So we’re two days into the fallout from The Donald’s Muslim ban (and, dear folks, all his denials aside, it is a Muslim ban). We’ve always known that he would feel compelled to pander to anti-Muslim bigotry and that his efforts would be in character, that is, cruel, unnecessary and stupid, but did this particular effort need to be so inept? Harold Pollack sums up the shear incompetence embodied in the President’s Executive Order (EO):

The President’s team had months to prepare this signature immigration initiative. And they produced…an amateurish, politically self-immolating effort that humiliated the country, provoked international retaliation, and failed to withstand the obvious federal court challenge on its very first day.

Given the despicable nature of this effort, I’m happy it has become a political fiasco. It also makes me wonder how the Trump administration will execute the basic functions of government. This astonishing failure reflects our new President’s contempt for the basic craft of government.

Given the scope of the mess our amateur hour president and his flunkies – racist Bannon’s dirty fingerprints are all over the EO – have made, don’t you think that those Republicans who moaned and whined about Obama’s relatively modest executive orders might have something just a little harsh to say about what Mr. Trump has produced? And some do. Some can only manage to whimper a little about how it’s “too broad” or offer some other anodyne criticism. Some, however, like Pennsylvania’s Charlie Dent, have enough intestinal fortitude to make a reasonably strong statement condemning the nasty little exercise.

Of course, a few GOPers think this EO is just what the doctor ordered. Missouri’s own Republican Senator Blunt, for instance. He thinks the EO is just hunky-dory:

He is doing what he told the American people he would do. I would not support a travel ban on Muslims; I do support increased vetting on people applying to travel from countries with extensive terrorist ties or activity. These seven countries meet that standard. Our top priority should be to keep Americans safe.

Blunt just holds his nose and pretends that Muslim-baiting isn’t the real goal and he’s good to go. You gotta admit, this old boy knows who butters his bread.

But is that greasy bread worth demonizing a few million Muslim Americans. Or turning one’s back on desperate people fleeing death and chaos? Especially when it was another bad American president, George W. Bush, who pushed Humpty Dumpty off the Middle Eastern wall. Don’t we owe these people something besides lies about the need for “very, very strict vetting” that are used to cover up the fact that President Orange Buffoon needs to fire up the bigots who voted for him?

Kevin Drum suggests that the turmoil over the EO is just what Steve Bannon wanted:

… Bannon wanted turmoil and condemnation. He wanted this executive order to get as much publicity as possible. He wanted the ACLU involved. He thinks this will be a PR win. [… ]  Liberals think middle America will be appalled at Trump’s callousness. Bannon thinks middle America will be appalled that lefties and the elite media are taking the side of terrorists. After a week of skirmishes, this is finally a hill that both sides are willing to die for. Who’s going to win?

It’s pretty clear where Roy Blunt is putting his money.

The post MO Senator Roy Blunt plays the odds on Muslim ban appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a shocking policy statement released last week, Democrat Jason Kander—who is running for US Senate to unseat Republican incumbent Roy Blunt—announced that he supports a Balanced Budget amendment to the US Constitution.

That is a very odd policy position for a Democrat. Usually, this balanced-budget stuff is the bailiwick of Republicans, who claim that it’s a more responsible way to run government. Democrats usually oppose this kind of policy. Here are some of the reasons behind their opposition, from a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution:

• Budget deficits are sometimes beneficial, not just in times of war but also during economic slowdowns.

• A balanced-budget amendment brings the threat of political extortion by a congressional minority. Requiring a super-majority to run a deficit “is a veritable summons to political extortion by an intransigent minority” and could trigger a constitutional crisis.

• It is unwise to lock into the Constitution an economic variable of limiting government spending to 18 or 20 percent of economic output, since that level may need to change based on facts and circumstances.

And conventional [Democratic] wisdom says that the whole notion of a balanced budget is just a code-word, cover-story for making sure that, when the budget has to be balanced, cuts will come from social programs and the safety net, not from military spending, or from tax advantages for the wealthiest.

So, what is Kander thinking here?

Maybe he thinks that supporting the balanced budget concept will co-opt Blunt, who has co-sponsored such a measure many times during his tenure in Washington DC. In this line of thinking, Kander’s support for the amendment “takes the issue off the table” in the campaign. He has said that a national constitutional amendment would merely take its cue from similar balanced-budget measures in many states.  [Yeah, but what if balanced state budgets are a bad idea, too? Not a very good example. The federal government should be smarter than the states.]

Or maybe he thought that his supporters wouldn’t notice. It’s sort of an obscure issue, after all, and probably not top-of-mind for most people. But if that’s the case, why send out a tweet about it? Why make it an issue at all?  Why not do what most real Democrats do, and oppose it.

Sorry, Jason. I liked you as Missouri Secretary of State. And I was just about to sign up to volunteer for your campaign, on the recommendation of a friend whose opinion I value. But now that you’ve announced this policy, I’m less likely to help you out. This is exactly the kind of stinkin’ thinkin’ that other Missouri Democrats have engaged in as a ploy to appeal to Republican voters. Prime example: Robin Carnahan, another former MO Secretary of State tilted rightward in a previous election, sullying her previously stellar reputation, alienating many supporters, and failing to swing any Republican voters her way, and, of course, ultimately losing the election.]

When will these cowardly Democrats learn? In Missouri, you’re not going to grab any Republican voters by pretending to support conservative ideas. If they want a Republican, they’re going to vote for one. You’re not fooling them.  You can’t out-Republican Missouri Republicans. But what you are doing is alienating Democrats.

What we need are not Republican-light Democrats. We need progressive Democrats—Democrats who are not afraid to work for liberal policies. When Democrats pull this fake conservative bullshit, what they take off the table is the progressive message.  And that is really sad, because a lot of people may call themselves conservative, but expect to receive the services brought to them by progressive ideas [Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, fully funded police and fire services, infrastructure—to name just a few.] They just don’t realize it. They should be reminded. That’s a really important job for Democrats. And that’s why I have zero patience for Democrats who support terrible, right-wing policies like a balanced- budget amendment.

I await an explanation from Kander.

The post A MO Democratic candidate calls for a Balanced Budget amendment. Wait, what? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We’ve all heard the tragic stories about parents who just look away for one distracted second while disaster strikes their helpless toddler. There’s the kid who got into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati zoo, or the children in Texas who drowned while their mother was occupied with her cell phone. When I think about the damage that is being done to our society by the latest evolution of our gun culture, I can sympathize with those parents.

The post Gun crazy: Senator Roy Blunt edition appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Wanna know how lots of GOP politicians feel about their 2016 presidential candidate, Donald Trump? That’s easy. He scares the bejesus out of ’em.

How can one tell? As Slate‘s Jim Newell observes, many GOPers won’t even utter his name. Instead, he’s “the nominee,” as in “I support the nominee.” Alternatively, for those looking for even more degrees of separation, he becomes the “ticket,” which as loyal Republican foot soldiers, they’ll support.

Since there are many Republicans who view Trump’s ascendancy as the death of the Republican Party as we know it, this must the denial stage of grieving.

Missouri’s own Roy Blunt is still willing to refer to Trump by name, but he’s signaling that he’s not happy about owning up to being a member of the same club, asserting that, “Sometime in the next 24 hours I may do a total moratorium on any Trump questions in this building and just refer you to the office who knows how many times I’ve already answered the Trump questions.”

I guess he hasn’t made it to the second stage of grieving, but is lingering over the first: anger.

And well he might. Today no less a source than the Washington Post indicated that Blunt was looking more and more vulnerable to the attacks of his Challenger, Missouri’s Democratic Secretary of State, Jason Kander. This must be a new sensation for Blunt. As a campaign surrogate noted, “in a normal election year, he would be untouchable […]. But given the volatility and the uncertainty, he’s aware he can’t take anything for granted.”Clearly, by “volatility” and “uncertainty,” Blunt’s mouthpiece means Donald Trump, but, of course, that name cannot be uttered by the more faint-of-heart GOPers.

Blunt may be a little angry about what The Donald is doing to his campaign, but he’s not above some bluster:

Blunt himself pointed to the 2012 result in Missouri — when senior senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, won by 15 points as Romney cruised — as evidence that his fate won’t be tied to Trump’s.

But Claire McCaskill was running against the boneheaded Todd Akin. And Jason Kander is no Todd Akin.

The post Trump candidacy threatens MO’s Blunt appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The behavior of the human species, especially when under pressure, is demonstrated with remarkable clarity in both sports and politics. Every day is different; some individuals rise to the occasion; others fail with the misfortune of it being in the public limelight.

Last week I was in Washington, DC watching the Cardinals fail in probably the three most humiliating fashions in baseball: Game 1: blowing a 6-1 lead; Game 2: getting trounced 10-0; and Game 3: losing in extra innings.

However, my spirits brightened when, while there, I came across an on-line article by St. Louis Post-Dispatch political reporter, Jake Wagman, who said:

The Redbirds are in Washington this week, which does more than allow capital Cardinal fans to see their hometown team.

It gives hometown politicians a chance to score some re-election cash.

Ever since the Montreal Expos moved to D.C. and became the Nationals in 2005, Washington’s other players — members of Congress —have watched the team’s schedule for opportunities to bolster their campaign accounts.

In previous years, St. Louis U.S. Rep. Lacy Clay has held a fundraiser at the ballpark when the Cardinals played the Nationals.

On Tuesday night, supporters of U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt paid $1,000 to watch the Cardinals bullpen and defense implode in an 8-6 loss.

Tonight, U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan will ask his fans for the same amount to watch the second game of tonight’s series at Nationals Park.

While Carnahan — a St. Louis Democrat whose district was a casualty of redistricting — doesn’t know what he’ll be running for yet, the Nationals are wise to welcome his party to the game.

Political fund-raising, particularly when the dollars are as high as the event is ostentatious, just does not fit my definition of the people’s democracy. So the fact that 65 months before his next general election, Senator Blunt was shilling for money, and his special event turned into a debacle (at least entertainment-wise), did not sadden me a bit.

But I’m a bi-partisan curmudgeon about political fund-raisers. The fact that those who donated $1,000 each to Russ Carnahan only to see a Cardinal drubbing also seemed to have an element of justice. That’s because they were donating to Russ Carnahan at the same time that he is running for ….. nothing. As is not the case with Blunt, I generally appreciate Russ Carnahan’s voting record. But that doesn’t justify the absurdity of asking supporters to donate $1,000 for him to remain a place-holder to either run in Missouri’s refashioned Second Congressional District or for the esteemed and taxing position of Missouri Lieutenant-Governor. And what happens to that money if Russ Carnahan decides to run for nothing? Well just ask the one-time supporters of Anthony Wiener who funded his five-million- dollar war chest. Wiener could return the money to contributors as an honorable person would do. Or he can hold on to it forever in the hope that, like the Phoenix, he will rise from the ashes and once again run for office.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must acknowledge that, during one game, I sat in the luxury box of a powerful Washington, DC law firm. A good friend from high school is a partner in the firm. I do no business with the firm and would never do so without first reimbursing them for the tickets I used.

Almost every summer, four or five friends from high school in St. Louis get together for two or three days of Cardinals baseball. We all tend to bleed Cardinal red, but with an asterisk. This is the team with which we grew up, but things are not as pure as they once were when the team was owned by a bullying beer baron. We still want to see the team win, but we also get a perverse sense of pleasure out of seeing them fail, because we can’t let recent practices by team management go unnoticed. Primary owner Bill DeWitt (“I like capitalism, if you take the risk and I get the reward”) has legally blackmailed the city of St. Louis and the state of Missouri out of millions of dollars to further line his coffers, already estimated at more than four billion dollars (that’s billion with a ‘b’). The team built a new stadium that at best is the equal of Busch Stadium II, but clearly was unnecessary. Ownership promised a close-by, mixed-use development called Ballpark Village, if they received more tax breaks. The land has moved from barren to now being a largely inaccessible softball field. The only news is the empty quarterly promises by the owners that someday something will happen. Nothing does.

In contrast, Nationals Stadium in Washington has been part of the vital regeneration of the struggling residential and industrial area of Anacostia. I’m sure that there were funny money exchanges in the development of the stadium, but in the end it is value added to the community, something that cannot be said about the current Busch Stadium.

It is no secret that, like all Rust Belt cities, St. Louis is struggling to recover from the near obliteration of manufacturing in the U.S. Poverty gets worse as the direction of income redistribution is from poor to wealthy rather than the other way around.

Our problems are hardly addressed by $1,000 here and $1,000 there going to politicians who will ultimately use the money in a campaign to inflate their own accomplishments and distort the views of their opponents. There seems to be a certain symmetry between Blunt and Carnahan, both of whom profess a commitment to fiscal restraint, entertaining funders by seeing a baseball team that has deprived our region of millions of badly needed tax revenue.

Major League Baseball and politics are not strange bedfellows. For several nights at National Stadium, the ugly game of legalized bribery was a little more visible than usual. Thank you, Jake Wagman, for shedding needed light on the subject.

The post Poetic justice for campaign contributors appeared first on Occasional Planet.