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for the compromise, so they want the default position to be that if no compromise is reached, Prop B is completely repealed.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!

Compromise on Puppy Mill Cruelty? Why?

It was announced earlier today that Governor Jay Nixon had brokered a "compromise" between some opponents and proponents of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. The proponents who were said to have signed on included Kathy Warnick, President of the Humane Society of Missouri, and Bob Baker from the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, but I have not yet seen any formal statements from those organizations. However, I think Shelley at BurningBird.net presents a pretty solid argument that this "compromise" on reform amounts to anything but reform.

Basically, all of the changes included in the "compromise" include hedge words that allow everything to carry on the way it always has. The 50 dog limit is now gone. The requirement that feces shouldn't be in the water supply has now changed to a requirement that feces should "generally" not be in the water. Instead of treatment of injury and illness, we now have required treatment of "serious" injuries and illness. And on and on, gutting basically every single substantive change in the original Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, approved by a majority of Missourians in a year where rural voters were disproportionately motivated and urban voters disproportionately apathetic.

To be honest, it's hard for me to be too shocked at Jay Nixon's decision here. He's a politician, and as such motivated by the goal of being reelected. And it's pretty obvious that this compromise provides the best path for him to do that, considering that he can get by without offending either rural or urban voters. His choice was made particularly easy by the fact that HSMO and MAAL signed on to the compromise.

But that's where I get confused. Though I understand why Nixon took this path, I don't understand why MAAL and the HSMO sprinkled rose petals along it. National groups like the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Best Friends Animal Society all announced their opposition to the "compromise." This strongly suggests that even if Nixon was cynical enough to sign the original bill revoking the will of the voters, or even if a Nixon veto was overruled by supermajorities, animal welfare groups could have run a new ballot initiative in 2012 that would be likely to win by an even larger margin than the 2010 Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. And though our legislature is pretty shameless, would they really be ridiculous enough to try to overturn the will of the voters a second time on the exact same issue? Or more to the point, would voters stand for them doing so?

Yet if this compromise goes through, approved by MAAL and HSMO, it's hard to see voters having any desire to revisit the issue in future elections.

Even with his Grand Bargain, however, Nixon is not completely off the hook. The leaders of the repeal movement are demanding that Nixon not veto their bill to gut the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act while waiting for the compromise to work its way through the legislature:

State Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, who sponsored SB 113, is listed as one of the compromise's backers.

"Growing Missouri agriculture and protecting dogs are both important priorities, and this agreement is a win on both fronts," Parson said in a release announcing the agreement.

But Parson said in an interview that he wanted the governor first to sign SB 113 into law -- and then sign the proposed alternative, should the legislature pass it.

Parson said the main differences between his bill and the new agreement are the types of veterinarian care required and the square footage of the cages confining the animals.

Parson said that the agreement would be "dead" if Nixon vetoed SB 113.

Parson continues:

"If we're truly going to get this done, we're going to know before this veto happens," Parson said. "I hope the compromise is worked out. I hope everyone at the table can get it done. 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."

"But I think to say that we're going to veto [my bill] right off the bat to do this, I don't think we're going to want to use this as a political game," Parson added. "And I hope that nobody's doing that."

Needless to say, this is complete crap. Republicans (and the absurd Democrats who voted with them) are the ones with the most to lose here, and they should absolutely not be put in a position of power by allowing the repeal to pass and then patiently waiting to see if they fulfill their end of the bargain. With unhinged characters like Nieves and Lembke willing to hold the Senate hostage over things like allowing federal money to go to the unemployed, could there be any worse idea than trusting them with passing a bill that, at least in theory, strengthened protections on dogs? I think the answer is obviously "no."

In fact, in my opinion, Parson's ridiculous position gives Nixon an out. Nixon should veto the repeal bill, SB 113, immediately. If Parson then says that the deal is "dead," well Nixon can honestly say in good faith that he tried to find a compromise. And by completely accident, maybe the will of the voters would be respected after all.

Update: OK, here's a statement from Baker:

"The agriculture groups signed on to it, the dog breeders association signed on to it, and I think everybody's in agreement that this is the best," said Bob Baker, executive director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, one of the groups that signed the agreement.

" I think it significantly improves conditions for the dogs, and we're very very pleased with this agreement," Baker said.

Somehow, I don't quite see the value of being in agreement with the same people who said that Prop B was a secret communist plot to take over Missouri and force everyone to eat bean sprouts. I sure hope MAAL or HSMO offers a more detailed explanation than this!