SAM GRAVES HAS TO GO

Posted 5/9/08

Sam Graves has to go. No truer statement has ever appeared in this column. Do you doubt me? If so, ask yourself one simple question: What has Sam Graves done for the 6th District, aside from lining the pockets of his family and friends and running to the sewer during every campaign, that Sen. Kit Bond did not already accomplish years before?

He has been straight out wrong or, at the very least ethically conflicted, on almost every important issue that he has faced. Take ethanol for example. Republicans in the Missouri legislature passed an ill-conceived statute requiring ethanol to be added to fuel in Missouri. The result has been increased fuel costs for all of us due to the expense of the ethanol and the fact that it is less efficient.

Graves’ wife, Governor Not-So-Sharp's brother Andy and Chillicothe Republican Rep. John Quinn decided to go into the ethanol business. The group then attempted to obtain sweetheart financing from the State of Missouri. The deal smelled so bad the Republican State Treasurer Sarah Steelman had to step in. Steelman stated at the time that "[t]his is the taxpayers' money, and I don't think it’s right for legislators or elected officials to be able to access that benefit, which helps them directly profit."

Graves feigned ignorance of the potential conflict of interest. If he truly was ignorant of the conflict, he is too dumb to represent us. If he was not ignorant he is a liar, which is worse.

Another example of Graves being wrong on an issue involves his alleged reason for opposing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). SCHIP would have provided insurance coverage for up to 120,000 uninsured children in our state. Graves opposed the legislation, alleging that it would make it easier for illegal aliens to receive taxpayer funded healthcare. In reality, a place Graves rarely visits, the SCHIP legislation that he opposed made it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain coverage by requiring applicants to verify their citizenship. Republican Senators Kit Bond of Missouri and Pat Roberts of Kansas voted for the bill. There is a reason that Bond and Graves do not get along. Bond does not suffer fools well.

It is ironic that Graves chose the SCHIP legislation to bring up the issue of illegal immigration. Since Graves took office in 2000 an estimated 5 million illegal aliens have entered the country. The Republican party controlled the Congress for the first six years he was in office. What has Graves done to address this issue? He has voted against increased border security at least six times.

Graves also opposes harsher penalties on employers that hire illegal immigrants. He even voted to place a cap on fines that can be levied against employers that knowingly hire illegal workers. This stance obviously benefits the rich, elite business executives who, along with the Shrub and Darth Cheney, are propping up Graves' floundering campaign for reelection. It does not, however, bode well for the ordinary working men and women of the 6th District who are struggling to make ends meet.

Kay Barnes must be elected to represent the 6th District. Again, no truer statement has ever appeared in this column. She is facing an opponent who will do anything to beat her. But, with your help, she cannot lose. Call or e-mail me and I will put you in contact with the Barnes campaign and you can help bury Graves.

(Russ Purvis is chairman of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

WRIGHT IS WRONG FOR OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS

Posted 5/2/08

We as Democrats have to face the fact that Wright is wrong for Obama and for the Democratic Party. Every time the Reverend Jeremiah Wright opens his mouth he costs Obama another vote in the general election. The real question for the super delegates is whether or not Wright's past sermons and recent statements will make Obama completely unelectable in November. If so, they must nominate Clinton.

If he truly believes what he says, then Wright is at best ill informed and more likely than not he is a racist. A racist who uses his pulpit as both a sword and a shield: A sword to lash out against those with which he as a quarrel, real or imagined; and, a shield to cloak himself against criticism by invoking the name of the Lord as a basis for his biting rhetoric.

He contends that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus as a way to commit genocide against African Americans. He has stated that Louis Farrakhan is “one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century.” He has said that Obama is just saying what he needs to say to get elected. And he has the audacity to state that criticism of him and his views is really criticism of black churches in general.

The United States is not a perfect country. No nation is perfect. However, Wright is lucky to live in a country where he is free to spew his brand of hate speech without fear of any repercussions from the government.
After all, he is practicing politics from the pulpit yet his church is still tax exempt. This has allowed Wright to receive a $1.6 million dollar home and a $10 million dollar line of credit guaranteed by the church. He appears to have pretty good lifestyle for a guy that the U.S. government has allegedly targeted for elimination with the AIDS virus.

Wright hates what he views as “white America.” He fails to grasp the fact that there is no white America or black America. There is simply the United States of America, a country in which people of all races constantly struggle with issues for which there are no easy solutions. How does this impact Obama? Obama attended Wright's church for twenty years. For him to now state that he never heard any of Wright's vitriolic comments is simply unbelievable. Or, as Wright said, he is just saying what he needs to say to get elected.

For Obama to survive the negative impact of Wright, he must do more than make half hearted statements. He must draw a line in the sand and explain where he stands and how he allowed himself to remain associated with Wright for the last twenty years, while disagreeing with a viewpoint that should make anyone that does agree with it ineligible to run for dogcatcher.

If Obama cannot adequately explain his association with Wright and distance himself from the man's poisonous views, the super delegates must act accordingly. If that happens, Obama will honestly be able to say that racism did cost him the nomination, the racism preached by Jeremiah Wright.

(Give Russ feedback via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

DEMOCRATS ARE ABOUT PEACE, HARMONY AND UNDERSTANDING

Posted 4/25/08

Why are you a Democrat? At least once a week someone asks me that question. As we progress through this political season, even with all of the give and take between Clinton and Obama, the answer becomes clearer. I am a Democrat because it is people, not corporate interests, self-interested politicians, or the concept of Christianity, or any other religion, that makes the United States of America a great nation. Only the Democratic Party represents the people that make up this country.

The Republican Party distrusts, disregards and disposes of people. In the Republican model of the United States, people are useful fools, existing as a commodity, their value being measured only by the sum total of their labor or, in an election year, the vote they can provide.

There is no better example of this fact than the current immigration situation. Republicans argue for closing the borders while refusing to take action against the corporate interests that are the root of the problem. Punish the corporations that break the law by hiring illegals and the simple rules of supply and demand, a concept Republicans claim to understand, will resolve the issue. Start by putting a few corporate officers and board members in prison for violating the immigration statutes already on the books. If there are no jobs for illegals they will not risk life and limb to get here to work.

The argument that Americans will not do the work is as repugnant as it is wrong. To buy into that argument is to buy into the theory that the American people are either too lazy or feel that they are too good to do the jobs being filled by illegals. In actuality, the jobs can be filled; however, it will require employers to pay a competitive wage. But a rise in the cost of labor might mean one less corporate jet so the wheel continues to turn.

It is all about money with this group. The Hispanic commodity is cheaper than the American commodity so damn the impact on individual people, profit is king and we, the people, are mere pawns.

Dick Cheney provides another insight into how little Republicans care about people. During an interview regarding the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, when confronted with the fact that two thirds of the American people do not feel the war in Iraq is worth fighting, he admitted that he does not care what the American people think. This is more than the arrogance of power on parade. His comments clearly demonstrate the institutional view of the Republican Party that people do not matter.

Democrats do care about people. While government cannot resolve every problem faced by every individual, it can certainly help in some very basic and important ways. Every Democrat that I know believes that in a country as great as ours, no person should be forced to go hungry; no individual should suffer due to lack of access to adequate healthcare; disparity in income should not equal disparity in the quality of education; and, true peace will never be delivered from the barrel of a gun.

Peace, harmony and understanding are ideals that all Democrats wish to achieve. We understand that it requires engaging in a process without a profit motive that will make us all much richer in the end. For all of these reasons, I am a Democrat.

(Russ Purvis is chairman of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

OBAMA EXPRESSED TRUTH IN AN INARTICULATE WAY

Posted 4/18/08

It was Yogi Berra who said “it ain't over till it's over.” Team Clinton has been clinging to that little bromide for dear life for the last several weeks. Finally Obama stepped on his silver tongue and proved Mr. Berra correct.
Last weekend, Obama made the now infamous “bitter” comment. He was trying to explain his difficulty in winning the support of rural working class voters when he said “It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Does the comment make Obama an elitist or a racist? Or, did Obama simply use a poor choice of words when trying to explain the frustration felt by many citizens of this great nation? The answer varies depending on the person providing it.

Clinton has jumped on Obama's comment in an attempt show that he is at the very least an elitist. Pot meet kettle. Her comments are more interesting for what she does not say than for what she actually states. In a speech to manufacturing workers' in Indianapolis quoted in USA Today, Clinton said "Now, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it's a matter of constitutional right. Americans who believe in God believe it's a matter of personal faith. I grew up in a churchgoing family ... The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich ...I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People don't need a president who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them."

While trying to make Obama look like an anti-gun, anti-God lefty, Clinton did not once state that she attends church or believes in God or the Second Amendment. Remember, with the Clintons, every word must be weighed in the context in which it is used. It can boil down to the definition of what the word “is” is.

To be sure, if it will make for a good photo opportunity Hillary will carry a twelve gauge into a church and shoot up the pulpit. I know what you are thinking, but her advance team will have told her before she arrives what a pulpit is and where to find it in a church. And, according to Hillary, she knows how to shoot because her daddy showed her how.

Hillary is losing and is desperate and probably a bit angry. Her strategy seems to be that if Obama is going to be the nominee she is going to damage him to the point that he cannot win the general election.

Some conservatives are attempting to label Obama's comments as racist. The theory is that rural working class voters are white. This theory fails when one considers the fact that in the rural south there are at least as many rural working class blacks as whites.

There is no doubt that many in this country are bitter and they have a right to feel that way. Those very people also, by and large, love God and they love America. A person's religion is a defining trait that one clings to. The Second Amendment is representative of the freedoms that we as Americans are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and we cling to those rights. Are some of us frustrated by illegal immigrants and the illusion of free trade? You bet. And yes, there are those that lack the sense to embrace those that are different and learn from the experience. Obama simply expressed these truths in an inarticulate way. With Clinton, truth is all in the definition and in very short supply.

(Email Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com)

TIME TO LOOK AHEAD TO THE LOCAL POLITICAL RACES

Posted 4/10/08

Filing as a candidate for elected office in Missouri has closed. The table is set and now its time to handicap the Platte County elections.

On the Democrat side much depends on how well the top of the ticket performs. That being said, right now things look positive. In Platte County Democrats are more motivated than they have been in years. If the candidates at the top of the ticket perform as they should, and our local candidates capitalize on this momentum, we should upset a few incumbent Republicans and win all of the races in which we are expected to prevail.
I will start with the guaranteed winners. Democratic Representative Martin Rucker will once again win the 29th district. Terry Edwards will also return as public administrator. Both are so strong that they are running unopposed.

In the 30th District, incumbent Jason Brown is running again. But one has to wonder if he is in it to win it. The rumor mill has been very active with regard to his wife wanting him to stay closer to home. Democrat Challenger Mary Anne Baier faces a tough challenge. However, she is a Democratic stalwart. She is well known, well liked and a hard worker. Brown has made many in the Platte County R-3 School District unhappy lately with his stand on taxes that impact the amount available to education in the county. Could this be the misstep by Brown that results in a new representative in the 30th?

Jason Gill is the Democratic incumbent in the 32nd District. Jason toppled an entrenched and well funded Republican to take the seat in 2006. He has performed well as a freshman legislator and has very strong name ID. Jason's challenger, Abby Olson, may put up a spirited fight; however, Jason will win this one going away.

In the race for commissioner in District 1, Democrat Bill Quitmeier is facing Republican Kathy Dusenbery. This is an open seat since incumbent Republican Tom Pryor has dropped out. The edge goes to Quitmeier but first he must beat Michele Wilson in a Democratic primary. Wilson is a complete unknown in Democratic Party politics. She very well may have been encouraged to run by Dusenbery in an effort to hurt Quitmeier. Quitmeier has a real vision for the county and certainly does not carry the baggage that Dusenbery is dragging around after being the mayor of Parkville. He will be a great commissioner.

Republican incumbent Jim Plunkett is being challenged for District 2 commissioner by Democrat Charles Rankin. Normally, an incumbent should have an advantage. Plunkett is a different matter. He is not well known and has gained a reputation among those that have had to deal with him as a bit of an egomaniac. Rankin has a good shot at success.

In the race for treasurer, Democrat Bonnie Brown will once again prevail. Republican Michael McCormick would need the luck of a lottery winner to beat her.

Assessor Lisa Pope faces a huge challenge from Democrat Marcena Fulton. The ways property tax assessments have been handled by Pope's office have many people calling for change. Fulton will fit the bill.

The candidates can only do so much alone. Your help is desperately needed. Contact any of the candidates and ask what you can do. If you are too shy to call a candidate directly, call or e-mail me and I will put you help you get plugged in. 2008 is a Democrat year so do not stand on the sidelines.

(Russ Purvis is chairman of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

MORE REGS LIKELY TO MEAN LONGER DOWNTURN

Posted 4/2/08

It is time for everyone to step back and take a deep breath regarding the current condition of the economy. The United States controls roughly 50% of the world's wealth while possessing only 6% of the world's population. Irregardless of whether you believe that is a good or bad thing, it is very clear that our capital markets know how to perform.

Unfortunately, the recent rise in home foreclosures has turned self interested politicians, and even the most rational economic thinkers, into a herd of Chicken Little's, each declaring, in his or her own irrational way, that mortgage defaults are causing the economic sky to fall. It is not.

Defaults and foreclosure's currently represent less than 1.5% of the entire home mortgage market. Translation: Over 98.5% of homeowners are paying on time. So why are we in crisis mode? The answer is simple. Politicians and media pundits have less than a thimble full of knowledge about basic economics. Couple that with the fact that a foreclosure is a sad event that makes for a great storyline and viola, mortgage crisis. Individuals and small investors then get scared, investment and consumer spending declines and the broader economy begins to slow.

To be certain, even without the media frenzy, there were certain players in the market that would have been adversely impacted by the rise in foreclosures. Risk sometimes equals loss. The market accounts for it by creating new markets from the ash heap of the old. However, we have created a society that seems to believe that there should never be an adverse consequence to a bad economic decision. That type of thinking leads to government-controlled markets and the end of our economic system.

Unfortunately, President Bush and the rest of our economically retarded political leaders, Republican and Democrat alike, are leading us directly toward an overly-regulated market system that will make China look like an open market by comparison. On Monday, Bush proposed market regulations that will essentially federalize and make more onerous every regulation dealing with the nation's capital markets. The Democrats have responded by alleging that he has not gone far enough.

How will the capital markets respond? More regulation will mean less money in the market at a higher rate of interest. Bad for investment and bad for consumers. More regulation will also make it more difficult for the market to quickly respond to changes in market conditions making our markets less competitive when compared to less regulated markets. The probable result will be a longer economic downturn than we would have had without the regulation.

What has happened to the Republican claim that it is the party of limited government? Bush is offering up more federal regulation with one plan than entire generations of Democrats have proposed. Martin Crutsinger, economics writer for the Associated Press, describes the plan as “the most far-ranging overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the stock market crash of 1929.”

Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said that “if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.” There is no reason to believe that the government will perform any better when dealing with the capital markets and money is less plentiful than sand - so be prepared!

(Email Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com)

ON IRAQ, BUSH CONTINUES TO BLOW SMOKE UP OUR REARS

Posted 3/26/08

Five years ago last weekend I was in Las Vegas for the first round of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. George Bush decided to go to war that weekend. I sat in the sports book of the Las Vegas Hilton with about four hundred other gamblers, basketball fans and assorted hangers on, and watched the war with one eye and the games with the other on the big screen televisions encircling the sports book. It was hard to separate the cheering for the games from the cheering for the bombs. It was surreal.

Five years later I again found myself in a Las Vegas sports book for the NCAA Tournament. The war was not on the big screen on this trip. In fact, no one even mentioned it. But on this particular weekend the war reached another milestone. Another wretched, heartbreaking milestone: the United States reached 4000 dead in Iraq. At least another 30,000 U.S. soldiers have been wounded.

Still George Bush, with his typical Alfred E. Neuman “What Me Worry” attitude, continues to attempt to blow sunshine up the rear of the American people. “The surge is working” is the overused mantra of the Bush administration. Of course when you get to make the rules that define success or failure you get to decide what has worked and what has not.

We need to be very clear that Bush's version of success only involves containing Al qaeda in Iraq and reducing the number of Iraqi dead. Al qaeda was not in Iraq prior to Bush invading. To argue that removing what his administration's misguided policies created equals some sort of victory is ridiculous.

The Iraqi death toll has gone down. However, many argue that the reason for the decrease has less to do with the surge than it does with Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods erecting walls of various kinds to literally separate each other. If religious and ethnic segregation is a Bush victory goal then mission accomplished!

The economic cost to the average U.S. citizen has also been devastating. The war has cost at least $400 million. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist estimates the total bill could surpass $3 trillion. The government does not have that kind of money. It is fighting this war on credit. It will be your children and your children's children that are left with the tab and without proper healthcare, education or the ability to retire before the age of eighty.

The presidential candidates have all failed to truly address this issue. How do we disengage without making matters worse? How do we bring the international community back to the table and build a true coalition of the willing to address Iraq's problems. How do we make the Iraqi government functional? Instead of race baiting and jockeying over Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton and Obama owe it to us to explain how they plan to deal with Iraq.

Bush has had his chance at the table on Iraq and crapped out. A saber rattling victory may not be possible, but a solution that allows the United States to at least play to even has to be found. The question for us Democrats is whether Clinton or Obama provide the best odds for success.

(Reach The Landmark’s left hand man Russ Purvis by email at russp842@yahoo.com)

DNC NEEDS TO DEVELOP SOME CAJONES ON THIS ONE

Posted 3/19/08

A few days ago a Republican friend only have jokingly asked me how Democrats could possibly claim to be better suited to run the country than Republicans when we cannot even figure out how to run our nomination process. While I do not believe the two issues are directly related, the current controversy surrounding the fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates certainly makes the Democratic Party at best look foolish and at worst, clueless.

As everyone knows by now, both Michigan and Florida chose to hold presidential primaries in advance of the earliest date allowed by the Democratic National Committee. As a result of violating the rules, both Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates. Fair warning was given regarding the penalty and both states, seeing potential dollar signs related to campaign spending, chose to disregard the rules. Currently, Florida's 210 delegates and Michigan's 156 delegates will not be issued credentials, nor will they be seated on the convention floor.

What most people do not know or understand is that when the delegates were stripped, the number of delegates needed to be nominated was also adjusted. If the delegates are added back into the mix, the number needed for the nomination will go back up. Long story short, adding the delegates back will still not result in either candidate locking up the nomination. However, it may change the landscape of the campaign in such a way that one or the other of the candidates may choose to fold up his or her tent and leave the field of battle.

Back in January no one thought that this would matter. Everyone expected that the nominee would be determined no later than Super Tuesday. Everyone was wrong. As Steven Rosenfeld recently pointed out, it is ironic “that the very states that broke the DNC rules to have an early voice in the nominating contest now want to have the last word the primary season's final votes.”

We are all now caught in the middle of what is largely Clinton-created chaos. Clinton has the most to gain from figuring out a way to seat the delegations. While she cannot lock up the nomination she can narrow the gap and possibly pick up enough momentum to pull the necessary number of super delegates to her side of the ledger to beat out Obama.

In a classic bit of political doublespeak, Clinton is now claiming that she never agreed with the DNC on the delegate issue. In a recent interview with Evan Smith of the Texas Monthly, Clinton stated: “I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it's important for the DNC to ask itself, is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee?” Huh? The best interest of the eventual nominee and the Democratic Party is to abide by the decision of the DNC regarding the punishment meted out to Michigan and Florida. Instead, Clinton is stirring up a hornets' nest for personal gain.

Where is the DNC leadership on this issue? Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, the Democratic National Committee is doing little. The DNC made the correct decision in stripping the delegates and it should stand firm. Unfortunately, the DNC is weak. I believe DNC may be the abbreviation for Does Not have Cojones. Rather than standing by its decision, it has opened the door to compromise. I am afraid that the one thing that will be compromised is the only thing that is important, the chance for a Democratic landslide in November.

(Email Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com)

LET'S FOCUS ON A PLAN TO FIX THE REPUBLICANS' MESS

Posted 3/12/08

For those of us who thought that Hillary Clinton was going to meet her demise on March 4th in Ohio and Texas, and I count myself in that group, we overlooked one thing, Bill Clinton. The comeback kid has proven once again that he is, without a doubt, the shrewdest political mind in the business. He does not play nice, fair or honestly, but he is effective.

Positioning Hillary as an anti-establishment candidate, being victimized by the media, seemed to be an impossible task. Those of us who did not believe that it would be a successful strategy forgot that a large percentage of the electorate cannot separate fact from fiction, or news from entertainment. Wild Bill never loses sight of the world we live in: a world of short attention spans where stupidity seems to be celebrated, think reality TV, and people live vicariously through pseudo celebrities like Paris Hilton, a woman whose fame is based on a last name and videotaped sex acts.

The media, being simply a reflection of the culture, forgot or ignored the fact that claiming victimization does not make you a victim. The inevitable Obama chatter began. Wild Bill added fuel to the fire with negative ads and the circulation of pictures of Obama in Muslim attire. Hillary even got a shout out on Saturday Night Live. Such a thing should not count for much but in our society it can have an impact.

Obama miscalculated the effectiveness of the change in strategy, if his campaign even recognized that there was a change in strategy by Clinton, Inc. Obama's campaign's biggest shortcoming is, that being movement based more than purely political, it lacks an identifiable, long term, victory strategy. Ted Kennedy, the man who could not state why he wanted to be President when asked while running in 1980, and Tom Daschle, who lost his last bid for the Senate, are key advisers.

Fortunately, the Republicans are still divided. The conservative based still dislikes McCain. In an attempt to bridge the gap, Bush brought McCain to the White House for an endorsement. McCain was pleasant. But one has to wonder if he knew at the time that Bush, just a few days later, would veto legislation banning water boarding. If so, and he still stood silently by, he has completely sold his soul for the possibility of becoming President. If he did not know, he should have, immediately following the veto, renounced the Bush endorsement.

As an individual that has endured torture, he cannot in good conscious accept the endorsement of those that support it. So far he has. For this reason alone, no independent voter, with a sense of right and wrong, can support McCain. He has gone to the dark side. Cheney will be fitting him with a cape and mask momentarily.

As Democrats we can be happy that the Republicans are still in a state of disarray. However, we must get our own house in order. Continuing to simply talk in platitudes about hope and change is not enough. The economy is a mess. The cost of the war has hit $1 trillion with no end in sight. Millions are still without healthcare. I hope that as they move forward toward the convention, Clinton and Obama change the discussion and focus on the details of how they plan to fix the mess that the Republicans have created.

I can only hope Wild Bill has a change of heart and adopts my view. In terms of the campaign for the Democratic nomination, it is 3 a.m. and Wild Bill needs to answer the phone. I hope he is home.

(Email Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com)

THE BUCK HAS TO STOP WITH DUSENBERY REGARDING SECRECY

Posted 3/5/08

It was Winston Churchill that said “[e]verybody has always underrated the Russians. They keep their own secrets alike from foe and friends.” The same can be said about recent actions by Parkville Mayor Kathy Dusenbery. This issue is important to every citizen of Platte County because Mayor Dusenbery wants to bring her Russian influenced leadership style to the Platte County Commission. She has filed to run against Commissioner Tom Pryor in the Republican primary in August.

The recent actions by Dusenbery relating to former administrative assistant Deborah Hammond have left friend and foe alike scratching their heads wondering what happened. Why did Dusenbery hire an outside consultant to conduct an investigation at a cost estimated to be in the neighborhood of $10,000? Why has Dusenbery refused to release the consultant's findings and itemized bill? Why was Hammond given a sweetheart separation package from the city? Finally, why has Dusenbery refused to comment on the matter?

Questions relating to Hammond first surfaced a few months ago involving allegations of falsified timesheets. Hammond was placed on leave with pay and an outside consultant was retained to investigate. If the only issue was an allegation of a falsified timesheet, the retention of an outside consultant certainly seems like so much overkill. Of course the public does not know why an outside consultant was retained because Dusenbery and the aldermen (sounds like a bad 50's band doesn't it?) made the decision to hire the consultant during a closed session, more commonly known as a secret meeting.

The public also remains in the dark about the consultant's findings because Dusenbery and the aldermen have refused to make any of the findings public. Requests by this newspaper for documents relating to the Hammond Affair have gone, in effect, unanswered. What we do know is that following the secret meeting to hire the consultant, another secret meeting was held to discuss the consultant's findings. Following that secret meeting it was announced that Hammond's job was “eliminated” because she had finished the “special projects” assigned to her.

What “special projects” you might ask? Here again we, the general public, has been left in the dark. Hammond and the aldermen have thus far not elaborated on what type of projects could have been so important and sensitive as to result in a secret investigation and a parting gift of three months salary with full benefits to Hammond.

Dusenbery and the aldermen have clearly demonstrated they have little regard for the concept of open government. The buck has to stop with Dusenbery regarding all of this secrecy and intrigue. Secret meetings and refusing to provide information to the public only breeds rumor and speculation. Dusenbery is campaigning for a countywide office. Are there issues relating to the Hammond Affair that might place Dusenbery in a bad light and negatively impact her bid to unseat Commissioner Pryor?

We may never know the real story behind the Hammond Affair. However, we can conclude that based on her refusal to be open and up front on the issue, Mayor Dusenbery should not become Commissioner Dusenbery.

(Russ and his Convenient Truth can be found each week, only in your Landmark. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE MISSOURI PLAN

Posted 2/27/08

Missouri's entire judicial system is under attack by the Republican Party for purely political reasons. Since 1940, Supreme Court and appellate judges in Missouri have been selected following a non-partisan process commonly known as the Missouri Plan. Judges in Platte County have been selected by the same process since the early 1970's. The process is so fair and unbiased that it has been adopted by 37 other states.

Under the plan, a judicial commission consisting of three attorneys selected by the Missouri Bar, three individuals selected by the governor and the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, review applications for appellate and Supreme Court vacancies, interview applicants and, ultimately, submit a panel of three names to the governor. The governor then chooses one of the three to fill the vacancy. The process works the same for the Platte County Circuit Court. However, the circuit has its own commission made up of two attorneys from the circuit, two individuals selected by the governor and the chief justice of the Western District Court of Appeals.

This system was adopted in response to political corruption. Prior to 1940 judges were forced to be politicians. Political machines and ward bosses controlled who became a judge and whether that individual remained on the bench. The Republican Party, in an effort to stack the courts with pro-business, anti-consumer, anti-individual rights judges, is attempting to take us back to those dark days.

The argument for change rests on two lies. Lie number one is that attorneys play too large a role in the process. Attorneys are in a unique position, based on experience and training, to provide insight and advice regarding who among their number might be best suited to sit as a judge. The commission is counterbalanced with laypersons that also bring insight and perspective and have an equal voice in determining who makes the panel. Attorneys simply do not, as those trying to gut the system suggest, pick the panel that is submitted to the governor.

Lie number two is that the process is akin to some secret “star chamber.” Admittedly, the process does not resemble American Idol. However, it is conducted in an atmosphere designed to avoid the injection of political agendas. In fact, in an effort to make the process more open, Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith recently announced changes including the posting of the time, place and location of commission meetings; providing demographic information about the applicant pools; and, releasing the applications of those chosen for a panel to the public.

The changes that have been proposed by the Republicans are purely politically motivated. If passed, control of the selection of judges will initially rest with the Missouri senate which the Republicans control. The legislation also allows for an election to completely scrap the Missouri Plan and force judges to run for office. Under the consent of the senate scenario, no matter who the panel recommends or the governor selects to be a judge, the majority party in the senate will have the ability to say “no thanks, go find us someone that agrees with our political viewpoint.”Say goodbye to an independent judiciary.

Several states currently require appellate judges to run for office. The result has been what you might expect. In 2002 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $40 million in judicial races. In 2004 in campaigns for the Supreme Court $9 million was spent in Ohio and almost $10 million was spent in Michigan and Illinois. In Illinois an additional $5 million was spent by special interests and political parties. In the 2006 Wisconsin election the candidates for one seat on the court spent $6 million.

Individual Missouri citizens, and their rights, will not stand a chance if our judges are forced to mount political campaigns. Business interests with deep pockets will spend whatever it takes to elect judges that represent the interests of business. Those judges unwilling to compromise their principles will be targeted for removal. You, the hardworking citizen, will have to get used to the feeling of the jackboot of injustice placed firmly across your neck.

There is nothing wrong with the Missouri Plan. Call your representative today and tell him to leave it alone. Your right to an independent judiciary hangs in the balance.

(Email Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com)

HILLARY IN DANGER OF DOING MAJOR HARM TO HER OWN PARTY

Posted 2/20/08

The inevitable candidate is now the anti-establishment candidate, at least if you believe the Clinton spin machine. In a conference call with reporters following Super Tuesday, Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn said “[w]e went through 10 days of wall-to-wall coverage of Sen. Obama and his establishment campaign, of big endorsements, money, ads on the Super Bowl. And Hillary Clinton again bounced back."

If this is really all that the Clinton campaign has left in the tank then Obama has this nomination wrapped up. Even with worse than expected losses on Super Tuesday, followed by two weeks of steady Obama victories, revelations that she has been forced to loan her campaign $5 million and shake up in her campaign staff, Clinton is still the face of the Democratic Party's establishment.

Is that really such a bad thing? If it is then isn't Hillary, who along with former President Clinton has been one of the chief architects of today's Democratic Party, to blame? If she is now running against the Democratic establishment, then she is running against, or from, herself.

What Clinton is doing is risking the entire Democratic Party for her own personal gain. If she believes in the Democratic Party, and all that it stands for, then she must abandon this campaign tactic. Unfortunately, she shows no sign of doing so as is evidenced by the fact that she is currently lobbying for the seating of both the Florida and Michigan delegates at the Democratic National Convention.

Both Florida and Michigan were stripped of delegates by the Democratic Party for moving up their respective primary dates in contravention of Party rules. All candidates initially agreed with the decision. In fact, Obama and Edwards were not even listed on the Michigan ballot. Having won in Michigan and Florida, and in trouble in the delegate count, Clinton has now decided that, in the interest of gaining the nomination, she should push to seat the delegates. Not exactly an anti-establishment act, Machiavellian maybe, anti-establishment no.

Clinton is far from out of the race. However, she is running scared. Obama is grabbing a much larger percentage of the black vote and appears to be picking up a greater share of the Hispanic community's vote than was initially expected. In Virginia, Obama pulled 90% of the black vote. He won the Hispanic vote 55% to 45%.

The Republicans have the McCain issue to deal with. Even if they are somewhat preoccupied, they have to love what Hillary is doing. If Hillary fractures the Democratic Party with her win at any cost campaign, the Republicans will ride that train right into the oval office. We cannot afford even one more year of a Republican presidency, let alone an entire term.

The Clinton campaign has decided that the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio form a firewall. Losses there will mean the end of the campaign for Clinton. If Clinton handles the next two weeks correctly, she may very well save her campaign. If she continues with more of the same, she will not only lose the nomination but will also do irreparable harm to the Democratic Party.

(Never doing harm to Landmark pages, our left-hand man Russ Purvis provides a Democratic point of view here every week. He is the chairman of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

MCCAIN SINGLE HANDEDLY HALTS CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

Posted 2/13/08

It now appears that the Republican Party will be changing its symbol from the elephant to the rhino. With John McCain all but assured of the nomination, this Republican In Name Only (RINO), has succeeded where we Democrats have failed. McCain has single handedly halted the advance of the so-called “conservative movement.”

Self appointed leaders of the conservative movement such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter are all apoplectic over this development. Crazy Annie Coulter has even vowed to campaign for Clinton, if both Clinton and McCain are nominated.

The way the movement conservative crowd views it, McCain is essentially a liberal that happens to have guessed right on the surge in Iraq. I have to admit, many of his stances place him to the left of a large number of Platte County Democrats. In fact, if McCain lived in Platte County, and was just beginning his political career, he would have no chance as a Republican. The Pachyderm Club would even deny him membership. Of course we Democrats are a big tent.

McCain co-sponsored an immigration bill with Ted Kennedy that would have allowed for amnesty. McCain co-sponsored the ill-fated campaign finance bill with Russ Feingold. He has called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell “agents of intolerance.” He has angered many on the right by stating that a repeal of Roe v. Wade will result in a return to the necessity of illegal abortions. On top of all of that he opposed the Bush tax cuts. He argued at the time that they favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

How can Republicans in Platte County and across the country nominate such a candidate? Well, in point of fact, Platte County Republicans voted for Romney over McCain on Feb. 5. But Romney is out and McCain appears to be destined to be the nominee. Will Platte County Republicans stay home, or disregard long held, core beliefs and vote for a Democrat in Republican clothing? I for one encourage all Republicans to follow the example of their bleach blonde mouthpiece, crazy Annie Coulter and support the Democrat that is running as a Democrat.

Unfortunately, I believe that most Republicans will decide to suck it up, fall in line, and vote McCain. If that happens we Democrats will be on the horns of a dilemma because, truth be told, we don't want McCain to be the Republican nominee anymore than the conservatives do, but for a different reason.

The conservatives oppose McCain because he is bad for the movement. As Democrats, we would rather see Huckabee as the nominee because he would be easier to beat. We have to face the fact that McCain is a war hero, he has more military experience than any of the other candidates combined, and, like it or not, the war is still an issue. Many independent voters will be drawn to that resume. Huckabee, on the other hand, is a Baptist preacher from Arkansas that plays music on an oddball instrument. If you are a movie buff McCain is Patton and Huckabee is Deliverance.

For now, my advice to all Democrats is to pray for Huckabee. He believes he has God on his side. Maybe, if we pray hard enough a miracle will happen and he will be nominated, proving once and for all that God is a Democrat.

(Email The Landmark’s left hand man at russp842@yahoo.com)

IT WOULD BE NICE TO PUT AN END TO THE REAGAN MYTH

Posted 2/6/08

If you are a Republican, you know that your president is truly a lame duck when none of the Republican candidates that are seeking the nomination to replace him will be seen with him on the campaign trail. Instead, each of the Republican candidates is arguing that he is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. All the more reason to vote for whichever Democrat is nominated. It was Reagan who said in his first inaugural address that “[g]overnment is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” He then went on to make government more problematic than ever.

Under Reagan, the unemployment rate reached almost 11% in 1982. Before he left office, the federal debt had climbed from $700 billion to $3 trillion dollars. Reagan's bungling of the economy also led to the savings and loan debacle. The cost of the ensuing bailout totaled over $100 billion dollars. Under the Reagan administration, the rich got richer and the poor that much poorer.

Remember Reagan attempting to cut federal funding to school lunches for the poor? He actually argued that ketchup equaled vegetable. Reagan even made up stories about “welfare queens driving Cadillacs” in an attempt to demonize the poor. Despite exhaustive investigation, the Cadillac driving welfare queen was never found because she was a figment of his often challenged mind.

Reagan failed to lead on the most significant health crisis of the last 50 years, the AIDs epidemic. According to a June 8, 2004 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Reagan's Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, was not consulted regarding the issue for the first five years of Reagan's administration. Koop claims this occurred because the administration believed that the “transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, according to Koop, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' "

Reagan left office with blood on his hands from a wide variety of misadventures in Central America, all done in the name of fighting the Cold War. In El Salvador, Nicaragua and even Guatemala, untold numbers of innocent men, women and children died staring down the business end of one U.S. supplied weapon or another. Many of these atrocities are still coming to light.

The Iran Contra scandal was simply the tip of the iceberg. Reagan was no friend to the civil rights movement. In a recent editorial in the New York Times, Bob Herbert points out that Reagan was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, attempted to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965, opposed a national holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation. On the international stage he vetoed sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Believe it or not Reagan, wanted to abolish the Department of Education. He campaigned on the issue while running for his first term as president. He was obviously not successful. As president, he did very little for education, other than making student loans more difficult to obtain.

Reagan also wanted to abolish the Department of Energy. Here again he was not successful. However, he did succeed in decontrolling oil prices. We are all benefitting greatly from his efforts as we pay almost $3 per gallon for gas while the oil companies continue to post record profits and do absolutely nothing to lessen our dependency on fossil fuel.

Did he win the Cold War? No. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. He simply happened to be President at the time.

If the Republican candidates truly do wish to become Reagan, so be it. It will be nice to finally defeat him and put an end to the myth.

(Email Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com)

BLUNT A GRADUATE OF BUSH SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP

Posted 1/30/08

It is always fun and somewhat revealing to compare leaders. When Great Britain was facing possible defeat in World War II, Winston Churchill rose to the challenge and inspired the nation, stating that “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

George W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” three years ago. The war goes on. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is apparently a graduate of the Bush school of leadership.

Governor Blunt recently declared “mission accomplished” and announced that he will not be running for a second term as Governor. In a speech that he first released on YouTube, he stated “[w]hat we set out to achieve four years ago has been accomplished.”

At least he did not wear his old Navy uniform in the video. But what kind of leader makes an announcement of such import on a second rate website? It is kind of like a high school kid breaking up with his girlfriend by placing a note under the windshield wiper of her car.

As for accomplishments, if he set out to line the pockets of his friends and relatives, then mission accomplished. If he set out to deny healthcare to over 100,000 of the Missouri's neediest, then mission accomplished. If he set out to deny care and compensation to injured workers, then mission accomplished. If he set out to blatantly ignore the laws of the State of Missouri, including the Sunshine Law, then mission accomplished. If he ever intended to do anything positive for the citizens of Missouri, then like Bush, he has been an abject failure.

But as Democrats we have to rejoice. The Republican Party in Missouri is now officially in meltdown mode. When the 34th Senate District's own Charlie Shields is considering running for governor, you know that the battle lines have been drawn. If Shields runs can Sam Graves be far behind?

The answer is no. There is no secret that there is more than a little animosity between the two. We all know how Graves campaigns. Given the opportunity, he may pull a Mike Tyson and bite off part of Shields' anatomy.

In all seriousness, with at least eight Republicans considering a run for the nomination for governor, Jay Nixon should face an underfunded and seriously compromised opponent in the general election. However, we Democrats have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If Robin Carnahan jumps into the race and creates a Democratic primary, we will lose our advantage.

Jay Nixon has raised almost $5 million dollars. If Carnahan runs she will be forced to mount a negative campaign from the outset to offset the difference in fundraising between the two candidates. Don't get me wrong, Carnahan is a great Democrat, but this is not her race to win. However, if she runs she may be responsible for a Democratic loss. No matter how this race shakes out we are all in for a wild ride.

(Putting our own Russ Purvis in charge of Landmark Democratic points of view always results in ‘mission accomplished.’ Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

CANDIDATES SPENDING MONEY BUT REVEALING NOTHING

Posted 1/23/08

In 2004, the Democratic candidates for the Presidential nomination spent $9.1 million dollars in Iowa. We all thought that was a huge amount of money. Does anyone remember who was in that primary? Maybe, but do you remember the issues? In the 2008 cycle the candidates dropped over $40 million, or $114 per vote, according to the Topeka Capital Journal. The question is what did it accomplish?

Obama can at least argue that he won the caucus. But for all of the money spent, have we, the Democratic faithful, or the Republican faithful for that matter, really learned anything about the candidates? What do they stand for? What do they plan to do if elected?

Iowa was just the beginning. The candidates continue to spend money at record levels while revealing nothing of substance. What we do know is that Obama is black, Clinton is a female, Edwards has good hair, Romney is a Mormon, Huckabee is an evangelical, McCain is a war veteran and Thompson is an actor that may or may not be lazy. That information and about four bucks will buy you a value meal at McDonalds. While you are there, if you are lucky, you might run into Mr. Clinton and learn a little more about his wife.

So far this entire campaign has, to steal a line from Shakespeare, resembled “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Unfortunately, those of us listening to the sound bites are also foolish at the very least, and quite possibly complete idiots for not demanding more from the candidates.

We are facing what is possibly the most important election of our lifetime. We are involved in a war with no exit strategy, the economy is on the brink of disaster, millions cannot obtain adequate medical care, immigration must be addressed and social security remains an unresolved issue.

Untold hours could be spent interviewing the candidates on any one of those issues and untold volumes could be written outlining the candidate's plans to deal with any one of those issues. Instead, untold hours have been spent and untold volumes written about the fact that Senator Clinton appeared to become emotional in New Hampshire.

Missouri has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and we are forced to listen to the Democratic candidates and pundits go back and forth on the importance of Obama mentioning Reagan and Clinton stating, quite correctly, that President Johnson was responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Republicans are no better off. Each one spends more time trying to invoke the ghost of Reagan than speaking about what he might actually believe. Reagan is dead and his policies are partially responsible for the present state of our nation. Please move on.

The process will not change prior to the Missouri Primary. Adequate information or not, you have the right and obligation to vote on Feb. 5. This election is now a popularity contest, so pick the candidate you like the most and vote early, often and for a Democrat. On Feb. 6 start working toward changing the process. Remember, a single individual can start a revolution.

(If The Landmark has a Democratic revolution it will be led by our main left-hand man, Russ Purvis. He can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

'CHANGE' IS A SEXY WORD THAT CAN REPRESENT GOOD OR EVIL

Posted 1/16/08

Change. Politicians from both political parties vying for the nomination for President of the United States have recently become as enamored with the word as a certain segment of the population is with the comings, goings and various states of undress of Paris Hilton. And why not? Change is a sexy word. In the hands of our current crop of Republican and Democratic spinmeisters--I mean presidential candidates--change represents all of our best hopes and dreams for the future without the necessity of providing any pesky little details.

The word standing alone is neutral. Change can represent good or evil. As Winston Churchill once said, “There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction.” The question is what is the right direction?

Does Hillary Clinton represent change simply because she is a woman? Does the color of Barack Obama's skin represent change? Does Mitt Romney's religion represent change? Only in the sense that if any one of the three is elected it will show how much our nation has already changed. It will in no way represent the future changes necessary to the continued success of this country.

By continually invoking the word without any detailed explanation of the type of change that they propose and how it will be implemented, the major candidates clearly demonstrate their collective love of the status quo. More hollow words from empty suits. There is no change to be found here. The only candidates to have actually offered real change, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, are considered minor sideshows.

To be completely candid, we all share some of the blame for the current situation. We have allowed the media pundits and other so-called “experts” to reduce the process to sound bites and “gotcha” moments while at the same time blaming us, claiming that we suffer from some mental defect that prevents us from concentrating on anything that lasts longer than thirty seconds.

The problem is compounded by the fact that we are represented by professional politicians. The founders of this nation did not intend for that to be the case. It was the view of the founders that people leave their chosen profession and enter politics, for a short period of time, out a sense of civic duty, not for politics to become a profession.

Once politics becomes a profession, the professional politician's number one priority becomes maintaining and accumulating more power. The interests of his or her constituents becomes, by necessity, secondary to this quest. Therefore, tough decisions that may lead to a loss of power must be avoided.

Make no mistake, real change is tough. It was Machiavelli that wrote, “[t]here is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." As difficult as it will be, this country must undergo certain fundamental changes that will introduce a new order of things.

The economy, the war, social security, education, healthcare, protection of our civil liberties while dealing with terrorism all require hard choices that will require changes in the way government does business. The issues are too important and time is too short to allow our politicians to use the word change without providing a detailed explanation of what they mean. Our politicians have failed us, so real change begins with you. Demand answers and remember, a single voice can start a revolution.

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Party. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

REPUBLICANS ARE SPLIT INTO THE PARTY OF GOD VS. THE PARTY OF GOLD

Posted 1/9/08

When the Democratic candidate for President of the United States wins the election in November, it will not because of the existence of the “two Americas” of which John Edwards speaks. The election will be won because of the two Republican Parties that now exist in America: the Party of God and the Party of Gold.

The Party of God is represented by Mike Huckabee. A Baptist preacher, a former governor of Arkansas and the Republican victor in the Iowa caucus, Huckabee is the favored candidate of Christian evangelicals. He represents himself to be a “Christian leader” and is not afraid to discuss his faith, as was made obvious in his now famous political commercial about the celebration of Christmas.

The Party of Gold is not yet represented by one candidate. Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani are all attempting to lay claim to the crown. The poster child for the Gold Party is Rush Limbaugh. This group lives by one abiding principle, money is power.

For a generation these two parties have been able to coexist under one banner, more out of mutual need than anything else. Beginning in 1980, the two groups began coming together to acquire political power. The old line Republicans, fiscally conservative and more socially moderate than today's average Republican, initially welcomed the evangelicals because, while they were considered a curiosity, they represented votes. For their part, the evangelicals, many of which had been Democrats, felt that they were no longer welcomed in the Democratic Party and desperately wanted to establish a political base. Success occurred quickly with the election of Ronald Reagan.

Today the two groups have reached a crossroads. The Party of God believes that it carries the true message of the Republican Party--social conservatism coupled with a fiscal policy that does not automatically rule out the need for an occasional tax increase, a program to help the needy or the use of diplomacy instead of military action.

The Party of Gold also believes that it carries the true Republican Party message--fiscal conservatism coupled with a social policy flexible enough to allow for a little wine, women, song and, in the case of Limbaugh, enough drug abuse to cause him to nearly go deaf.

Each of the two Republican parties appears to be taking joy in tearing the other apart. Huckabee has been criticized on issues ranging from pardons that he made as Governor of Arkansas to tax hikes and immigration. Huckabee has allegedly asked whether Romney, as a Mormon, believes that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

The first round has gone to the Party of God. Huckabee scored a victory in the Iowa caucus securing 34% of the vote. Whether he will be able to parlay this early victory into the Republican nomination remains to be seen.

Quite frankly, to those of us in the Democratic Party, the Republican nomination is secondary in importance to the fact that the Republican Party is divided because, as a famous Republican, paraphrasing Jesus Christ, once said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

(In addition to being a Landmark columnist, Russ Purvis is chairman of the Platte County Democratic Party. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

CLAIRE MCCASKILL IS TAKING A PRINCIPLED STAND WHEN IT COMES TO EARMARKS

Posted 1/3/08

According to the federal government's Office of Management and Budget, “earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process.” In laymen's terms, it is good old fashioned corruption which has received legitimacy only because, up until now, everyone has been doing it.

In the budget just signed by President Bush, legislators added 9,800 earmarks totaling nearly $10,000,000,000.00 - that is billion with a “B”. The funds went for everything from funding for the National First Ladies Library, operated by the wife of the Congressman that dropped the earmark, Republican Representative Ralph Regula of Ohio, to funding for signage in the Los Angeles fashion district.

House members and Senators from both parties have essentially been stealing our hard-earned tax dollars and using them to fund projects in their respective districts that will make constituents feel good. The underlying theory has been that good feeling constituents will vote for the incumbent that is bringing home the bacon. So far the theory has proven to be true. We are constantly bombarded with sound bites from supposedly fiscally minded politicians telling us that the size of government must shrink and that we cannot possibly fund healthcare for the poor or fix the outdated aviation system. Those same hypocritical politicians then turn around and dump ten billion dollars worth of pork into the budget.

Finally, Missouri has a Senator that has said enough is enough. Senator Claire McCaskill has refused to take part in the practice and instead of drawing praise for her colleagues she has received criticism. Missouri's Fifth District Representative Emanuel Cleaver has actually been quoted as saying of McCaskill, “As a minister I just want to make sure she remembers that the Lord loves a cheerful giver.” Was he kidding? I certainly hope so. Of course it is easy to be a cheerful giver when you are using someone else's money.

In the current budget cycle, only 12 of the 100 Senators did not drop any earmarks. McCaskill was one of the 12. Her stand is a principled one. As McCaskill stated in the Kansas City Star, “If you know somebody or have a friend on the right committee, you get your individual project funded. That's not the way to spend taxpayer money.”

McCaskill is right. If the politicians that are addicted to earmarks truly believe that the projects are worthy of funding, let the projects be vetted. Put the projects through the normal budget funding procedures. It will lend transparency to the process and eliminate the ability to trade earmarks for bribes like those taken by former Republican Congressman and current convict Duke Cunningham.

Critics believe that McCaskill's stand may cost Missouri federal dollars. In the short term, that may be true. However, they are dollars that would be obtained by way of graft and corruption. The system has to be changed and McCaskill is taking the first step. We should all support her and congratulate her on having the courage of her convictions and the intestinal fortitude to not be a cheerful giver of our money.

(Russ Purvis, who practices law from an office in Parkville, is one of our cheerful givers of journalistic goodness. Reach him at Russp842@yahoo.com)

NOW THERE'S ANOTHER CLOWN IN THE GEORGE BUSH CIRCUS

Posted 12/28/07

It is official: Attorney General Michael Mukasey is simply another clown in the George Bush circus. Unfortunately for the American people, his antics are not funny or entertaining but are downright dangerous to the Republic.

The United States Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in this nation. He or she is also a member of the President's cabinet. It is an important and powerful position. Mukasey, a former federal judge, was appointed by Clown in Chief George Bush after the resignation of former Attorney General and torture expert, Alberto Gonzales. During his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate, Mukasey did not need a seltzer bottle to entertain. He simply drowned the senators with tortured syntax by stating that he might find waterboarding prisoners to be repugnant but he was not prepared to call it torture because he had not been briefed on the subject by the Bush administration.

Despite this demonstration of complete incompetence for the job at hand, he was confirmed by the Senate based on the P.T. Barnum theory a sucker is born every minute. In a stunning display of stupidity, six Democratic suckers/Senators voted for his confirmation. Of greater concern, the five Democratic Senators running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States failed to even vote. This failure to act certainly raises serious questions about any one of these candidates' ability to lead this nation.

Mukasey has recently shown that he is truly a sinister and evil clown, like the Joker but with a larger agenda. Not satisfied with not being able define waterboarding as torture, he has now taken it upon himself to attempt to shutdown a Congressional investigation into the CIA's destruction of hundreds of hours of videotaped interrogation/torture. He has directed the Justice Department to refuse to provide any information to Congressional committees relating to the destruction of the tapes and any role that the Justice Department might have had in said destruction. His reason for the refusal is “in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence.”

His statement demonstrates that he either does not understand separation of powers and Congressional oversight of the Justice Department, or he is afraid of what will be discovered and is actively engaged in covering up the same.

Senator Leahy made the most important point relating to this issue when he told the New York Times that “oversight fosters accountability. Unfortunately, accountability is the one thing that the Bush administration cannot stand. For all of the Republican talk about personal accountability, this administration has demonstrated time and again that it has no intention of being held accountable. The new Attorney General is no exception.

So we find ourselves asking the old cover up questions. What did the Justice Department know and when did it know it. Why is the Justice Department stonewalling? Who is the Justice Department protecting?

Perhaps the biggest question is whether our Democratic leadership in the House and Senate will finally stand up and shut this circus down. If they fail to demonstrate real leadership on this issue, not a single one of them--including the five Senators currently vying for the Presidential nomination--deserves your vote. The time has come to stop clowning around.

(The Landmark's new guy Russ Purvis is nobody's clown. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO BAIL OUT THOSE WHO GOT THEMSELVES INTO MORTGAGE 'GAMBLING' DEBT?

Posted 12/24/07

To hear the Republicans describe it, the free market is a panacea, containing every cure for economic distress. Never one to doubt a Republican, my faith in the market was understandably shaken recently when the great free marketer, President Bush, rolled out a plan to rescue the U.S. economy from the adjustable rate mortgage by, of all things, tinkering with the free market.

In the Republican world isn't tinkering with the free market the same as giving kryptonite to Superman? Are we now living in a Bizarro Republican world? If so, is President Bush now smart and Cheney a little less than purely evil? Or, is the free market only a panacea when it does not have an adverse impact on the profit margins of large Republican donors? I think we all know the answer.

Under the Bush plan, there will be a five year rate freeze on certain adjustable rate mortgages that are scheduled to reset between January 1, 2008 and July 31, 2010. To qualify, a borrower cannot be behind on the mortgage, must live in the home and cannot have purchased the home as an investment property.

The administration claims that the plan will assist 1.2 million homeowners. Other financial experts feel that the 1.2 million number is exaggerated and, at best, 100,000 to 600,000 homeowners will qualify. No matter the number, the plan is bad.

Contrary to what has become a popular belief, predatory lending did not create the current home mortgage situation. To be certain, there were predatory lenders that caused some suffering. However, the majority of the individuals facing foreclosure gambled and lost. One critic of the plan, Patrick Killelea, in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, compared it to a Vegas bailout. “I blew all of my money in Vegas, but I should be bailed out?”

For better or worse, we live in a materialistic culture. People see what they want and want what they see immediately. Some people borrowed as much as they possibly could at a low rate and gambled on the rate not rising when the time came for it to reset. In the interim, many of these same people took on more debt and when the rate did rise there was simply no more money.

This frenzy to purchase drove property values up, creating what has turned out to be an unsustainable bubble. All that the Bush plan may accomplish is to artificially prop up housing prices in the short term thereby creating unnecessary, harmful inflationary pressure in an already volatile market.

The plan may also be illegal. Most of the mortgages in question have been purchased by investors and bundled into mortgage backed securities. The value of the security to the investor is based in large part on the expected rate of return on interest generated by mortgages that back it. If the government freezes the interest rate, the value of the security is directly impacted, resulting in a taking from the investor without compensation. The lawsuits that will follow will further confuse the market.

Ultimately, it is us, the ordinary citizens that will be paying someone else's gambling debt. Lenders, now unsure if any mortgage is safe from governmental intervention, will take that risk into account and begin charging higher rates on new loans. As a result, many of us will pay more for a loan in the future while others will be frozen out of market completely.

Come to think of it we are not living in a Bizarro world. Bush has proposed another ill fated plan, taking into account only its propaganda value and not caring about its impact on the public at large.

(Keeping an eye on all things Bizarro, our rookie columnist Russ Purvis is quickly making a name for himself with his weekly Convenient Truth editorial. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

IN SPITE OF THE ELITISTS, THE U.S. SHOULD FIND A WAY TO MAKE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE WORK

Posted 12/13/07

The mere mention of universal healthcare used to cause Republicans to scream like howler monkeys from the treetops that any such benefit to the American people would result in a quick descent into socialism. The American people have rejected the argument and are demanding that our leaders address the healthcare crisis.

The Republicans are now attempting to reframe the issue in terms of security and freedom. Universal healthcare, it is argued, will force Americans to trade the “freedom” of choosing and controlling healthcare decisions for the “security” of guaranteed coverage.

I am not sure what world these elitists live in, but in the United States of America in 2007 there is very little freedom of choice in healthcare. Most Americans, lucky enough to have insurance, utilize a plan through their employer which was purchased from the lowest bidder. No one feels secure, in large part because the carriers that control coverage also control the Republican Party. These carriers know there will be no repercussions if the average American is allowed to suffer and even die if treatment is delayed or refused.

This Republican argument would truly be laughable if it did not so completely capture the callous nature of the elitist, right wingers that now control the Republican Party. The party that preaches the sanctity of human life, beginning at conception, the party that speaks of the equality of opportunity, the party that beats the morality drum harder and louder than a drum solo by Keith Moon in your favorite WHO song, is quite comfortable in telling some of the least among us, the 44 million uninsured in this country, “we want you to crawl out of the birth canal alive, after that live, die, whatever.”

The argument is made even more repugnant by the fact that since 2001, this same Republican Party has done more to deny freedom to ordinary citizens than any group in this nation’s history. From warrantless searches and watch lists to illegal wiretapping, this Republican administration has done it all in the name of security, at the cost of our freedom.

Republicans also argue that universal healthcare is too expensive and will not work. Expense is a relative term. Does the argument take into account having 44 million people rely on the local emergency room as a primary care facility? Does the argument take into account the cost to the economy when people are too sick to go to work but cannot get medical care? Does the argument take into account the cost of human suffering?

With regard to the argument that it will not work, isn’t the United States of America the greatest country on earth? Do we not succeed where other nations fail? If that is true, then how can it be argued that we cannot make universal healthcare work? We just have to think outside the box. What about vouchers? The idea is not new. Republicans seem to think it will work in schools by promoting competition. Why not vouchers for healthcare?

The Republican Party has lost its way on this issue. Today’s Republicans may have forgotten that Richard Nixon favored a form of universal health coverage. He even made the issue a part of his State of the Union address in 1974.

Universal healthcare goes directly to the heart of a very fundamental question. What type of nation is the United States? Are we a nation that considers it a moral imperative to provide, at the very least, basic medical care to our citizens? Are we a nation that still believes that every person has certain inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If we so believe, should not healthcare be deemed to fall within those inalienable rights? Or, have we become a nation that praises God, but worships only gold?

(Our new guy Russ Purvis fights elitists with his sharp-witted ponderings, which can only be found in your Landmark. Contact him at russp842@yahoo.com)

DON'T LET THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY SYSTEM MAKE YOU SICK TO YOUR STOMACH

Posted 12/6/07

It has been said that you should never watch sausage or laws being made. Choosing candidates for President of the United States under our current caucus/primary system may soon be added to that list of things that will make you sick to witness.

The nominating system is, without a doubt, broken. For the past several decades, candidates from both parties engaged in what amounts to a beauty contest. For several months candidates trudged through New Hampshire and Iowa kissing babies, babbling on in nonsensical sound bites and eating the locally famous deep fried food, all the while keeping an eye on the polls.

Early winners and high finishers in Iowa and New Hampshire operated on the assumption that, if they performed well in these two early contests, they would gain momentum going into the more delegate-rich states. Iowa and New Hampshire enjoyed the process because it brought national exposure and a large economic impact. Greed and envy led other states to decide to move up their primary dates in 2008 and chaos has ensued.

The Democratic National Committee party rules do not allow states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to hold a primary or caucus prior to Feb. 5, 2008. Both Michigan and Florida decided to jump ahead of that date and have been stripped of their delegates to the national convention. Apparently, both states believe that the economic benefit outweighs any concern about having a voice in the nomination.
New Hampshire actually has a law on its books that requires it to hold the first primary. If any state schedules a primary prior to New Hampshire’s date, it reschedules to an earlier date. New Hampshire will be holding its earliest primary ever next year on Jan. 8, 2008.

Missouri and over 20 other states will hold primaries on Feb. 5, 2008. Because of the number of delegates that will be selected between Jan. 8 and Feb. 5, beginning Feb. 6, the general election campaigning will begin in earnest. This is the inevitable even though several primaries will have yet to be held and neither party will be holding a nominating convention for another four months.

Front-loading the primary process has resulted in an earlier and longer campaign cycle with resulting voter fatigue and general disinterest. Candidates are reduced to surviving the process and not presenting ideas and relevant reasons to be considered the best person to lead this nation. Commenting on the current system, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander said that if “professional football were presidential politics, Sports Center would pick the Super Bowl teams after three or four preseason games.”

There are several proposed solutions to the problem including The Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007. It is unclear whether this piece of legislation, proposed by the United States Senate, will go anywhere. If it does it will create a rotating, regional primary system. Under the system primaries will be held on the first Tuesday of March, April, May and June. Every four years a different region will be the first to have a primary.

Another option is to hold a national primary where every state votes on the same date. The problem with any nationally legislated solution is that it may not pass constitutional muster. The Constitution only provides congress with the authority to set the date for the presidential election. It is silent on the issue of primary elections. Unless the parties can get the situation under control a constitutional amendment may be required.

Whether the solution lies with the political parties or with congressional action, we must not allow the 2012 primary season to begin on Nov. 5, 2008. Until the process is fixed, do what you can to avoid the sausage making process and support the survivor of the Democratic primary.

(Reading Russ Purvis' words will never make you nauseated. Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

WE OWN IRAQ, BUT NOW MUST FIX IT BEFORE WE CAN GET RID OF IT

Posted 11/29/07

The mean season is upon us. Like the commercialization of Christmas, which now appears to begin just after Labor Day, political campaigning begins earlier with each cycle.

Republicans and Democrats are jockeying for position on an assortment of issues, none of which looms larger than the war in Iraq. While all of the hot air that both parties have exhaled regarding Iraq may be designed to secure votes, it does little to address what is the most important issue of our time.

The hard facts regarding Iraq are well known. Responsibility for Iraq rests squarely on the shoulders of George Bush. President Bush embarked on a course of conduct resulting in a quagmire that has done more to destabilize the Middle East than the Crusades. Unfortunately, like the Crusades, it is not likely to accomplish any long-term military achievement.

Bush was aware of the problem he was facing long before he finalized his decision to invade. Prior to the invasion, then Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the President about the Pottery Barn problem, “you break it, you own it”, that the United States faced by invading Iraq.

As was expected, the men and women of the United States military quickly conquered Iraq. Unfortunately, President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the neo-cons failed to even consider planning for the peace.

The fine details of this mess will be brought into sharper focus through the lens of history. For now, we, the citizens of the United States, own Iraq. Given the fact that there is no market for a third world country with a wrecked economy, no real functioning government and tremendous civil unrest, we must pick a leader that it is up to the task of untangling this Gordian knot.

Radical fringes of both parties have offered equally unworkable solutions. On the one hand, the radical left suggests that we leave and end the war right now. As George Orwell said “[t]he quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.”

If we simply leave we will lose this war. Does that matter? In a word, yes. Iraq does not have a government strong enough to hold back an all-out civil war. Iraq’s oil reserves present too rich a prize to believe that nuclear neighbors Pakistan and Iran will remain neutral, thereby creating a regional conflict in which the United States will be forced to become involved.

On the radical right, uber hawks, many of which have never been forced to face down the barrel of an enemy’s weapon, call for even greater military presence. I have even heard a few of these nuts seriously promote the idea of “bombing Iraq back into the stone age.” Genocide is never the solution.

Some Republicans argue that the surge has worked and we are right on course. Bombings have decreased where our military presence has increased. Does that spell some limited success, or are those bent on violence simply waiting us out? Only time will tell.

The surge has not had an impact on the one essential component to overall success in Iraq, the Iraqi government. It is still all smoke and mirrors, unable to accomplish even the simplest of functions. At best, the current situation in Iraq is, as Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, has described it--"a long, hard, slog."
Between the radical political fringes a course of action must be found that will allow for some stable, functioning form of government to return to Iraq. The solution is not to call those who question the Bush administration’s actions unpatriotic. Likewise, the solution is not to paint all of those that support the administration as being war mongers.

Unfortunately, the candidates from both parties seem content to believe that the entire world is that which exists the six inches in front of their coiffed hair and capped teeth. It is all focus groups and internal polling - putrid excrement that serves no practical purpose.

It is up to us, the ordinary citizens, to take the long view. We have to demand more than 30 second sound bites on this issue. We have to demand details, not generalities. We have to demand a workable plan for returning Iraq to the Iraqis while protecting the best interests of the United States. Why? Because, like it or not, we own Iraq and before we can get rid of it we have to fix it.

(Read Russ Purvis--who doesn't need fixin' and we don't intend to get rid of him--every week only in your Landmark. Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

WILL BUSH STAND ON AN AIRPORT TARMAC IN FRONT OF A 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' SIGN?

Posted 11/21/07

After he was overthrown, the only positive thing anyone could say about the fascist Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was that he made the trains run on time. In an apparent effort to leave office with at least one positive legacy, President Bush announced late last week that he is going to make our planes run on time – at least over the Thanksgiving holiday.

Not that I am comparing Bush to Mussolini. Mussolini centralized all power and kept it for himself, invaded the privacy of his citizenry, involved his country in a war without just cause and had a penchant for torture. President Bush on the other hand, after centralizing power, shared some of it with Cheney. Maybe the rest of the similarities can be chalked up to unfortunate coincidence.

The President of the United States has pledged to save us all from the horror that is modern day air travel. I cannot wait to see him standing on an airport tarmac next Monday morning in front of his “Mission Accomplished” sign.

Sean Hannity, another Limbaugh clone, without the sense of humor, recently said that “Democrats want to create the impression that Republicans are incapable of governing." When President George Bush is reduced to the role of Chief Air Traffic Controller, we Democrats do not have to “create” any impression. The proof stands before us all, working to bring governmental efficiency to an airport near you.

President Bush has failed at Social Security reform, he has failed at immigration reform and he has created a quagmire in the Middle East. God only knows what impact he will have on air travel.

One has to wonder why, if fixing the problem with air travel is as simple as having a press conference, the repair was not made long ago? Maybe Bush has more expertise in this area than I know. After all, he has spent quite a bit time in the air. He logged almost an entire day flying around in Air Force One on 9/11, countless hours while defending the skies of Texas during Vietnam and several years simply sky high before he quit the hard stuff.

The reality of the situation is that the air travel problem is too important and too complex for our president to imply that it can be fixed by a few words and token acts. Everyone knows that the system is operating on 1950’s technology and needs to be modernized. The fix will be expensive. However, the fix is a great value when compared to the economic loss that the country will surely see if the system is not repaired.

President Bush’s problem is that he has not made the issue a priority and he has created a budget situation that makes it difficult to spend the funds necessary to address the problem. Remember the war that was supposed to fund itself? The cost, depending on whom you believe, has now reached between $800 billion and $1.6 trillion with no repayment of any kind. That puts a big hole in the budget.

Is Bush really interested in the average traveler, or is he is simply acting the part of a political streetwalker, desperately trying to hustle a few more approval rating points in the next poll? I want to believe that the former is true but suspect that the latter is far more accurate. Maybe the best we can hope for out of this president is that he is able to do something about the odor of smelly feet around airport security screening areas and declare mission accomplished.

(When it comes to analyzing politics from a Democratic point of view, Russ Purvis is getting the mission accomplished every week in your Landmark. Email him your thoughts at russp842@yahoo.com)