2010 Senate Race

The Globe and Southeast Missourian both have editorial today criticizing the extreme plan pushed by Senate candidate Ed Martin, Sen. Brian Nieves, Sen. Jason Crowell and Sen. Jim Lembke in which Missouri would reject $189M in federal education money to make some sort of point about federal spending  at the expense of Missouri's schoolchildren.  Lost on all of them, apparently, is the fact that their ideas would cause real harm in Missouri communities, and if the Show-Me State doesn't take the money, it just goes to other states. 

Here's what The Globe had to say:

It’s one thing to talk about excessive federal spending as a topic of election-time rhetoric. But political talking points are shaping up to become drastic cuts that will harm Missouri’s children...

One of the worst ideas involves sending it back...

We hope Missouri’s Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly remember that they were elected to represent Missourians, not the entire country. We need them to do what’s best for the Show-Me State, not try to address national political talking points.

Fox News has backed down in its "ridiculous" partisan lawsuit against the Robin Carnahan for Senate campaign, agreeing to a settlement with the campaign and walking away without any of the monetary damages it had sought. Fox and their lawyers are apparently unwilling to test their "dubious" and "strange" claims in court, and political speech remains protected.

As you may recall, Fox sued the Carnahan campaign in September, upset that they'd found footage of Sunday morning personal Chris Wallace committing journalism in a 2006 interview with Roy Blunt, questioning his credibility as a reformer in the House of Representatives.  Never mind that all sorts of Republican candidates, including Blunt, John McCain and other GOP candidates were allowed to use Fox footage for their campaigns without so much as a whimper from the propagandists.  (Also left unmentioned in the Fox complaint: their PAC has been donating to Blunt's campaigns for a decade.)

In the settlement, Fox News agreed to walk, and the Carnahan campaign agreed it had used more footage than a Democratic candidate for office is permitted if it wishes to avoid a retaliatory lawsuit from Fox.

No word yet on the current status of Wallace's "self esteem and dignity," which Fox alleged had been significantly damaged by the re-airing of his act of journalism.

Related:

• Post-Dispatch: "Fox v. Robin: Caught being objective, Fox News retaliates."
• Slate Magazine: Why the Fox News suit against Robin Carnahan's campaign is bogus
• TPM: Fox News Took 'Dramatic Step' In Suing Political Campaign, Says Copyright Expert
• Politico: Fox News sues Carnahan over ad
• Fired Up!: Legal Experts Call Fox Complaints "Dubious" & "Strange"
• Fired Up!: FOX and Chris Wallace Really, Really Annoyed That They Were Critical of Roy Blunt
• Fired Up!: Kraske: Fox Lawsuit A "Mystery"

The Post-Dispatch weighed in on Fox News' lawsuit against the Robin Carnahan Senate campaign this weekend, in piece headlined "Fox v. Robin: Caught being objective, Fox News retaliates."  It provides a good summary of Fox's claims in the suit, along with a number of good examples of Republican campaigns using Fox footage in their ads -- campaigns that that the propagandists at Fox haven't yet gotten around to suing, for some reason. 

"We'd hesitate to call the lawsuit frivolous," they write. "Ridiculous is more like it. With a whiff of spite."

"That complete Website...probably the best Website on the Internet."

Jerry Beck, Constitution Party candidate for US Senate, describing his recently hacked campaign website

Over at the blog for the "Church of Lazlo" radio show, host Lazlo Geiger has posted audio of an on-air conversation he had yesterday with KMBC's Micheal Mahoney about Roy Blunt's angry and evasive response to a question of whether or not he knew a woman who previously did housekeeping work (perhaps illegally) for his family.   It was an unorthodox interview worth listening to in its entirety, but this exchange between Lazlo and Mahoney really stands out:

HOST:  Did you get the feeling in the response of that -- or at least what I got from watching the video and listening to it -- was that he did not want to answer that question and he wished you were somewhere else.

MAHONEY:  I think he wished he were somewhere else.  I don't think he was -- I think he would like this episode behind him. And he thinks that it's -- that it's a, you know, a put-up job by the Democrats who are trying to campaign against him. So yeah, it's not something he'd like to talk about.

The full interview is online here.   The exchange between Lazlo and Mahoney at the very beginning of the clip is pretty amusing. 

h/t @BHIndepMO

From the Missouri Democratic Party: "In this final episode, Congressman Roy Blunt cements his position as a true power broker and the ultimate Washington insider. In a revolutionary move, Blunt and DeLay actually outsource some of the business of lawmaking to corporate special interest lobbyists. This lobbyist-fueled political machine becomes known as “Blunt-Inc”, and it creates an “institutionalized alliance” with the most powerful lobbyists in Washington. [Washington Post, 5/17/05] In fact, Blunt's meetings with lobbyists grew to hundreds. According to the National Journal: “Blunt and his staff...regularly consult with roughly 500 lobbyists with K Street shops, trade associations, corporate Washington offices, and interest groups, according to Blunt's office.” [National Journal, 11/5/05]"

h/t Turner Report

Via the Hollywood Reporter: "Now that Carnahan has dutifully pointed out that Fox News was a bit tardy in filing its copyright registration, Fox has decided to take advantage of Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. What's that? It basically allows a party to amend its pleading within 21 days of the other party raising a defense based on jurisdictional or procedural grounds (i.e. serving a copyright lawsuit before registering copyright). So Fox News is amending its lawsuit to include the copyright registration. In addition, the cable news network is adding new charges against the Carnahan campaign for continuing to use the commercial on its website, even after taking the ad off TV.  The move hardly will change the outcome of the case, but it allows Fox News more time."

No word yet on how the protracted legal battle is affecting Chris Wallace's self esteem and dignity.

Fox News' amended complaint is embedded below the jump.

Posted to the YouTubes this afternoon...

h/t Micheal Mahoney

ProEthics, a company that describes itself as "an ethics training and consulting firm based in the Washington D.C. area," has released a bipartisan list of the "Untrustworthy Twenty" in a press release today.  Roy Blunt comes in at #12 on the list:

12.  Rep Roy Blunt (R, U.S. Senate, Missouri): "Blunt has been routinely flagged by C.R.E.W. (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) as one of Congress's most flagrantly unethical members, and for good reason: he has been involved in a series of suspicious quid pro quo deals that look a lot like trading legislation for cash.  That was just in the House; imagine what he might do in the Senate."

The Star:

Blunt, the father of a former governor and son of a Missouri legislator, talks about a commitment to small government regarding health care and No Child Left Behind. However, his record shows he often backs big, and sometimes unfunded, government.

He admits Republicans did a pretty poor job controlling spending when they were last in charge in Washington, hardly a good reason to believe they would be frugal this time. Blunt has close ties to special interests and is one of the largest House recipients of special interest donations, so his political independence is clearly suspect.

Carnahan, in contrast, proposes to end the revolving door from Congress to lobbying firms, and she strongly supports more disclosure on campaign finance donations. She opposes earmarks, a growing budget concern, and offers a fresh, honest approach to government.

The Post-Dispatch:

Ms. Carnahan understands both the human and economic imperatives of reforming health care. She understands the need to bring even more reform to the financial sector. She understands that the social contract — work hard and get ahead — is threatened by special interests and record income inequality.

Mr. Blunt does not appear to see the problem, perhaps because he played a key role in creating it. His 21-page “jobs program” boils down to standard Republican mantras of cutting taxes and government spending and unleashing the forces of the marketplace.

Since 1980, those ideas have worked fine for the “haves” and “have mores” in America, but they’ve left the working poor desperate and the middle class struggling.

On a personal level, Mr. Blunt, 60, is charming and thoroughly professional, but in the House he was all too willing to go along with every excess of the Bush administration and has been all too willing to play ball with lobbyists and special interests. To think that would change if he moves across the Rotunda to the Senate is a pipe dream.

The next six years will be difficult for America and for Missouri. We have no illusions that Ms. Carnahan’s election to the Senate will get us where we need to be. But she is far more likely than Mr. Blunt to support policies and programs that will get us started.

The Star's Lee Judge...

A new poll paid for by the completely nonpartisan Fox News and conducted by Rasmussen's Pulse Opinion Research shows Roy Blunt leading by 6 points, 49-43.  Two weeks ago, the same poll showed Blunt leading by 8 points.

Note that like all other Rasmussen surveys, this does not provide respondents with all of the names on the ballot.  Libertarian Jonathan Dine and Constitution Party candidate Jerry Beck have consistently pulled 5-8 percent of voters when people are given the full list of options.

The survey also shows that Blunt's negatives have jumped considerably in the past two weeks, while Carnahan's unfavorable rating has improved. Obama's approval ratings, while still negative, have also improved in the past two weeks.

Topline memo embedded below the jump.

A few folks have asked about where to find debate footage and audio for the various campaigns.  It's all over the place, and we'll post everything we can here.

Thursday's Senate Debate in Kansas City, from KCPT

Watch the full episode. See more KCPT Specials.

Friday's Senate Debate at the Lake of the Ozarks, from Missourinet

Friday's Auditor Debate at the Lake of the Ozarks, from Missourinet

Just posted to the Public Policy Polling blog: "The Missouri Senate race is getting closer, with Robin Carnahan pulling within 5 points of Roy Blunt in a new PPP poll conducted for her campaign. Blunt's lead is 46-41, in contrast with the 45-38 advantage he had when we last took a look at the race in August."

In August, "a similar poll showed Carnahan trailing by seven points."

PPP attributes "the increased competitiveness of the race" to two factors:

1. "As is happening across the country Democratic voters are getting more interested in this year's election as the big day comes closer," and
2. "Roy Blunt's support from Democrats has decreased since August, while Robin Carnahan's support from Republicans has seen a slight increase."

Memo embedded below the fold. 

The Robin Carnahan campaign has blasted out an incredible exchange with Roy Blunt at a Friday event in Lebanon.  In the exchange, you can hear Blunt justify his twelve votes to increase Congressional salaries by suggesting that cost of living adjustments are necessary to make life in Washington bearable. "You know, just how bad do you want this job to be when the next person has it?"

BLUNT: And just to clarify one thing. I know it will make you all feel better. I didn't get any cost of living increase last year or this year either.

AUDIENCE: You didn't?

BLUNT: No I did not. So you can feel a little better about that.

AUDIENCE: How many increases have you had in 14 years?

BLUNT: You know, I think--- I don't know. Not 14 or 12 or whatever they say.

AUDIENCE: How many have you voted for yourself in 14 years?

BLUNT: Well, I voted against the last 2 and I've never voted for one. But if we got the COLA that everybody else got, the postman and everybody else got, no bigger. Actually we got half a percent less than everybody else got. And you know, just how bad do you want this job to be when the next person has it?

"Just how bad do you want this job to be?" Say what?!

Back in the real world, Members of Congress receive $174,000 now in salary, plus benefits, and their salary increases have outpaced inflation since 1990.  Here's a breakdown of how Blunt has struggled to make ends meet since 1997:

• 1997 - $133,600
• 1998 - $136,700
• 1999 - $136,700
• 2000 - $141,300
• 2001 - $145,100
• 2002 - $150,000
• 2003 - $154,700
• 2004 - $158,100
• 2005 - $162,100
• 2006 - $165,200
• 2007 - $165,200
• 2008 - $169,300
• 2009 - $174,000

In this period, Blunt's annual pay has increased ten times, and he's voted twelve times to continue cost of living increases. 

I see that Roy Blunt has a new campaign ad about Medicare exactly one business day after Roy Blunt was confronted about his statements that it would have been "best" if Medicare and Medicaid had never been created, and his statement that "Medicare has never done anything to make people more healthy."

The ad focuses on changes in future Medicare spending in the new health care law. KMBC's Micheal Mahoney looked at this claim from Blunt last week, and made it clear that "current Medicare benefits are not cut under the bill."    PolitiFact.com picked apart the claims a few weeks ago when they appeared in a similar pro-Republican ad. 

It's important to note that the law does not take $500 billion out of the current Medicare budget. Rather, the bill attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in future spending over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase -- the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009...

The ad loses points for accuracy because the $500 billion aren't actual cuts but reductions to future spending for a program that will still grow significantly in the next 10 years. The ad also says those cuts will "hurt the quality" of seniors' care. But we find that to be a highly contentious subject, and the 60 Plus ad doesn't hint at any of the ways that the reductions are ways to make Medicare more efficient. Finally, the ad doesn't mention any of the benefits to seniors, such as improved prescription drug coverage. The ad seems more intent on attacking the health care law than accurately describing this complicated piece of legislation. Because it leaves critical facts out of its description in a way that gives a misleading impression, we rate the statement Barely True.