
• Public Citizen, 1/13/06: "Roy Blunt: Ties to Special Interests Leave Him Unfit to Lead"
  "In this report, Public Citizen compiles a disturbing dossier on Blunt, based on original research and a comprehensive compilation of news accounts of recent months. In the end, what emerges is a portrait of a legislative leader who not only has surrendered his office to the imperative of moneyed interests, but who has also done so with disturbing zeal and efficiency."
• CREW, 1/12/06: "Ethically Challenged Reps. Blunt and Cantor Not Fit for Leadership"
  “If Members of the House were truly committed to cleaning up the cesspool that Congress has become, they would not even consider Reps. Blunt and Cantor to lead the way."

It's worth noting that CREW is more than happy to criticize members of both parties.  As you can see, Democrats outnumber Republicans on the organization's CREWsMostCorrupt.org website.

In 2003, the Washington Post reported that Blunt's relationship with now-wife Abigail Perlman was "raising eyebrows and giving fits to self-appointed ethics cops." Just months earlier, Blunt's attempt to slip in language for benefit Philip Morris into a Homeland Security bill.  By complete coincidence,  Perlman was a lobbyist for Philip Morris, and the two were engaged in a "close personal relationship" at the time.  Blunt's moves to provide the favor for Philip Morris even disgusted Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff (!). 

A few years later, Thomas B. Edsall, a journalist who covered Blunt's work as Majority Whip and leadership of the K Street Project as a staff writer for the Washington Post, was so disenchanted and disgusted with Blunt's body of work that he took to the opinion pages of the New York Times to write the following:

SAME OLD PARTY

Last Friday, the Republicans gave the Democrats a gift that will keep on giving: Roy Blunt of Missouri.

After an election repudiating the politics of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, Republicans elevated Blunt from the number three spot in the leadership to number two.

Roy Blunt embodies the insidious, half-legal corruption that has permeated the G.O.P. majority since 1995. Blunt’s election as minority whip, by a 137-to-57 margin, was a defiant Republican rejection of calls to clean up their act. Warnings by Blunt’s challenger, John Shadegg of Arizona — “We ceded our reform-minded principles in exchange for a ...tighter grip on power” — went unheeded.<!--break-->

In 1998, DeLay put Blunt on the leadership ladder, making him chief deputy whip. Blunt modeled himself on DeLay, creating an identical network of state and federal political committees that raised money from the same lobbyists, corporations and trade associations that financed what became known as DeLay Inc.

If one political operation captured the essence of DeLay’s leadership, it was the Republican takeover of Washington’s influence-peddling industry. This industry, grossing $2.36 billion last year alone, eagerly accommodated DeLay’s demands to replace Democratic lobbyists and association executives with Republicans. In a mutually rewarding relationship, lobbyists who financed DeLay Inc. wrote amendments and bills, while DeLay received a flood of cash to build a multimillion-dollar network of PACs. These committees lavished contributions, corporate jets and year-round entertainment on Republican House members, ensuring their loyalty, and channeled cash into local political parties, helping to win control of state legislatures that, in turn, gerrymandered districts to implement a long-term strategy of larger G.O.P. Congressional majorities.

In 2003, after DeLay moved up to majority leader and turned the so-called K Street Project over to him, Blunt promptly converted a legion of Republican lobbyists into an arm of the House whip operation. Lobbyists have always been close to Congress, under rule by either party. What DeLay and Blunt did was to sacralize this relationship. In doing so, they transferred a chunk of power from Capitol Hill to business interests.

This unholy alliance was a crucial factor in transforming the G.O.P. into an army of spenders whose earmarks, appropriations and tax cuts rivaled the government largess of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

Emphasis added.  Shall I go on? 

Despite their apparent reluctance to discuss these facets of Blunt's record as relevant to the 2010 election, the Missouri press corps has previously been quite willing to speak frankly about Blunt's ethical problems.  For example, here's what The Star's Steve Kraske wrote in February 2009:

"[Jim Talent stands] in marked contrast to Blunt, who is D.C. personified.

Not only does he have more K Street ties than Mark Shaleand Jack Henry combined, he's married to a lobbyist. His son is one. His links to that world, and by extension former House majority leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, and by extension (again) disgraced superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, are ingredients for a Democratic campaign feast.

Those connections are a big reason why Blunt's fellow Republicans rejected the Missourian as majority leader in 2006, ultimately denying him his dream of becoming House speaker.

Here's a Post-Dispatch editorial from 2006:

FRESH FACE ISN'T BLUNT'S

In a surprise turnabout, House Republicans rejected Roy Blunt's bid for House ajority leader Thursday, opting to put a new face at the leadership table amid a sea of discontent, desire for reform, and election-year jitters.

GOP members picked Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, as their No. 2 leader in a topsy-turvy election that Blunt, R-Mo., had been expected to win. Buffeted by a widening corruption scandal and sagging public approval ratings, GOP lawmakers itching for change rejected Blunt's pitch that he was a proven leader who would provide vital continuity and legislative results at an already tumultuous turning point for the party...

Blunt's downfall was not solely due to his status as an incumbent.

Lawmakers said that his deep ties to the lobbying effort, his status-quo agenda, and his close relationship with ex-House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, helped doom his bid. DeLay was forced to step aside after a Texas grand jury indicted him last year; he also is under scrutiny in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

When DeLay was the GOP whip, he tapped Blunt -- then just elected to his second term -- to be his deputy. And Blunt had taken over a key DeLay initiative to coordinate the GOP agenda with Washington lobbyists.

Blunt "is part of the team that people wanted a break from," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who supported Shadegg. "People were ready for more reform than (Blunt) was offering."

Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., said Thursday's vote was "an effort to get away fromDeLay and the image" that he brought to the party, which critics said included a very blurry line between legislative favors and political fundraising.

"The fact that DeLay brought Blunt in, I think that worked against him," said Hefley, who was ousted as head of the Ethics Committee last year after that panel had admonished DeLay.

It's not just watchdogs and journalists and Democrats who are saying this.  In 2006, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) explained Blunt's defeat in the GOP Leader elections simply: Blunt "is part of the team that people wanted a break from."  Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) said of Blunt's defeat, "The message is that we do want to change. We don't want the perception or the reality that this is a place of corruption."

Just yesterday, the Washington Post published a preview of a new book from Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).  Who do you think they're talking about here?

Aggressively looking to distance themselves from their party's past, three top Republican House members are using a new book to repeatedly and often scathingly criticize former GOP leaders.

In "Young Guns," due for release in the next couple of weeks, Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) cast the Republican congressional leaders who preceded them as a group that "betrayed its principles" and was plagued by "failures from high-profile ethics lapses to the inability to rein in spending or even slow the growth of government." Cantor specifically says Republicans became "arrogant and "out of touch."

"Under Republican leadership in the early 2000's, spending and government got out of control," McCarthy writes. "As government grew, there were scandals and political corruption. The focus became getting reelected rather than solving problems and addressing pressing issues."

Shall I go on? 

Eli Yokley has interesting audio from a very short Q&A period  Billy Long conducted with reporters yesterday afternoon following a meeting with Missouri Southern State University College Republicans.  Despite Long's ironic call for young people to get involved in politics,  he was completely uninterested in answering questions from Yokley, a college student.

As you can hear at the 3:15 mark, the first journalist you hear pleads with Long to answer Yokley's question, but he walks away.

<!--break-->

A crazy person took hostages at the headquarters of Discovery Communications yesterday, and was eventually slain by police after a scary standoff.  The hostage-taker, James Lee has been described as an "environmental militant," believed "the world would be better off without people,"  and "was apparently inspired by the author of a popular series about a telepathic ape who tries to save humankind from problems such as overpopulation." 

Clearly, a disturbed person doing horrible stuff. 

But just as clearly, Peter Kinder saw an opportunity to make some sort of bizarre political point on Teh Twitter about Al Gore. 

At no point did Kinder ask Twitter followers to pray for the hostages, or express any sort of concern for the innocent people in harm's way.  He had political points to make that trumped those secondary issues. 

The implication here, I think, is that people who think global warming is a problem may be as insane as James Lee, and might take hostages at any moment.  Are there other political lessons to be learned here? 

Note the hashtags Kinder personally added to the Dana Loesch tweet -- #ecoterrorism #tcot and #pdk.  These were not on Loesch's original message.  Same thing for the retweet of the message from the right-wing Instapundit blogger -- Kinder personally added #tcot #TeaParty and #pdk.

Honestly: what does violence from an obvious lunatic have to do with the Tea Party or conservative politics? 

<!--break-->

Kinder's belief that global warming and climate change are made-up conspiracies is well documented.  But does he really believe that the actions of James Lee is representative of people who care about the environment? 

KMOX: "The Franklin County prosecutor says he may know by next week whether anyone will face charges in the case of the state representative accused of threatening the campaign manager of a political rival at gunpoint."

Riverfront Times: "A protection order hearing involving state Rep. Brian Nieves scheduled for today in Cole County Circuit Court has been pushed back.  Michael Byrne, attorney for plaintiff Shawn Bell, tells Daily RFT that he recently filed an amended petition to the case in which his client accuses Nieves of assaulting him. 'Mr. Nieves' attorney wanted a chance to review the new petition and asked for a continuance,' explains Byrne."