Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Why John Eligon's New York Times profile of Mike Brown isn't as bad as many people think

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I certainly understand why so many people are upset about certain aspects of John Eligon's article on Mike Brown in the Times, specifically the use of the phrase "no angel" and, well, basically all of this:

Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor. 

And initially I was upset about it as well. Because, honestly, what does any of this have to do with this young man's murder at the hands of the police of Ferguson, Missouri?

Absolutely nothing.

And yet, I think there's been a good deal of over-reaction to this article, understandable, perhaps, in such a highly-charged atmosphere. Because, really, the article is a comprehensive profile of Brown, not some hit job on Fox News. And if you're going to write an honest profile of who this young man was, you can't leave out some parts of who he was, or what he did, just because they don't make him out to be a saint.

And, further, just because he wasn't a saint doesn't mean what happened to him was just -- and wasn't murder. What the police did was wrong no matter who the victim was. The victim just happened to be Mike Brown.

Read more »

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 06, 2013

The Missouri 8th stays Republican

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, no one is surprised by this, but Missouri state Rep. Jason Smith, R-Salem, won a special election earlier in the week over fellow state Rep. Steve Hodges, D-East Prairie, to replace U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson in the Missouri 8th. Emerson left in January after easily winning reelecting in November to become the CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperation Association, a Washington, D.C. trade group.

The Democrat in this race was a pretty right-wing guy, as you would expect in this part of the country. Hodges is pro-life and pro-gun rights, though local press reports say he combines that "with more traditional Democratic positions in favour of protecting social security, Medicare and the safety net."

Smith, soon to be Rep. Smith, ran a campaign on national issues like repealing ObamaCare.

Whatever the candidates ran on, this House seat has been Republican for 32 years and wasn't going to change hands this time.

Former Rep. Emerson looks interesting, though. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted:
Jo Ann Emerson was viewed as a moderate in Congress. Though she enjoyed permanent popularity at the polls, it was clear that her district had shifted her right in recent years. She bucked her party on issues like her support of embryonic stem cell research and her vote to withdraw troops from Iraq. During the district's GOP vetting process for a replacement nominee last spring, one candidate after another vowed to move the district's seat further right.

Oh, well, another robot for Boehner.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Friday, May 10, 2013

Behind the Ad: The other special House election -- in Missouri's 8th Congressional District


(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)


Who: The Jason Smith campaign.

Where: Missouri's 8th Congressional District

What's going on: Jo Ann Emerson resigned her House seat back in January of this year. She did that to take a job as president and CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. The election to replace her is on June 4.

The reason you may not have heard about this election is that it is in one of reddest congressional districts in America. Ms. Emerson won the seat in 2012 by a 72 to 25 percent margin. On February 9, 2013, per Missouri statute, Jason Smith was selected by the 8th District Republican Central Committee to be the Republican candidate in the June special election.


He is also the Missouri state House Speaker Pro Tem.


Democrats have nominated Bootheal Region state Rep. Steve Hodges. Charlie Cook notes that Emerson resigned at a time that might have made this election concurrent with municipal elections and therefore helped with turnout. In a very Republican state that would obviously help the Republican. But Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon decided to push it to June where it will stand alone and presumably result in lower turnout, which could aid Hodges.


It may also give Hodges time to define the election in terms of personality and not party, because if it's about party, its over for the Democrats. As Cook writes, Smith would have to show some pretty glaring deficiencies to lose. 


So, that's why you haven't heard about this one, unless you live in Missouri. 



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Todd Akin sort of says he might possibly make a potential political comeback

By Richard K. Barry

In an interview with KDSK-TV in Missouri, former Senate candidate Todd Akin (R) said that a political comeback is possible. You'll recall Akin of the "legitimate rape" comment, which destroyed a campaign that might otherwise have easily defeated Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill. 

To refresh your memory, the comment was, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."


Within days of the comment, some in the Republican leadership lobbied to get him to drop out, but to no avail. McCaskill defeated Akin by 15.5 percent. 


Since then, Republican Karl Rove has started a new PAC to try to prevent candidates like Akin from running for the GOP. To that Akin replied, "Karl Rove has made himself and expert. I think I lost one race. He managed to lose about 12 of them in one night." He added that Rove spent an estimated $175 million with nothing to show for it. 


No love lost there. 


Akin cites a number of future activities that might keep him busy, including, academia, public speaking, and even politics.

"It's one of those things that depends on the circumstances really. I don't rule anything out," he said. " I consider it a bright new future and I'm interested to see what the possibilities are."

In truth, the interview was hardly an announcement that he expected to make a political comeback. It was more of a statement from a man badly beaten down that he would like to think he could make a comeback if he wanted to. 

That's a different question. 

You can see the full interview here.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Bedside story


In this day and age, this is just sad.
A gay man was arrested at a hospital in Missouri this week when he refused to leave the bedside of his partner, and now a restraining order is preventing him from any type of visitation.

Roger Gorley told WDAF that even though he has power of attorney to handle his partner’s affairs, a family member asked him to leave when he visited Research Medical Center in Kansas City on Tuesday.

Gorley said he refused to leave his partner Allen’s bedside, and that’s when security put him in handcuffs and escorted him from the building.

“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley explained.

He said the nurse refused to confirm that the couple shared power of attorney and made medical decision for each other.

“She didn’t even bother to look it up, to check in to it,” the Lee’s Summit resident recalled.

It’s also a violation of the law. In 2010, President Obama signed an order that required any facility that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding to allow visitation rights to same-sex partners of patients. In this case it sounds like the hospital got caught in the middle of a family feud.

There is a happy ending: according to JMG, Mr. Gorley has been allowed to return to the hospital to visit his husband.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Behind the Ad: Sen. Claire McCaskill goes after crazy Todd Akin

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 


Who: Sen. Claire McCaskill's campaign.

Where: Missouri.

What's going on: Todd Akin, whom many Republicans want to just go away, has decided to stay in the race for the Missouri Senate seat. Now that the deadline has passed for him to get out, incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill is on the attack with a new ad.

It's a compendium of hardcore right-wing statements made by Akin, including reference to the "legitimate rape" comment.

Once upon a time, McCaskill would have been hard-pressed to keep this seat. But I can't imagine Akin could be competitive with so much of his party disowning him. All I can say is that if something goes terribly wrong and he wins this seat, it will be a sad day for the country.

By the way, I notice that the homepage on McCaskill's campaign website announces that "TODD AKIN IS OFFICIALLY CLAIRE'S OPPONENT," all in caps. Someone's happy.



(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Todd Akin makes it official. He's in to stay.


Pathetic. Just pathetic.

The crazy man running for Senate in Missouri under the GOP banner, Todd Akin, is staying in the race. You'll recall that Akin got in a heap of trouble by trying to distinguish between legitimate rape and that other kind. 


A bunch of media types showed up at an Akin's press conference in St. Louis yesterday thinking he might throw in the towel at the 11th hour, but that was simply not to be:


"I was given a trust" in the August Republican primary that put him on the ballot, Akin told about 200 enthusiastic supporters in a ballroom at the downtown Renaissance. "...A number of people have asked me, 'Are you quitting?'... I don't believe that is really my decision."

He added, to heavy cheering from the crowd: "I have a purpose going into November and that's to replace Claire McCaskill."

This won't make his own party very happy. Everyone from Mitt Romney on down pressed him to get out so he wouldn't do any more damage to the brand, but it seems old Todd is his own man. Stupid bastard.

How extreme do you have to be when this version of the GOP thinks you're too far out there?

It's a very conservative state, Missouri, and Akin could still win. That's true. But it won't do the rest of the Republican Party a lot of good to defend his Neanderthal views for the next several weeks, though I doubt it will have that much impact on the rest of the country.

Go, Claire, Go!

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Friday, August 24, 2012

A new poll has Todd Akin way behind


By Richard K. Barry

If you haven't seen it, a Rasmussen poll just came out showing Sen. Claire McCaskill in front of disgraced GOP challenger Todd Akin in the Missouri Senate race by a margin of 48 to 38 percent. In fact, most Missourians simply want Akin to quit the race, although most Democrats want him to stay in.

What's the best indicator that it might be time for Akin to get out? Could that be when voters who want him to lose are thrilled he might be staying in?

To put things in perspective, Rasmussen had McCaskill behind in early August by 3 points.

One anomaly, though, is that Akin has seen a fundraising surge due to the controversy. Of course, being a national media lightening rod may help with the fundraising, but not actually at the polls.

As for how this could impact the top of the ticket in Missouri come November, Nate Silver had an interesting piece that suggested Republican voters might sit out the election altogether. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney has a large enough cushion in the state pretty much to guarantee he'll take it anyway.

Too bad this didn't happen in Florida, Virginia, or Ohio. But don't get me wrong, this has been a nice gift all the same.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Akin's in it to win it


(Ed. note: Of course, this Republican opposition to Akin is just posturing. They're doing it because he's made himself toxic and is polluting the Republican brand. (Akin is, or at least was, well up in the polls and might still win this thing, though it will be more difficult without overt party support.) And of course all these Republicans want him to win. And if he does, he'll just move his extremism from one house to the other, settling in comfortably with his new senatorial colleagues. And this will all be a thing of the past, one more example of Republican craziness blending in with all the rest. -- MJWS)

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) is staying in the Missouri Senate race despite calls from every Republican in and out of office to get the hell out for speaking plainly about the party's stand on life and women:

Mitt Romney, the GOP's presidential standard-bearer, joined a broad chorus of Republicans urging Akin to step aside for the good of his party. "Todd Akin's comments were offensive and wrong, and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country," Romney said.

But after two days of apologizing, Akin grew angry Tuesday, allowing a deadline to pass on an easier way to withdraw from the contest. The congressman made clear that he would not apologize for his belief that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape.

"I misspoke one word in one sentence in one day," he said on a radio talk show hosted by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. "I haven't done anything that's morally and ethically wrong."

[...]

Immediately after his appearance on Huckabee's show, party leaders who had been sending Akin signals to quit the race left no doubt about where they stood.

"When the future of our country is at stake, sorry is not sufficient. To continue serving his country in the honorable way he has served throughout his career, it is time for Congressman Akin to step aside," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

A few hours later, Romney issued his statement calling on Akin to drop out. He was followed by Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who reaffirmed plans to abandon a $5 million campaign for Akin. "If he continues with this misguided campaign, it will be without the support and resources of the NRSC," said Brian Walsh, an NRSC spokesman.

And he blamed the liberal media for all of his troubles, of course. That would include Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

The real liberal media would much rather Mr. Akin stay in the race; he's the poster child for the Republican Party's pro-life stand. After all, they've just adopted a plank in their platform that calls for a constitutional amendment to grant personhood status to a one-celled organism and no abortions at all ever.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Akin is the most honest spokesman the GOP has. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

New Republican reality show: Real World GOP Agenda 2012


I never thought I would see this day, but it's beautiful. Sadly, I am sure it will pass without so much as a memory of the amazing opportunity that has fallen into the laps of Democrats. Of course, I am referring to the monstrous comments by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) about "legitimate rape." If ever there was a reality show for the GOP, this is it.

Will Democrats f**k this up? Of course they will. Why? Because somehow Dems have become known as the party of civility. Why is this? And why do we embrace it? Why can't we just be the party of facts and intelligence and leave civility at the f**king door? This is politics, is it not? When has politics known civility?

Let's face facts: Republicans are falling over themselves to kick this Akin monster to the curb. FOX tried to deflect and deflate, and even doubled down:

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and onetime Republican presidential candidate, opined that although rapes are "horrible tragedies," they sometimes produce amazing people.

Seriously, that's a real quote. Problem is Mike, everyone is looking at Akin, and perhaps you too, as a monster. So much so that Republicans are running from this guy faster than Sean Hannity after receiving a draft notice in the mail. Even Rush Limbaugh, RUSH F**king LIMBAUGH!, is running away from his comments. Meanwhile, Democrats are begging Akin to stay in the race.

This is big! Really big! Akin exposed the real Republican agenda and it was broadcast across the airwaves for all to hear, and goddamn, it was horrific!

Make no mistake, what we all heard Todd Akin say about rape, and his definition of it therein, was just another day in the life of a Republican in today's GOP. These are extreme people who will do anything to get elected, people with views so extreme they may actually be fascist, as opposed to the lip service paid to President Obama about his being some kind of socialist. It is manipulation of the highest order, where up is down, welfare is for lazy people, guns are for our own good, and the government should get out of our lives – except in cases of rape, gays marrying, blacks voting, and making sure Mexicans don't shovel our shit, pick our fruit, or mow our lawns.

The bottom line is that Todd Akin went way off message with the real agenda of the GOP in 2012 and it has threatened their whole plan to re-take the Senate and, god forbid, the White House.

Jobs? LOL!

Abortion has been the GOP's agenda even since taking back the House in 2010. Is anyone still dumb enough to believe that Republicans want to help, that they want to give people a decent wage, that they want to keep our taxes low or put us back to work with affordable health care? Did eight years of W. even happen in these people's universe? Did the last four years, with its record obstructionism by this Congress?

Is ignorance bliss or is it just plain ignorance?

Republicans don't want a minimum wage, they don't want to pay for infrastructure projects or green initiatives, they don't want public schools, and they don’t want the EPA. Last I checked, these were places where jobs existed and people benefitted from them.

So what do they want? They want private schools, private prisons, war with Iran, fracking, and lower taxes for themselves while the rest of us pick up the slack. Republicans care nothing for "we the people." Todd Akin and the collective Republican freakout that is happening right now proves it.

If Akin stays in the race, they have to support a crazy man. They have to take 100% claim of the Tea Party as nothing more than the GOP's insane cousin on steroids. They have to take responsibility for a man who blatantly spilled the beans about how the GOP feels about women's rights and their disdain for separation of church and state. And they claim the Constitution actually means something. Ha!

Republicans are not shocked by what Akin said. They support it! But it's less than three months before the election and this is supposed to be about the economy and imaginary jobs. That is what their talking points dictate. No diversions!

You think Republicans are surprised by Todd Akin, as if they didn't know his extreme views? Don't make me come over there and slap you. You can't be that dumb!

Media, Democrats, Tweeters, anyone out there who can help get the message out... please... Todd Akin is the Republican Party and they want him out because he pulled the curtain away and the rug out from under them and both have been blown away in his sh*t storm. He said rape when he should have said jobs, economy, and evil Obama. He let slip what Republicans are really all about and all they will focus on if re-elected.

So please, before their Death Star is operational again, before independents go back to not paying attention, get in there with your star fighters and let's blow this thing and go home. There is a very, very small window to do this and the response must be spot on or it will ricochet off the side. And don't be expecting the Millennium Falcon to swoop in at the last minute, because it ain't coming. It's all you.

Surely we must have a Luke Skywalker with the force to get this done. Is it Obama? Lando? He may be the best we have. To that I say, Mr. President, you may fire when ready. Just don't turn off your targeting computer just yet. Obi Wan may be one of them.

(Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 20, 2012

The Family Research Council is "helping" Todd Akin


Yes, Mr. Perkins. Let's make this election about
social conservatism. Smile!

I'll bet Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan didn't need their good friends over at the Family Research Council (FRC) coming to the defence of disgraced GOP Missouri Senate nominee Todd Akin, now infamous for his comments about "legitimate rape" and abortion. Too bad, because that's what they've done. According to CNN, the group, one of the most prominent conservative organizations in the country, has said this whole thing is nothing but a Democratic smear.

According to Connie Mackay, head of the group's political action committee:

We feel this is a case of gotcha politics. [Akin] has been elected five times in that community in Missouri. They know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is. We've worked with him up on the hill. He's a defender of life.

Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here. I don't know anything about the science or the legal implications of his statement. I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it.

Why am I not surprised that a spokesperson for a conservative Christian group admits to knowing nothing about science? Sorry, but Todd Akin is getting the break he deserves.

Interesting that the Family Research Council has chosen their targets carefully. On the one hand, they've blasted Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown for saying Akin should step down, and, on the other, have shied away from criticizing Mitt Romney, who has also denounced Akin, calling his comments "inexcusable."

According to FRC President Tony Perkins:

The Romney campaign as well as now Paul Ryan have made very clear where they stand in the issue of life. We are not going to allow people to divide conservative voters in this process. We are going to keep our eye on the big picture.

I guess Brown, a Republican in a very liberal state, who sometimes acts like it, is not allowed to criticize Akin, but Romney and Ryan are. Yep, that's keeping your eye on the big picture.

Please, by all means, keep on "helping" Republicans.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Craziest Republican of the Day: Todd Akin, Missouri GOP Senate candidate


No, you can't fix stupid. But you really don't
have to vote him in. 

If you are like me and you do a lot of casual scanning of websites and blog aggregators, it sometimes happens that you are sure you read something wrong, that what you thought you saw couldn't possibly be what was said. But there it was, a TPM headline that read: "Republican Senate Nominee: Victims of 'Legitimate Rape' Don't Get Pregnant": 

Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of "legitimate rape" have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy. 

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare," Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

That's what he said. I know. I had to read it over a few times myself. TPM added this little bit of information, just because some of us actually believe in science:
A 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found "rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency" and is "a cause of many unwanted pregnancies" — an estimated "32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year."

The scariest part is that the PollTracker Average shows Akin ahead of McCaskill by a margin of 49.7 percent to 41.3 percent.

Come on you Missouri Republicans, this isn't about one's personal beliefs about reproductive rights. This is about the fact that you have yourselves one monumentally stupid candidate.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Behind the Ad: Outside money in the Missouri Senate race

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The re-election campaign of Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill

Where: Missouri

What's going on:
One of most important stories of the 2012 campaign season is the massive amount of third-party money that will be spent to influence electoral outcomes in local races. The right has taken to the new rules in grand fashion and, if the 2010 midterms are any indication, expect a good return on their investment.

The Sunday New York Times this weekend ran an editorial about incumbent Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill and what she is likely to be up against.

To her credit, she is taking the issue of Super-PAC money head on. As the Times writes:

“They’re not from around here, spending millions to attack and attack,” said one of her recent commercials, showing clips from the opposing ads that have become ubiquitous in her state. “But what they’re doing to Claire McCaskill is nothing compared to what their special-interest agenda will do to you.”


The amount of money involved is staggering.
It will be an uphill fight. Republican interest groups are outspending Ms. McCaskill and other Missouri Democrats by a 7-to-1 ratio; Ms. McCaskill herself is being outspent by 3 to 1. Though she has raised nearly $10 million, the amount could be dwarfed by the unlimited money at the disposal of Republican-oriented groups.


Maybe McCaskill has hit on a good approach, loudly complaining that people who are "not from around here" are trying to tell us what to do. As an aside, the right-wing is pretty funny this way. They complain that they don't want big government telling them what to do, but they don't seem to mind big corporate money doing it.

There is little that bores the average voter more than campaign finance rules, and, as important as these are, most see them as "process issues" of little consequence. That's too bad.

I haven't given this a lot of thought, but could a case be made to actually ban campaign donations that came from outside the state where they were being applied? There are rules on foreign money in U.S. elections, why not rules on "non-local" money?

I know there can be different rules for federal elections (i.e., U.S. Senate and House) vs. state and local races, but outside money for even federal elections is going to be a continuing problem. Wouldn't it be nice if our federal representatives actually spoke for the people who voted for them instead of the outside money that got them elected?

It's been interesting that Sen. Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts have agreed to curtail outside money in their contest. Clearly the wisdom of this is being considered.

Maybe this has been discussed and rejected for all sorts of reasons. It makes a certain kind of sense to me, though. And I do know that there is a long history to campaign finance rules in America, I just want to keep talking about it so we don't ever forget that these things can be changed. What we have done, we can undo.

Of course, the biggest problem to changing the rules is that you would be asking the same people who benefit from the current scheme to change it. Now, that wouldn't be hard, would it?

Here's the McCaskill ad:





(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Live-blogging the 2012 primary/caucus votes in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado: Santorum surging, Newt collapsing, Romney hanging on


UPDATED FREQUENTLY.

9:45 pm - Yes, more live-blogging, as for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada. I'm late getting to it because I'm as congested as Rick's sexual repression and have a headache the size of Newt's ego, and with such ailments I care as much this evening about the Republican nomination for president as Mitt does about the poor (or as Ron cares about government). But the show must go on, as they say...

Okay, okay, okay...
Just a little pinprick
There's be no more ahhhhhh...
But you may feel a little sick

9:51 pm - With caucuses (caucuseses?) in Minnesota and Colorado and a non-binding primary in Missouri, it's looking like a big night for Santorum.

9:53 pm - Here's where things stand right now: 

Missouri (37% reporting): Santorum 55, Romney 25, Paul 12, Gingrich not on the ballot. (Results here. It's been called for Santorum, as you might expect.)

Minnesota (13% reporting): Santorum 43, Paul 27, Romney 17, Gingrich 12. (Results here.)

It's really early in Colorado (just 1% reporting), but it's Santorum 50, Gingrich 21, Romney 19, Paul 10. (Results here.)

10:03 pm - Why is Missouri holding a non-binding vote? ABC News explains:

Thanks to in-state political disputes and a slow-moving legislature, today's Missouri presidential primary has been reduced to an afterthought.

Most presidential candidates have ignored the contest, which will not affect any of the state's 52 GOP delegates. Newt Gingrich will not be on the ballot, having made no attempt to qualify. Anyone looking for competition between the race's two poll leaders should look elsewhere.

The state party, meanwhile, didn't even want the primary to happen.

That's because today's vote won't be the main event: Missouri will hold caucuses on March 17, where voters will begin the process of selecting and allocating delegates. Today's primary is a vestige of state law that Missouri's GOP-controlled legislature failed to change.

Consequently, Rick Santorum is the only presidential candidate paying much attention today.

In other words, The Show-Me State is showing us how ridiculous it is. Or, rather, the state's Republicans are showing us how ridiculous they are.

And yet, the vote certainly means something. Santorum may be the only one who cared enough to pay much attention, but a "win" there today will boost his credibility as a serious alternative to Romney, particularly with Gingrich not on the ballot and not likely to do well in Minnesota and Colorado. And, indeed, the story will be that he won. A three-for-three sweep today would certainly shift the narrative significantly.

10:09 pm - And so, as you can imagine, the Romney campaign has tried to lower expectations:

"Of course, there is no way for any nominee to win first place in every single contest -- John McCain lost 19 states in 2008, and we expect our opponents to notch a few wins too," Romney's political director, Rich Beeson, wrote in a memo for reporters.

True enough, but Romney won both Minnesota and Colorado in 2008, when he was the leading conservative alternative to McCain, and losses in one or both would slow down his momentum, if not grind it to a halt, not least because the media are likely to start talking up Santorum again. (The media want drama. We all do. Just not Romney.) And losses tonight, two or three of them, would be a reminder of just how unpopular he is with much, if not most, of the Republican Party. Sure, these are caucuses that tend to attract hardcore partisans, that is, voters more favorable to the socially conservative Santorum and the libertarian Paul than to the more establishmentarian Romney, but a genuinely strong frontrunner wouldn't be performing so weakly at this stage of the race.

10:17 pm - Ah, Richard is joining us. Good evening, my friend.

RKB: The CNN pundit panel is suggesting that the reason Santorum is doing well is that Romney and Gingrich are beating the shit out of each other, leaving Santorum relatively unscathed.

It was also suggested that the CNN interview in which Romney said that he wasn't worried about the poor is having a significant impact. It's hard to know what is doing the damage, but I'm going with the thought that Romney is a very unattractive character and people don't like being told that he's the inevitable nominee. It's a revolt of sort, is my guess.

10:18 pm - And more:

RKB: If Romney loses Colorado, I think things may actually change. Romney desperately needs both Gingrich and Santorum to stay in. If either is allowed to go one-on-one with Romney, this could get interesting.

However unpalatable Santorum may be to the mushy middle of the electorate because of his extreme social conservatism, he's been coming across as the only candidate with any real integrity. Hard to believe. Another sign of how weak the field is.

This dynamic is great for Obama. We are now going to be talking about how weak Romney is instead of Obama's flip-flop on Super PACs and his battle with the Catholic church, etc. Maybe another couple of months of putting off having the GOP focus on Obama.

10:24 pm - While Romney emerged from Florida and then Nevada as the clear frontrunner and likely nominee, his overall national support has actually declined over the past month according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. He's now at just 29, eight points ahead of second-place Paul, with Gingrich at 19 and Santorum at 18 (surging up from 13). Clearly, Romney remains an extremely weak frontrunner. Just imagine how a strong conservative candidate (what we thought Perry might be, or even Pawlenty) would be doing. What's keeping Romney afloat and in the lead is not just money and organization but the weakness of the rest of the field.

10:48 pm - No surprise. Santorum's got Minnesota, too. With 35% reporting, he's up 46 to 27 over Paul, with Romney at 16 and Gingrich, poor old Gingrich, at 11.

10:50 pm - Very close in Colorado. With 11% reporting, Romney and Santorum are tied at 37 (359 to 357 for Romney), with Gingrich at 17 and Paul at 9.

Need I mention once again that these caucuses are decided by a tiny sliver of the electorate? They may reflect the sort of town-square democracy that works, more or less, in small city-states, such as there used to be in the ancient world and in Jefferson's imaginings, but they're not exactly democratic in any modern sense.

10:56 pm - With Santorum speaking, let me turn it over to Richard:

RKB: Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but is it possible that Santorum will be perceived as "presidential" enough for the GOP base?

The other thing is that Santorum will be able to raise some serious money in the short term.

I'm watching Santorum speak now. Success in politics is a funny thing, Presenting strength and graciousness in victory is a particular kind of skill. We'll see how Santorum does.

He's reaching out to real conservatives in his speech. Very interesting. In a lot of ways he is a real Tea Party candidate. He could carry the spirit of the 2010 midterms better than the rest. He's going with the right-wing populist thing. This could work in the short term.

Yes, Santorum is the real anti-Romney. Gingrich tried to paint himself as a populist against Romney, but that was a joke. Santorum is a better fit for this argument.

11:33 pm - Santorum's opened up a solid lead in Colorado. With 28% reporting, he's up 41 to 31 over Romney. But these being caucuses, the votes are coming in irregularly from different parts of the state at different times. Santorum's doing well in the southern and eastern parts of the state, while Romney's doing well in the Denver suburbs, but there's nothing yet from Denver (where Romney should do very well) or El Paso County (Colorado Springs).

RKB: I like Ari Fleischer's comment that Santorum looked and sounded like an excited school boy in his speech and not at all presidential. I think that's about right. However well Santorum did today, he's got a long way to go before he looks the part. My guess is that it won't happen.

11:37 pm - The sweater vests don't help. He looks (and sounds) more Flanders-ish than presidential.

11:39 pm - And yet, there's no denying he's come a long, long way. Think back to when he got crushed in the 2006. It looked like the self-righteous, moralizing extremist was done, and I remember celebrating his loss. And think back to when Dan Savage started the whole "Santorum" thing in response to his ridiculous comments about homosexuality. He was a bigot we could all make fun of. Did it ever look like he had any sort of future in elected politics? No.

And yet here he is.

No, he won't win the nomination, I think it's still safe to say that, but he's done awfully well during this campaign. He kept going even when he was in single digits, as the various other conservative non- and anti-Romneys fell away. Then he surged and, yes, won Iowa. That appeared to be that, what with bad showings in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada, and with Gingrich re-emerging in South Carolina as Romney's main challenger, but by then Santorum was already looking ahead to today, looking to surge once more (surge being one of the key words of the race), looking to get back into it.

And he's certainly gotten back into it.

Even if he doesn't win another vote, even if this is it for him, it's been an impressive run. And certainly not what anyone with any sense at all would have predicted.

12:03 am - It's up to 46% reporting in Colorado. And it's Santorum over Romney 41 to 30.

12:04 am - Missouri's just about done, with 99% reporting. It's Santorum 55, Romney 25, and Paul 12. It looks like there's one county left, Putnam, but Santorum's won every other county. And, again, it's not at all a surprise, given how much attention he gave this non-binding primary and with Newt not even on the ballot, but a win's a win and he'll take all the wins he can get.

12:07 am -- 75% reporting in Minnesota. It's Santorum 45, Paul 27, Romney 17, and Gingrich 11.

Now this is big. Don't let Romney's low-expectations game fool you. Big in a very good way for Santorum, who ends up with almost half the vote and a decisive victory, with Newt, his rival for the anti-Romney vote, bringing up the rear. Big in a very bad way for Romney, who finishes a distant third in a state he won in 2008. Don't get me wrong, there are good explanations of this result that lessen the blow for Romney (e.g., Santorum spent a lot of time and energy here; Santorum has clear appeal for the conservative caucus electorate; Romney was the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008, whereas he's the establishment candidate now), but it's hard not to see this as a significant setback for him, particularly if Santorum wins Colorado as well and is able to come out of today with three wins, more money, and a ton of media attention.

12:17 am -- Okay, that's it for me tonight. My headache is now bigger than the size of Newt's ego.

12:19 am -- Keep checking back for more new posts from me and the great Reaction team.

Good night, everyone.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Photos of the Day: Tornado devastation in Joplin, Missouri


From The Atlantic, images of some truly horrendous destruction, the deadliest tornado in the U.S. in at least the past 60 years. It's hard to know what to say.




Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

McCain wins Missouri, nation goes berserk

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, the first part of that is true, not the second.

At long last, the presidential election is over. The last remaining state to be decided, Missouri, has been declared a win for McCain.

It's still unofficial, but CNN has called it: "According to the unofficial results, McCain won the state by 3,632 votes. The unofficial count shows McCain with 1,445,812 votes, or 49.4 percent, and Obama with 1,442,180 votes, or 49.3 percent."

Which makes you wonder: Is Missouri no longer the nation's bellweather? Before this year, "Missourians correctly picked the presidential candiate in every election dating back to the 1960 contest. Missouri got it wrong in 1956, voting for the Democratic challenger Adlai Stevenson, who lost the election to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Before that election, Missouri correctly picked the winner in every race for the White House dating back to 1904."

As for me, I'm just annoyed it's the one state I got wrong.

Recount!

(No, not seriously. Let's just move on.)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Show me the votes: The ongoing presidential election tally in Missouri

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've been focusing here on the still-unresolved Senate races in Minnesota and Alaska, but, lest we forget, there is still one undecided state in the presidential election: Missouri. Here's the latest:

[T]he vote count in Missouri is tightening.

Republican John McCain's statewide lead has shrunk to fewer than 5,000 votes, as various counties have recounted and revised their totals from last Tuesday's election.

Since Election Day, Obama has gained almost 1,000 votes statewide, most of it from St. Louis County.

County election officials have recovered almost 3,200 additional votes in the last few days. Most of them came from various electronic voting machines where the votes had apparently not been tallied by polling place workers during the initial collection of votes.

Missouri remains the only state where it's officially unclear which candidate carried the state. And it may take another two or three weeks before a winner is declared.

McCain's latest lead is 4,968 votes, out of more than 2.9 million cast.

Yet to be counted: an estimated 7,000 provisional ballots — most cast in Obama-leaning areas — that are just now being examined to determine which ones were cast by properly registered voters in the correct polling place.

Even after these and other votes are counted, there could still be a state-wide recount.

Does it matter how Missouri voted? Not in terms of the outcome of the election, of course, but it would be good to know the accurate count.

First, for the sake of Obama's mandate: A win is a win, and a win in Missouri would be that extra blue state in the middle of the country (great optics).

Second, for the sake of history: It's important to know the truth.

Third, for the sake of Missouri's reputation: It's the bellweather state, but it wouldn't be much of one if it voted for McCain even though Obama won.

Fourth, for me: I got every other state right. I'd like to be able to say my projections were 50 for 50 (plus DC, of course). Although, Obama may still pick up one electoral vote in Nebraska. (I don't think it's been called yet, but it looks good for Obama.) Hey, no one's perfect.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share