A few weeks ago I posted a piece regarding candidate demagoguery of the entire earmark issue. I predict that the issue will be raised repeatedly in the Seventh Congressional District (Missouri) primary.

To that end, Chad Livengood’s piece today is a home run and must read.

Why? Because it provides at very least a glimpse into the soul of each of the perspective candidates (at least the announced ones) and how they not only view what the earmark is, but how they would approach the process if elected.

I will defer my personal feelings on earmarks for another time but leave everyone with this question: Congress abused what used to be a legitimate process and corrupted it. Does this mean the process should be reformed or completely abandoned?

Whats more, Democrats are spending in excess of four times what the GOP Congress proposed with thousands of more earmarks - yet they seem to be still riding high. Why does this issue not plague them?

After doing some reading this afternoon I feel compelled to make an observation regarding a post made by David Catanese over at the KY3 “Political Notebook.”

There is a very good reason why James Carville’s Democracy Corps pushed the poll and all but wrote a press release for Sarah Steelman. Oddly enough for all the analaysis, Catanese failed to mention this obvious possibility. Maybe because of a bias? Nah.

Just a wild guess here, but could it be that Democrats are trying to stoke a bloody primary between Republican opponents in an effort to suck all the oxygen out of the room?

If there were no primary then the story would shift to why Robin Carnahan is running away from issues and exactly what her positions would be.

Instead the media is fascinated by the prospect of a bloody Republican primary in which both candidates will lose. At this point can you blame some of the curiosity?

With that said the media should not be giving the same pass to Robin Carnahan as it did Jay Nixon.
Being Secretary of State she gets the glamorous role of defending people’s right to vote (even the dead ones), but does not need to reveal how she might vote on issues of substance.

Similarly, some how the Democrat “establishment” is able to pave the way for Carnahan while Republicans lining up behind Roy Blunt are blasted as being some sort of rubber stamp.

Never mind an analysis on issues or what Roy Blunt actually did in Congress over the past ten years or so and why many of us support him for his votes, it is all about trying to define the man based on a number of press induced distortions.

This, to me, is the unmitigated strategy in which the media and Sarah Steelman her self are all to eager to play a roll in. This is why I see her as a self serving political opportunist and would find it hard to vote for her in any circumstance.

To be sure, the Missouri Information Analysis Center’s report is troubling in many aspects. Whether one focuses on its apparent mention of conservative and Christian icons as being a sign of being a potential terrorist or the lack of research supporting the document - bottom line is that its a sham.

So why no mention here?

Honestly, for the most part I believe the political bickering was exactly that - bickering without a cause.

The faux outrage mocked by Nixon is just the tip of the iceberg. Still yet, why were Republicans in Jefferson City focusing on one or two items relating to the third party and political mentions instead of the actual lack of research behind the report.

What should, in my mind, trouble people the most is the complete lack of academic honesty or effort in such matters.

As a society we need to understand that such reports are made by human beings which means they are flawed from the outset. Still, that does not give people a wide berth regarding these matters.

In this particular case there was no outstanding evidence or explanation as to how the center arrived at their conclusions.

To that end, I decided to sit and observe the situation, and the results were admittedly depressing for my self.

I would add that I felt the state wide coverage of the event was alright - especially given how most eat out of Jay Nixon’s hand.

In either case, lets get specific people. After all we are talking about political and religious profiling, are we not?

As I plow through various tid bits of work a few stories caught my attention which I feel need a little pointing out.

Carville wanted Bush to fail: In an interesting story just now emerging - Democrat strategist James Carville stated on the morning of September 11 (before the terrorist attacks) that he hoped President Bush would fail in office. This changed after the attacks occurred.

Still, the story never saw day of light. Anyone else find it odd that such a relevant little bit of information would stay dormant in the face of the media framing of Rush Limbaugh? Hrm.

European countries reject adding more stimulus: Anyone else find it backward that European countries are using their heads more than we are? Apparently many are actively resisting Obama’s calls to go deeper in debt to try and “stimulate” their economies.

Think maybe after the past few decades of using the same failed policies we are attempting now they understand? nah.

President Obama uses signing statements: One of the harshes criticism against President Bush was the use of signing statements as an ad-hoc line item veto tool. Obama apparently decided to adopt this policy.

In this case, he decided to remove provisions out of the budget which would restrict the use of U.S. military under United Nations command and another preventing the punishment of whistle blowers.

Term Limits group rips Missouri Plan to change term limits: While I understand the logic, I gotta agree with the organization. The plan would by defacto double the time allowed to serve in the Missouri Legislature.

At this point I dont know if this is a good or bad thing, but my gut says bad move.

The Associated Press reported that HB496 was defeated on the floor of the Missouri State Senate 18-6 yesterday.

The bill would make Sudafed a controlled substance and require a doctors visit before people could purchase it.

While I understand the reasoning behind the effort to combat meth, to me the piece of legislation seemed over the top.

Maybe in the coming years Sudafed and other sinus relief medicines will be developed where pseudoephedrine is no longer needed. This is what we should be working toward, not making a bad situation worse to those of us who suffer from sinus problems.

For those who havent taken notice yet, several politicians in Jefferson City are seeking to make Sudafed a controlled substance in Missouri.

Yeah, I aint kidding either.

I understand the logic behind the bill in making an effort to take away pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient to making meth.

However, to force people to see a doctor every time they need sinus relief is just nuts. I dont mind telling you that at least in my experience, you dont get relief from sinus pressure and symptoms until you take Sudafed or a similar medicine with pseudoephedrine in it.

Sorry. I prefer a dose of common sense.

Many times you will see me post about political media bias in the national, state and even local media outlets. It used to not be so bad, especially on the local level. Recently, however, this has changed for the worse.

Perhaps what is most perplexing is how some “journalist” whine when frozen out of information - especially in the light of twisting, badgering or taking information out of context. Instead of reporting truth and giving citizens the whole picture, we get a sliver of information.

I would like to offer you an excellent example of what I would deem good journalism versus an extremely tilted report which borders outright hackery.

Republicans in the Missouri House of Representatives announced a few weeks ago the legislative body would not be taking one time federal dollars and expanding the state budget because of smaller state revenues. In short, they dont want create a budget which cannot be met.

Yesterday Democrats threw a fit because they wanted to expand state medicaid to more than sixty thousand people, including 40,000 adults. Republicans said no way they would be expanding welfare in the current economic situation.

What does the media report? KY3 runs the headline “Health Care For Kids DOA?” and writes up a contentious two paragraphs without the slightest mention of the Republican side of things or the fact that more than double the people who Nixon and Democrats want to be added to medicaid are adults. Ironically, Catanese links to an article written by Springfield News-Leader journalist Chad Livengood on the matter.

In contrasts, Livengood provides an extensive background on the matter and gives both sides. It is there where you learn of the complete Republican position in addition to details of precisely what Democrats and Nixon want to pass.

In short, you get passed the faxed out by Fired-Up! Missouri and Democrat talking points and into actual substance.

Livengood isnt the only one who explains more details of the matter. Rosenbaum provides video of the GOP press conference in which they explain in detail their position on presenting a tax burden once the stimulus package runs out in two years.

Keep in mind people are free to speak their mind, it is a fundamental principle of this nation which many Democrats in Congress (and the Obama Administration through “localism”) seek to take away via the fairness doctrine.

My beef is with editorialized reports being classified as “hard news” and people not getting the whole story or truth. If they do not, then how might citizens be able to make proper and informed decisions.

That, of course, is the point isnt it? Shape the battlefield by blinding people of the complete truth in order to gain advantage. Or is this just a case of sloppy journalism?

While most people in Missouri aren’t even thinking about the U.S. Senate race for Missouri in 2010, those in political operation and media are certainly chomping at the bit for any piece of news. Most are simply reporting news and by passing up on gossip opportunities.

This certainly is not the case with KY3 “political reporter” David Catanese.

Over the past few weeks Catanese posted a series stories in support of Sarah Steelman with mysterious sources and little else than what message she might be brandishing during a campaign, including a couple digs and Congressman Roy Blunt who figures to be the lead Republican candidate.

To be sure, Steelman is doing nothing to discourage the reporting. In fact, she could very well be inciting the stories in an effort to keep her name in the news cycle during an off year.

The bigger question, though, is the lack of analysis by Catanese of the noncommitment by Steelman.

A “GOPer who favors Blunt” offered the following insight into the situation to make the point that any sort of announcement issued late yesterday might be solely for name recognition.

*If Steelman was going to commit, why the delay? Apparently she pulled this during past Lincoln Day events and used planted information as a way to general quick attention which otherwise would be elsewhere.

*All those meetings in Washington, D.C. - outside of the RNC meeting who is she really talking to? For someone who supposedly has an astounding grass roots organization why might she be headed to Washington for?

*Steelman lost by almost 20,000 votes in a primary which she won big in Southwest Missouri. If Roy Blunt runs, how can steelman over come such a deficit and lose her strongest part of of Missouri? In Southwest Missouri - Steelman beat Hulshoff by 11% in districts with Roy Blunt grass roots organizations%, outside she won by 26%.

*Finally, my source believes Steelman will not run. To do so would be “self-destructive.”

I would tend to agree with most of the comments made by my political source. I would add that I believe Steelman is getting played by Catanese and maybe even local talk show host Vincent David Jericho.

While both want separate things (Catanese wants Carnahan elected and Roy Blunt gone), Jericho dislikes Roy Blunt in a very unhealthy way - both are trying to shape the battlefield for their own purposes.

I would argue that in both cases, but especially Catanese, little is discussed in the way of policy; its all hype. One doesnt run a state wide race for the United States Senate via Face Book as he would want you to believe.

*updated to accurately reflect GOP primary numbers.

The Politico is reporting tonight that the Senate is trying to push through a last minute deal. Of course to me the whole bill is nothing more than a 900 billion dollar slush fund for various projects which are meant to keep Democrats in office through lining their friends pockets and impose a mild form of Marxism.

In either case, due to political pressure, the bill might sail back down to the 800 billion dollar range. If it does so, one of the items which might hit the cutting block is aide to states.

Thats right, the very center piece which our state budge which Jay Nixon proposed might not be as big as he had hoped.

Of course either way the budget would need to go through the Republican held legislature which probably would not have passed the budget like he wanted it to.

The point is, however, a state should never rely completely on any sort of federal “bail out.”

Matt Blunt might made a few bad decisions during his tenure as governor. Keep the budget intact while ensuring education was well funded wasn’t one of them. In fact it might be the lasting legacy which he will be remembered for.

Could you imagine if Republicans had not implemented the budget changes they did? How bad would we be with the current economic down turn?

In one of those all too predictable moments it looks as if another ACORN worker has been indicted for voter registration fraud here in the state of Missouri.

Of course there is spin on both sides of the isle regarding the matter but the following facts remain:

Democrats want people to vote without any sort of mechanism to provide for the integrity of an election.

Republicans in the our state legislature appear less than resolved for tackling the issue head on and providing the necessary monies to fund such mechanisms. Or at least it has in the past.

As with any policy, until those in the elected capacity decide to man up and tackle the issue without preference to what benefits their own projection of power, we are doomed to what ever side effects become present. Of course for Democrats, that might not be a bad thing given their ability to keep counting ballots (and revoting ballots) until they prevail.