Flip-Flops

A nice montage of Jon Hunstman's previous statements on Mitt Romney, released today by the DNC in response to news that Huntsman is endorsing Romney. 

"Figure out a straight answer to the Ryan plan question before going on the radio."

Yesterday, Sarah Steelman went much further than simple praise for Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan, saying she "would love to be able to vote for the Ryan plan." 

PoliticMo has more details: 

Ten weeks after the Paul Ryan budget proposal was announced, and two weeks since the U.S. Senate took a preliminary on the proposal,  Senate hopeful Sarah Steelman, R., said she would vote for the plan.

She announced her position in a web town hall hosted by the SEMO Times in Poplar Bluff, Mo.

“I would love to be able to vote for the Ryan plan. It’s a very serious plan and he had a lot of courage to put that out on the table and I’m glad he did,” Steelman said. “It’s definitely a good start.”

The Post-Dispatch reports today that Rep. Sally Faith (R-St. Charles) has flipped on yet another previously held position in her quest to become Mayor of St. Charles in the upcoming April 5 election.

Faith reversed course on the Puppy Mill Prevention Cruelty Act a few weeks ago after co-sponsoring the complete repeal of the popular Proposition B initiative.  She now also opposes right-to-work-for-less legislation pushed by her GOP colleagues in the Senate, an idea she previously supported. 

Faith has not (yet) changed her position on gutting Missouri's minimum wage law, despite getting "hammered" for ignoring the will of her own voters by incumbent Mayor Patti York.  Faith towed the GOP line earlier this month to overturn the will of voters on the very popular initiative petition, even though an overwhelming 76% of St. Charles County voters supported the law in 2006. 

Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger (R-Lake Saint Louis) was the primary co-sponsor for Rep. Stanley Cox' (R-Sedalia) bill (HB131) to "gut" the just-approved-by-voters Proposition B.  When the bill was heard before the House Ag Policy Committee in January, Gatschenberger testified that Proposition B is, in the words of Show Me Progress writer Sarah Jo (who was in attendance), "an infringement on the right of breeders to make money and pay their bills."  And in the days just before the November election, Gatschenberger advised his constituents to vote against Prop B because "we have enough laws specific to this issue [puppy mill abuses] already in place."

Gatschenberger also cosponsored Rep. Tony Dugger's (R-Hartville) HB94 to repeal the law outright. 

But now, the Suburban Journals' Steve Pokin reports that Gatschenberger think all of this repeal talk has gone too far, and he's "not in favor of changing much of anything."

Like fellow St. Charles County representative Sally Faith, Gatschenberger has resorted to the lame "I just wanted a debate on the bill I co-sponsored" excuse. Please.  The repeal proposals would have been heard with or without their move to ignore their constituents, and they know it.

To make matters even more embarrassing, Gatschenberger claims now that he "hasn't read the bills."  

Yikes.

Rep. Sally Faith (R-St. Charles) is one of the key co-sponsors of HB94, legislation introduced a few weeks ago to completely repeal the the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. But it turns out that Faith's aggressive moves to overturn the will of her constituents -- Proposition B passed by a 61-39 margin in St. Charles County -- didn't sit so well with voters in the City of St. Charles, where Faith wants to be mayor.   The Post-Dispatch reports today that Faith will now vote against her own bill. 

[Incumbent Mayor Patti York] takes aim at Faith's co-sponsorship of a bill to repeal state rules for dog breeders passed by voters in November. "The overwhelming majority of people in her district voted for this ... and now she's trying to overturn it," York said.

Faith says she co-sponsored the measure to get it discussed in the House but plans to vote against it.

York said: "Why would you put your name on something you don't agree with? It sounds like she doesn't know what she is doing."

Speaking Friday with Steve Kraske on Kansas City's local fascist/statist/racist radio station, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder was asked to comment on the sales tax hike proposal supported by major donor Rex Sinquefield, Speaker Steve Tilley and a handful of other delusional legislators in Jefferson City.  Perhaps sensing the huge public backlash that will come for any candidate who's trying to destroy state government, Kinder backed away from his previous support for Sinquefield's fair tax sales tax plan.

I have not endorsed to endorse the 'fair tax,' and I have no plans to do so right now.  But I think it's a great debate for our state to have... I have listened to Steve, uh, to Jim Moody's presentations.  He's a good friend, and he is a respected analyst.  And his cautionary notes is one of the reasons why I have not endorsed the 'fair tax.'  I've heard -- but I think it is a good debate for our state to have, and we should continue with the debate.

Listen:

Click here to read Moody's take-down of the Sinquefield sales tax hike plan.

Not so long ago, Kinder was a big fan of the Sinquefield plan to radically alter the state's tax structure to the benefit of the very wealthiest Missourians, like Sinquefield.  For instance, here's what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on April 15, 2007:

Sinquefield's direct approach has won him admiration, even from those wary of his objectives.

"We just click on so many levels, on so many issues," said Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, who agrees with Sinquefield's quest to abolish Missouri's income tax.

During this morning's debate between Auditor Susan Montee and Ambassador Thomas Schweich, both candidates promised to serve full terms in elected in November.  

Such a promise wouldn't normally be all that interesting, but it is notable given Schweich's previous warnings to other Republicans that he might mount a revenge campaign in 2012 if there were deemed to be insufficiently supportive of his 2010 race.  Gossip writer Jerry Berger also wrote recently that Schweich's deal to get out of the Senate race included some promise of support for a 2012 Senate run.  Here is video of Schweich contemplating his revenge on camera from KY3:

Speaking of Schweich's decision to cut a backroom deal to get out of the Senate race, he was unable to give a cogent response to a direct question about it.  Hope to post video of that soon... 

Thomas Schweich, on stage with "the sedentary, uncreative Republican leadership in this state" (his words) in Kansas City today, said that "what you’re seeing in the current auditor [Susan Montee] is a hyper-partisan auditor, protecting the Obama agenda, flip-flopping on the issues and also issuing politically motivated audits.”

Really?  This is the same guy who promised Republican donors one short year ago that he would use the office of the Auditor to "aggressively" pursue Gov. Jay Nixon "leading up to the 2012 gubernatorial election."  In Schweich's words, "There's an important policy reason that this auditor's race is so important, and there's also a very significant reason from a political standpoint if you're a loyal Republican."  Talk about a change in approach. 

And I just can't get over the idea of Schweich making a huge deal of his campaign fly-around with John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, Jack Danforth, Margaret Kelly, Peter Kinder and Jim Talent after calling out said group of GOP leaders for their backroom deals and "sedentary, uncreative" leadership.  "The Missouri Republican Party seems to have no plan for responsible Missourians. Just saying no to what Obama or Nixon wants is not a plan," he wrote in March 2009.  Then he makes a deal to excuse himself from the US Senate race and secure financial and political support for a lower office, and his skewering of the MOGOP disappears from memory and the press coverage of the race. 

Pretty soon, I expect Schweich to say that revenge candidacies and rock and roll will be the downfall of our democracy.

KOLR/KSFX has a fascinating story out of the 7th District about the Billy Long's willingness to debate debating -- but unwillingness to actually engaging in actual debates.  Long apparently isn't even allowed to discuss the idea of debates with Scott Eckersley on camera -- consultant James Harris has kept those reponsibilities to himself.

Remember as you watch this clip that Billy Long's campaign agreed to the debates Harris now says are "some type of media gimmick." 

I'm not sure Long's handlers could make it any more obvious that they're afraid to turn Long loose.

Fired Up! Missouri has obtained the exclusive results of heretofore unreleased analysis about House Majority Leader Steve Tilley's incredible about-face regarding the use of discharge petitions in the Missouri General Assembly. 

As you probably know by now, the House Rules Committee rejected an ethics reform proposal that was previously approved unanimously by the Speaker's special ethics committee, largely because it would reinstate campaign contribution limits.  In response, a bipartisan group of representatives signed a discharge petition to bypass the Rules Committee's decision and directly place the the ethics reform bill on the House calendar. 

Tilley has since described this discharge petition "an unfair way around the House rules" that "bypasses the process" through which he and Speaker Ron Richard can kill legislation in a less flashy fashion. Discharge petitions are rare, but they aren't unfair or against the rules. They do annoy House Speakers and Floor Leaders.  

Tilley knows this because he himself signed a discharge petition earlier in his career. 

Kit Bond and Senate Republicans dropped their filibuster yesterday to allow Wall Street reform debate to continue. Bond now says that "it's time we got the details laid out for the public" -- even though he voted on Tuesday and Wednesday to block debate on the Senate floor (he skipped Monday's cloture vote).

Still, Bond remains adamantly opposed to the legislation, referring to unspecified concerns about 'Main Street.'  "This bill absolutely cripples Main Street," he says -- but it's not at all clear what that means.

KUDLOW: The Republicans caucus has changed its position, and has agreed to unanimous consent to bring the bill to the floor. Why?  May I ask why, Mr. Bond? 

BOND: It's time we got the details laid out for the public...because this bill absolutely cripples Main Street. We're hearing from back home, and I want people back home to know what this bill will to the business, to the credit lenders in our state...

I'm hoping that we can get a majority to change the bad parts. If we continue to have the bad parts in, I'll do everything I can to kill it.

No, not his 2010 promise to "support any recommendation that comes out of" his new bipartisan ethics committee. Don't be silly.  The House leadership is planning to "strip from the ethics bill all measures relating to campaign finance" this session.

It's to his April 2009 declaration that he remains true:

House Speaker Ron Richard, a Joplin Republican, said Thursday he wasn’t interested in additional ethics reform. A bill passed last year removing campaign contribution limits achieved all the goals he had set.

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post's WhoRunsGov.com:

Rep. Roy Blunt, in a video being circulated by the DSCC, appears to come out against insuring adults with pre-existing conditions, on the grounds that it would give people “every incentive” not to get insurance until they absolutely have to.

Dems point out that this is, as it happens, a pretty good argument in favor of the individual mandate.

Last June, Roy Blunt said it was very important to provide affordable coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.  In fact, it was his number one priority in a list of goals for his poorly-named "Health Care Solutions Group." He wrote:

The House Republican Health Care Solutions Group has been working for months on a plan... This process has resulted in the broad outline of a health care reform plan that the solutions group hopes will receive bipartisan support. The health care reforms outlined are designed to:

1. Make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions.

Sen. Bill Stouffer (R-Napton), one of six conservative Republicans to vote against the Senate's autism insurance bill (SB618), has words of comfort for the families he voted against.  Fear not, struggling families, because "the free market system works."  Via The Turner Report:

I cannot vote to let state government dictate what coverage insurance companies can offer. The free market system works. Letting government in, so they can tell insurance providers who they can and cannot cover, is not a good fix to a situation.

SB618 passed 26-6 on March 18. Last year, however, when the Senate passed Rupp's SB167 by a 29-2 vote, Stouffer has happy to support a similar assault on freedom bipartisan solution.

Roy Blunt is promising to fight for a wholesale repeal of the Democratic health care reform package.  He could have chosen to fight for smaller or partial changes, but wants the whole thing junked.

Why does he want insurance companies to continue to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or let them kick people off their roles when they get too sick? 

You may recall that last year, the top priority on Blunt's (short) outline for changing the federal health system was to "make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions."  No more. 

Friday afternoon, House Speaker Ron Richard (R-Joplin) told the Post-Dispatch's Tony Messenger that he wanted to be on "the short list" of GOP candidates for governor in 2016.  And then at some point in the next 24 hours, Richard decided -- or was persuaded -- that we shouldn't believe what he'd stated the day before. 

It's not hard to see why some of his colleagues at the MOGOP's Lincoln Days celebration were freaked out by Richard's statements.  Implicit in his 2016 dreams, of course, is the assumption that Peter Kinder will not survive his 2012 campaign for governor. 

Missourinet and the AP report that Senate President Charlie Shields (R-St. Joseph) and Speaker Ron Richard (R-Joplin) are both cool to the replace the state income tax with much higher sales taxes.  Missourinet's Bob Priddy:

Senate leader Charlie Shields does not think the bill will pass but he expects a robust debate. In the event it does clear the Senate, the proposal goes to the House, which passed the bill last year. But this year, Speaker Ron Richard sees problems. “I just want to make sure there’s not any uncertainty about where we’re moving, about schools formula, about libraries, about fire districts...And I can see the amendments on the floors now, everybody getting exempted out to kill the bill...I don’t think St. Louis can take 11 or 12 or 13 percent sales tax on their retail. I don’t think that would work and I don’t think that’s proper,” he says.

The Tribune's Janese Heavin has the scoop on a really interesting development in the story of Gary Forsee's opposition to federal clean energy legislation. For several days, he's sustained criticism for lending support to the Republican efforts to kill the legislation. Then yesterday, things got a whole lot worse for the President of the UM System when it was reveled that the calculations at the core of this opposition were incorrect.

In light of these facts, Forsee began to walk back his opposition at a Mizzou campus town hall earlier today, and reaffirmed his support for reducing carbon emissions.

A new story from KY3's Dave Catanese has an fascinating quote from Speaker Ron Richard's spokesperson on why House leaders refused to allow a vote on autism legislation last year.

"Ron just didn't have the votes [last year]," said Richard spokeswoman Kristen Blanchard. "Publicly legislators were telling people they'd vote for it, but behind closed doors they were saying they couldn't. The Speaker wants everyone to be able to have their input on the bill," she added.

So the Speaker's spokesperson is asking us to believe a significant portion of the GOP caucus was lying to the public about supporting the bill?  Nice! 

Catanese doesn't challenge the assertion from Richard's office in his article, except to weakly state that "some blamed the House for failing."