KY3 Political Notebook

Check out Therun2016.com

2013-03-21T00:04:00.001-05:00

facebook

Check out Therun2016.com

You shared your email with Therun2016.com and they've suggested you like their page on Facebook

Sign up for a Facebook account if you want to like Therun2016.com and connect with other friends. Or you can simply view the Page.

Therun2016.com

TheRun2016.com is a website dedicated to tracking the early stages of the already evolving 2016 presidential race.
5 likes · 0 talking about this

View Page

This is Spam

This message was sent to dcatanese.notebook@blogger.com. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future, please unsubscribe.
Facebook, Inc., Attention: Department 415, PO Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303

Claire McCaskill's reaction to Todd Akin controversy:

2012-08-20T22:11:00.001-05:00

From the McCaskill campaign website:

St. Louis, Mo. — McCaskill for Missouri 2012 released the following statement from Sen. Claire McCaskill after Todd Akin said women who are victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant because their bodies have a way to "shut that whole thing down." As a former prosecutor, Claire McCaskill has worked closely with hundreds of rape victims and intimately understands their trauma and pain. It is that experience that makes Akin's statements so outrageous.
"It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape," said McCaskill. "The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive."

Akin to supporters: "I'm in this to the end."

2012-08-20T19:47:00.000-05:00

In an e-mail to supporters titled, "I'm in this to the end," Congressman Todd Akin's campaign wrote the following Monday evening:
===============================================================

Dear Friends,

This weekend I made a mistake. I used the wrong words in the wrong way. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong and for that I apologize.

The people from Missouri who elected me know I’m not perfect. They don’t make perfect people. We all make mistakes. When you make a mistake you to tell people you’re sorry, you don’t try and hide it. I made a mistake and I’m sorry.

I have just begun to fight and I’m in this race to the end! We must work together to replace Claire McCaskill in the Senate.

I need your help.

=========================================================

From there, the e-mail went on to ask for contributions to the campaign, including links.
Monday, Crossroads GPS and the GOP senate campaign both removed financial backing from Akin's campaign.

McCaskill's return shot

2012-08-14T17:42:00.001-05:00

One week after the primary, the TV ads are rolling like marbles on Formica. Incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill got the matchup she wanted, but there's still a lot of work to do if she's going to retain her title. Her first effort out of the post-primary gate to vilify her opponent is now out of the box:

There's got to be a morning after. Or does there?

2012-08-08T13:51:00.001-05:00

The British have been known to say, "The King is dead. Long live the King!"

The implication being that the ball keeps rolling. Drink water and drive on.

And so it is the morning after the 2012 Missouri Primary.

The "Akin, Brunner, Steelman Race" is now the "Akin, McCaskill, (Dine), Race."

And yes, it is already rolling.

Anti-McCaskill ad #1 (post primary) is on the air Wednesday morning, courtesy Karl Rove. It is worth pointing out that Congressman Akin was pleased to stay above the fray in the primary and, yes, he came out on top. He ran a clean campaign in the primary in that he did not approve any ads that cast any opponent in a negative light. It's naive to think that that is why he won, nor to believe that a campaign this large would stay antiseptic, even for one day. Let the Hunger Games begin.

Mo. Governor pen whips 22 bills

2012-07-12T13:52:00.001-05:00

Jay Nixon passes 12 laws, vetoes 10

including SB 749 concerning health care and religion

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Gov. Jay Nixon today signed 12 bills into law, including House Bill 1563, which will expand the number of trained professionals providing autism therapy in Missouri.

House Bill 1563 establishes a procedure for provisional licensure of professionals – known as behavior analysts or assistant behavior analysts – who perform Applied Behavioral Analysis, which has been shown to be one of the most effective therapies for children with autism. Under the new law, provisionally licensed behavior analysts and assistant behavior analysts will have completed their professional training but not yet received their scores on their licensure exams. These provisionally licensed professionals will work only under the supervision of licensed behavior analysts.

Gov. Nixon called for the passage of this legislation in his 2012 State of the State Address.

“This bill will increase the number of trained professionals practicing Applied Behavioral Analysis in Missouri and expand the number of children we can reach with this life-changing therapy,” Gov. Nixon said. “I thank the legislators on both sides of the aisle who worked to get this important bill to my desk.”

Gov. Nixon also signed the following bills into law today:

SB 470, concerning transportation;

SB 568, concerning transportation;

SB 636, concerning the judiciary;

SB 719, concerning public safety;

HB 1036, concerning ballot emblems;

HB 1103, concerning real estate;

HB 1105, concerning the state militia;

HB 1308, concerning pledged securities;

HB 1460, concerning the Court Automation Fund;

HB 1495, concerning the reporting of insurance fraud; and

HB 1909, concerning aviation

Gov. Nixon also vetoed 10 bills today, including Senate Bill 749 and House Bill 1329. The Governor will comment on these actions during a media availability at 11 a.m. in his Capitol office. (The official veto message for each bill is available by clicking on the link.)

SB 566, concerning vaccination of pets;

SB 569, concerning elections;

SB 607, concerning outdoor advertising;

SB 635, concerning banking;

SB 715, concerning the state militia;

SB 749, concerning health care;

SB 837, concerning franchise alcohol suppliers;

HB 1250, concerning elections;

HB 1329, concerning motor vehicles; and

HB 1758, concerning parental relationships

Mo. Senators want disaster decleration for Missouri due to drought

2012-07-11T15:12:00.000-05:00

(Press release)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) sent a letter today to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack urging him to move forward with Governor Jay Nixon’s request for a primary disaster declaration for 114 counties in Missouri as a result of losses incurred by farmers and ranchers due to extreme drought conditions.

“Agriculture is a primary driver of Missouri’s economy, and it is important that we provide the support our producers need as they suffer significant losses to crops, pasture, and livestock as a result of the record breaking heat and low precipitation,” the Senators wrote. “A disaster designation would give eligible producers in Missouri the additional support they need by allowing them to qualify for FSA emergency loans, emergency grazing and haying, and other financial assistance.”

In the letter, the senators encourage Secretary Vilsack to quickly move forward with Governor Nixon’s request to help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities recover from this severe drought.

The complete text of the letter is pasted below:

July 11, 2012

The Honorable Thomas J. Vilsack

Secretary of Agriculture

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Whitten Building, Room 200A

Washington, DC 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

On July 10, 2012, Governor Jay Nixon requested a primary disaster declaration for 114 counties in Missouri as a result of losses incurred by farmers and ranchers due to extreme drought conditions. An assessment by the state Farm Service Agency (FSA) has found that all counties in Missouri meet the disaster threshold of having losses of at least 30 percent of the estimated yield of a single crop or where individual farmers sustain losses of more than 30 percent.

Agriculture is a primary driver of Missouri’s economy, and it is important that we provide the support our producers need as they suffer significant losses to crops, pasture, and livestock as a result of the record breaking heat and low precipitation. A disaster designation would give eligible producers in Missouri the additional support they need by allowing them to qualify for FSA emergency loans, emergency grazing and haying, and other financial assistance.

It is our hope that you will promptly grant Governor Nixon’s request to help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities recover from this severe drought. If you have any further questions regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Once again, thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.)
U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (Mo.)

Press release: House Speaker Tilley Says "No" to Special Session

2012-07-06T14:47:00.001-05:00

(PRESS RELEASE FROM OFFICE OF MISSOURI HOUSE SPEAKER STEVEN TILLEY:)

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Missouri House Speaker Steven Tilley turned down the request of Lieutenant Governor candidate Brad Lager to call a special session regarding the Obamacare mandates.

“With all due respect to Senator Lager, I cannot support a special session for several reasons,” said Tilley. Tilley said a Special Session held during an election year would invite grandstanding and filibustering. He also pointed to the fact an extraordinary session would cost taxpayers a minimum of $25,000 per day with a total bill to Missourians approaching hundreds of thousands.

The House Speaker also noted he is unaware of any action being taken by the Administration between now and January that requires the legislature to act. “There is nothing the legislature could do with a special session that cannot wait until the legislature returns for regular session," stated Tilley.

"I support Speaker Tilley's decision,” agreed Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones, R-Eureka. “The cost is too high and I believe there is nothing that can be accomplished in a costly special session that cannot be addressed by the November elections or the legislature in January."

“Finally, some people may remember last fall, Sen. Lager negotiated a tax credit package with House and Senate leaders, which included hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax credits for the St. Louis China Hub sporting events, numerous other credits and significant tax credit reforms that would have saved the taxpayers over a billion dollars,” said Tilley. “As a result, a special session was called by the governor to address pro-jobs legislation and tax credit reform. Sen. Lager ultimately opposed the package and the session collapsed costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

"Without assurances that all sides would agree on the legislative proposals, Sen. Lager's proposed special session would put hundreds of thousands of tax dollars at risk and could ultimately result in another costly special session with no results for the taxpayers," Tilley added.

“I would suggest a better, more immediate course of action is for him to join a lawsuit to fix the biased language Secretary of State Robin Carnahan proposed. We need fair and unbiased language so Missouri voters will have the opportunity to determine if they want to require voter or legislative approval to implement certain provisions of Obamacare rather than leaving the decision to unelected bureaucrats," Tilley said.

Tilley pointed out much of how Obamacare will be implemented in Missouri depends on which individuals fill the roles of governor, legislative leaders, and other statewide officers. Tilley suggested that, after hearing the voters speak, the newly elected legislature and state office holders would have a clear mandate as to the direction the voters have chosen.

###

Mo. Gov. Candidate Randles Outlines his opposition to SCOTUS ruling

2012-06-29T15:03:00.002-05:00

While most politicians put out a quick, brief statement in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Care Act, Republican candidate for Missouri Governor Bill Randles released a manifesto. Unfortunately for Randles, the e-mail detailing his reaction wound up in the KY3 Spam box and was only discovered more than a day later and thus not included in the list of reactions published here on Thursday. The whims of fate. Better late than never, here 'tis. ---Jerry

=====================================================================================

"Most Americans assumed that the most important issue in today’s Obamacare decision would be whether or not the Supreme Court would find the Act unconstitutional. But to anyone concerned about limiting federal power, the ruling on the Act itself is secondary to the grounds the Court used to justify this expansion of federal power. Put simply, if you were to ask most lawyers over the past 70 years what provision of the Constitution has been interpreted as giving the federal government the widest sweep of power, the overwhelming majority would have agreed it was the Commerce Clause. But today, the Court has turned constitutional jurisprudence on its head, finding that the constitutional power to tax allows the federal government the power to regulate areas that even the Commerce Clause would not permit. Today, the Court finds that the power to tax (and thereby control behavior) is even broader than the Court’s virtually boundless prior interpretations of the Commerce Clause. However sweeping federal power was yesterday, it is much broader today.

The Court rejects the idea that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate doing nothing, i.e., failing to buy health insurance. The Court then has some very encouraging statements about how the Commerce Clause is limited and does not afford the federal government the power to regulate us “cradle to grave.” It offers the hypothetical that the federal government cannot regulate our diets simply because an unhealthy diet might result in more healthcare expenses.

The Court then turns this excellent reasoning on its head by stating that the federal government has the power to tax activity it could not otherwise regulate under the Commerce Clause. The Court goes to some disingenuous length to explain why taxing behavior is neither regulation nor punishment. It never even bothers to answer the fundamental legal question of why imposing a punitive tax for failing to buy health insurance isn’t a “fine” under the Constitution. I suspect it did not want to deal with the notion of a fine because then the citizen would be entitled to all of the procedural protections of criminal law. But the Court never answers the fundamental question of how the government can lack the power to compel behavior but still have the power to punish that same behavior through the tax code. Indeed, the Court now opens the door for the government to tax a seemingly limitless range of action and inaction, not just in the field of commerce, but in all areas of our private, social, educational, and even religious conduct. This opinion provides the most sweeping expansion of federal power since the Commerce cases of the 1930s that allowed the New Deal.

On a separate, but extremely important ground, the Court addressed Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The Court rightly decided this issue. It found that Obamacare was attempting to transform Medicaid from a program designed to provide medical services to discreet, vulnerable populations into a general entitlement for everyone whose income is 133% of the poverty line. The Court found that this would violate the essential contract nature between the states and the federal government, and the government could not withhold all Medicaid funds simply because a state would not go along with the new expansion. The Court emphasized that whether or not a state goes along with this expansion is now a state by state determination.

Practically speaking, this means that in Missouri, who we elect as governor in 2012 assumes even greater importance. That governor will largely determine whether Medicaid in this state will remain a limited but enormous program or become a vast, unlimited entitlement. Under the Obamacare decision, states that accept this new Medicaid program will essentially be accepting total government run healthcare because the Court never suggests that this program will be limited to 133% of the poverty level. Just like traditional Medicaid, the Court places no restrictions on the federal government’s power to change the rules. Nothing prevents the federal government from moving up eligibility to 500% of the poverty line or higher. Indeed, if a state signs up for this expanded program, we can rest assured that if Obama is reelected, the enrollment will be expanded vastly upward and Medicaid will essentially become universal healthcare in the states that go along with this program.

The future of healthcare in Missouri as in other states will be determined in this gubernatorial election. This election will decide whether the states will approve a complete government takeover of healthcare or if a private insurance market will remain. The incredibly high stakes of Missouri’s gubernatorial election just got even higher."

--Bill Randles

For more information on Randles' candidacy, visit www.billrandles.com.

2012-06-28T16:13:00.001-05:00

3:22PM Central Time:

Reaction on SCOTUS decision from John LaBombard, Spokesperson for U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill:

"There's only ever been one goal for Claire—affordable, accessible health care for Missouri."

2012-06-28T12:39:00.002-05:00

OOPS! CNN.com's Headline (likely pre-written) announces the wrong ruling:

(thanks to KY3's Jay Sherder for the timely screengrab)

2012-06-28T12:36:00.000-05:00

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT (or want to dissect it), below is President Obama's address following the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

==============================================

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release June 28, 2012

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING

ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

East Room

12:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America -- in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.

I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.

And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.

First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There’s more. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support. And thanks to today’s decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance.

Now, if you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too. And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one.

Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition. They won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman. They won’t be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you’re sick, you’ll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. And if you can’t afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit that helps pay for it.

Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons.

First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.

And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don’t require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they’re sick to buy the care they need -- which would also drive up everybody else’s premiums.

That’s why, even though I knew it wouldn’t be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President.

Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared. And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically.

Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.

There’s a framed letter that hangs in my office right now. It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield. For years and years, Natoma did everything right. She bought health insurance. She paid her premiums on time. But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer. And even though she’d been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year. And despite her desire to keep her coverage -- despite her fears that she would get sick again -- she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance.

I carried Natoma’s story with me every day of the fight to pass this law. It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well.

Natoma is well today. And because of this law, there are other Americans -- other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers -- who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. These are the Americans for whom we passed this law.

The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we'll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do -- what the country can’t afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.

With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.

But today, I’m as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we’ll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.

2012-06-28T11:49:00.002-05:00

The top Republican in Missouri responds:

==============================================

MOGOP Chairman: “Supreme Court decision crystallizes the stakes in this election”

JEFFERSON CITY—David Cole, Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, released the following statement about the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare:

“This morning’s Supreme Court decision crystallizes the stakes in this election: Will we elect Democrats intent on implementing this law, or will we elect Republicans who will work to repeal and replace Obamacare?

“It’s important to remember that just because a law is ruled constitutional doesn’t make it good policy—and in fact, it’s not. Under Obamacare, health care costs continue to increase, choice in health care has been severely restricted, and businesses have been saddled with burdensome regulations. Making matters worse, Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history.

“Missourians deserve real, market-based health care reforms that give patients more choices at lower costs—not a one-size-fits-all mandate that puts government bureaucrats in the middle of Americans’ health care decisions.”

2012-06-28T10:59:00.001-05:00

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon chimes in:

======================================================================

Statement from Gov. Nixon on ruling by U.S. Supreme Court

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Gov. Jay Nixon today issued the following statement regarding the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“We’re just now beginning to review this ruling so that we can understand exactly what it means for Missouri. This ruling has significant complexities and implications for families, health care providers and insurers in our state. Here in Missouri, I'm committed to working collaboratively with citizens, businesses, medical providers and the legislature to move forward in a way that works best for families in our state.”

2012-06-28T10:57:00.001-05:00

A close second, Senator Roy Blunt:
(press release below)
======================================================================

Senator Blunt Responds To ObamaCare Supreme Court Ruling

Blunt: We Must Repeal Entire Law, Replace With Common-Sense Solutions

WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) released the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision surrounding President Barack Obama’s government health care takeover:

“The three questions about the President’s health care plan that have needed to be answered from day one are: Is it constitutional, is it a good idea, and can we afford it? The Court, in a 5-4 decision, answered the first question. The American people now will decide if the President’s health care takeover is the right thing to do and whether we can afford it.

“In 2010, Missourians overwhelmingly rejected the individual mandate and sent a clear signal to Washington that Americans oppose ObamaCare. Elections matter, and this decision underscores the fact that we need new leadership in the White House and the Senate.

“This decision does not change the fact that ObamaCare will lead to higher health care premiums, increased federal spending, and greater uncertainty for small business owners nationwide. That’s why Congress must repeal this deeply flawed law in its entirety and replace it with thoughtful, common-sense reforms that put patients and doctors in control of health care – not Washington bureaucrats.”

2012-06-28T10:35:00.000-05:00

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler is first Ozarks elected official with response to SCOTUS healthcare ruling

No, it's not a race, but if it were, Hartzler won. Maybe her people can just type faster. I don't know. Her press release from 10:30 AM is below. More undoubtedly to follow.

===================================

Hartzler disappointed with Supreme Court ruling which fails to overturn President Obama’s health care law

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) is expressing disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s failure to overturn President Obama’s health care law.

“The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allows for the full implementation of the 2010 law, despite its flawed design and questionable constitutional basis,” said Hartzler. “The law still fails to address the issue of adequate funding, and will drive up health care costs, making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. But while the ruling is cause for dismay, supporters of the free market and individual liberty can take some comfort in the dissenting view that this law violates the U.S. Constitution.”

“My House colleagues and I remain committed to repealing this troublesome law in its entirety,” added Hartzler. “This ruling highlights the critical need for a Congress and White House committed to refocusing attention on health care legislation that provides affordability, cost transparency, choice for senior citizens, and will protect the right of citizens to keep their current insurance policies.”

Since coming to office in January 2011, Congresswoman Hartzler has opposed President Obama’s expansion of federal control over health care. She has voted 30 times to repeal, defund, or dismantle the President’s health care law. Congresswoman Hartzler serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committee.

(end press release)

McCaskill won't attend DNC

2012-06-27T14:27:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2012, says she will skip the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

McCaskill's campaign says she will spend the week campaigning in Missouri instead. She joins a growing list of Democrats in conservative districts who have decided to avoid the convention, which will be a showcase of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

McCaskill's absence is notable because she played an early and prominent role in Obama's 2008 campaign, endorsing him during that primary with then Sen. Hillary Clinton.

McCaskill attended the 2008 convention, though she was not up for reelection. McCaskill has previously skipped her party's convention in year's she is on the ballot, including in 2004 when she ran for governor.

Candidate filing ends

2012-03-28T14:40:00.001-05:00

Jefferson City, MO – Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan today announced that 576 candidates have filed for state and federal offices for the 2012 election as the filing period ended yesterday, March 27, 2012, at 5:00 p.m.
Candidates running for the five statewide offices of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer and attorney general; one U.S. Senate seat; all eight of Missouri's U.S. House of Representatives' seats; 17 odd-numbered state Senate districts; various circuit judges; and 163 state House of Representative seats were required to file with the secretary of state’s office. Any candidate filing for a county office filed with his/her local county clerk or election board.

Currently, there are 313 Republican candidates, 234 Democratic candidates, 22 Libertarian candidates and seven Constitution Party candidates filed for office. For more information regarding the candidates and offices, please click on the following link: http://1.usa.gov/GWRuLC.

Candidates who filed on the first day at the secretary of state's office drew a number to determine the order in which their name will appear on the primary ballot. Candidates who filed after the first day are placed on the ballot in the order they filed.
Candidates seeking to file for governor, state Senate in districts 5 and 7 or state representative in districts 49, 93 and 112 may still do so until 5 p.m. on Friday, March 30, 2012. In accordance with Missouri state law, the filing dates for these offices have been extended because an individual withdrew his/her name as a candidate within two business days prior to the filing deadline.

Missouri's primary election is on Tuesday, August 7, 2012. The deadline for voter registration for the August primary is July 11, 2012. The general election is Tuesday, November 6, 2012, and the voter registration deadline for that election is October 10, 2012.

David Catanese on C-SPAN talking about the South Carolina Senate race

2010-06-14T15:44:00.001-05:00

Where Scott Eckersley stands on 9 issues

2010-06-09T09:27:00.002-05:00

Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
We must secure the borders. It is more than an immigration issue; it is a question of national security. As for the Arizona law, I respect a states' right to govern itself. I do not support legislation that may impinge on Fourth Amendment protections of citizens of the United States. I will be an interested observer as Arizona enforces this law and as the courts take up its constitutionality. Regardless, it is time for President Obama to close the border now. This administration and Congress must address meaningful immigration reform this year.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?

Taxes are too high. We must reduce taxes on individuals and corporations in order to spur economic growth and provide jobs. Government debt and out-of-control spending chill investment and stagnates job growth. It's time for congress to balance the budget and make the cuts necessary to unburden the American taxpayer. These steps toward stability will spur investment, innovation, and prosperity will follow.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?

Our educational standards need to be set high. Our kids need to compete worldwide and the federal government has a role to play in setting these standards and incentivizing performance thereto. We are all stakeholders. It is up to parents, school boards, local communities, the state, and federal government to ensure our children's success.

Additionally, the federal government needs to set low interest rate loans for college students. Rising tuition costs and high rates of return are burying our students in debt.

Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
I am opposed to earmarks. It's time to increase transparency at the federal level. Right now, we need legislators with the courage to vote on our nations laws, not based on what's in it for them. I want a vote on the bill, not on the special interest pay-off.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
The fundamental question is can we afford this bill. We cannot. I would not have voted for the healthcare bill and I submit that it must undergo significant revision to be sustainable. The solution to the country's healthcare crisis is in improving the health of its citizens. I would like to see bipartisan support for a revision of this bill that focuses on the root cause of health costs and not a more expensive bandage.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
We need off-shore drilling to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. By putting in place stronger regulations and bigger penalties for failures, fewer failures will result. I support drilling for oil to decrease our dependence on middle-east oil. It is also important to protect park lands.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
It's a delicate balance. We live in a free country. The government is expected to protect its citizens. The government and its agencies need to share information and take the least intrusive approach to safeguarding America and protect its principles of freedom.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
It's time to exercise serious "fiscal constraint" in government spending. We must both plan and take steps certain to balance the federal budget. Entitlement programs need to be addressed to ensure fiscal viability. Income taxes must be reduced on individuals and capital gains taxes need to be reduced to spur business investment and jobs creation.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
The President has appointed a bi-partisan committee to address federal debt and spending. The report is expected to come out December 1. It is my understanding all tax and spend items are on the table, including social security. I intend to review the findings and work with members of congress to ensure social security benefits are protected now and funded in the future.

Q&A with Scott Eckersley

2010-06-09T09:26:00.002-05:00

by Joe Daues, KSPR News

Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?

A: I think you've got to have the guts to stand up strong when you believe in something. I think as a Congressman, among that many people, that many voices, especially a freshman Congressman, I think you really need to have the mettle to believe in what you say and follow through. And that's something I bring to the table.

Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?

A: I think right now the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation is probably one and the same: it's jobs, it's this economy. Out-of-control spending is not helping the situation - it's hurting. We've got to find ways to balance the budget - number one - and then look at ways to reduce the federal deficit. Without that, I'm not sure there's much hope. So I'm planing to go to Washington to do both of those things.

Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?

A: I've seen some of that. My experience has shown me, maybe, some of the uglier sides of politics. It's not what I'm about. It never has been. I haven't changed. I've been a conservative. I continue to be a conservative. But also conservative in Missouri morals, Missouri values. The fingerpointing needs to stop. I think the solutions need to be reached in a bipartisan way. Now more than ever, I believe folks are looking for a person, not a party.

Q: What makes you the right person for this job?

A: I think this election is interesting. I do believe I'm the right person for this job. And I look forward to shaking hands with folks all across this region, looking them in the eye and telling them, "I am the person for this job." It's time for somebody who has stood up to establishment. Everyone's saying it - I've done it. I can stand up to the establishment and just have the mettle to do it, but actually prevail. That's what I've done.
<br>

Where Gary Nodler stands on 9 key issues

2010-06-08T09:04:00.001-05:00

Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
The first priority should be to secure our border. I would support the use of our armed forces to secure our southern border. I am not sure if the Arizona law is the best answer, but I am not going to be quick to criticize the efforts of states to protect their citizens when the federal government has failed to do so.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?

We need to insure adequate access to credit from the banking industry by reducing regulatory barriers to lending. We need to lower tax burdens on businesses that create incentives to move commerce offshore. Cap & Trade legislation needs to be defeated which would add to the cost of business in the Midwest. We also need tort reform.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?

Education is not a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. It is the first responsibility of Missouri state government under our state constitution, after the payment of public debt. The federal government should not burden states with federal education rules.

Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
Americans are fed up with the buying, selling and trading of votes through earmarks. I would favor a rule change that would make it an ethics violation to promise an appropriation in exchange for a vote for or against unrelated legislation. I am not in favor of the United States House of Representatives abandoning its constitutional responsibility to line item the federal budget. That would give President Obama and his bureaucrats control over spending that rightfully belongs to the elected representatives of the people.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
I will fight for the repeal of “Obama care.” If we are unable to repeal it, I would vote to starve it through the appropriation process. This battle is not over and I will fight to protect patient choice and access to health care.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
I would support more drilling options on land in National parks and preserves. I also think we would be better served if the offshore drilling was being done by American companies and not foreign interests drilling near the United States.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
This is a very difficult question. In order to achieve greater security we must sacrifice some of our liberties, but if the loss of liberty is too great the terrorists can achieve part of their goal by forcing us to lose some of our freedom. We must be constantly vigilant to make sure that our pursuit of security does not lead to a loss of the basic freedoms defined by our Founding Fathers.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?

The first step in bringing our debt under control is to stop adding to it. Beyond that we must find ways to stimulate economic growth and fight to make sure that spending rises more slowly than the expansion of our economy. We cannot solve this problem without robust economic growth.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
Any changes in social security must be prospective and far enough in the future to insure that we are not breaking our promise to existing recipients or those who have paid-in for a substantial amount of time. We should not change the rules in the middle of the game for hard working Americans who have done their part, and now have the right to expect the government to do its part. As with the previous question, this solution requires robust growth in our economy.

Q&A with Gary Nodler

2010-06-08T09:03:00.001-05:00

by Joe Daues, KSPR News

Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?

A: One of the advantages I bring to this race is experience. I worked for the Congress for 20 years. I worked in the executive branch for the first President Bush as a regional administrator for the SBA, and at the cabinet level, at the Economic Policy Council of the White House. I already know what needs to be done. I know how you get from the Cannon Office Building over to the House floor to vote. There’s no learning curve; I’m ready to begin on day one to be an effective voice for southwest Missouri.
Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?

A: There are a number of very serious issues, but I think right now jobs is the most pressing need for our citizens. We need to put people back to work. The government can’t do that. That has to be done by the private sector. The government can’t create jobs – only the private sector can. We need to do something about access to credit. The banks need to be given the opportunity to extend credit to good customers who’ve paid their bills. When we get that going, this economy can recover.

Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?
A: I can only do that by myself bringing an attitude of openness and being willing to work across party lines to try to convince others. I’ve done that at the state level as chairman of the Senate Appropriations committee where I worked with Sen. Joan Bray, one of the most liberal members of the Missouri Senate. And yet we were able to produce unanimous committee reports to the Senate and that’s hard work. It doesn’t come naturally. It takes effort.

Q: What makes you the right person for this job?

A: Experience and the fact that I grew up in the 7th Congressional district. I’m a product of our educational system. I reflect the values and the attitudes of our people because I’m one of the people of the 7th district.

Learn more about Gary Nodler's campaign at his website

Where Billy Long stands on 9 key issues

2010-06-07T14:39:00.003-05:00

Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico? What do you think of the Arizona law?
The first thing that we must do is secure the border with Mexico. If the border is not secured against illegal entry then any other policy solution will be temporary at best and ultimately ineffective. In order to secure the borders, America should deploy every tool available to us, including the construction of a border fence and increasing the number of border patrol agents along the border. If necessary, we should deploy national guard troops to make sure it is secure. Having a porous border is also a threat to our national security and we need to take it seriously.

The law in Arizona is a common sense reaction to a lack of leadership from Washington. When police encounter a situation where they believe that illegal immigration is a factor they should be able to take action. Right now the federal government either cannot, or will not, enforce its own immigration laws. That has to change or individual states will continue to pass their own laws.

Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and jobs?

Jobs are created by private businesses, not by the government. What the national government can do is create an environment where the free market can flourish naturally through measures such as low taxes on business and the elimination of the capital gains tax, which will encourage people to invest money in job producing activities.

Congress can also ease its regulatory burden to reduce the cost of creating a new job. Since our economy runs on energy the government can lift restrictions on exploration and recovery that would channel more energy resources into the economy.

Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?

The best way that Congress can make our education system more effective is by sending power back to the states, the local school districts, and ultimately to the parents themselves. No one is more vested in providing for the education of a child than the child's parents and the dedicated teachers who work with the child on a daily basis. Local teachers and parents should be free to educate their children without interference from a bureaucrat located in some distant federal department. Each child is different, as is each school district, and as a result no single solution imposed from the top down will be the best solution for every one of the diverse districts across a nation as vast as America.

Q: Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
I have made a firm pledge not to take any earmarks. Earmarks are a corrupting influence on the legislative process and they should be completely eliminated. They are a preferred way to bestow favor on political supporters and for Congressmen to engage in vote buying by bringing pet projects back to their districts. We need to stop pork spending whenever possible and earmarks are a part of that problem.
Additionally, as a matter of principle, the government should allocate spending through a merit based process that evaluates each item of spending to determine if it is the best use of public resources. We should not be allocating resources based on the seniority of the Congressman requesting the spending.
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
The health care reform bill that recently passed Congress should be repealed immediately. Health care needs reform, but all the Congressional health care bill did was add a new tangle of bureaucracy on top of a system that was already weighed down under the burden of too much government.
Congress should work on tort reform, to limit excessive recoveries that drive up costs. Congress should exercise its power over commerce to insist that the free market be allowed to work with insurance policies by requiring such products to be available for sale across state lines. Congress should allow individuals to save money in tax free accounts to pay for future medical expenses and it should work to eliminate the waste that exists in current health care programs.
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
I support a "Drill Here, Drill Now" policy that provides for oil exploration wherever it is economically viable to do so. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. America also has a record as one of the cleanest, safest oil producers in the world. We have high standards and the best technology in the world. We will learn the lessons from this disaster to reduce the chance of future oil spills.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
I believe deeply in our civil liberties and they should be fully protected. The purpose of America, our Constitution, and our government, is to make and keep us all free. However, we can preserve freedom while pursuing terrorists. I believe we should aggressively monitor terrorist threats in this country and abroad. I do not agree with those who would extend our rights and privileges that we enjoy as Americans to terrorists.

Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?
The best way, and only way in my view, to cut the federal debt is to stop spending money. In an over three trillion dollar budget there is plenty of waste, fraud and abuse. We should also eliminate earmark funding and stop bailing out Wall Street banks and private companies. Ronald Reagan was right when he said that Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. However, the career politicians in Washington do not seem to have the will to make tough choices. I will.

Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
Social Security as it currently exists has become unsustainable and reform is urgently needed. We must keep the promises that we have made and that means we must firmly guarantee the Social Security benefits for all seniors. In contemplating reform for the future, the first thing that Congress must do is stop spending trust fund money. Unfortunately, Congress has severely mismanaged Social Security by spending the vast sums of excess money that was collected for decades to pay for future retirees. We cannot recover the funds that were spent, but we can at least stop the last horse from leaving the barn by not wasting any more of the Social Security money that we're still taking in. Congress' abysmal record in safeguarding retiree funds makes clear the need for additional protections on future retirement money.

However, the only way we can reform social security is to work on a bi-partisan solution. This is not a Republican problem, or an Democrat problem; it is an American problem. We cannot have partisan solutions when an issue is this important. There are many good proposals out there, but we need to take the politics out of it. We all want the same thing: we want social security to be there when we need it. I would work to make sure that Social Security will be there when we need it.

Q& with Billy Long

2010-06-07T14:39:00.000-05:00

by Joe Daues, KSPR News

Q: As a brand new Congressman, how do you plan to make southwest Missouri’s voice heard in a body of 435 people?

A: I think you need to go in with a common sense attitude. I’m running as a business person and I think you need to take common sense values to D.C. Our founding fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not legislator legislators. So I look at it like I’m going in there with a different perspective than people who’ve risen through the ranks of politics. So I think that’s the best way to approach it: just Ozarks common sense values.

Q: What’s the most important issue facing the Ozarks and the nation? How do you intend to address it as a Congressman?

A: Jobs. We have to get people back to work. And spending, which kind of runs part and parcel. We’re over-regulating, overtaxating, overlitigating business. Seven out of 10 people work for a small business. The government doesn’t create jobs. The course we’ve been on over the last year or so is that we think the government is going to create jobs with all this stimulus and shovel-ready projects and go-to-work for the government. That doesn’t work, Joe. We need to get people working for small businesses and let small businesses be able to thrive.

Q: How do you plan to cut through the bitterness and rancor of Capitol Hill so it’s not more of the same old debate?

A: You go in with an outsider’s (inaudible). You don’t go in as a Republican or Democrat. You go in as a person, as a citizen of the United States, as a citizen of the 7th district. You take a citizen’s attitude up there. You don’t take a politician’s attitude. The healthcare bill they just voted on sometime ago? 60 Democrats didn’t see any reason to vote against it. 40 Republicans didn’t see any reason to vote for it. That kind of thinking has to stop. We need to work together and you need to send people up there that don’t care about going back. I think that’s where we get the rancor and the vileness and the fighting. All they care about is getting re-elected so they can get back up there for another year. They want to go along with their party’s upper echelon. I don’t think that’s what we need to do. I think we need to be concerned about doing what’s right for the people of the 7th district and the United States, not what’s right for the party.

Q: What makes you the right person for this job?

A: I’m a citizen. I’ll be a citizen legislator. I’ve never run for office before in my life. I’ve run a small business for 30 years. Started out went off to auction school 30 years ago. Asked Mom & Dad to help me. Built that business. Built a real estate company up. I signed the front of a check for over 30 years. I think that’s important. I’ve worked. I know what regulations and taxation do to small businesses. And again, small businesses are the backbone of this country. I want to go up there and be your eyes and ears in Washington. I don’t want to go up there for the title or the power, the prestige. I want to do what’s right: stay a few years and come home.

Learn more about Billy Long's campaign at his website.