The Radical Republican

Announcement

2007-07-18T20:01:00.000-05:00

For all those interested, I wanted to announce that I will no longer be blogging and that "The Radical Republican" will be dormant for the foreseeable future.

My brother started this blog a little over two years ago, and I took over posting last summer. John enjoyed doing the blog, and I enjoyed my year of posting. However, John and I have both moved on to other things.

Thanks to everyone who has read and linked to the blog over the past two years. The Freesoiler clan is and will remain active and interested in Missouri politics for many years to come, so maybe I'll see you at Lincoln Days some day soon. Let's see finish with a quote, finish with a quote...well in the spirit of moving on, here's a gem from Samuel Johnson. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

Amnesty, We Hardly Knew Ye

2007-06-13T11:00:00.001-05:00

In recent days, it seems that the majority of the American people and the minority of the Senate achieved victory in defeating the Bush/McCain/Democrat "Immigration Reform" bill. I can't help but take some schadenfreude in the fact that the Democrats were unable to achieve this even with the backing of the White House and several prominent Republican Senators. Regardless, it is a victory for the rule of law and for the will of the American people. Furthermore, I firmly believe that this is an issue that can be quite politically beneficial for Republican candidates in 2008, given the fact that only 20% of Americans favor Bush's approach to immigration. It will put our presidential candidates in the awkward position of criticizing the outgoing President, but they should hammer the pro-amnesty crowd with this as much as possible.

--

On another note, Freesoiler was very pleased to read that Shamed Dogan, a former Talent LA, has announced his candidacy for the 88th State House district, currently held by Neal St. Onge. I first met Dogan when I interned for Talent two summers ago. He is a gentleman and a scholar, and the people of the Fighting 88th will be lucky to have him representing them.

The Never Ending Debates

2007-06-06T11:05:00.000-05:00

NRO has posted a good symposium on last night's Republican presidential debate. No major surprises, I thought that the three main candidates all looked pretty good. There's no t likely to be any major movement in the top tier candidates as a result of this debate. However, as immigration continues to be such a major issue, McCain is likely to continue his downward spiral.

To me, the major story of the Republican debates so far has been the emergence of Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, as the face of electable conservatism in the field of candidates. Governor Huckabee has easily had the strongest overall performance in the debates to date. Furthermore, he has done so as a seriously conservative candidate. Despite his staunch views, the man from Hope, or rather, our man from Hope, has a manner about him that is very gentle and appealing. He comes across with very conservative views, but is also eloquent and compassionate. He is a Baptist minister, and it shows, but without being sanctimonious or fire and brimstoney.

While I think Huckabee's pleasant manner could have some appeal to the general electorate, he is a long shot for President. However, the Huckabee camp has got to be thinking that the Gov has positioned himself as the front runner for Vice President at this point. As a serious conservative, and a Southerner, Huckabee would likely make an excellent running mate for any of the top tier, less conservative candidates, such as Romney or Guiliani. While conservatives are inexplicably awaiting the entrance of Fred Thompson, of "Die Hard 2:Die Harder" fame, to fill the perceived conservative void, they need look no further than Governor Huckabee. Don't get me wrong, Thompson will enter the race as a top tier candidate, and one that is noticeably more conservative than Romney, Guiliani and McCain. However, this fantasy that Fred Thompson is Reagan/Goldwater/Milton Friedman reborn is just that; a fantasy.

The Impending Presidential Primary Crisis

2007-05-23T12:54:00.000-05:00

The most recent in a rash states to do this, Florida recently moved its presidential primary date up to January 29, 2008. At current count, nearly half of the states will have held their nominating elections by "Super Tuesday," February 5. Why not just hold them tomorrow? And then, come November 2008, we can decide who to elect for the next two cycles, and then get 2016 taken care of by Inauguration Day? This current level of ridiculousness is the result of a game of chicken that's been slowly building for several cycles now to see who can get the most influence in the nominating race.

Now, I'm for states rights as much, and actually a lot more, than most. However, considering that we are talking about the only national office, I think that the time has come to consider some sort of national solution to this problem. There is no rational reason that a republic made up of sovereign states should allow any state, whether it's the most populous or least, any more influence in selecting the parties' presidential candidates.

There are a number of problems with trying to enact a single national primary date. First, as the most extreme option, it would engender the most opposition from the states who would have to ratify it. Second, there is the substantive concern of giving the candidates with the most money the advantage of carrying out a national campaign. Admittedly, money is a form of speech, but a national primary date would essentially eliminate the need for any primary at all, by giving such a big advantage to each parties' "establishment candidate." No John McCain in 2000, no Howard Dean in 2004. Well, that actually doesn't sound so bad, but replace those names with second-tier candidates that you find appealing.

With that in mind, I propose the following Constitutional amendment. In substance, my proposal would mandate that all states' nominating process, be it a primary, caucus, or whatever, be held between 6 and 8 months prior to the date of the general election. In other words, some time in the months of March, April, or early May of the election year. This eliminates the absurdity of the current arms race that has elections being held in January and early February, but still maintains a level of states' rights.

Certainly, there are likely to be problems with this system as well, and I have no delusions of such an amendment being ratified in the foreseeable future. However, hopefully as the system becomes more and more obviously ridiculous as the dates of the primaries get earlier and earlier, more people will come to see things my way and we can come up with some sort of a reformed, national system.

Rampant International Pro-Americanism

2007-05-09T11:59:00.000-05:00

In my brief absence from posting, the people of France elected a new leader, Nicolas Sarkozy. He defeated the far left candidate, Socialist Segolene Royal, by a comfortable margin. This got me thinking about one of the left's canned criticisms of President Bush that is repeated so often that we hardly even question whether it's true or not, that is that the rest of the world hates America because of President Bush's actions. This leads to the perception that an American cannot travel abroad without being ridiculed or worse for our Americanism. Now, I've not traveled abroad very much, and I'm sure that somebody's cousin's friend was told by a French-Canadian that Americans suck, but that doesn't really prove anything.

If you look at what other countries have done at the ballot box, you might get a completely different picture of what they think of Americans. Starting with Sarkozy and working backwards, the people of France, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Germany have all elected leaders that display varying levels of pro-Americanism, and in the cases of at least John Howard and Angela Merkel in Australia and Germany, support for the Iraq war. While Tony Blair has been very supportive of Bush, early polls suggest that the voters of the United Kingdom will replace his Labour party with the more conservative, cleverly titled, Conservative party at the next general election.

While the idea that you can't go to Europe if you're an American is likely to continue to be propagated by the left until a Democrat is President, the people of the countries that supposedly hate us keep electing pro-American, pro-Bush candidates.

Freesoiler will return...

2007-04-18T11:36:00.000-05:00

...after a three week, law school finals-related hiatus.

Thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and the bereaved of the recent Virginia Tech massacre. "For men are not cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love." Lamentations 3:31-32

Rudy's Follies

2007-04-11T10:29:00.000-05:00

As the race for president in 2008 heats up, the voters are going to start taking much closer looks at the various candidates. Perhaps the candidate who has the most to lose from this is the putative Republican front-runner, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's lack of knowledge of the price of bread notwithstanding, because I doubt that multimillionaire trial lawyer John Edwards buys his own groceries, Rudy has to be concerned about how his liberal social views, specifically on abortion, will play with Republican primary voters.

But you have to give Giuliani credit for sticking to his guns, even when he's wrong on policy and wrong on the facts. He recently reasserted his support for public funding of some abortions, citing the fact that abortion is a constitutional right. Regardless of the differences on policy this poses with most Republicans, Rudy's also wrong on the legal realities. The law of the land is that you have a constitutional right to choose an abortion without an "undue burden." Giuliani misses this important distinction when he states that "There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," because "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion." Those two statements do not necessarily go together, as the Supreme Court recognized when they specifically allowed a ban on public funding of abortion in Harris v. McRae. This is not to say that states are not permitted to fund abortions with public money, but neither are they required to. If Giuliani wants to fund abortions with public money as a matter of policy, he should say so. As a matter of policy, most Republicans are going to seriously disagree with that, but he should not try to fool them by hiding behind the idea that it's required by the law, because it isn't.

Based on the polls, Giuliani is clearly the Republican front runner, and for some good reasons. He's an accomplished person, both as a prosecutor and mayor. Certainly there is still a lot of positive feelings towards him due to his role in New York's 9/11 recovery, but it's not just that. People remember that Giuliani was able to clean up NYC after years of being known as a haven for crime to be avoided by outsiders. However, I think that the "entrance" of Fred Thompson into the race, and the quick decline of Rudy's numbers, seen here from Rasmussen, shows that Rudy's lead is a soft lead. Yeah, they were both actors, but Fred Thompson is not Ronald Reagan. His numbers are most attributable to his celebrity status, and the fact that Republican primary voters are clamoring for a solid conservative in a field led by McCain and Giuliani. Whether it's Mitt Romney*, Mike Huckabee*, or Sam Brownback*, it won't be long before they find one.

* Not an endorsement or non-endorsement, because, frankly, who cares what I think?

Feels Like Deja Vu...

2007-04-04T12:08:00.000-05:00

Pursuant to last week's post, I cite the following links, hereinafter referred to as Reason 1 Why It's Fun To Be Right All The Time and Reason 2 Why It's Fun To Be Right All The Time. Yes, yes, American Viewpoint is a "Republican Poll," I hear you cry. I promise you that it is not in the interest of Governor Blunt or the MRP to spend their money on a fantasy poll that gives them imaginary numbers. "But, I heard, he like, got booed at the Cardinals victory parade." Whatever.

Polls, etc...

2007-03-28T12:16:00.000-05:00

I hate to beat a dead horse, but these new poll numbers from SurveyUSA are ridiculous, for the same reason as their previous numbers. A 9 point spread in party identification in favor of either party cannot possibly give you accurate numbers in Missouri. These numbers are fine for the FiredUP crowd to sit around and chuckle about and compare Blunt to Holden. I bet if you took a poll of a 9% plurality of Republicans, Holden's numbers in 2003 would look a lot worse. It's nonsensical to compare these two polls, but if you compare the SurveyUSA poll to its previous versions with a comparable spread in party ID, Blunt's numbers are going up, at least 5 points over the past few months. So, when compared to their own polls, SurveyUSA shows Blunt's approval rating going up. But to try to compare them to any legitimate poll is like comparing the weight of a rock to the length of a line, apologies to Justice Scalia.

Freesoiler is excited to link to the new Missouripulse.com, put on by former chairman of the MRP John Hancock. So far the site looks quite good, and it's arriving just as the race between Governor Blunt and Jay Nixon begins to heat up in earnest. On a marginally related topic, you gotta feel sorry for these guys, don't you? Someone probably told them that it would be a good way to meet some progressive-minded girls, and now here they are for all eternity being forced to show their love for future former gubernatorial candidate Jay Nixon. Ah well, such is the folly of youth. Regardless, Freesoiler fully endorses his more full-time blogging colleagues at the Pulse and the Source, because they have benefit of being closer to the action of Missouri politics and the time to spend on it. Best of luck to the folks at Missouripulse.com!

A Victory For Freedom

2007-03-21T12:11:00.000-05:00

In Freesoiler's absence, there has been what could be a major development in constitutional law, and a major victory for freedom. In a 2-1 decision, the DC Circuit held the District's ban on handguns to be unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment. Possibly the most important part of this opinion is that, for what I believe is the first time ever, a major federal court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee a personal right to ownership of firearms. If you read the opinion, I would advise skipping over the first part of the opinion, which is dealing with standing. It deals with some important but technical issues of whether parties can allege an injury stemming from their intent to violate the law for which they have not yet been prosecuted, and other issues of standing.

The sticking point with the Second Amendment has always been the language in it that mentions militias. Opponents of guns have read this to mean that only members of say, the National Guard, are allowed to own guns. Judge Silberman, a Reagan appointee, joined by Thomas Griffith, a W appointee, deals with this problem in a very methodical, textual manner. The problem that arises from the District's position, is that it logically follows that if there is no right to personal ownership of firearms, then the District could ban all of them, essentially rendering the Second Amendment a "dead letter," to use Silberman's phrasing. While the District has some arguments, such as the idea that "bear Arms" was intended to refer back to the militia in the military sense of bearing arms, Judge Silberman ultimately determines that specific language of the Amendment, and the overall tenor of the Bill of Rights protecting individual rights, makes their position untenable.

Gun banners are decrying this decision as judicial activism, because it disagrees with a 1934 decision, US v. Miller, that suggests that the Congressional power to regulate the militia shows the military intent of the Second Amendment. However, Judge Silberman points out that the "militia" encompassed all able bodied men capable of military service, and that the Miller Court recognized that. There was no such thing as the National Guard or Army Reserve at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. The "militia" consisted of individuals, who owned their own guns, who could theoretically band together into a fighting force if needed. In other words, personal, private ownership of firearms.

If the Supreme Court takes this case, it seems unlikely to me that it would be reversed. I think we, meaning proponents of ya know, freedom, can bank on the Big Four of Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. Kennedy, in my opinion, would be unlikely to support a pretty clearly indefensible law, and it would not shock me to get Stevens or even Souter. The reason is that all they would be asked to invalidate is a total ban on possession of a large range of guns. What remains to be seen is how strictly DC, and other jurisdictions, can regulate who gets a permit to possess a handgun. This is a separate issue that could be the subject of future litigation, but would not be before the Court.

In short, this is a great step in the right direction for proponents of gun rights, and personal freedom in general. I suggest we celebrate in the traditional Republican fashion, by firing our guns in the air, hooting and hollering all the way.

An Unfortunate Symptom

2007-03-07T11:24:00.000-05:00

This is a good example of why I often say that Ann Coulter is crazy. However, upon further reflection, she's not crazy. Factually, there are a lot of problems with what she said about John Edwards, namely the fact that he has a wife and children. Beyond that, even if you don't support all gay rights, as myself and many Republicans do not, name-calling is pointless and immature. So, her comments were crazy in that sense.

Furthermore, the level of masochism they display borders on insanity. Coulter went on to, albeit flippantly, list some reasons why gays should be Republicans. Furthermore, she pointed out that there's an important distinction between being against gay marriage, and favoring discrimination against gays. Specifically, she said "I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against...I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us." Now, you can agree or disagree with those statements, but they are actual arguments, in that she is offering something up to the public discourse, in stark contrast with her previous insult. Unfortunately for everyone, these comments are completely ignored, and her insults are national news.

It would be nice to be able to dismiss Ann Coulter's ravings as the product of an unstable mind. Sadly, I do not believe that that concept jives with reality. Ann Coulter is a lawyer, and a perfectly intelligent person. Those qualifications do not translate into celebrity in our hyper-stimulated culture. There is too much media for the average person with average ideas to make it big. Coulter, and her ilk on the right and left, have chosen to sacrifice contributing to the public debate for celebrity, and of course, money. Now, I'm as big of a fan of the free market as anyone, but it's important to remember that popularity and profitability do not translate into objective value. On our respective deathbeds, we will all have to consider the objective value of our lives, and I worry about anyone who's willing to sacrifice the value and impact of their ideas for a little money. In all fairness, this is a pandemic problem in politics that is common among talking heads, real journalists, and politicians.

I offer no solutions, other than to implore people to recognize the difference between reasonable, intelligent people making points that contribute something to the state of public discourse, and people like Ann Coulter who are primarily entertainers out for personal gain.

Young Kid From Tennessee Makes Good

2007-02-28T14:32:00.000-05:00

In the least shocking event in recent history, Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature on Sunday night. Well, it wasn't really Al Gore's movie per se, he was just the...star. But you wouldn't know it from the ceremony. Stars like Leonardo DiCaprio were lauding praise on the former Vice President like it was going out of style. Gore himself even got into the Gore-centric atmosphere with a comedy bit where he pretended to announce his 2008 candidacy, but was then played off by the music.

Without getting into the numerous problems with the speculation about the effects of climate change/global warming, I was extremely amused in watching a giant roomful of "the beautiful people" all a-twitter over Al Gore. "Lockbox" Al Gore. Featured on "Futurama" Al Gore. I found it totally surreal and hilarious to see the quintessential nerd being revered by movie stars. On the other hand, it's nice to see the guy finally fit in somewhere, regardless of the reason.

I feel confident that Hillary, Obama, and the other members of the Democratic field share my enjoyment of Mr. Gore's newfound popularity, but for slightly different reasons. The Democratic base sees Hillary as a conservative, and to this day, I don't think anyone knows what Barack Obama's positions on the issues are. This leaves open the possibility that a hard left candidate like Howard Dean could swoop in a shake things up for the more electable candidates. Now, Dean is clearly not running, but if Gore were to throw his carbon neutral, 100% recyclable hat into the ring, it would be as a hard left candidate. Who's to say what a Deanesque candidate with infinitely higher name recognition and the hindsight to avoid his mistakes could accomplish? A Gore candidacy in 2008 might have more than sheer entertainment value to offer. His chances of getting the nomination would be slim, but anything that would make Hillary and Obama move further to the left is good for the Republicans.

The Castle Doctrine

2007-02-21T13:29:00.000-05:00

Just a quick one today, folks.

Freesoiler wants to commend Speaker Rod Jetton for his efforts to pass a bill giving Missouri the so-called Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine gets its name from the idea that you should not have to attempt to retreat before using deadly force to protect your home, which, as the saying goes, is your castle. This law will protect citizens who use deadly force against an intruder from liability for their actions. Under the current law, you would have to show that you were in imminent fear of death or serious injury in order to justify using force calculated to cause death or serious injury against an intruder. HB 189 removes that requirement by creating the presumption of that fear in certain situations, such as when a person is breaking in to your home. This bill protects citizens from frivolous tort actions brought by criminals and it is high time that Missouri adopted the Castle Doctrine. Kudos to Speaker Jetton for his efforts, and to the bill's sponsors, Reps Kenny Jones (R-117) and Marilyn Ruestman (R-131).

UPDATE:

As this is the first post of the baseball season (pitchers and catchers reported on February 15th) and I am still relishing the Cardinals' first World Series title of my lifetime, read and enjoy.

The Battle for the MDP

2007-02-14T12:45:00.000-05:00

The race for the chairmanship of the Missouri Democratic Party, a post recently vacated by Roger Wilson, (check that, former Governor Roger Wilson) is heating up. Wilson and Senator McCaskill appear to be in disagreement about Brandon Davis, who recently took a job as political director of the SEIU Missouri/Kansas City State Council not the job of executive director of the MDP. Reportedly, he was McCaskill's choice for the MDP job, but not Wilson's. However, lurking in the subtext of all of this is the divide between the remnants of the Carnahan faction, represented by Wilson and to a lesser extent McCaskill, and the Jay Nixon faction. Traditionally, the party's gubernatorial candidate has control over the state committee, and this would appear to be the case if McCaskill cannot get her own person appointed executive director. She is a United States Senator, after all.

The Source, one of Freesoiler's favorite Missouri blogs, reported recently that John Temporiti has the inside track on party chairman job. Nixon reportedly wants a chairman with ties to the African-American community. Now, it stands to reason that Davis, an African-American, has ties to the community. In reality, Nixon wants to assert his control over the state party by getting the chairman that he wants. Freesoiler blogged on this issue recently, and came to the conclusion that the MDP is, albeit unhappily, lining up behind Jay Nixon as the leader of the party. For better or worse, the direction of the state party is, at least for the next two years, tied to Nixon's gubernatorial ambitions.

--

And now, for the second installment of TWIFUA (This Week in FiredUp Absurdity), the craze that is sweeping the nation. FiredUp is apparently stalking Kansas City Mayoral candidate Becky Nace. Now that's classy. Isn't this the kind of thing that the FiredUp crowd regularly accuses Jeff Roe of and condemns him for, without providing any evidence to back up their accusations? Here, they've provided the incriminating evidence against themselves. "Howard Beale" is apparently not satisfied with a potential libel suit.

UPDATE - Jason Rosenbaum of the Columbia Daily Tribune is reporting that John Temporiti has indeed been elected Chairman of the MDP.

Blunt's Popularity

2007-02-07T13:48:00.001-05:00

Governor Matt Blunt is pretty unpopular. In fact, he's one of the least popular governors in America. At least, that seems to be the general consensus. If everyone says it, it must be true, right? The Democrats want Missourians to hear that Blunt is unpopular as much as possible, because it will eventually become true. People do not want to support someone that they think is terribly unpopular, because they will begin to believe that their fellow constituents must have a good reason for opposing them. It's sort of an "Emperor Has No Clothes" situation.

But upon what is this perception of Blunt based? The only polls that have been consistently published in the off years are from Survey USA, the most recent examples found here and here. These polls from January and December, respectively, have Blunt at 37% and 35% overall approval. If accurate, those are very bad numbers from an incumbent and spell trouble for the Gov. However, if you take a closer look at the sample, there are some potential problems. The most glaring issue is the party affiliation spread. The January and December polls both have a 10 point spread in favor of the Democrats, (39-29, 41-31). In fact, all the Survey USA polls dating back to August have a party affiliation spread favoring the Democrats of at least 6 points. What is the problem with this? Well, for example, if the spread on the December poll is to be believed as an accurate sample of the likely voters of Missouri, then Missouri is 31% Republican, 41% Democrat and 21% Independent, with 7% undecided I suppose. Now consider the fact that Missouri voted in 2004 53-46 on Bush-Kerry. So, the Independents and undecideds broke greater than 3 to 1 for Bush, a modestly popular (in 2004) incumbent? That isn't reasonable.

And yet, Freesoiler's Democratic colleagues such as the Arch City Chronicle cannot seem to understand why Blunt's people are so adamant that he is running for re-election. The fact is that there may be something to the Republican polls that show Blunt running much above these numbers, or even more popular than not. If Blunt's not running, then why are the Republicans touting these polls, or even commissioning them, if they know them to be unfairly biased for Blunt? What would be the purpose of pumping up someone who doesn't want to seek re-election? Freesoiler is a realist, and does not think that Blunt is somehow hugely popular right now. Nor do I put much stock in the consistently poorly sampled Survey USA polls that (shockingly) show Blunt in the tank. The Blunt administration should do more both to tout his growing popularity, and to continue growing it, because the Democrats are going to keep parroting these low numbers in the hopes that people will believe them.

Indictment-O-Rama

2007-01-31T13:41:00.001-05:00

Given the recent indictments,(Shields and Bowman ), it's a good thing that the Missouri Democrats didn't run on a self-righteous, "keep 'em honest," warmed-over populism platform in 2006. Oh wait. Anyway, Freesoiler for one hopes that Ms. Shields gets her pre-election trial. After all, the people of Kansas City have a right to know whether they're voting for a convicted criminal, or merely an accused criminal. Little details like that can make a big difference.

The frustration the MDP is feeling right now about the antics of Shields, Bowman, and their ilk, is probably compounded by the internal problems they're going through right now. The Party finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to stand smiling behind Jay Nixon as he launches his gubernatorial candidacy. Nixon doesn't really fit into any of the factions of the state Party, and yet, they find themselves having to support him as their best chance to retake the Governor's Mansion in 2008. The sudden departure of Roger Wilson as chairman is likely a symptom of this discomfort. Despite the fervent hopes of a similar implosion from Republicans, it's now pretty clear that Governor Blunt is going to seek re-election, a fact Freesoiler has been trying to pound home for some time now. As weak as the Democrats may think Blunt is, they've got to be nervously wringing their hands thinking about the whallopings Jay Nixon has taken when he tries to seek an office other than Attorney General. It's something of an interesting position. They've got one viable candidate, whom none of the factions of the party much like, whom nobody's really sure can win, and an opponent in Governor Blunt who is beginning to turn the corner after two difficult first years in office. Senator McCaskill is probably happy to spend some time in DC away from it all.

--

As an aside, Freesoiler would like to direct his readers' attention to a feature tentatively dubbed "This Week in FiredUp Absurdity." Since the departure of Roy Temple, FiredUp has turned into a somewhat disjointed, polemical mess. You don't like Matt Blunt, so you compare him to Kim Jong Il? And it's not just some silly joke, like they're both short. They're actually accusing him of using state agencies like a Communist country's Ministry of Information or something. FiredUp suffers from an all too common political ailment. They take what are perfectly valid points of view, and the occasional good point or legitimate news item, and masochistically bury it in garbage like this. Sure, it gets their fellow wingnuts all a-twitter, but it contributes nothing to the state of public discourse of which liberals so often mourn the downfall. Never thought I'd say this, but I miss ya, Roy.

Blunt's 2008 Plans

2007-01-24T13:38:00.000-05:00

Anyone who fashions themselves a Roy Temple-esque conspiracy theorist and thinks Matt Blunt will not seek re-election in 2008 should take a long, hard look at his comments to the Missouri School Boards Association yesterday. Blunt wants to increase funding for Missouri public schools by $214 million, with specific emphasis on improving math and science performance. Blunt also plans to ask the legislature to increase funding tonight in his State of the State. Why would he be making these big policy announcements unless he's trying to raise his positive public profile in anticipation of the 2008 cycle? Hopefully, Blunt will pepper his speech with other positive policy initiatives to raise his somewhat sagging poll numbers.

For whatever reason, Blunt's tenure in office has been bogged down by a number of different factors. However, if he plans to switch to re-election mode immediately, Blunt needs to accentuate the positive. Fewer things are less controversial with the average voter than money for schools. Every Missouri governor in my memory has proclaimed himself the "Education Governor" at one time or another. And with Jay Nixon conducting his own rival State of the State speech, Blunt is sure to need as much positive press as he can get. It's sure to be an interesting race between Blunt and Nixon. Jay Nixon has been running statewide since 1988, and for all intents and purposes, this is it for him. He's relinquishing his 16 year stranglehold on the Office of Attorney General to risk his political career on a bid for the Governor's Mansion. Nixon won't pull any punches. Neither should Blunt.

More on the Shield Law

2007-01-22T23:44:00.000-05:00

The Joplin Globe claims that legislators are going to cite a fear of a total privilege against testifying as their reason for opposing Sen. Graham's reporter shield law, SB 58. Now, I feel confident that our legislators can read, so they will be able to see that a judge can easily divest a journalist of the privilege against testifying. However, as Freesoiler outlined last time, there are many other good reasons to oppose this bill.

The Globe quickly outlines how this can happen, but then goes on to cite the fear of retaliation against "whistle blowers" as the reason for the law. Which is it? Either reporters can be easily divested of this privilege and forced to reveal the names of their sources, along with other unpublished materials, or this provides a "modicum of identity protection" for anonymous sources. The two are somewhat mutually exclusive. How can you be encouraged to blow the whistle if you know that any judge can force a reporter to reveal your name if he feels it is in the public interest to do so? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not arguing for a stronger law, I'm pointing out the problems with the Globe's argument. We should have no reporter shield law, for the reasons Freesoiler outlined last time.

The media have a vested interest in this issue, obviously. Voters should take that into account when reading their hand-wringing op-ed pieces about the free press. The interests of a free press are better served in the long run by stopping this wrong-headed, flimsy legislation.

Thanks to Jason Rosenbaum of the Trib for the link last time. Freesoiler will return Wednesday as scheduled.

In Other News, SB 58 Is Still Bad Public Policy

2007-01-17T13:57:00.000-05:00

State Senator Chuck Graham (D-19), is hopeful that the possible departure of Sen. Koster (R-31), who many speculate will seek statewide office in 2008, will make it possible to pass SB 58, a reporter shield law. Hopefully, he is mistaken, and not about Sen. Koster seeking statewide office.

The basic problem with reporter shield laws in general is that they amount to governmental licensing of reporters. Sen. Koster's point that the importance of courts being able to compel testimony outweighs the detriment to freedom of the press is well taken, but that is still a value judgment. He and I might think that, Jo Mannies and Steve Kraske would surely disagree. However, all four of us, and Americans in general, should be able to agree that the government should not be handing down judgments on who has the full freedom of the press and who does not. The most problematic part of this bill is found in Section 1(a). This is one of the three possible criteria that you must meet to be covered under this law. It reads that a person must "Publish, in either print or electronic form, a newspaper, book, magazine, pamphlet, or any other periodical..." No definition is given for "periodical." Is FiredUp a periodical? The Source? Freesoiler himself? It's nice that electronic media are included, but it seems to me that the government is still drawing a line in the sand and declaring that the people on this side get the full freedom of the press, and those on the other side do not. I concede that it bothers me to see reporters punished for refusing to reveal their sources, and I salute them for sticking to their principles. However, on principle it is clear to me that the potential harms to the free press greatly outweigh the benefits of this law.

Furthermore, the judge would be able to divest the journalist at issue of this privilege if the information is not required to be kept secret under other state or federal law, all other sources of the information have been exhausted, and the judge feels that "Disclosure of the information is essential to the protection of the public interest involved in the proceedings." This is a very discretionary standard, and the appeal of this divestiture would be equally discretionary. Not only is it bad policy, it's bad policy with no teeth. Any judge who feels that the public interest outweighs the privilege will revoke it.

Write your State Senator and tell them to oppose SB 58. The harms to the free press in the long run are greater than the possible benefits. Given the weakness of the language of this bill, a cynical person might say that Chuck Graham is just trying to get his name in the papers and cozy up to local journalists. And yes, you can disclose Freesoiler as your source on that.

Rumors and Speculation

2007-01-03T13:00:00.000-05:00

By looking at the kind of stuff they've been producing over the past few days, it's pretty reasonable to assume that someone has been messing with the water supplies of Missouri's politicos. So, Blunt is either bound for a meteoric rise to the White House or is going to commit political suicide by appointing himself to the Senate? Which is it, people? Actually, my personal favorite is the FiredUp reader who thinks he will appoint Andy Blunt to the Senate. Freesoiler finds it amusing that the FiredUp crowd is so quick to scoff at McClellan's speculation about Blunt in the White House, but has no trouble believing that there's even a chance he will appoint himself to the Senate. Of course, there's always the old favorite that he won't even run for re-election, and retire from public life at the ripe old age of 38.

In fairness to Bill McClellan, he makes some good points, and Freesoiler has always felt that Blunt is a pretty good candidate for the White House some day. However, speculation about 2012 is a little ridiculous at this point. Maybe we're all just bored after the elections and are looking for some crazy stories that just aren't there, such as Matt or Andy Blunt in the Senate. In any event, if Blunt has any national ambitions, re-election in 2008 is the first step. That means, among other things, turning the approval rating around and figuring out some solution to the Missouri Right to Life problem. These are real issues that we could be talking about, instead of imaginary ones.

Some Hypocritical Hand Wringing Over Judge Dierker

2006-12-27T12:54:00.000-05:00

Judge Robert Dierker, Jr's new book is causing something of a stir among the Missouri political chattering classes, due to what seems to be somewhat typical conservative political prose. I've not read His Honor's book, as it is not available yet, but it seems that it suffers from the same masochistic impulse that plagues the likes of Ann Coulter and other politicos, both conservative and liberal. An excerpt:

"Just as we saw with the femifascists, illiberal liberals don't want equality; they want to make some people more equal than others. And they've made it happen through their dominance of the courts over the past seventy-five years. Liberals have converted the courts from the 'least dangerous' branch of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers to the most dangerous."

I don't disagree with that statement. Liberals want to use the courts to accomplish policy goals that they cannot achieve either by referendum, because the people will not vote for them, or by legislation, because no one will stick out their neck to sponsor it. This fact is self-evident. Unfortunately, the Judge has buried this good point in terms like "femifascists" designed to get headlines and ultimately to sell books. The Judge admits as much when he says that the book has to be "polemical" in order to get attention. He may have miscalculated and gotten himself a few too many headlines, as his new book has people calling for his discipline or possible removal.

However, these folks should take a look at a judge on their side before getting too riled up about Judge Dierker. Judge Debra Carnahan, wife of Rep. Russ, spoke at an abortion rights rally in March. This rally was organized in protest to South Dakota's ban on abortion. I direct my readers to Canon 5 of the Missouri Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that "A judge shall not engage in any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice." Now, certainly, Judge Carnahan would argue that she was standing up for justice, because abortion on demand is the law of the land. However, Judge Dierker can make similar arguments, as he is arguing against what he sees as threats to the intended proper role of the judiciary. Admittedly, the Code of Judicial Conduct is somewhat vague. However, threatening Judge Dierker with discipline or removal from office is totally inappropriate when Judge Carnahan has faced nothing of the sort for similar activity. Either they're both violating the rules, or they're both fine.

A note on my protracted absence.

My readers may notice that this is Freesoiler's first post in almost a month. The relatively slower flow of political news after the elections and law school finals both contributed to this lack of posts. However, I hope to begin anew in 2007 with at least weekly posts. A belated Merry Christmas and an early Happy New Year to all.

Trouble in the House? Already?

2006-11-29T12:28:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, Speaker to be Nancy Pelosi announced that she would not appoint Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings to be Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Hastings's candidacy suffered from allegations stemming from his tenure as a federal judge in the 1980s. Hastings was accused of bribery and perjury and, though acquitted in a criminal trial, he was impeached by the House by a vote of 413-3, including votes for impeachment from Pelosi, Majority Leader to be Steny Hoyer, and Hastings's Congressional Black Caucus colleagues John Conyers and Charlie Rangel. He was later convicted by a Senate committee and removed from office.

While Hastings's response to this snub has been measured, other than referring to his opponents as "haters," this incident is symbolic of a growing number of divisions in a Democratic House that has yet to be sworn in. To be fair to Pelosi, there was no way she could appoint Hastings to this position. With all their talk about ethics, she would take far too much flak for it. However, Pelosi was in this Hastings mess in the first place because she passed over the ranking member, fellow California Democrat Jane Harman. There may be good reasons for that snub as well: Harman's membership in the committee is about to expire, and she may have her own ethical concerns. However, these reasons are seen by many as a smokescreen being used by Pelosi to shut out the moderate Democrats. Harman is a moderate, somewhat hawkish Democrat from LA County, and this is believed to be a sticking point with Pelosi, who has been sharply critical of the Bush administration.

This whole Intelligence Committee drama is unfolding with the undertones of the recent House majority leader election. Pelosi backed antiwar Congressman John Murtha, who had ethical concerns at least comparable to Hastings's, and he was defeated by the more moderate Steny Hoyer by a wide margin. While there was no question that Pelosi would be Speaker since it became apparent that the Democrats could take the House, she should have no delusions of ruling the chamber with an iron gavel. The large number of moderate Democrats that were already in the House, and those that were elected to Republican seats will be a force that can't be ignored. For her sake, Freesoiler hopes Pelosi realizes that she won't get anywhere by angering the moderates and the Congressional Black Caucus on a regular basis. But I rather hope she doesn't.

In other news, Bill Frist is the last person to learn that he won't be President in 2008.

A Step in the Right Direction (No Pun Intended)

2006-11-15T13:46:00.000-05:00

By a reportedly razor thin margin, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) made a triumphant return to Senate leadership today, defeating Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Flannel) for the job of Minority Whip. The man Lott replaces, Mitch McConnell, ran unopposed for Minority Leader. You may recall Lott stepping down as Majority Leader after some boneheaded remarks about Strom Thurmond a few years back. More recently, Senator Lott's generations old family home in Mississippi was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. There was some speculation after that that Lott would not even seek a fourth term. Conservatives around the country, commence sigh of relief now.

While some Republican pundits are proclaiming Blue Tuesday as a sign that we need to moderate, I cannot agree with that sentiment. As you look around at the various Senate races that were pickups for the Democrats, you won't see a triumph for liberalism. In Virginia, George Allen lost by a small margin to Jim Webb, a former Republican whose only reason for switching parties was the Iraq war. Furthermore, Allen's gaffes probably put Webb over the top. The blogosphere that hopped on board the Webb bandwagon is going to be in for a seriously rude awakening when they realize that Webb is still basically a Republican. Webb himself will probably wonder what he was thinking when he finds himself lunching with his new buddies like Ted Kennedy and Socialist Bernie Sanders. In Pennsylvania, uber-con Rick Santorum was defeated by moderate, pro-life Democrat Bob Casey. In Montana, Conrad Burns was haunted by scandal and still lost by a small margin to State Senator Jon Tester. I know very little about Tester's politics, but I doubt he's much of a liberal. Even in Tennessee, where the Republicans held a seat, they replaced outgoing Majority Leader Frist with a much more conservative Bob Corker. Corker was able to defeat a very moderate and appealing Democrat in Harold Ford, Jr. Of course, Missouri is the exception to this rule. While I'm sure Roy Temple would have you believe that Claire McCaskill is a centrist, she's not. Wait and see.

So what does this have to do with the distinguished gentleman for Mississippi? Lott is an old school Republican who has the experience not only to keep the caucus in line, but get as much done as is possible from the minority. He will make an excellent second in command to McConnell. McConnell himself will be light years better than Frist as a leader. The voters removed the Republicans from power not due to any major ideological shift in the nation, but due to the lack of results Congress produced. When they first took over in 1994, the Republicans stuck to their guns and forced Clinton to work with them, passing welfare reform and other important bills. Over the years, the party became stagnant and needed a jolt to remind them why they are in Congress in the first place. McConnell and Lott, coupled with the likely elections of Mike Pence and John Shadegg as House Minority Leader and Whip on Friday, should bring the new blood we need to the face of the party in Congress. Unfortunately, this "new blood" has been there all along, and we couldn't feel how weak the pulse was.

Freesoiler: Butchering metaphors since 1984.

Midterm Recap

2006-11-08T13:00:00.000-05:00

There's no spinning this one. Last night's election results were a resounding defeat for the Republicans. Though the implications will be far reaching, don't be fooled by the overstatements that are inherent to our talking-head news culture. Regardless of the bold predictions that are sure to be made, this is not the death of conservatism or of the Republican Party.

First, some good news. Freesoiler would like to extend his congratulations to Shane Schoeller, who cruised to victory in the race for the Missouri House's 139th district. Representative-Elect Schoeller is a good man, a solid conservative, and has the experience to understand how public policy is formed. He's a good friend to this blog and will serve his district well.

Missouri will miss Jim Talent, both as a good man and a good Senator. He had the misfortune of being a casualty of a bad national climate for the Republicans. Give credit to Claire McCaskill; she was able to over-perform in rural districts compared to how she did against Governor Blunt in 2004. Congratulations and best of luck to her. Thanks to Jim Talent and all my friends on his staff for their hard work for Missouri and steadfast dedication to their principles.

Missourians approved Amendment 2 to allow for human cloning for stem cell research. This spells trouble both in principle and politically. First, the constitutionally protects human cloning, which is both bad public policy and morally wrong. Politically, this could be trouble for Governor Blunt in 2008. A supporter of Amendment 2, Governor Blunt should theoretically be celebrating Amendment 2's victory. Missouri Right to Life is likely to bring its own Amendment to "define" human cloning that would be aimed at weakening Amendment 2. The debate will be sharper, and that won't be good for Governor Blunt, since the pro-life vote will be turned it in force by, you guessed it, his adversaries at Missouri Right to Life.

I won't bore you with any Pollyanna-esque "let's work together" rhetoric. With the exception of Senator Talent and others, this Republican majority is no more because of their inability to deliver what their constituents wanted while in the majority. There's certainly no reason for conservatives to expect more from the Democrats. If the Republicans can listen to this wake-up call to return to the principled conservatism that gained them the majority in the first place, they'll be fine. If not, we might look back on 2006 as we look at 1994 and other watershed elections.

Ballot Initiatives Galore

2006-11-01T12:59:00.000-05:00

In addition to the major races for US Senate and State Auditor, Missouri voters face some important decisions on ballot initiatives.

Proposition B

This initiative will raise Missouri's state minimum wage to $6.50, and will adjust it yearly according to the Consumer Price Index. Now, intuitively, that should jump out at you as bad public policy. Yes, the minimum wage will ultimately be raised, and that should happen eventually. However, we shouldn't vote to raise it indefinitely, which is what this will do. Businesses aren't going to want to come to a state where the minimum wage is going up every year. For some more information regarding the potential problems with Prop B, check out this podcast. Obviously, this is an interest group's podcast, but they raise some very important questions about Prop B.

Constitutional Amendment 3

This is a tax on cigarettes. Don't be fooled by any of the "Healthy Future Trust Fund" nonsense. It's just another tax on cigarettes. Will they put the money to good use? Maybe. I'm not convinced by any of this "lockbox" talk. If you want to reduce tobacco use, prevent your kids from smoking. We already have warning labels and multi-billion dollar judgments against the tobacco companies, we don't need another tax to reduce tobacco use.

Constitutional Amendment 2

Ah yes. The big one. This amendment has been touted as a number of different things, ranging from a ban on cloning to an initiative for "lifesaving cures." If you read the full text of the amendment, you will find that it does ban reproductive cloning. In other words, cloning to produce baby from a pregnancy carried to term. So far, that seems to be the only thing about stem cell research upon which everyone agrees. For now, at least. So, to that extent, it is accurate to say that Amendment 2 "bans cloning."

However, the amendment goes on to say that "No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research." The definition of "blastocyst" the amendment uses is "a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus." Since it makes a distinction between a blastocyst produced by fertilization and one produced by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), it would be legal to produce blastocysts solely for research, but only by SCNT. The problem with that is this; SCNT is cloning. This is the exact process scientists have used to clone animals, most famously Dolly the sheep. We can debate what rights a blastocyst should have until the sheep come home, but there is no question that a blastocyst is a form of human life. We were all blastocysts at some point after conception but before uterine implantation. After that, it's simply a matter of development. Again, so there is no misunderstanding Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is human cloning. It's not cloning to produce a pregnancy to term, but don't be fooled into thinking this amendment bans cloning.

If you consider yourself to be pro-life, e.g. believing life begins at conception, you cannot support this amendment. If you're not pro-life, then I'm not going to try to convince you, because we would be operating from different premises. This issue has been fraught with some pretty wild rhetoric on both sides, and that's unfortunate. Read up on SCNT, and read the full text of the amendment. Don't cast an important vote because Jeff Suppan was the NLCS MVP or because Michael J. Fox says you can help cure him.