From Pantsless Parties to "Tight-Sweatered Hotness," It Sure Looks Like Kinder is Toast

The most prominent bad news today for Peter Kinder's gubernatorial campaign was that he was massively out-raised by Governor Jay Nixon and his campaign somehow managed to lose money this past quarter. But Dave Cantanese at Politico just dropped a bombshell that might be the final nail in the coffin:

Nonetheless, there are some red flags contained in Kinder's report. He raised less in a third quarter of an off year than any gubernatorial candidate in the last decade, according to a Democratic source.

In addition, both a Republican and a Democrat pointed to $1,441 expenditure at the Sky Hotel in Aspen.

Kinder spent two nights there in July and both sources couldn't help but note that it was dubbed the "sexiest ski lodge" by Playboy in 2006.

It's "packed with tight-sweatered hotness," according to Playboy's write-up, which was passed on to me.

A separate review by TheStreet.com in 2008 described the "late-night skinny-dipping" as "legendary."

The problem for Kinder is that this seems like a perfect combination of his two previous devastating scandals: his propensity for charging other people for his lavish lifestyle, and his alleged inappropriate behavior at a bar known for its "pantsless parties." Given that Christian conservatives are already uncomfortable with Kinder, this story could finally put his campaign to an end. On the other hand, no one really wants to run against Jay Nixon.

Prominent Conservative Gives Up On Kinder

Renee Hulshof, host of a talk radio program and wife of former GOP Congressman Kenny Hulshof, went there earlier today. That's right: she shook her head at Peter Kinder:

Kudos to Hulshof for saying aloud what every Missouri Republican must be thinking. The problem, though, is that it just doesn't seem worth it for any up-and-coming Republican to take on Nixon next year rather than waiting for a winnable race in 2016.

Peter Kinder's Terrible Crisis Management

Let's review for a minute the way Peter Kinder handled allegations that he was inappropriately using taxpayer money for personal and political business:

• First, Kinder denied he did anything wrong.
• Then, he still claimed that he didn't do anything wrong, but decided to pay back a chunk of money.
• Then, yesterday, the Republican auditor found that Kinder needed to pay back $2,000 more dollars, which he did.
• Yet, even now, as the Post-Dispatch is reporting, Kinder still hasn't paid back the cost of taxpayer funded meals under questionable circumstances:

  The review also found that taxpayers paid for $10,893 worth of meals for Kinder on his in-state trips. Auditors said they couldn't tell whether those expenses were proper because Kinder's calendar "lacked sufficient detail.

  
  

An example of one of those meals:

...in June 2007, he billed taxpayers for two nights at the Chase Park Plaza and a $44 dinner. The only event listed on his expense form was a ribbon-cutting at a refurbished apartment complex. On another trip, in June 2009, he spent two nights at the Chase and ate two lunches at Plaza Frontenac and a $55 dinner at a French restaurant, Vin de Set. His official schedule listed an appearance on KMOX and a concert and reception for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

This is a political disaster and it's hard to imagine Kinder managing it any worse. Why wouldn't he just pay back absolutely everything remotely questionable the minute the first report came out? His handling of this is stretching out a damaging story over months.

And some news from Captain Obvious: being able to manage a crisis is actually a pretty important part of being a governor.

Washington Post: Nixon is Tough to Beat

Aaron Blake at the Washington Post states that Governor Jay Nixon will be "tough to beat" in 2012:

5. Missouri (Democratic-controlled, 2012): Nixon’s solid response to the tornado in Joplin, Mo., last month solidified the picture of a popular incumbent who will be tough to beat. Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (R), meanwhile, has stumbled out of the gate. About the only thing that suggests Kinder has a chance is the presidential race. (Obama lost the state in 2008 and isn’t likely to win in 2012.) But as we discussed above, that may not be worth much. If Lynch retires in New Hampshire, this one may fall off the list soon. (Previous ranking: 4.

Between this and redistricting of the state legislature, I wonder if there's hope for having a more sane political situation (at the state level) in 2013.

Carnahan Cheers Governor Nixon's Veto of Hyperpartisan Redistricting Map

Press Release from Congressman Carnahan's office:

STATEMENT OF RUSS CARNAHAN RE: GOVERNOR’S VETO

OF PARTISAN GERRYMANDERED REDISTRICTING MAP

WASHINGTON, DC --- U.S. Representative Russ Carnahan (MO-03) today released the following statement regarding Governor Nixon’s veto of the partisan, gerrymandered redistricting map sent to him by the Republican-controlled Missouri State Legislature:

“This is a win for the people of Missouri, who will now have another chance at a map that places a higher value on respecting the needs and concerns of families and businesses than on consolidating political power for one party over another.

“There is no question that the map that was vetoed today was a partisan gerrymander that would have been bad for the entire state of Missouri. It sliced and diced the St. Louis region – the economic engine of the state – dividing communities of interest and weakening Missouri’s representation in Washington.

“This veto will provide an opportunity for a map that is better for the people and businesses of this state - one that is more representative of Missouri’s political balance and does not divide communities, counties and regions.

“The people of Missouri deserve nothing less.”

The Missouri State Legislature will now have an opportunity to either make a new attempt at drawing a Congressional map, or to attempt to override the Governor’s veto. In each of three votes already taken on proposed maps, the State House has fallen short of the 2/3 majority needed to override a Gubernatorial veto. During the most recent vote, 6 Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the map that was vetoed today.

Nixon Scorns Puppy Supporters and St. Louisans

Governor Jay Nixon is helping to ensure that Missouri remains the Puppy Mill Capitol of the world. Despite the fact that a majority of Missouri voters supported the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, and despite the fact that Nixon himself had brokered a compromise with legislators, he decided to project weakness by caving in to bad faith demands that he sign a full repeal before the compromise is considered. Now he has to sit back and twiddle his thumbs while waiting for Republicans to spontaneously decide that they are going to work to round up votes to pass a compromise that's further away from what they were originally advocating for. Or, more likely, Nixon is simply planning on acting "gee shucks" shocked when Republicans say "whoops, I guess we couldn't pass the compromise after all!"

I understood the initial politics behind this. Nixon has to veto a lot of stuff from this crazy legislature. He's expected to veto a Republican bill that would weaken anti-discrimination laws. He will likely veto attacks on the minimum wage and right-to-work-for-less legislation. I'm grateful that we have someone in office who can block these shameful attacks on workers. Yet Nixon also wants to be seen as a middle-of-the-road compromiser. So it's not surprising that he would throw dogs under the bus.

However, the politics changed once Republicans demanded that Nixon sign the full repeal before they would "think about" the compromise. Giving in to bad faith negotiators makes Nixon look weak and stupid, and if he thinks he can feign ignorance if it turns out that Republicans don't actually fulfill their end of the bargain, he is sorely mistaken. All Nixon would have had to say by vetoing SB113 is that he respects the will of Missouri voters. Missourians who couldn't take that as an explanation will never vote for him anyway. Now he's completely at the mercy of people who have never done anything to improve conditions for dogs and who have no incentive to do so now.

How Republican Arrogance Changed The Political Dynamics for Nixon

Though I'm not at all a fan of the new "compromise" to roll back puppy mill legislation (to see why, check out this chart comparing the various proposals), I've always begrudgingly admitted that the compromise was a good political move for Nixon. After all, he has a strong interest in not offending rural or urban voters, and the Missouri Humane Society signed off on the deal, as well as various agriculture and dog breeder groups. And though I personally think the ethical decision would be to veto the bill, I can honestly understand why Nixon might think the compromise respected the will of the voters and, furthermore, think that if he vetoed the bill but then lost his election, the next administration would proceed to do an even more draconian rollback of the will of the voters.

However, it seems clear to me now that Republican arrogance has changed this equation. Key Republicans, including House Speaker Steve Tilley and rollback bill sponsor Mike Parson, have called for Nixon to sign the rollback bill (SB113) before they attempt to round up votes for the "compromise." In other words, they are demanding that Nixon gives them everything they want first, and then they will "think about" (as Parson said) the compromise.

Let's be clear for a second why they are pushing for this. The new compromise sets its own standards, which are different from the original Prop B and from SB113. So if a compromise has actually been agreed to and they have enough votes, there is absolutely no reason to ask Nixon to sign the bill. So the fact that they are asking Nixon to sign tells us something very important: namely, they're not confident that they can get the votes for a compromise. In fact, Parson even said as much:

You've got to get it through the [legislature] in a short-term period of time, which is a very difficult process to do. We're going to work for that, if that's what the coalition decides.

So basically they are demanding that Nixon sign SB113 because they don't know if they can actually get the votes for the compromise, so they want the default position to be that if no compromise is reached, Prop B is completely repealed.

But if Nixon signs it, puppy mill propagandists no longer have any incentive to push for the compromise bill. After all, it would make life more difficult for the breeders (donors) they are working so hard to protect. They will have to, in Parson's words, work on a "very difficult process" just so that they can make changes that their donors don't want to see? Of course they won't want to do that! Oh, I suppose you could pretend that Parson and Tilley will be motivated to "keep their word," like the good Real Americans that they are, but remember that the GOP base voters do not care at all about honesty when it comes to dealing with Democrats. In fact, they would probably cheer if Parson and Tilley outright said, "Ha! We stuck it to Nixon and he was stupid enough to believe us! And now we've saved the farmers from Communist Agression!" Does anyone honestly see Republican voters in today's climate caring if Tilley and Parson double-crossed Nixon? I sure don't.

What's really scary is that Nixon seems to be considering this terrible idea. Bob Baker of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (one of the groups that signed off on the compromise) reportedly was called by a Nixon staff member and asked to support Nixon signing the repeal first:

Bob Baker, executive director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, had signed off on the compromise. Then a member of Nixon's team telephoned to say the governor might sign the Legislature's rollback as a first step toward implementing the compromise.

"I'm going to have our legal team look at it," Baker said of that twist. "We'd have to reserve judgment."

Needless to say, no animal welfare group should agree to this terrible idea. You don't give away all of your leverage and then politely ask for extremists and profiteers to please give it back. I hope they hold their ground on this.

But back to Nixon. Like I said, the original compromise was good politics for him. However, the equation has now changed. Because now signing SB113 would not only be the unethical thing to do, and the anti-Democratic thing to do (since Missouri voters clearly approved of the original legislation), it would also be bad politics. First, it would be rewarding political opponents who negotiate in bad faith, agreeing to one thing first and then changing the terms later. Second, it would show him to be incredibly stupid. If he signed the bill and then Republicans failed to pass the compromise, no one would forgive Nixon for saying, "gee shucks, I really thought they'd uphold their end of the bargain." And similarly, it would show that Nixon is incredibly weak, caving to pressure even when he has leverage, and then being pushed around by people who have no respect for him.

Though I disagree with the original compromise, it was good politics for Nixon, And perhaps if Tilley and Parson push the compromise through the legislature before Nixon has to decide on SB113, it still could be. However, it is decidedly not good politics for Nixon to sign SB113 before the compromise bill is on his desk. To do so would make him look naive and weak which, in the game of politics in Missouri, is much worse than just looking like a very conservative Democrat.

Confirmed! Repubs Were Negotiating In Bad Faith! VETO the Bill!

If someone proposes making a deal with you by saying "give me everything I want, and then I'll consider a deal," I have news for you: it ain't a deal!

If a group forms an agreement with you, and then later changes the conditions so that you first have to give them everything they want before they decide whether they will actually uphold their end of the bargain, they are negotiating in bad faith.

I wrote yesterday that State Senator Mike Parson had backed out of his deal with Nixon, now claiming that Nixon had to sign his bill to repeal the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act before he would "think about" a compromise. Today it was confirmed that Republicans in the state legislature have no intention of following the agreement. MissouriNet reported:

House Speaker Steven Tilley, a Republican from Perryville, tells the Missourinet he will encourage Governor Nixon to sign Senate Bill 113, which he says maintains the intent of the voters in November while fixing some problems with Proposition B. Tilley says, then, the legislature can consider the compromise the Nixon Administration is proposing. According to Tilley, the House doesn’t have a set position and is willing to work with the governor when it can.

And:

Agreeing is the House sponsor of the bill, Tom Loehner, a Republican from Koeltztown.

“That’s what I would like to see, that he go out and sign 113 and say this is a start, we’ve done this thus far and I think we can do a little bit more with the fix,” Loehner, chairman of the House Agriculture Policy Committee, says. “If we could get that done and an emergency clause, that’s great.”

This, in my opinion, pretty clearly makes the "deal" null and void. There is absolutely no reason why Nixon should be required to give them everything they want (which by the way is in direct opposition to the will of the voters) before they even "consider" the compromise. In fact, they're pretty clear about the fact that they're not sure the compromise can even make it through the legislature, so a situation where Nixon passes the repeal and they then say "whoops, guess we couldn't round up the votes!" seems to be the most likely possibility (and maybe what they were planning all along) if Nixon signed the bill.

At this point, it is clear that Nixon should veto SB113. First, this is the only action that would respect the will of the voters, who voted in favor of Prop B in November. Second, to sign the bill or let it pass would demonstrate tremendous weakness and would encourage Republicans to negotiate in bad faith in the future. If they can't abide by the terms of the agreements they came up with, they need to be politically punished, not rewarded. Nixon can honestly tell rural voters who opposed Prop B that he tried to negotiate a compromise, but the people he was speaking with broke their word. It is House and Senate Republicans who screwed everyone in this deal, including the dog breeders.

You can join the Save Prop B group here.

DEAL-BREAKER! Mike Parson Says NO COMPROMISE on Prop B Unless Repeal Bill is Signed!

Yesterday, State Senator Mike Parson was said to have struck a deal with Governor Jay Nixon and others on a "compromise" about voter-approved Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. However, today Parson is announcing that he won't even consider the compromise unless Nixon signs SB13, a bill that basically completely repeals Prop B, into law:

This is a deal-breaker! Nixon needs to veto SB13 immediately and he can now honestly tell the voters that he tried to negotiate in good faith but was betrayed by the puppy mill propagandist Parson.

Update: I should note that Parson did already tell the Beacon that he expected his bill to be signed first and said that the deal would be off it Nixon vetoed the bill (I linked to the Beacon article yesterday to mention this point). However, the difference in today's statement is that Parson is saying that the repeal bill must be signed before they can even "talk about other things." In other words, Parson's claiming that Nixon needs to sign the bill first, then they can talk about a compromise, which seems to be an extremely bad idea!

Nixon Should Veto The Prop B Repeal, For St. Louis and Missouri

I was thinking of writing a post pointing out that a lot of people in St. Louis have been frustrated with Governor Nixon and that a good way for him to show that he's committed to our city and not only to the rural parts of the state would be to veto the recent bill rolling back the voter approved Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, but it looks like the Post-Dispatch editorial board beat me to the punch:

Mr. Nixon should veto the bill....

Missouri’s rural lawmakers — mostly Republicans — do a disservice to the value of elections when they override the will of the voters and send a message that voters’ opinions don’t matter. It undermines their credibility when they say, as Rep. Tom Loehner, R-Koeltztown, and others have, that city voters didn’t know what they were passing and that they don’t understand agriculture.

Indeed, city voters understood the issue well. They understood that every time a rogue puppy mill was shut down, their shelters in the cities and suburbs took in scores, if not hundreds, of malnourished, abused puppies left to die by scofflaws who flouted the law with a lack of human decency. They also understood that the measure had nothing to do with farm animals.

I know that the desire to appease the rural parts of the state make this a tough political decision for Nixon's people, but there's really an simple idea to appeal to in order to defend a veto: respecting the will of the voters. The current legislature has been going nuts trying to roll back every voter approved initiative that clashes with their extreme views. But while people in rural areas might disagree with a Nixon decision to veto the bill, could they really have any serious argument against the simple idea of protecting a bill that state voters approved? Nixon should do the right thing and not throw St. Louis, puppies, and the majority of voters in the state under the bus for cynical political expediency.

For more on this issue, please read Shelley's excellent response to the the Post-Dispatch editorial. Also, you can contact Nixon's campaign about this here.

Peter Kinder Hates High Speed Rail

Via Jason Rosenbaum, here's a video of Lt. Governor Peter Kinder dissing high-speed rail and praising Republican Governors who refused federal money for high-speed rail lines. Kinder refers to high-speed rail as "19th-century technology."

So much for capturing any of the urban enthusiast vote.

Nixon on the Minimum Wage: The People Of Missouri Spoke Pretty Loudly On That Issue

Jason Rosenbaum at Capitol Calling asked Jay Nixon what he thought about current attempts to roll back the minimum wage law passed by 76% of Missouri voters, and Nixon gave a good answer:

Yes, the people did speak pretty loudly on this. And the businesses and Republican politicians pushing this bill are pretty tone deaf.

State Workers Union Slams Governor Nixon’s Budget Proposals

The response from the Communication Workers of America to Nixon's State of the State speech:

CWA members were flabbergasted and outraged to learn that Governor Nixon proposed additional massive cuts to Missouri’s most vulnerable citizens in his state of the state address and initial budget proposal.

Among the wrongheaded recommendations he announced were plans to lay off nearly 500 direct service employees in Department of Social Services and Department of Health and Senior Services. In addition to adding hundreds to Missouri’s already historically high numbers of unemployed, these cuts will:

• make accessing and applying for Medicaid, Foodstamps, child support and child care services vastly more difficult for thousands of financially struggling Missouri families
• reduce the number of state employees assigned to protecting children, senior citizens and people with disabilities from abuse and neglect
• force families with troubled youth to travel hundreds of miles to access state mandated treatment services.

Governor Nixon is refusing to advocate for any measures that would significantly increase state revenue, even measures with support from both parties such as taxing internet retail sales or increasing the tobacco tax. Governor Nixon seems to have forgotten his promises to restore social services during his election campaign, but the hundreds of union members who devoted thousands of hours to his first election campaign have not.

By issuing this budget recommendation, Governor Nixon has decided that the entire burden for Missouri’s economic crisis should be carried by abused children, people with disabilities, and unemployed and low-wage workers. He has decided that the interests of out of state corporations and the tobacco industry are more important than the needs of the citizens of his state who are struggling the most during this economic crisis.

The 6,500 public workers represented by CWA will not forget this outrageous decision and will fight this cruel and shortsighted budget at every possible level.

Communications Workers of America, Local 6355, AFL-CIO

You can say Nixon's in a tough spot, but at the very least this calls into question his claim that he will "fight every day for every job."