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for the compromise, so they want the default position to be that if no compromise is reached, Prop B is completely repealed.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

St. Louis Tea Party: Steve Tilley Sides With "Hardest of Hard Left"

Other than Dana Loesch and Jim Hoft, the St. Louis Tea party appears to be largely politically irrelevant nowadays. However, they sure do provide some quality entertainment.

After the St. Louis Tea Party suggested a few weeks ago that House Republican Speaker Steve Tilley is secretly doing the bidding of the New Black Panther Party by supporting local control of the St. Louis Police Department, Bill Hennessy is now suggesting that Tilley is "siding with the hardest of the hard left" because Tilley is listed as a cosponsor of a bill that would allow presidential elections to be decided by the national popular vote. In a post titled Steve Tilley vs The Constitution, Hennessy writes the following:

Make no mistake: on this issue, Tilley sides with the hardest of the hard left.

He also wrote that

Team Tilley strikes out again.

In a previous post titled, Steve Tilley vs Fiscal Responsibility, Hennessy said this:

Four men risked their political lives to help solve the problem of our lifetimes, but they forgot to massage Steve Tilley’s monstrous ego...

According to the News-Leader.com:

And Tilley said the House won’t put too much weight on what he believes the Senate wants him to do.

“I’m not going to be held hostage by a few people,” he said.

Of course not. Not unless the hostage takers are billionaires.

That last quote was apparently a reference to Tilley's substantial donations from millionaire Rex Sinquefield.

Though it's fun to read, there's really not much reason for Tilley to care about these threats. Mike Flynn of Big Government threatened to "go nuclear" on Tilley a few weeks ago if Tilley didn't "massage the tea party's monstrous ego" (my words). Tilley ignored him, and lost nothing by doing so.

Lt. Gov. Cowers Before Breitbart Bloggers: Won't Defend Tilley

Earlier this week, the St. Louis Tea Party baselessly and absurdly attacked GOP House Speaker Tilley, questioning his leadership and judgment and suggesting he was associated with the New Black Panther Party:

When Tilley had the audacity to respond to their baseless allegations, the tea party flipped out, and even enlisted the editor of Breitbart's Big Government to help threaten Tilley, Peter Kinder, and Carl Bearden:

Of course, if the St. Louis tea party had any real political power left or ability to organize, they wouldn't need to be begging Breitbart bloggers for help. But more importantly, Peter Kinder was too scared to even stand up for his supposed friend Tilley, instead deciding to grovel to Flynn and asking to be left out of it.

Considering that the tea party has been attacking Tilley for weeks, is Kinder really so gutless as to not stick up for his ally when he is being baselessly smeared by Breitbart bloggers? How far the GOP has fallen.

Tilley's "Race-Baiting" Comments Referred to Tea Party Video

As noted in my previous post, Breitbart bloggers are freaking out and threatening to "go nuclear" if Steve Tilley does not appear on Dana Loesch's radio show and "walk back" his claim that the St. Louis Tea Party was "race-baiting." Just in case anyone was tempted to suggest that Tilley was not referring to the St. Louis Tea Party, I wanted to point out that Carl Bearden specifically said that Tilley's comments were being made in reference to the St. Louis Tea Party video created by Darin Morley of Reboot Congress: