Scott Rupp

Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-O'Fallon) has a new state senate campaign website (www.votecynthia.net), and it's a sight to behold.

Davis has a lot to say.  She laments the way "Sarah Palin was nit-picked and harassed" and complains about "cardboard candidates who only give lip service to our core conservative values."  Davis also has a list of grievances with her opponent, incumbent Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville), on everything from how he allegedly "shredded our Pro-Life bill two years in a row" to his vote to "put 35,000 more able-bodied Missourians on the welfare roles."

But for obvious reasons, my favorite part of the website is her "Qualifications" section.  Here she positions herself as a crusader against the "liberal media and far-left commentators" who "done their best to intimidate me."

Steve Walsh caught up with Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-O'Fallon) at Lincoln Days to talk about her campaign to unseat Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville). She did not disappoint:

“Why is it a negative to talk about our principles and our values?” asks Davis. “That’s a positive. I’ve got nothing to hide. My voting record is strong and clear. He [Rupp] has got a lot to be ashamed of.”

While she is critical of Rupp, Davis has come in for a lot of criticism of her own. She has come under fire, especially in the left wing blogs, for being involved in what is known as the birther movement - the questioning of whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States and is constitutionally allowed to serve as Commander in Chief.

“They’re trying to create shame for people who ask questions,” replies Davis. “That defines the problem right there. Why is there shame in asking questions? It’s a legitimate question and Barack Obama has spent over a million dollars to try and not answer it. If I wanted to answer a question I’d show you my birth certificate if you cared that I was born in Chicago. Obviously, he’s embarrassed of where he’s born because he’s trying to hide the records.”

Absolutely insane.

Sen. Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) does not like the proposal from Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau) to create a two-year waiting period for legislators before they can cash in as lobbyists or accept appointments to state positions.

While Crowell may have his own self-serving reasons for proposing the ban and making his colleagues squirm, a revolving door ban of at least one year seems like a basic good government policy.  Among other things, such waiting periods would make it hard for legislators to negotiate the terms of their next job while still in public office. For example, fellow Sen. John Griesheimer (R-Washington) has made it public knowledge that he wants someone to hire him as a lobbyist when he's done with the Senate later this year; it would be shocking if a prospective employer hasn't broached that topic with the Senator at some point. 

Engler sees things differently.  In his mind, Crowell's proposal would restrict service in the Missouri General Assembly to the unemployed, retired and independently wealthy.  Moreover, he says "we want people in the halls" to have "experience," and says (half?) jokingly that a ban might open lobbyist gigs and state appointments to "retired, un-business-like people who don't have jobs."

Rep. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville) is standing up for the rights of Missourians to not pay their taxes.

In his latest newsletter, Rupp expresses great concern with the proposal to allow the state to seize delinquent taxes from people's bank accounts.  Gov. Jay Nixon proposed the idea in January, and fellow Republican Sen. Carl Vogel (R-Jefferson City) has said he plans to sponsor legislation to make it happen. Rupp:

Now, instead of closing loopholes in the tax code, or determining a course of action in which the state government actually looks for even more ways to save money, our governor came up with a “big brother” idea. His thought: maybe the Department of Revenue should be able to get into our bank accounts and seize money when taxes go unpaid. Bank seizures are part of the proposed new laws the governor wants to balance his budget on, to the tune of $22 million this year and $49 million in 2012. Somehow I doubt that these new laws will get a warm reception in the Legislature.

Another fascinating tidbit from Jo Mannies' story about the Scott Rupp v. Cynthia Davis matchup in the second senate district:

But Davis adds that she's also concerned by what she views as too much camaraderie in the Senate between Republicans and Democrats. "The Senate has become a big fraternity club," she said, where members' "loyalty to each other" outweighs their partisan differences.

"You can't tell who's a Republican or Democrat," Davis complained. If she wins, she said, that will change.

More gridlock and petty partisanship, please.

"Just because you can get three jugs of milk for $8 doesn't mean you should get all three. Term limits is not the same as a suggested amount of time to hold your office."

~ Rep. Cynthia Davis on why challengers shouldn't be discouraged from taking on incumbents who aren't yet termed out, like state Sen. Scott Rupp

"The more that she talks and opens her mouth, the better I look."

-Scott Rupp, talking about his new primary challenger, Cynthia Davis

To be fair to Cynthia Davis and the Riverfront Times, Davis is actually a finalist for Daily RFT's "Ass Clown of the Year," awarded to "the person whose idiocy and hubris makes them jack-ass maximus of 2009."

“I guess the best way to describe this race is I’m more like Sarah Palin and he’s more like John McCain."

~Cynthia Davis, on how she's different from Scott Rupp, who she wants to replace in the State Senate.

Dave Drebes reports that Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-O'Fallon) is expected to will challenge state Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville) next fall in the 2nd District GOP primary.

UPDATE: The Post-Dispatch has more:

“I guess the best way to describe this race is I’m more like Sarah Palin and he’s more like John McCain,” Davis said, referring to the 2008 GOP national ticket.

She said “the facts are the Senate needs me.”  Among other things, she said, she would be a strong anti-abortion advocate in the Senate.

“Nobody in the Senate is a true champion” on the issue, she said.

Yesterday, hoping to get the jump on an already-scheduled series of announcements by Gov. Jay Nixon, Sen. Scott Rupp and Sen. Eric Schmitt, Speaker Ron Richard held a "hastily announced" conference call to express his support for autism insurance legislation, and specifically, for a bill sponsored by Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst.

Richard's about-face was surprising, given his role in killing similar legislation last year because it wasn't supported by insurance companies.  What makes his supposed support for Scharnhorst's bill even more interesting is that (1) it's already publicly opposed by the insurance lobby and (2) identical to the legislation supported by Nixon, Rupp, Schmitt and bipartisan majorities in both chambers.

But today, the Post-Dispatch's Virginia Young reports that Richard "stopped short of endorsing" Nixon's four-part proposal on autism, even though Nixon's is proposing that the General Assembly pass... the bill Richard said he supported yesterday.

Scrambling to convince the public that he's actually interested in substantive autism insurance legislation, Speaker Ron Richard tried to get a jump on the issue today:

Richard, a Republican, today touted a bill [HB 1311] filed by Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst, R-St. Louis, in a phone conference call that was hastily announced. Richard’s spokeswoman said the bill will get a quick committee hearing.

Richard's newfound interest in the subject is more than a little suspect, of course given his role in killing legislation supported by a broad bipartisan majority last session. Richard has been called out by members of both parties for his work on behalf of insurance companies instead of struggling families.

The South County Times has a good story today about Sen. Eric Schmitt's (R-Glendale) efforts to pass legislation requiring autism coverage in the General Assembly. "It's a parity issue and an issue of fairness and more," Schmitt says. The story includes a lot of moving details about his personal reasons for supporting the legislation.  Schmitt also reminds us why the Republican House Leadership refused to let an autism mandate come up for a vote. 

But does it really matter what the House Interim Committee on Autism decides to do before the next legislative session if Speaker Ron Richard and Floor Leader Steve Tilley won't let it come up for a vote?

There was autism insurance legislation last year, sponsored by GOP Sen. Scott Rupp that passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and enjoyed the support of an overwhelming majority in the House -- 110 Representatives, by Rupp's count. 

Why does Speaker Richard need a new committee recommendation to allow a vote on already-very popular legislation?

Sen. Jim Lembke, Sen. Scott Rupp and candidate Jack Jackson have all signed pledges for the Missouri Sovereignty Project, promising to protect Missourians from unspecified encroachment by the federal government.  The mission of the Sovereignty Project organization is:

To render ineffective (or nullify), by Missouri legislation or Missouri Constitutional Amendment, any law enacted by the United States Government that suppresses, violates, interferes with, or deters any Missourian’s “…unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.”

Among other things, Lembke, Rupp and Jackson each pledged to "introduce, sponsor and/or support legislation that nullifies actions/decisions of all three branches of the federal government that exceed U.S. Constitutional authority."

I'm sure this is conservative code language for some list of alleged unconstitutional acts -- maybe Lembke, Rupp and Jackson can outline which federal policies and programs they believe should be nullified?