Rich Chrismer

I suppose it's not shocking from a candidate who thinks we would have been better off if Medicare and Medicaid had never been created, and who thinks that "Medicare has never done anything to make people more healthy,"  but I was still a little surprised to see this quote in the new Post-Dispatch story about the health care reform positions of Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan.

"The health care law doesn't really take effect until 2014," said Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer, 'so the only option Congress has at this point is to decline to allocate tax dollars for this government takeover."

While it is true that 2014 is an important milestone in the implementation of the new law -- at that point, health insurers will be prohibited from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions (something Roy Blunt used to tell voters he supported, but then failed to do anything about), and tax penalties will begin for individuals who do not purchase insurance -- Chrismer's statement demonstrates an incredible ignorance about what is actually contained in the law he claims to detest.

In fact, Roy Blunt wants to junk all of the following new provisions that are taking effect in 2010. (Perhaps because he's been so blinded by thoughtless obstruction to notice.)

• Young adults will be able stay on their parents' insurance until their 26th birthday.
• Seniors will get a $250 rebate to help fill the "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage, which falls between the $2,700 initial limit and when catastrophic coverage kicks in at $6,154.
• Insurers will be barred from imposing exclusions on children with pre-existing conditions. Pools will cover those with pre-existing health conditions until health care coverage exchanges are operational.
• Insurers will not be able to rescind policies to avoid paying medical bills when a person becomes ill.
• Lifetime limits on benefits and restrictive annual limits will be prohibited.
• New plans must provide coverage for preventive services without co-pays. All plans must comply by 2018.
• A temporary reinsurance program will help offset costs of coverage for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55 to 64.
• New plans will be required to implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.
• Adoption tax credit and assistance exclusion will increase by $1,000. The bill makes the credit refundable and extends it through 2011.
• A 10 percent tax will be imposed on amounts paid for indoor tanning services on or after July 1.
• Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35 percent of their health care premiums, increasing to 50 percent by 2014.

Again, these are all 2010 provisions -- provisions that Chrismer indicates do not actually exist. Maybe if he knew more about the law, we'd see a little less demagoguery from Blunt and other Republicans? 

Roy Blunt, back when he lived in Missouri

Twenty-five years ago, Roy Blunt was elected to be Missouri's Secretary of State.  In that capacity, he oversaw things like initiative petitions and elections, just like the people who served before and after him in that role. 

Blunt's direct knowledge of SOS operations make his campaign's latest salvo really hard to understand.  As reported by The Beacon, Blunt's spokesman Rich Chrismer says "Missourians have every right to question [Robin Carnahan's] judgment and whether she can be trusted to make an independent or impartial decision on" whether or not the ShowMe Better Courts' petition should make the ballot.  While I'm sure that buddy James Harris appreciates the attempt to divert attention away from his apparent failure to collect enough signatures, the attack is dishonest and dumb.

As Blunt should recall, signatures are verified by local election authorities -- not partisan officials in Jefferson City. Once signatures are submitted to the SOS office, they're sent to local offices for checking.  The SOS office will then undertake the task of adding up the numbers provided to them.  Moreover, this whole process is done in the open -- there's not a lot of room for discretion.  Either Harris & Co. have the signatures, or they don't. 

I know this undercuts the Blunt campaign's entire argument, but it's how things work.

Hiding behind executive privilege didn't work, and trying to make Governor Nixon the target of the suit didn't work, so settling to avoid a trial may have been the last best option.

The state will pay a former staffer of Gov. Matt Blunt $500,000 to settle his wrongful termination and defamation lawsuit.

Scott Eckersley sued the governor and several of his staff members last January alleging defamation of character, wrongful termination and violations of the state open records law. The lawsuit has cost the state well over a million dollars as Blunt and his staffers used the state’s legal defense fund to pay attorneys fees.

When we last checked in, Matt Blunt was trying to hide behind executive privilege in the ongoing defamation and wrongful termination lawsuit of Scott Eckersley. That didn't work, so now the Blunt legal team is trying to make Jay Nixon the target of the suit.  Honestly, I'm not sure my mind can comprehend the weirdness of this latest request:

Matt Blunt says Jay Nixon should be the target of fired former aide's lawsuit

Former Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt is seeking to pass the defense of a defamation and wrongful termination lawsuit to his political rival and successor, Gov. Jay Nixon.

Attorneys for former governor's office counsel Scott Eckersley, who is suing Blunt, assert the request is legally wrong and "a sleight of hand that would make even the most jaded political operative squirm."

The lengths to which Blunt & Co. are willing to go to avoid accountability are breathtaking -- and sure aren't the acts of a crew with nothing to hide.

Fired Up's rundown of all the things Matt Blunt wants Jay Nixon to answer for can be found here. 

No luck for the former governor:

The Western District Court of Appeals agreed with a trial judge that Gov. Matt Blunt could not hide behind “executive privilege” in defense of the defamation and wrongful termination lawsuit of Scott Eckersley.

For a breakdown of the bad behavior Blunt wants to hide, check out our timeline of how the Eckersley firing went down.

KY3 has published partial results from a new Republican poll showing serious problems for Roy Blunt: 

[Pollster Chris] Wilson said that "voters are particularly angered when they learn of Blunt's involvement with Jack Abramoff, and that he was one of the largest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions."

"The same negatives will hurt Blunt in the Republican primary, where after voters hear this information, he trails Sarah Steelman by more than 20 points," according to the report on the poll.

Wilson's memo concludes that once voters become aware of these negatives of a Blunt candidacy, his "soft support will vanish."

Annoyed that people keep talking about actual vulnerabiltiies with Blunt's candidacy, spokesman Rich Chrismer called they survey a push poll. (It's not a push poll, but whatever.) 

Ignoring the pro-Steelman spin, I'm not sure how the poll makes Steelman's chances look all that promising. She only has a 49% favorabliity rating with her own party, and gets creamed in a hypothetical general election matchup against Robin Carnahan. Sure, she may do well with the small "soft Democrats" demographic, but when people learn about her own problems, and when Republicans stay home in droves after a divisive, expensive primary, her ship is sunk. 

Also: Kudos to the Blunt opp research shop for pointing out the pollster's previous ethical and honesty problems. 

Only 493 days to go.

Though the formal investigation into the record retention practices of the Blunt administration records has concluded, Scott Eckersley's defamation suit is yet to be resolved.

As first reported by Fired Up!, Eckersley, a former Blunt staff lawyer, was fired in September 2007. Eckersley says he was fired after raising concerns about whether Blunt’s office was properly applying the Sunshine Law to e-mails. But after Eckersley was fired, Governor Blunt, COS Ed Martin and others tried to convince the public that Eckersley's dismissal was the result of improper use of state resources, and had nothing to do with his warnings about the legal record retention requirements.

However, the publicly released emails from Ed Martin, Richard Aubuchon, Rich Chrismer and others show that requests for details on Eckersley's computer and phone use came after Fired Up! reported that Eckersley had been locked out of the Governor's office.

----- Original Message-----
From: Eckersley, Scott
Sent:Wednesday, September 19,2007 2:10 PM
To:Herschel, Henry
Subject:RE: PD sunshine

I don't know but gmb is going around saying we don't have an office policy--kane showed it to me in the pd--I don't think Chrismer gets it.

Scott J. Eckersley
Deputy General Counsel
Off ice of Govcrl2or Matt Blunt
State Capital, Room 216
Jefferson City, MO 65101
573-751-3841 (Phone)
573-751-8099 (Fax)

----- Original Message-----
From: Herschel, Henry
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:48 PM
TO: Martin, Ed; Eckersley, Scott
Cc: Chrismer, Rich
Subject:RE: PD sunshine

I think we already told everyone that.
--------.-----------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message-----
From: Martin, Ed
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:41 PM
To: Eckersley, Scott
Cc: Herschel, Henry; Chrismer, Rich
Subject: Re: P3 sunshine

Give to rich c.

Ed Martin
(573) 751-5261

----- Original Message-----
From: Eckersley, Scott
To: Martin, Ed
Sent: Wed Sep 19 12:37:35 2007
Subject: PD sunshine

Ed-I just want to make sure you are aware that we do have an official office policy on records retention (in the employee manual):

Section 5.11-Office Record Retention and Open Record Policy:

----- Original Message-----
From: Eckersley, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, September 19,2007 257 PM
To: Herschel, Henry
Subject:RE: PD sunshine

I didn't send him anything than what ed asked me to send.

Scott J. Eckersley
Deputy General Counsel
Office of Governor Matt Blunt
State Capital, 3oom 216
Jefferson City, MO 65101
573-751-3841 (Phone)
573-751-8099 (Fax)

----- Original Message-----
From: Herschel, Henry
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:56 PM
To: Eckersley, Scott
Subject: Fw: PD sunshine

Please go through me before you start e-mailing people

------Original Message------
From: Rich pin C
To: Henry Herschel
Sent: Sep 19, 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Fw: PD sunshine

Henry, can you, in a very kind way, ask Scott to not send me emails about email retention?

I am not complaining, but I would prefer to discuss in person.

------ Original Message------
From: Scott Eckersley
To: Chrismer, Rich
Sent: Sep 19, 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: FW: PD sunshine

Scott J. Eckerjley
Deputy General Counsel
Office of Governor Matt Blunt
State Capital, Room 216
Jefferson City, MO 65101
573-751-3841 (Phone)
573-751-8099 (Fax)

----- Original Message-----
From: Martin, Ed
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:41 PM
To: Eckersley, Scott
Cc: Herschel, Henry; Chrismer, Rich
Subject: Re: P3 sunshine

Give to rich c.

Ed Martin
(573) 751-5261

----- Original Message-----
From: Eckersley, Scott
To: Martin, Ed
Sent: Wed Sep 19 12:37:35 2007
Subject: PD sunshine

The investigation into the Blunt Administration's document destruction retention practices may be over, but many questions remain unanswered. 

We've begun to digest the emails, but we can't adequately explore the files without help. So, we've uploaded the digital files provided by the investigators for your reading pleasure:

• The full investigator's report, with hyperlinks to relevant exhibits
• Gov. Matt Blunt's email dump
• Ed Martin's email dump
• Rich Chrismer's email dump
• Scott Eckersley's email dump
• Henry Herschel's email dump
• Richard Aubuchon's email dump

See things that need more exploration?  drive you mad?  make you laugh?  Send us your thoughts here.

Also: the now-available PDF files aren't just scanned images -- they've also been embedded with the data to allow searching, copying and pasting of the actual text.