Boom Goes The Dynamite

THE NEWEST HULSHOF AD

POUNDS NIXON ON TRIAL LAWYER TIES, STATE PAYOUT ON BIG TOBACCO SETTLEMENT

***

"Nixon Made Them Rich . . . Now They Want To Make Him Governor."

ALSO: Hulshof cancels Springfield appearance to tout his education plan Wednesday. "Kenny will instead meet with constituents and small business leaders regarding the bailout bill being considered in Congress," says Hulshof spokesperson Jordan Clothier.

The Haley Barbour Interview

In the first clip, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour makes the case in favor of a federal bailout, citing an example of how the credit crunch is already impacting a business in his homestate.

***

He seems to paint one of the most vivid pictures of the consequences I've heard . . . Or maybe it's just that swanky southern drawl . . .

In this second clip, we ask how Barbour thinks Congressman and Republican candidate for Governor Kenny Hulshof should handle the bailout situation going forward. Barbour also gives his advice on how to make up ground against Democrat Jay Nixon. Two issues Barbour would target: Taxes & Guns.

In the third clip, Barbour talks about Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin.

EXCERPTS:

"She doesn't have a chip on her shoulder like some women politicians."

"Obviously in a McCain administration she will not have much of a role in foreign policy . . ."

"It is honest to say, though, if I live in the state closest to Russia, I probably have got more sensitivity. I live in a state on the Gulf of Mexico, I got more sensitivity to hurricanes than people in Kansas."

Allen "Can't Accept" Emerson's Bailout Vote

The Democratic candidate for the 8th Congressional district is challenging Rep. Jo Ann Emerson on her support of a Wall Street bailout bill that failed in the U.S. House Monday.

"These Wall Street firms gambled in very high risk, and questionable financial gambling schemes in the mortgage industry and elsewhere. I cannot, and I believe that most of us who actually live here in the 8^th Congressional District in southern Missouri cannot understand, nor accept Jo Ann Emerson’s vote to bail these Wall Street gamblers out of a jam of their own making," said Joe Allen in a statement released Tuesday.

Emerson said her vote sought to minimize the damage to the economy.

"The failure of this legislation means financial institutions, small businesses and Americans with pensions, retirement accounts and savings are still at risk from irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Emerson said in a statement issued after the vote, as reported by the Southeast Missourian. "This is a serious problem that requires a serious solution. The threat posed to Main Street Southern Missouri is real, and I will continue to work for a solution that is transparent and accountable to taxpayers," she added.

Allen said Emerson's "yes" vote was a vote "against the woman who worked all day . . . the people who go in at 3 a.m. in the morning to shelves at Wal-Mart . . . the college student working their way through school at McDonalds."

Allen said: "How could Jo Ann Emerson vote against them and believe that they should be the ones to pay-off the gambling debt of the Wall Street bankers who gambled and lost in some really questionable schemes that are now under investigation by the FBI."

"Under the Wall Street Bail Out plan which Jo Ann Emerson voted for on Monday, those Wall Street gamblers who played it high and loose will get to keep their $300 million dollar yachts, while our citizens in southern Missouri are having to sell their bass boats and are losing their homes. I don’t believe that that is at all fair to the people in the 8^th District. I, unlike Jo Ann, have lived in this district all my life. Not many people whom I know, Republican, or, Democrat would think that people who played the Wall Street game and lost should go Scott Free; while the people back here in the 8^th District will be forced to pay off the banker’s gambling debts on Wall Street," Allen added.

Barbour Talks Bailout, Hulshof, Palin

The Notebook sits down one-on-one with Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to talk about the bailout, advice for Kenny Hulshof and if Sarah Palin's qualified to be vice president.

***

Barbour is in Springfield for a reception with about 60 area Republicans to help raise money for the state G.O.P.

***

DEVELOPING . . .

Get Your Obama-Biden Sign . . . For $15?!

Midnight Tuesday was the financial deadline for the month -- and Barack Obama's fundraising machine sent out an e-mail to supporters looking for those final few dollars to pad their titanic totals.

But there was something disturbing included in this latest solicitation. The Obama campaign was offering up "official Obama-Biden yard signs" for a . . . $15 dollar contribution . . . or more?

"Your sign will arrive no later than Friday, October 17th, so you'll have plenty of time to show off your support and remind your friends and neighbors to vote for Barack," reads the e-mail.

Whew. That makes me feel better.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but didn't campaigns used to ask/request/beg voters if they could put signs in their yards. With this approach, it costs the supporter to put up a yard sign for a candidate that needs THEIR vote -- and gets a benefit out of the sign they are charging for?

Sound backwards to you?

So, if you were to go to Obama or Democratic headquarters, and you were an enthusiastic first-time voter asking for a sign, would you still have to buck up $15?

It's probably even worse if they didn't charge you. Because it'd make those people ponying up $15 bucks or more for a sign . . . suckers.

Here's a platform I can endorse: If you're a candidate running for office --- ANY office --- give out your bumper stickers, posters and yard signs . . . for free.

Besides, they're just likely to get stolen anyway;)

Blunt Backs Off Pelosi, Looks To Local Banks For Support

In an interview with ABC's Nightline Monday, Congressman Roy Blunt backed off the assertion that an overly partisan floor speech by Speaker Nancy Pelosi cost the $700 billion dollar bailout deal 12 Republican votes.

"We clearly had some members that were there, but were precariously there. Now one or two of them may have been affected by the Speaker's speech," Blunt told ABC's Jake Tapper.

Tapper also reported that Blunt believes one of the problems was that few in Washington or on Wall Street seemed to understand that "the American people themselves" actually had to be convinced that this was a good thing for them in order for their elected representatives to vote for it.

"At some point, it helps a lot if there's a real credit crisis in the country, if local banks start calling their Congressmen and say, 'Well, it's finally gotten here. We now feel the pinch,'" Blunt said.

For Or Against Bailout, Public Seems Fed Up With Congress

BAILOUT BLUES

WATCH KY3 NEWS @ 10 REPORT HERE

(includes why Kenny Hulshof voted "no")

Our lede: This is a rare case where the public was able to quickly and directly influence their lawmakers. But this also shows just how little voters trust anybody in Washington.

Reaction from Springfield residents:

"The taxpayers should not have to pay that bailout of Wall Street. I think the people who made it the problem should have to pay it out," said Ruth Newton. "The things they have tried to sell us that have to be done right now and then they don't turn out to be right, so I don't believe what they tell us now."

***

"It was just too iffy a thing, there was no guarantee that this was going to do much of anything," said Shirley Langford. "They tell you all those scary things that your 401s are going to disappear and all of that, I really wasn't quite trusting that was going to happen."

***

"I was extremely disappointed in their behavior," said Bob Miller, a supporter of the bailout plan. "As a retired person, I have to watch where the investments are, and if the places where I've invested go south, I'm in deep, deep trouble. They all came up with egg on their face as far as I'm concerned."

***

G.O.P. WHIP ROY BLUNT COMES UP WITH 10 FEWER VOTES THAN HE NEEDED

"This was one of those situations where nobody really wanted to do it on either side," Blunt said after the vote.

***
REPUBLICANS BLAMED SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI'S SPEECH BEFORE THE VOTE
Blunt said he had 12 Republicans who would have voted for the bill but changed their minds.
Watch PELOSI's speech HERE.
***
BUT REPUBLICANS DISPUTE THAT PELOSI WAS THE REASON
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said the GOP leadership comments were untrue, asserting that House Republicans voted against the bill because of its contents. “We’re not babies who suck our thumbs,” Bachmann said at a press conference after the vote.
***
ALSO . . The Associated Press paints the tense timetable behind the scenes . . .
About an hour before the vote was to begin, Blunt reported back to Boehner.
"We're going to have a tough time getting there," Blunt said, according to the GOP leader. Together, the two parties needed to change about a dozen minds.
***
With the measure stalled, 12 votes shy of what was needed, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., came over to GOP leaders and extended six fingers as if to say: Give us six and we'll do the rest.
"They at a minimum had to get the momentum shifting the other way," he said later. "They didn't flip anybody."

Why Kenny Voted No

In Statement From Washington, Congressman and Candidate Kenny Hulshof Explains His Opposition to the $700 Billion Dollar Bailout Plan That Went Down in Defeat in the U.S. House Monday

***

His gripes with the bill include: Lack of regulatory corrections, "complete discretion" for Treasury Secretary and the price tag

***

FULL STATEMENT BELOW:

(Scroll Down, To Watch Rep. Roy Blunt's Reaction)

"Economic uncertainty is being felt in every corner of the country. Americans are understandably anxious about the value of their homes, investments and retirement accounts. Businesses--small and large--are looking to the federal government for stability and guidance.

"Last week, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson insisted that Congress immediately authorize a $700 billion bailout plan to shore up our ailing markets. While I agree that time is of the essence, there is a potential downside for Congress to act too hastily and without adequate deliberations. For instance, over the preceding five days, House Republicans have insisted upon taxpayer protections and have scuttled many onerous provisions that would have benefited special interests. These changes have substantially improved the initial plan between the Administration and Congressional Democrats.

"Unfortunately, in my view, the final bill is still flawed in several respects:

"First, the bill is silent on changing 'mark to market' rules, which were a factor in exacerbating the current crisis.

"The bill also contains no regulatory corrections to naked short selling. A short-term ban has been in effect since September 19, aimed at curtailing this practice. However, that ban expires on October 2, and this bill does nothing to address any of the long-term ramifications of this practice.

"Additionally, Congress should be required to proactively authorize additional loan authority for the Treasury Secretary. The current bill only allows Congress to retroactively ‘veto’ actions by the Administration.

"The price tag of this bill is excessive.

"Finally, the current bill gives the Treasury Secretary complete discretion whether to utilize the market-based option of insuring the assets of troubled institutions. Given the Secretary’s outspoken opposition to this proposal, I fear this innovative solution, which truly protects America’s taxpayers, will be disregarded outright.

"For all of the foregoing reasons, I voted ‘no’ on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act."

ALSO: WATCH REP. ROY BLUNT EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED

Marsh Endorses Burlison In 136th House Race

"He’ll continue the work I've started by restoring health care funding for those most vulnerable," writes Rep. B.J. Marsh, in an endorsement letter to his constituents

Outgoing Republican Rep. B.J. Marsh is endorsing Eric Burlison in the race to fill his open seat in Springfield's 136th House District.

Burlison is running against Democrat Nick Beatty to replace Marsh. The term-limited Marsh's endorsement is significant because of his history for political unpredictability.

"It's very important that we elect someone who shares our vision of better government in Jefferson City. I have known Eric Burlison for several years and will be supporting him to fill my seat," writes Marsh in a letter dated Oct. 1st.

In the letter, Marsh specifically points out that he is backing Burlison because "he'll continue the work I've started by restoring health care funding for those most vulnerable." He adds that he's not supporting him because he's a Republican, but rather because he's a good person.

Residents of the 136th district will receive a copy of Marsh’s endorsement, said campaign spokesperson Keith Miller. "We want everyone in the district to know that Marsh backs Eric 100 percent," Miller said.

Here's the rest of Marsh's letter:

Eric shares the same vision of fiscal responsibility, dedicated leadership, and ensuring that our top priorities are properly funded. He’ll fight for quality health care and better schools—without increasing our taxes.

As a Cox Health employee, Burlison understands the issue of health care better than anyone. Eric will also ensure that our schools receive their fair share of state funding.

As a graduate of Springfield Public Schools and Missouri State, he’ll support our schools in the Missouri House as much as I have. Eric has deep roots in the community and understands our needs.

Most important, Eric is someone who will listen to what you have to say. It's refreshing to have a public servant who understands that their job is to serve the people, and not the other way around.

I am not supporting him because he is a Republican. I am supporting him because he is a good person. I will not vote for someone because of a political party. I vote for Republicans and Democrats, and this year will be no exception.

No Deal In The House

$700 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT FAILS IN THE HOUSE
Vote: 206-227 AGAINST

KENNY HULSHOF VOTES "NO"

***

BLUNT BLAMES PELOSI:

"We did think we had a dozen more votes going to the floor than we had," said Rep Roy Blunt of Missouri who was lead negotiator for the House Republicans. But he blamed a "partisan" floor speech by the Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for rousing enough opposition to kill the bill.

***

He pledged to reach out to Democrats to try to avert widespread economic fallout from the defeat of the bill. "We're going to reach back out to them, we're certainly going to reach back out to our members," Blunt said. "We're going to see how we can come together to reverse whatever negative there may be on the economy over the next few days because Congress has failed to act."

AP: Report Says Bond Pressure Lead To U.S. Attorney Firing

A report released by Justice Department Monday reveals that the dismissal of Missouri U.S. Attorney Todd Graves probably resulted from pressure from the office of Sen. Kit Bond.

The Associated Press is reporting that Attorney General Michael Mukasey is appointing a prosecutor to pursue possible criminal charges against Republicans who were involved in the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys.

His move follows the leading recommendation of a Justice Department investigation that harshly criticized Bush administration officials, members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which were seen by many as politically motivated.

In a footnote, according to the Kansas City Star, investigators say they tried to interview Sen. Kit Bond in connection with the Graves ouster. He declined.

To read the Justice Department report, click on this link: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm

It also said that the dismissal of Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, probably resulted from pressure from the office of Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond. Bond was upset that Graves did not intervene in a dispute between the staffs of Bond and Republican Rep. Sam Graves, the prosecutor's brother, the report said.

McCaskill's Political Intelligence

A BOOK REVIEW OF "THE POLITICAL MIND"
Author Dissects McCaskill's P.I. During Her 2006 Race

"The Political Mind," by clinical, personality and political psychologist Drew Westen, is a scientific look at how pure emotion is the most important factor in driving voters decisions --- and ultimately election outcomes. Westen's fascinating discoveries through years of research shows how emotion trumps reason and how impressions trump issues in campaign after campaign. Westen, who reveals he's a partisan Democrat, skewers his own party for not understanding the need to move an electorate. His conclusion: Personal feelings towards a candidate are more important than positions on issues. And policies of a candidate only matter to voters to the extent that those policies influence their emotions.

Throughout his book, Westen, an Emory University professor, points to Sen. Claire McCaskill's use of words and emotions during her 2006 campaign to help build his case. Westen, who calls Missouri's junior Senator a "rising superstar," argues that McCaskill is one of the few Democratic candidates who understands and successfully uses emotion, imagery and rhetoric to her advantage. In one exchange on Meet the Press, Westen praises McCaskill for her combinded "bluntness, folksiness and a powerfully evocative metaphor," to make her point.

MR. RUSSERT: Ms. McCaskill, you said this. "We should redeploy our troops strategically within the region over a two-year time frame." What does that mean?

MS. McCASKILL: . . . You know, as a daughter of rural Missouri, we have a saying, "If you're in a hole, you need to quit digging."

Westen credits the success of McCaskill and other Democrats in 2006 to this: "On a range of issues, Democrats began to use phrases and imagery that translated the Democratic litany that had shown little traction earlier in the campaign into the language of values and emotion."

Here's another Westen rule for campaign managers: "There is no more important task of a lead strategist or debate coach for a candidate than to identify areas of ambivalence or defensiveness and to work with the candidate until he or she has an emotionally resonant response to tough questions."

Westen again points to the 2006 McCaskill race versus then-Sen. Jim Talent. Defensiveness, in Westen's eyes, erodes voter enthusiasm and leaves a bad taste in voters' mouths. In their Meet the Press debate, Westen says, "Tim Russert simply asked Talent the kinds of questions Democrats should have been asking their opponents about their stands on abortion for years, challenging them on the natural entailments of their black-and-white position on when life begins:

MR. RUSSERT: When do you believe life begins?

SEN. TALENT: I believe it begins at the beginning, at, at conception.

MR. RUSSERT: So that embryo is a human being?

SEN. TALENT: Yeah. I think whatever it is that makes -- if I . . .

MR. RUSSERT: And so, and so to use that for research is taking of a life?

SEN. TALENT: Yeah, it's the, it's the use -- instrumental use of a person for some purpose . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Then why do you favor exemptions in abortion law for rape . . .? If it's a human being, why are you allowing the taking of that life?

SEN. TALENT: Ok. Well, I've I've supported those exemptions over the years. It's a situation where the pregnancy was not voluntary, and I think the law ought to draw a different balance under those circumstances. But as I said before, I mean, I support . . .

MR. RUSSERT: But it is the taking of a life under your . . .

SEN. TALENT: That's, that's right.

Westen continues to point out the probing of Talent's position, noting Russert's reference to Senator Danforth's support of embryonic stem cell research.

MR. RUSSERT: If you have a three-year-old with juvenile diabetes, people believe that research on the embryonic stem cell may in fact bring about a cure.

SEN. TALENT: That's right. The research -- I've said I think the research is promising. I think it's speculative. And the good news, Tim, is we're not in a position where we have to make this kind of choice, we have alternatives that science is developing. At MI . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Right now?

SEN. TALENT: Well, yeah. I mean, look, all this is speculative. They haven't, they haven't been able to clone an embryo, they haven't been able to get cures yet out of pluripotent stem cell research . . .

In Talent's response, we see all the signs of defensiveness: stammering, hemming and hawking, making illogical leaps, inserting abstruse language (pluripotent stem cell research). And Talent's response set McCaskill up for one of the most brilliant displays of political intelligence of the 2006 midterm elections:

MS. McCASKILL: My faith directs me to heal the sick. God gave us the miracle of human intelligence to find cures. Our country has never turned its back on medical research and we shouldn't in Missouri . . . I respect people who disagree with me on this issue on principle, I understand there are differences. I come down on the side of hope, hope for cures and supporting science. And I think it's very important that someone be principled, strong and not muddled, but very clear and straightforward about their position on this issue.

Normally Democrats are the ones hedging on "values issues." But in this case the shoe was on the other foot. Talent's moral principle (life begins at birth, so a discarded has the same moral status as a child with diabetes) made clear that he was putting a moral abstraction above the life of a living child. McCaskill artfully contrasted their two opposing moral positions. She appealed to hope and compassion and challenged Talent's religious position with one of her own. In speaking of the miracle of human intelligence, she used a word that signaled to many conservative Christians that she cared about their values and culture while enunciating a stance with strong appeal to those in the political center. She acknowledged her respect for people with principled stands other than hers but made clear that her stand was a deeply principled one.

McCaskill's political intelligence was apparent from her first moments on the political stage in 2006. One of the reasons Democrats won more elections than expected in 2006 was that party leaders carefully picked candidates high on political cases.

But Westen is not without criticism for McCaskill. He says McCaskill showed that same defensiveness on he touchy topic of abortion. Here's his analysis of McCaskill's answer on a question on partial-birth abortion during that same Meet The Press appearance:

The vast majority of Americans (85 percent) believe abortion should be permitted when the mother's life is in danger. But nearly 90 percent support some restrictions . . . The most frequent interpretation of these seemingly conflicting results is that Americans are 'divided' on abortion, a position that makes Democrats anxious, particularly in red or purple states, and typically leads either to silence or to a defensive, "I'm kind of pro-choice, but not really" response. A prototypical example is Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's response with then Senator Jim Talent on Meet the Press in 2006:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support a ban on partial-birth abortion?

MS. McCASKILL: I do, within the constitutional framework that we currently have, with the exception for the life of the mother. I also support parental notification. On the whole issue of abortion, what we need to do --- I, I, I certainly believe that abortion should remain safe, legal and rare in the early term, but why don't we concentrate on prevention? Why don't we all -- none of us want abortion, none of us support abortion [turns to Talent, as if seeking support]. Let's come together and work on preventing abortions in this country, making adoption easier and, and, and do the right thing to, to, drop the number of abortions instead of making health care more unavailable to poor women, which in fact drives up the number of abortions in this country.

McCaskill was one of the sharpest, most emotionally intelligent candidates the Democrats fielded in any race in 2006 and was able to defeat an incumbent in a state that usually sees red in national elections. Yet her response was defensive, indexed by the initial retreat to legalism ("within the constitutional framework . . ."), followed by a gratuitous reference to her position on parental notification (which Russert hadn't asked about,) followed by an uncharacteristic stumbling for words and a barrage of half-measures designed to change the subject from what she apparently believed was an unpopular stance in her home state.

Westen goes on to in part blames this on the national party, for being unable to generate a principled stand that could spare its candidates from having to "invent their own response" at every turn. He argues that the Democratic Party's position on abortion is incoherent. He argues that it would be better if Democrats took a principled stand and stuck to it.

If you tell the truth about what you believe, people are more likely to hear your message. And they're even more likely to be receptive if what you feel happens to converge with what they feel. So here is a simple, compelling, three-dimensional distillation of what the average American feels about abortion . . . It represents a compelling moral vision that Democrats can contrast everywhere with the moral vision of the right . . . And it is deceptively simple, and in this case readily summarized in three sentences:

Abortion is a difficult and often painful decision for a woman to make. It's a decision only she can make, based on the dictates of her own conscience and faith, not on the dictates of someone else's. But except under exceptional circumstances, such as rape, incest or danger to her health, she should make that decision as early as she can, so she is not aborting a fetus that is increasingly becoming more like a person.

United For Life Targets Nixon With Radio Ad

The state's newest anti-abortion group, Missourians United for Life, is launching a radio ad against Democratic candidate for Governor Jay Nixon, who the group labels "the most anti-life statewide candidate to ever run for office."

"Electing (Nixon) would mean that lives would be ended as he and his allies would seek abortion-on-demand paid for by tax dollars and would likely support euthanasia of our seniors," said Ed Martin, Gov. Matt Blunt's former Chief of Staff and current spokesperson for Missourians United for Life. The radio ad is expected to run statewide.

Ironically, when Nixon ran for the Missouri Senate in 1986 and for the U.S. Senate in 1988, he ran as a pro-life candidate. He has since switched his position. In an article published Sunday, Nixon told the Southeast Missourian he supports Missouri law as it currently exists. "I don't support the zeroing out of family planning money," he said.

United for Life was established to counter Missouri Right to Life, which angered some Republicans because it would not endorse some of their candidates due to certain votes taken during the legislative session.

United for Life also released 50 endorsements of candidates for federal, statewide and local office. All of Springfield's local Republican candidates and/or incumbents for State House received endorsements. The group also announced it has sent over 40 contributions to their endorsed candidates. State House candidates received $119.73 and State Senate candidates received $219.73.

"As MUL receives more financial support from supporters, candidates can expect more contributions," said Martin. "MUL puts its money where our mouth is – because candidates who support life deserve our support," he added.

Blunt Lobbying Retiring Congressmen

Congressman Roy Blunt lobbied about 10 retiring Republican representatives late Sunday in hopes of getting their votes on the proposed $700 billion dollar financial institution rescue plan, Politico reports.

***
Illinois Rep. Ray LaHood reportedly encouraged the lawmakers in the room to back the proposal, telling them, "We're not going to face repudiation from the voters."

Less About Win/Loss, More About Gaffes and Moments

Score it on journalistic points, and give the first debate victory to John McCain.

But as snapshot opinion polls have shown since Friday, the public watching at home fills out their scorecards a bit differently.

In their first debate in Oxford, Mississippi, John McCain was animated, aggressive and at times bold on economic issues (calling for a widespread government spending freeze). He also showcased the depth and breath of his foreign policy knowledge. But while Barack Obama seemed reserved, and not as willing to hit back, the Democratic nominee exemplified a poise and coolness that allowed voters to begin imagining him as a potential Commander in Chief.

Obama said "Sen. McCain is absolutely right," so many times, the McCain camp turned it into a web ad. Oddly enough, McCain controlled the 40 minutes spent on the economy by pounding away at spending while Obama's strongest retort was during the foreign policy section, telling McCain he was "wrong" on Iraq in several ways.

To McCain's credit, he did not look like George W. Bush on that stage. He was feisty, energetic and credibly looked like he wanted to shake things up. On foreign affairs, McCain's initial move was to go on the attack. He tried to paint Obama as stubborn as President Bush for not admitting the surge worked. He attempted to make the case that Obama was too hawkish and a bit naive on how to deal with Pakistan. The Republican nominee also tapped into emotion -- using the story about meeting troops wanting to re-enlist. He then went on to tap into history, talking about his opposition to military intervention in Lebanon in 1983, and closing with, "Tragically I was right."

McCain also mixed his foreign policy critiques with fun but pointed zingers. When Obama suggested McCain has taken his eye off the central front on the war on terror in Afghanistan, McCain fired back, "Maybe you should've went there."

When Obama made his case for meeting with leaders of rogue countries like Iran's Ahmadinejad, McCain first noted he doesn't have a White House visitor schedule yet . . . he then landed an overlooked shot at Obama, "I don't even have a seal yet."

Later, he said, almost mockingly, "So let me get this right, we sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, we're going to wipe Israel off the earth, and we say, 'No you're not,' Oh please."

On Russia, Obama and McCain's responses were glaringly different and telling. Obama rattled off his detailed position on Russia's "unwarranted invasion" of Georgia. It took McCain all of three words to go right after Obama's initial response to the invasion, suggesting he's not tough enough.

If it was a boxing match, McCain landed more blows. But after seeking people's reactions this weekend, I realized that it's not always about the "points" we reporters look for. Only the most partisan Republicans would argue that Obama didn't look ready to be president (Disagreeing on policy is a different matter). He never got rattled and showed he had great command of the large issues. In many ways he stood toe-to-toe with McCain on foreign policy. McCain repeated the phrase that Obama "just doesn't get it." But that's the wrong argument. Obama definitely seemed to "get it," he just dramatically disagrees with McCain over how to "get it." In this sense, Obama easily passed the potential Commander In Chief threshold.

So while on points, it's a narrow win for McCain -- that may not be enough this year. Both of these men had solid performances, and with Obama the slim frontrunner, the positions the two candidates took may be more important than how forcefully they argued them. In this type of environment, that favors Obama.

So when you watch the next debate, think less about keeping score, and watch for either a major gaffe that could instantly cripple a candidacy or a memorable "moment" that transfixes America. Those are more likely to impact the remainder of the campaign, than round-by-round scoring and delcaring a simple "winner" and "loser."

Haley Barbour To Visit Springfield

Source Tells The KY3 Political Notebook that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is expected to visit Springfield Tuesday to raise money for the Missouri Republican Party at the Oasis Hotel.

DEVELOPING . . .

A Deal . . . On Ice

DELICATE, TENTATIVE BAILOUT DEAL REACHED

Gov't To Pump $700 Billion Into Cash-Strapped Financial Firms

Not all At Once, Money Would Be Phased In, Limits on Executive Pay Included

House Could Vote Monday, Senate on Wednesday

***

Rep. Roy Blunt: "We need to look and see where we are on paper tomorrow." Blunt said his colleagues wanted to "bring both free-market principles and taxpayer protections to the table." "I think we will be able to have an announcement'' later today, Blunt said.

BUT Some Rank-and-file Republicans announce opposition

From THE HILL:

"House GOP Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) helped negotiate the deal and issued a side-by-side comparison that showed the tentative deal, the original proposal from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and provisions Democrats had demanded. That was supposed to show the gains House GOP leaders had won, and soothe their roiling conference. Early indications are that the effort has not been entirely successful."

ALSO, Newt Gingrich on ABC's This Week:

"Something has to be done, the question is whether it has to be this, and whether it has to be over the next 48 hours. The fact is, we're about to buy 20 years of bureaucracy and expenditure and centralization of power in Washington in order to get through two weeks. Historically, that's dangerous."

Deal Or . . . No Deal?

From CNN . . . Late . . .

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional negotiators "made great progress" toward reaching a deal on the White House's proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial system, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

House Republicans have not yet signed on the newest plan, but their negotiator, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, said he would present it to the GOP caucus Sunday morning after it is written on paper.

"I think we're going to be able to have an announcement tomorrow, but these are difficult issues," Blunt said.

Blunt Walks Timetable Back

BUT ADDS . . . PROGRESS IS BEING MADE, AND THAT LAWMAKERS WOULD WORK THROUGH THE NIGHT IF NECESSARY

Rep. Roy Blunt seemed to walk back his comments about a Sunday night deadline for a bailout Saturday, according to The Politico.

The top Republican negotiator in the House told reporters Saturday afternoon that Congress will not move on "any kind of artificial timeline" to finalize an economic rescue package before the markets open Monday morning.

"Somebody, maybe it was Einstein, said things should be done as quickly as possible but no quicker than possible," Republican Whip Roy Blunt told reporters Saturday afternoon before heading into a negotiating session with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

"We're not moving on any kind of artificial timeline," Blunt said as reported by Politico. "We're moving toward the very best solution in the shortest period of time."

But earlier Saturday on FOX, Blunt said a deal "needs to happen by Sunday."

Also from the Politico piece:

"In a bit of posturing before the negotiations, Blunt and other House Republicans called on Democrats to remove proposals that would give bankruptcy judges more authority to re-work mortgages and limit the portion of potential revenue generated by this debt-buying program that goes to a recently established affordable housing trust fund. Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, a lead author of the GOP alternative, also complained about language in the proposal that Republicans believe would benefit labor unions."

Blunt: Deal Needs To Happen By Sunday

BUT ANOTHER TOP REPUBLICAN SAYS A DEADLINE COULD MEAN DISASTER

Ozarks Congressman Roy Blunt said Saturday that if Congress doesn't reach a bailout deal for Wall Street by Sunday, it may not happen until late next week.

But Republican Policy Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said earlier that putting an arbitrary deadline on a final bailout bill could lead to electoral disaster for the G.O.P. in November.

According to Roll Call, McCotter said raising expectations of investors could spark a downturn if lawmakers missed the deadline. He added that, if the hypothetical deal failed because of House Republican misgivings, they would ultimately face the wrath of voters if an economic meltdown ensued.

"The irresponsible desire to meet a deadline solely for the sake of meeting a deadline will produce an ‘agreement’ that does NOT protect taxpayers from this bailout,” McCotter said, as quoted by Roll Call. "Thus, the public will be outraged a month before the election; principled House Republicans will view any internal whip count as a political dead pool; and the irresponsible, anti-taxpayer ‘agreement’ will fail. … This avoidable outcome, too, could lead to a catastrophic economic meltdown."

Blunt made the comments about a bailout timeline on Fox News this morning, but the lead House negotiator for the economic stability package also made the rounds on CBS and ABC's morning programs.

"We're doing everything we can to have a bill the Democrats and Republicans can work for that protects taxpayers in ways that the original proposal didn't, and provide some alternatives out there that are better. We need to be doing things that insure, one, that the taxpayers are protected and, two, that this is done in a way the taxpayers have every reason to expect they'll get all of their money back and maybe even make a profit. And, three, it would be sure that the guy who is trying to borrow money at the local bank is able to do that," Blunt said on CBS's Early Show.

On ABC, Blunt said there are things in the bill right now that House Republicans could just not support, including "things that make it harder for regular homeowners to get credit," and "things that fund big, political organizations, instead of putting money back into the Treasury."

"The Sunday deadline is an important deadline," Blunt said on ABC. "But it more important to get this right than it is to meet a deadline… We hope we can get this done this weekend."

On FOX, Blunt seemed to speak more forcefully about the timeline. "It needs to happen by Sunday, if it doesn't happen by Sunday, it could be Thursday or Friday of next week. There may be a point when we realize that the majority that's in control isn't going to do this on their own and come up with the bill that Republicans in the House can vote for. And that is their decision," Blunt said.

Our Debate Focus Group

About two dozen Obama, McCain and undecided voters gathered at Springfield's Fox & Hound to watch the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. Ruscell Pavlin, pictured above, said she's an undecided voter. Afterwards, she scored the debate as an Obama victory. But two other Obama supporters told me they thought McCain won the 90-minute face-off.
WATCH THE KY3 NEWS @ 10 REPORT

***

Number of e-mails from the Obama press shop during the debate: 22

Number of e-mails from McCain press shop during the debate: 19 (amended from earlier, apparently I wasn't on the list)

Number of e-mails from Mo.GOP during the debate: 2

***

McCain already has a web video from the debate HERE

***

MCCAIN CAMPAIGN STATEMENT:

"John McCain won this debate and controlled the dialogue throughout, whether it was the economy, taxes, spending, Iraq or Iran. There was a leadership gap, a judgment gap, and a boldness gap on display tonight, a fact Barack Obama acknowledged when he said John McCain was right at least five times," said McCain spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker.

***

OBAMA CAMPAIGN STATEMENT:

"This was a clear victory for Barack Obama on John McCain’s home turf. Senator McCain offered nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies, and Barack Obama made a forceful case for change in our economy and our foreign policy. While foreign policy was supposed to be John McCain’s top issue, Barack Obama commanded that part of the debate with a clear call to responsibly end a misguided war in Iraq so that we can finish the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. John McCain needed a game-changer tonight, and by any measure he didn’t get it," said Obama-Biden campaign manager David Plouffe.

***

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL STATEMENT:

"John McCain is clearly focused on the past and defending the economic and foreign policies of the Bush Administration. What a clear contrast. Barack Obama has his eyes firmly on the future and how to help middle class families. He understands that we must quit spending 10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government runs up billions in surplus. And he showed his complete understanding of the threat of the Taliban and Al- Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Barack Obama is ready for this job."
***
SEN. KIT BOND STATEMENT:
"Senator Obama is trying to hamstring our troops with budget cuts. He wants to micro-manage our uniformed commanders in the field, and he is threatening the hard-earned American success the Petraeus plan has delivered on the ground. It is a recipe for American failure that we cannot afford to tolerate."
***
GOV. MATT BLUNT STATEMENT:
"Senator McCain was the clear victor in tonight's debate. John McCain showed Missourians his leadership qualities and his experience on foreign policy which again highlighted Barack Obama's weaknesses on this critical issue. John McCain also demonstrated that he is the only candidate for president who will address wasteful spending in Washington and help America become energy independent."





POLL UPDATE: So, at 1:30 a.m. Saturday, Barack Obama had 1 vote. By 2:33 a.m, he had 61. Can you say Obama listserv? Those Obama folks sure work late;)

Debate Coverage

Where Does The KY3 Political Notebook Expect To Watch And Cover Tonight's Presidential Debate From?

(Here's the hint . . .)

+

= ?

Answer at TWITTER Tonight @ 8 p.m.

***Look for Live Updates By Clicking on the Twitter Link***

Laura Bush To Visit The Ozarks

The White House announces the First Lady will tour Laura Ingalls Wilder Historic Home and Museum in Mansfield, Missouri on Friday, October 3rd. The event will be OPEN PRESS.

What To Watch For

MY KY3 NEWS @ 6 DEBATE PREVIEW IS BELOW

Watch the 90-minute debate on KY3 News beginning @ 8 p.m.

Middle Man

***NEW BELOW: OBAMA CAMP DISTORTS BLUNT REMARK

Southwest Missouri's Roy Blunt is central to the debate over whether Congress will pass a bailout for Wall Street.
CQ Politics: Blunt enjoys "considerable esteem from both sides of the aisle."
Article Hints Blunt's relationship with Republicans may be more strained than with Democrats
***
"Blunt has a close relationship with” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said a senior GOP aide. “Hoyer will get out the word that Blunt can be trusted."
Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, said, "It’s in good hands. Roy Blunt is a very good negotiator."

***

****UPDATED @ 6:15 PM . . . MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS CALLS OUT OBAMA CAMP FOR DISTORTING A BLUNT REMARK . . .

An Obama statement sent out this quote from Blunt, trying to imply that he blamed McCain for blowing a bipartisan deal . . . "Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing," Blunt was quoted.

THE PROBLEM: Blunt's words were taken out of context and the video was edited to make his remarks appear more critical of McCain than they actually were. Blunt's full quote was this: "I do think that John McCain was very helpful in what he did," Blunt said. "Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing that no House Republican, in my view, would have been for, which means it wouldn't have probably passed the House."
BUT . . . BELOW, WATCH A CLIP OF BLUNT'S DARE TO THE DEMS

"I WANT A DEAL BY MONDAY"

ALSO NEW . . .BLUNT APPEARS ON CNN:

On House Republicans' demands: "We want a bipartisan solution that has better protection for the taxpayers and more free enterprise principles and better protection for homeowners..."
On John McCain's role in the negotiations: "Everyone else is rushing for a deal and frankly John McCain came back and said, 'the House Republicans have the taxpayers in mind and I am with them.'"
On The Details: "I want a good deal by Monday. Well, we are in for a real negotiation. If there is no real negotiation, there won't be a deal and virtually all of my colleagues can go home to explain what was wrong in their mind with the deal that was being offered and how just a few additions here and there could have really made a big difference for the taxpayers and that is what we are going to try to achieve."

KMOV on Drudge

OBAMA 'TRUTH QUADS': Campaign asks Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs misleading TV ads...

Blunt Tells CNN: McCain Is With His Caucus

FROM POLITICO:

Roy Blunt, negotiator for the House GOP, just told CNN that John McCain is "with" his caucus -- even though the Republican candidate hasn't publicly backed any plan yet.

Blunt, seen as a seasoned hand who will smooth differences between the camps, didn't say if the Arizona senator backed their market-based approach ["Certainly... he might be supportive"] -- but suggested McCain agreed the whole process needed to be slowed down." Everybody else seemed to be rushing for a deal and John McCain came back and said, 'Wait a minute, I think the House Republicans have the taxpayers in mind and I'm with them,'" Blunt, the minority whip said.

He also indicated that many in his caucus would be satisfied with the addition of some of their proposals "here and there," and said "almost all" -- but not every -- member of the House GOP believed the economy was on the brink of collapse.

Debate Watch Parties

Want to watch tonight's debate with a bunch of party partisans who have already determined the debate winner prior to its conclusion?

I thought so . . .

REPUBLICANS @ Greene County HQ, 1845 E Sunshine St (Club G.O.P.) 5-7 p.m. Phone Banking, 7-8 p.m. Ice Cream Socializing, 8 p.m. Debate

DEMOCRATS @ Obama Headquarters at 220 S. Campbell in Springfield. Missouri Veterans For Obama will host. The party begins at 7:30 p.m.

PLUS . . . Full Debate Previews at KY3 News @ 5 & 6 . . .

Your Post-Game Show, on KY3 News @ 10. . .

Hulshof Pushes For Better Child Support Collections

TAKES SWIPE AT NIXON FOR MISSOURI'S RANKING

UPDATED: Nixon Responds Below

Republican candidate for Governor Kenny Hulshof wants to increase the collection of child support payments by creating new regional projects to better enforce local judgments.

Missouri children only receive 21 cents of every dollar they are owed in child support, according to the Hulshof campaign. "In fact, nearly $2 billion in child support payments remain outstanding in Missouri. Pennsylvania ranks first in the nation, collecting 46 cents of every dollar. If Missouri collected at a rate similar to Pennsylvania, our state’s children could stand to gain $610 million in additional resources," reads a Hulshof release.

"State government has failed the children of Missouri by not more aggressively pursuing these payments," Hulshof said. "I will work with law enforcement officials, from the attorney general all the way to local prosecutors, regardless of party, to fix it," he added.

The Hulshof campaign also took a jab at Democratic opponent Jay Nixon in announcing their plan. They point to a July 2003 statement by Nixon, saying that "Missouri would rise from the middle of the pack" to the "upper tier" of states in child support collections.

"Unfortunately Jay Nixon did not live up to his promise," reads the Hulshof release. "Missouri remains in the middle tier. If Jay Nixon had done as he promised, more Missouri children would have access to health insurance," it goes on. Hulshof's campaign contends that Missouri ranks 25th in the country in child support enforcement.

UPDATED 7:06 P.M. . . The Nixon campaign said that Hulshof's attack was meant to distract. "Making sure parents pay child support is certainly an important issue, but as Congressman Hulshof knows, the Attorney General’s Office is not primarily responsible for collecting it," said Nixon spokesperson Oren Shur. "With this attack, Congressman Hulshof is trying to distract Missourians from the issue on everyone’s mind today, theeconomic crisis that he helped create in Washington. Congressman Hulshof voted for the failed economic policies that created this mess, but he’d rather just pretend everything is fine and talk about something else."

Baker Responds To Debate Over Debates

Kenny Hulshof's campaign for Governor said that negotiations between their team and Jay Nixon's campaign fell apart and an e-mail exchange posted by the KY3 Political Notebook Thursday occurred early in the process.

Hulshof spokesperson Scott Baker said that Nixon's camp did not originally want to agree to the September 11th Missouri Press Association Debate in Columbia.

"You'll notice that Oren's email says "Please confirm we're on the same page: September 11 at MPA: to be converted to a joint appearance. Candidates appear on stage separately, one after the other." Is that the way that event happened? No," Baker told the Notebook Friday.

"That's where the negotiations fell apart. They did not want the Sept. 11 event to be a debate. Ask Doug Crews with the MPA. They fought it tooth and nail. When it became clear that the event wasn't going to be as they wanted, the negotiations fell apart and that was it," he added.

Baker said that's the point where there was no agreement going forward.

"Bottom line - Jay Nixon is agreeing to only four debates - two in the middle of the day, one on high school football night in Southwest Missouri and another on a Saturday night. The question is - Why is that?," Baker asked.

Debate Is On

Confident That A Bipartisan Agreement Is In The Works, McCain Plans To Head to Oxford, Mississippi Tonight For The First Presidential Debate

***

McCain Calls Rep. Roy Blunt the designated House G.O.P. negotiator

***

Campaign Releases Statement:

"The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama's priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections."

"Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners."

Survey Says . . .

NIXON 54%, HULSHOF 37%

SURVEYUSA

The much-disputed automated poll is out with new numbers

***

705 likely voters/Sept 23-24th

***

In Southwest, Nixon leads 50%-41% (C'mon now?)

23% of Republicans go with Nixon as do 49% of Independents

***

ALSO: It's McCain 48%, Obama 46%

Nixon is performing 8 points ahead of Obama

McCain wins Independents 48%-41%

In Southwest, it's a 20-point margin . . . McCain 57%, Obama 37%

No Deal, No Debate?

BAILOUT OR BUST?
Watch the KY3 News @ 10 Report HERE
Missouri's Congressional Delegation Fields Calls -- Mostly in Opposition to Proposed $700 Billion Dollar Wall Street Bailout

Sen. Bond reports 5,000 calls

Sen. McCaskill receives 500 calls a day, more than 1,000 e-mails
Both offices say majority of calls oppose "Golden Parachute For Failed CEOs"

Offices say it's the biggest constituent reaction since the immigration debate

No deal yet; Lawmakers will meet again Friday morning

***

ALSO: Will McCain debate?

--OR--

Is he willing to risk not showing to cut or block a mega bailout deal?

VIDEO: Bond & McCaskill on the Bailout

Both Sens. Kit Bond and Claire McCaskill spoke on the Senate floor about the ongoing negotiations on a proposed $700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout. Below are excerpts.

"There are changes that need to be made . . . in attitudes."

"Not a dime of it goes to a payout to anybody who doesn't deserve it."

Nixon Camp Releases Debate E-mails With Team Hulshof

Jay Nixon's campaign for Governor released e-mail correspondence with Kenny Hulshof's political squad Thursday to refute assertions that the two sides did not agree to just four debates.

Earlier this week, Hulshof's campaign said that they never agreed to "have only four debates" with Democratic nominee Jay Nixon.

Nixon communications director Oren Shur provided the KY3 Political Notebook with e-mail exchanges between the two camps. In an e-mail on August 20th, Shur sent a message to Hulshof campaign manager John Hancock and Hulshof spokesperson Scott Baker.

"Please confirm we’re on the same page: September 11 at MPA: to be converted to a joint appearance. Candidates appear on stage separately, one after the other. Week of Oct. 6: Mid Mo (KRCG etc) or Kraske Week of Oct 13: Mid Mo (KRCG etc) or KraskeOctober 18: KC/STL (KTVI/WDAF)Week of Oct. 20: Springfield (KY3 etc)," Shur wrote. "Also, can everyone agree that neither candidate will try to appear solo at any debates that are not included on this schedule? We accept jointly and decline jointly," Shur added.

Just fifteen minutes later on Aug. 20th, Hulshof's Baker appears to respond with this . . . "We don’t want to do KTVI/WDAF on the 18th, right? We’re just shooting for it to be within the week of the 13th?"

About a half hour later, Hancock responds by Blackberry, "Fine by me."

Although none of the exchanges specifically pin down just four debates, it appears that the Hulshof camp didn't privately request more head-to-head opportunities in the final days of negotiations with Team Nixon before the schedule was released to the press.

Lipstick on A Pitbull

STEELMAN DENIES AID FOR ETHANOL

Treasurer Says Plant Should Have No Investment Ties To Politicos

Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman today revoked conditional approval for financial aid for an ethanol plant that has political connections.

Show-Me Ethanol had received conditional approval in October 2006 for a 48 million dollar state bank deposit that would be used for a reduced-interest-rate loan. But the big condition was that the ethanol plant could have no investors who either were state officials or related to them. Among the investors was Governor Blunt's brother, Andy Blunt, and state House member John Quinn.

"Despite repeated requests, you have refused to give information or provide documentation about shareholders and those conflicts. At least four times since April our office has informed you of the need for this documentation and as of today you have still not supplied it," Steelman wrote in a letter to Show-Me Ethanol's Greg Thomas.

Steelman's office said Show-Me's "repeated refusal" to cooperate in complying with the laws that govern the program lead to her decision. The Treasurer said Show Me Ethanol repeatedly refused to clarify "syndication and financial issues."

"The only conclusion that is reasonable at this point is that your organization is not in compliance with the policies and laws of this state, and that you refuse to cooperate in coming into compliance. Two years is well beyond what should be expected by anyone who has come to the state asking for assistance and then refused to make any effort to comply with the laws and policies the state has established for that assistance," Steelman wrote.

"Accordingly, the conditional approval previously granted is revoked, and your application is denied," she concluded.

Blunt, Bond Among Top 10 Recipients of Fannie, Freddie Contributions

OBAMA IS NUMBER 2 ON THE LIST

Congressman Roy Blunt and Senator Kit Bond are at the top of the list of the members of Congress who have received the largest amount of campaign contributions from mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

OpenSecrets.org combed over the campaign finance reports of the two companies, now that the U.S. government has taken them over. OpenSecrets published a list of the 354 lawmakers who have received money from Mae or Mac from 1989 to 2008.

Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, topped the list, receiving $165,400 from the two over that period. Barack Obama was number two on the list, taking $126,349 over a short period.

Rep. Roy Blunt took in $96,950 and Sen. Kit Bond received $95,400 from the two. If you scroll down, you will see in the comment section, that some are questioning how OpenSecrets conducted its search. They note that a special search of John McCain pulls up contributions from associates of Freddie and Fannie.

Springfield resident Ronald Prull said he contacted both Bond and Blunt's offices Wednesday to request that they should both give the money back. "My thought is that the money should be returned however small the amount is," Prull wrote in an e-mail to the KY3 Political Notebook.

Gone, But Not Forgotten

The Cliffs Notes Version of What We Missed While We Were Gone This Week

• The group opposed to the Greene County Non-Partisan Court Plan began airing radio ads, targeting "liberal trial lawyers," aiming to "take away" your right to vote for judges. Listen to Better Courts For Missouri's ad HERE.
• That "other" anti-abortion group that's miffed at Missouri Right to Life, released its endorsement list. Missourians United For Life is backing most of the local Republican state representatives, as well as #136th candidate Eric Burlison. We didn't see #138th candidate Michael Goodart or #134 Rep. Jim Viebrock or #139 Rep. Shane Schoeller on their list. Ed Martin tells the KY3 Political Notebook that the group is still reviewing their surveys. He expects another round of endorsements to come out tomorrow or Monday.
• Kenny Hulshof announced his modifications to the Missouri Plan. In order to decrease the influence of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, Hulshof wants to remove "special interests" from the Appellate System, replace the Chief Justice of the commission with a retired Supreme Court judge, and allow the Governor to veto more nominees. Democrats accused him of flip-flopping on the issue, after he supposedly endorsed Greene County's Non-Partisan Court Plan. Maybe it's like a Sarah Steelman endorsement. Lukewarm with caveats?
• Jay Nixon's campaign put up new TV, hitting Hulshof on his vote for trade with China and again for his statements on the economy. A clear attempt to further define Hulshof and drive up his negatives. 22 seconds of the 30-second spot focus on Hulshof --- (is this in response to the closing poll numbers?)
• Nixon supporter David Getty is circulating a petition, to urge Hulshof to debate him about why the Congressman thinks the economy "is in a good place." Getty's job at the Chrysler plant in Fenton leaves on Oct. 31st.
• The Hulshof campaign said Nixon has debate-o-phobia and is lying about an agreement on debates. "Kenny believes Missourians should have every opportunity to see and hear the candidates side by side," read a Hulshof e-mail to supporters. "In fact, he's accepted several additional debate proposals. Nixon has declined. To no one's surprise, Nixon and his campaign have taken liberty with the truth and told the media there was an agreement to have only four debates. That is not true!"
• The Missouri Democratic Party certainly didn't like the Post-Dispatch's poll showing Republican Brad Lager with a lead over Rep. Clint Zweifel in the Treasurer's race. On Wednesday, the party filed an ethics complaint against Lager for failing to properly report campaign expenditures. We're not saying they're related . . . we're just sayin'. . . (Republicans call the complaint ludicrous and desperate.)