Category: Political

We’ve had an extraordinary and rather unpleasant situation here in Missouri the last few years. Our governor, Matt Blunt, and our State Attorney General Jay Nixon have not seen eye to eye on many issues, and almost any event associated with our state ends up being about the two of them.

Leaving aside the fact that both will face each other for election to governor next year, there are fundamental differences between the two men, which has left Jay Nixon spending a great deal of his time countering the efforts of our governor. Not surprising: Matt Blunt is the new breed of Republican that is backing away from the fundamentalists, favoring a form of social Darwinism that has even the most hidebound Republican going: eh, now, wait a sec.

I’ve written about the Katy Trail bridge and the Taum Sauk Dam break, but the recent fooflah literally boggles the mind.

Several months back, a woman who worked in the Department of Agriculture, Heather Elder, complained to the Governor’s office about the sexual harassment and discrimination she had suffered from the head of the department, Fred Ferrell. She accused Ferrell of hugging her, touching her inappropriately, telling her she should participate in a wet t-shirt contest, telling others that women are ‘show dogs’, and the only reason to hire such is because of our looks, and so on.

However, Ferrell is a friend of Big Agriculture, working hand in hand with the ‘new’ head of DNR, Doyle Childers, to roll back many of the environmental protections in place in our state so that large agricultural interests don’t have to worry about the smell of their big hog farms, or how much crap they dump into our rivers and streams.

When the complaint was received, Blunt took the unprecedented and illegal act of having the State Patrol investigate the allegations. He then used the DNR’s legal staff to negotiate a settlement with Elder that included what amounted to a slap on the wrist for Ferrell (sensitivity training, 10,000 fine, which he hasn’t paid), and a payoff and ordered cover up with Elder. The amount of money of the pay off was 70,000 dollars, paid from the Department of Agriculture’s equipment fund.

This all blew up last week when Elder rejected the offer and took the issue to the Attorney General’s office after the Missouri Human Rights Commission issued her a right-to-sue letter. Jay Nixon has now filed a suit on her behalf. The reason Elder refused the offer? She refused to let this be swept under the table, itself an act that is also illegal based on the Sunshine Act.

Caught not only misusing the state Patrol, misusing Agricultural department funds, misusing DNR resources, and protecting a man who isn’t fit to slop the corporate pigs he tried to protect, Blunt did the only thing he could: he tried to blame Nixon. How? By saying that he, Blunt, had to manage on his own since Nixon wouldn’t get involved in the initial negotiations.

As the *opinion piece in the conservative publication News-Leader, based in that strongest of Republican holds, Springfield, demonstrated: no one is buying any of this crap:

Blunt faces a growing cacophony of criticism for his mishandling of the sexual harassment and demeaning behavior of Ferrell, his former director of the Department of Agriculture. His initial reaction? Deflect some of the blame to Nixon for not getting involved in the case earlier.

The problem with that is Nixon didn’t hire a lecherous old man to join his cabinet. Blunt did.

Nixon didn’t respond to a serious allegation of sexual harassment by a female state worker by ordering an illegal Missouri Highway Patrol investigation. Blunt did.

Nixon didn’t ignore a report that any reasonable thinking person would realize displayed the sort of behavior by Ferrell that would disqualify him from any position of management in today’s society, let alone a position atop a state agency. Blunt did.

The governor told the News-Leader he believes in second chances, but apparently that lofty idea only applies to cabinet members and not their victims.

This act will kill any of Blunt’s chances for re-election, though with his growing friendship with Mitt Romney, he may not mind. Expect him to head toward a shot at the nationals, and if he does, run, run to your polls and answer with a resounding, “No!”

I am serious when I write that Blunt has done an amazing amount of damage in this state in his zeal to provide a ‘comfortable’ support system for big business. Kicked 300,000 children, disabled, and elderly off of Medicare; helped change water laws until the EPA brought all of that to a screeching halt; turned the Taum Sauk event into a political opportunity; brought in incompetent Republican cronies to head important departments; trying to sell off the fund that enable poor folks to go to school; put absurd restrictions on the universities for what they can do with the money set aside for capital improvements with this money.

This voters of this state made a terrible mistake when they put Blunt in as governor. Like the Ferrell case, that’s another thing that can’t be blamed on Jay Nixon–we did it all by ourselves.

* via Black River News.

The Kansas State Board of Education removed the ‘intelligent design’ propaganda from the state’s school system, but that won’t end the battle. I don’t think people fully understand how rabid some of the fundamentalist are here in the Kansas/Missouri area. It doesn’t matter what the populace wants; it doesn’t matter what the majority believe; it doesn’t even matter what the Supreme Court rules: these folks are right, everyone else is wrong.

In Missouri, even after the vote that allowed for stem cell research, state representatives want to place another vote on the ballot in 2008 on this issue again. The only way to stop this is to stop putting these people into office, or barring that, stop giving them any power.

It would seem that the US isn’t the only country whose primary leader plays sleight of hand when it comes to debate: Australia’s Howard is using Obama’s candidate announcement speech to deflect discussion away from climate change to the Iraqi conflict.

If I were the people of Australia, I would balance 1400 soldiers in Iraq against the fact that it is completely surrounded by water when making a decision about what is of most critical importance to the people of that country. Unless Howard would prefer that Iraq remain a lightning rod for Islamic discontent, rather than have such shift focus to, say, Indonesia.

This kind of political rhetoric isn’t surprising: it seems to be representative of anyone associated with Bush. What is surprising, though, is how anyone can possibly think there is any question of ‘win’ or ‘loose’ regarding Iraq. Frankly, I would question the intelligence of any person who uses such terms in regards to this conflict. But, we have enough problems with our own fearless leader, who now seems to want to make bad matters worse by trying to trigger a war with Iran. Howard is Australia’s concern, not ours.

Edwards responded to the criticism of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

I respect that Edwards didn’t fire the webloggers, and I appreciate his position, but if I were Amanda or Melissa, I would resign.

This is typical patriarchal talk that both Amanda and Melissa used to balk at once upon a time before they became ‘legit’. What they said on their weblogs was there all along; they didn’t quickly add all of it once they had the jobs. Being critical of what they wrote before they were working for him is Edwards covering his butt; not firing either woman is also Edwards covering his butt. He didn’t fire them–he just shut them up.

Why did he hire them? Because he wanted very liberal and very outspoke feminists to placate those of us who wonder why we should vote for a white guy when we have Clinton, Obama, and Richardson to finally give us the diversity that we–including Amanda and Melissa–have been demanding.

He has them as surrogate feminists, so that he doesn’t have to taint his campaign with such. He’ll push the liberal agenda this year, but watch him drift towards the center next year–after hooking in the cyber folks with our money and our passion.

I think he’s a strong candidate and that’s why people like Malkin and others, all products of conservative think tanks, used this as an attack. I think he will support at least a moderate Democratic agenda if he gets elected. If he’s nominated, I will support him. But I also think this is a demonstration of business as usual: white boy telling the women to ‘hesh up, now’ and let the men talk.

The ladies swore. So? Who cares if they swore in their own weblogs, and in their own personal space. Or is is really that women are supposed to remember our manners; to be like ladies?

What both these women did was express their opinions, and last time I looked, it was OK to be critical of religion or the Church, especially when the religious and the Church interferes with our lives. I can respect people’s faith while saying that it angers me when the Catholic Church–or the Southern Baptist or the Lutheran or the Jewish or the Muslim–tell women what we can or cannot do with our bodies; what we can or cannot learn in school; what jobs we can work, how we raise our children, what we watch on TV, or to redefine science.

As for Amanda and Melissa, I wish them the best, I really do. It’s just too bad they’ve had their mouths politically duct taped.

Update

Amanda and Melissa’s statements, found at MyDD and Glenn Greenwald’s:

Amanda Marcotte:

“My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”

Melissa McEwen:

“Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.”