McCaskill, The GOP, And Stimulus Hypocrisy

As Bill Dalton noted in a post on Prime Buzz yesterday evening, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is frustrated by the massive amounts of hypocrisy pervading the rhetoric of many stimulus bill opponents. What the senator has a problem with, and rightfully so, is the semantic bait-and-switch emanating from some rightist Missouri politicians, who appeal to the conservative base by lambasting the stimulus bill, and then turn around and take credit for projects funded by it, as well as utilizing federal aid to make up for state shortfalls — as Missouri is doing with education. So, the hypocrisy: shady? Or really shady?

The Perplexing Logic Of Scott Roeder

In what can only be described as a highly questionable legal move, Scott Roeder has consented to a post-conviction jailhouse interview (video here, posted by the no doubt unbiased “BibleWizard2″), as detailed by Judy Thomas in today’s Star. Leaving aside the obvious danger of saying things that could factor into his sentencing, the interview presents not just a remorseless killer but a dangerously unhinged mind. And we can’t help but ask: is this guy grounded in reality at all?

Palin’s Salina Speech And The Curious Reactions Elicited

A few days ago, Brent Wistrom of the Wichita Eagle covered the speech by Sarah Palin in Salina, and detailed the basics of the speech and of the crowd’s deeply intriguing responses to it. It’s been tough to generate much sympathy of late for the self-aggrandizing Palin, who uses the forums of Facebook and Twitter to launch thinly reasoned broadsides against the administration, all with the undeniable luxury of zero accountability to any constituents. (Deducing exactly what Palin is preparing for has become a parlor game among the electorati.) And as evidenced in her recent speech to the tea party sorts, she’s laughably unprepared for even the most basic set of jingoistic talking points. So what did she have to say to the people in our general area? And how did people react? Well, it’s odd.

Star Wars-Obsessed Commenter Still Hates Us

So the Star linked to us again. And yet again, intrepid commenter “Star Destroyer” sees fit to go all Palpatine on us.

Note also the comment above it. “State of the Slime” — that’s a pretty good one. Hadn’t heard that before.

A Quick Word In Defense Of Strip Clubs

Well, not morally, of course. The middle-aged gents who occupy most strip club seats, with their dull eyes and vacuous leering, will gain no sympathy ’round these parts. But economically? And on First Amendment grounds? Yes, now there’s a place we can defend strip clubs — especially against the poorly reasoned and blatantly unconstitutional assault currently being perpetrated by local state senator Matt Bartle. In this battle, our loyalties lie squarely with the smut-peddlers (as unappealing as that prospect is). Anyway. To the facts.

Governors’ Summit Acknowledges KC’s Teleological Crisis

To what end, Kansas City? That seemed to be the theme pervading the discussion at Wednesday’s “Governors’ Summit,” which brought together Mark Parkinson and Jay Nixon in an attempt to slay the beast known as “malaise.” Downtrodden is the mood of the day, it would appear, and the solution derived from the meeting is to turn to the private sector for answers.  No surprise there, given that the sponsor was the Greater KC Chamber — but does this solution begin to address the fundamental ontological questions of Kansas Citians? Namely: why doesn’t anyone want us?

Press 1 For Representative Democracy: Mayor Funkhouser And The Philosophically Troubling TeleTownHalls

Next Tuesday, the mayor of Kansas City will host another one of his “TeleTownHalls,” this time to discuss his Schools First program. (N.B. How to deal with the grammar here? The Star prefers “tele-town hall,” but the linguist in me can’t help but notice the alternate reading of that term — namely, as “hall” modified by something called a “tele-town” — and want to make some hybrid like the one supra. Let’s avoid this by calling it a “TTH.”) Citizens who would like to listen in can dial an 888 number and participate. This makes for smooth efficiency, sure, and avoids the frustratingly frequent b-roll footage of concerned parents sitting around a rec center or VFW hall glaring angrily at city leaders. Far easier it is to just ask people to pick up a phone. Some, though, have questioned this tactic as a not-quite-kosher usage of city funds; the mayor, after all, is using the forum to promote a political initiative. This is for barristers to decide, but we can still ask: is it right to do these things?

We’re trying not to note the absurdity of anonymous comments much anymore, but it’s hard to pass up this gem offered by a Star commenter on a Prime Buzz post (which links here among other places, I should note). If this is the right’s argument against repealing DADT, then I like our chances.

Rock — Ike Skelton — Hard Place

Pity Ike Skelton. The long-tenured Missouri congressman has earned his spot at the top of the House Armed Services Committee, and has been a solid home-stater for a long time, directing much in the way of funding to us back home. He’s one of the country’s most admired congressmen (even if that seems like a backhanded compliment in this day and age), and has earned loyalty on both sides for his mostly moderate approach to things. So how did he end up as the most significant roadblock on the path to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?

Carnahan And Blunt Both Miss Point In Budget Criticisms

After the unveiling of President Obama’s gimmicky budget on Monday, both Missouri Senate candidates — current Secretary of State and scion Robin Carnahan and oleaginous lifetime D.C.’er Roy Blunt — had critical things to say. From Prime Buzz comes word of their individual critiques (Carnahan’s first):

“From where I stand here in Missouri, I’m disappointed in the president’s budget recommendation,” she said. “Budgets are about setting priorities and it’s time Washington started making fiscal discipline and tackling the long-term budget deficit higher priorities.”…

“…the president sent to the Hill a budget that more than doubles our debt, elevates our spending to a record $3.8 trillion next year, and drives us toward a deficit of $1.6 trillion…While I applaud the president’s spending freeze plans, they are too little too late.”

Both salient points, if a little too grounded in the talking-point ethos. For example, Blunt seems to conveniently overlook the fact that Bush’s last year saw a $1.3 trillion deficit, and that new spending under Obama is only responsible for about 7 percent of the current deficit. (Two-thirds is business cycle stuff, and two-thirds is continuation of Bush spending programs.) The larger problem here is that both candidates miss the really important part: unfunded commitments to GSEs.