DIDN'T WE FIGHT THE COLD WAR TO AVOID THIS?

Posted 12/31/08

What can you say about 2008 other than WOW! Centuries from now historians and social scientists will still be studying 2008 in an effort figure out how so many events that have forever changed the course of our nation could have possibly occurred in twelve short months. Without the benefit of being able to see the future we cannot even guess what the full impact of 2008 will bring, but it has already been enormous.

In January of 2008, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. John McCain's campaign on the Republican side was considered to be dead in the water and Barack Obama was an interestingly named black politician from Chicago. Outside of Alaska, no one really even knew who Sarah Palin was.

In Missouri as 2008 began, Governor Blunt was expected to run for a second term and, quite honestly, most people thought he would be hard to beat. Blunt didn't run and ended the year by costing the all of us taxpayers $600,000.00 in legal fees due to a fight over public access to government e-mails.

Democrat Jay Nixon will take over as governor in a few days. Kenny Hulshof gave up a congressional seat to lose the election to Nixon and Sarah Steelman and the rest of the Graves' faction of the Missouri Republican Party has declared war on Senator Kit Bond.

While the economy was not predicted to be robust in 2008, no one predicted the meltdown that has occurred. Unemployment is at a 26-year high, the housing market has literally crashed, the auto industry is on the brink of bankruptcy and the government has voluntarily allowed socialism to become the order of the day.

We fought the Cold War to avoid this socialistic type of government being forced upon us against our will. Now, in less than a year, without a shot being fired, we have surrendered to what can only be considered Marxist economic policies. Welcome to the new world order, Comrade.

Against this backdrop, Obama will assume the reigns of power in a few weeks and Hillary Clinton will be his Secretary of State. With two wars and a global economic crisis to deal with, there will be little time to bask in the glory of the moment.

Obama's administration will mark a crossroads in our history where the nation as it was intersects with the socialist disaster it is fast approaching. He will inherit a once great world power with the ability wield the sword of its military might and extend the olive leaf of its great economic power to impose change upon the world at its leisure, that has been reduced to an overextended debtor nation, battling two wars against inferior opponents to a stalemate, and resorting to socialism in a feeble attempt to rescue a once mighty economy.

Obama's challenges are undoubtedly enormous. He must preserve the nation was while leading us away from the path leading to the destruction of our democratic republic. History will applaud his success but will give him no quarter if he fails.

(The Landmark gives quarter to our Democratic columnist Russ Purvis. Email him at
russp842@yahoo.com)

IS A POTENTIAL PROBE OF KIT BOND ON THE TABLE?

Posted 12/26/08

Even with the economy in the tank after eight years of Shrub's administration, Missouri Republicans have found a way to give all of us Missouri Democrats a big Christmas gift. And, like a jam of the month club, it looks as though it will be the gift that keeps on giving throughout 2009 and into the 2010 election cycle.

No, it is not a cure for the economy, adequate healthcare or a solution to the educational crisis. But this gift may ultimately allow Democrats to take over power in Missouri and properly address those issues.

This particular gift is simply the attempt by each of the two most powerful factions of the Missouri Republican Party, the Bond faction and the Graves faction, to destroy the other. If it were a pay-per-view program it would have a cool name like “Rumble on the River” or the “Missouri Massacre.”

It is not a closely guarded secret that Bond and Graves do not see eye to eye. I initially thought this was only because Bond is taller than Graves. It turns out it has more to do with political stature, real or imagined, and ego.

The first public sign of this battle occurred in 2006 when Todd Graves, former Platte County Prosecutor and congressman Sam Graves's brother, was removed by his own party as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri. There were allegations at the time that Bond was the puppet master pulling the strings in Washington to make that happen.

In September of this year, the Justice Department concluded Todd Graves was removed after Bond's staff made complaints involving Jeff Roe. Yes, the same Jeff Roe that used to be Sam Graves' chief of staff and whom, by all accounts, is still a close friend and confidant. Bond denied any knowledge of his staff's action.

Enter Sarah Steelman. Jeff Roe acted as her consultant in her run for governor. Bond endorsed Steelman's opponent, Kenny Hulshof in the primary. In a November 30, 2008, article in the Columbia Tribune, Steelman alleged that Bond told her that he endorsed Hulshof in part because of Roe and her position on earmarks. Steelman said that Bond “talked about the negative campaigning associated with Jeff Roe, and he called himself the king of earmarks and talked about my position against them.”

If the self-professed “King of Earmarks” does not like Roe's tactics it is truly the pot calling the kettle black. The King may prefer to use a scalpel where Roe uses a broad ax but the resulting political carnage is the same.
Steelman, after speaking with Bond, sent a formal letter the Justice Department outlining Bond's comments regarding Roe and the possibility of a direct Bond connection to Todd Graves’ firing. The Justice Department has not yet taken any formal action but the possibility that an investigation could be directed at Bond is now on the table.

All of this is a great Christmas present. If we are lucky, as the year progresses the Bond and Graves factions will each throw more Republicans under the bus as they attempt to consolidate power and control the Republican Party in Missouri.

Speaking of gifts and giving, a group of your fellow Platte County Democrats is gathering cereal and canned meat for the Southern Platte Emergency Assistance Center (SPEAC). You can drop your donations by my office at 6114 N. 9 Highway in Parkville. Or, call me at 816 769-4559 and I will make arrangements to pick up your donation. Money is also accepted. SPEAC donations are tax deductible.

(Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

YOU CAN DO A LOT OF GOOD IN YOU OWN BACK YARD

Posted 12/18/08

“You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life, the facts of life.”I know you all know the lyrics to Allan Thicke's contribution to what passed for philosophy in the late 1970s - television theme song lyrics. So, feel free to sing along as the following weeks of political theater unfold.

One really good thing to have happened in the world of politics during this past week is Joe Biden's adoption of a German Shepherd puppy. I may be a bit prejudiced on this issue. I love dogs, especially German Shepherds. My wife and I recently lost our 14-year-old shepherd, Haley. If the vice president- elect's new dog brings him 1% of the joy, love and amusement Haley brought my wife and I, it will be doing all of us a great service by helping Biden bear up under the pressure he is sure to face.

The bad is evident. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was taken into federal custody. He allegedly attempted to personally profit from the pending appointment to President-elect Obama's now vacant seat in the United States Senate. Is he a crook or is he simply crazy? Maybe he is a little bit of both. Either way, his actions are sure to feed the conspiracy theorists that believe that no politician can come out of Chicago without being corrupt.

Running a very close second to Biden obtaining a puppy was the kickoff of President-elect Obama's Change is Coming house parties. Change is Coming is a simple concept born out of Obama's community organizing days. It focuses on the fact that all real change begins in communities just like ours. At the meetings participants discussed the issues that they felt were most pressing on a national and local level. The participants were also challenged to find a way to make a positive change in their local community prior to President-elect Obama's inauguration.

Over 4200 of these parties were held nationwide, including several in Platte County. Information gathered at the meetings will be passed on to the Obama administration. With that information, the Obama administration will be able to really understand which issues truly concern the average American and use it to change the country for the better. At least that is the plan.

The group that I was privileged to be a part of decided that the economy, education and health care are the three most pressing issues facing our nation. I am sure many other house parties reached similar conclusions.

In an effort to do something locally to help those adversely impacted by the bad economy, our group has decided to coordinate a food drive for the Southern Platte Emergency Assistance Center (SPEAC). SPEAC is a nonprofit agency that operates a food pantry for the less fortunate in our county. Our group is focusing on obtaining as much cereal and canned meat as we possibly can for SPEAC between now and Jan. 20, 2009.

Your help is needed. If you can donate a box, a case or a pallet of cereal or canned meat you will be affecting change right here in Platte County. You can drop your donations by my office at 6114 N. 9 Highway, Parkville.
Or, call me at 816 769-4559 and I will make arrangements to pick up your donation. Money is also accepted. SPEAC donations are tax deductible. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of bad in the world but you can do a whole lot of good in your own back yard. I look forward to hearing from you.

(Reach Russ by email to russp842@yahoo.com)

SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM SELF-INTERESTED POLITICIANS

Posted 12/11/08

In what may prove to be the dumbest statement ever made about the auto bailout, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that “while we take no satisfaction in loaning taxpayer money to these companies, we know it must be done. This is no blank check or blind hope."

He will be eating those words in the not too distant future. I guess we should all envy him: at least he will have something to call a meal.

All of the bailouts have been based on blind hope. Congress and the Bush administration have done nothing but write blank checks since late September. The impact you ask? Well, the market has continued to tank. Banks continue to refuse to lend. Wall Street executives still hold lavish meetings at exclusive locales. CEOs like Merill Lynch's Jeff Thain even demand $10 million dollar bonuses; not because the company made money, but because it only lost $11.67 billion dollars.

These things, however, pale in comparison to the fundamental and permanent change that the bailouts have brought to our nation. We are now socialists. Church it up as much as you want, but we have passed the tipping point and now live in the shadow of the valley of the “ism.” Socialism has arrived and fascism and totalitarianism may not be far behind.

What used to be a market economy is now quickly becoming a centralized economy where bureaucrats, like those that brought you Fannie and Freddie, the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles, will now be in charge of the U.S. economy. The auto bailout actually calls for a “car czar.”

Politicians on both sides of the aisle, with little appetite for learning the lessons of history, but possessed of an insatiable hunger for power, have seen an opportunity and seized upon it. The ordinary citizen, as always, will suffer for it. We will be left to pay the bill and clean up the mess.

Even so, I have limited sympathy for our predicament. We citizens have become so complacent, so lazy and so willing to allow Uncle Sugar to have his way with us that we could be classified as prostitutes, and cheap ones at that; selling our individual freedoms and the greatest system of government ever created, for the illusion of a social safety net.

The individualism that made us great now seems to be frowned upon. But it is that individualism that was the spark that ignited this nation. Individual responsibility applies to every man, woman, child and, yes corporation, in this country. Individual responsibility is the mother of individual freedom. Together the two do not shackle you but allow you the opportunity to succeed and prosper without the interference of politicians.

I want to believe that the new administration will lead us off of the path to becoming another failed experiment with democracy and once again embrace the concept of individual responsibility and individual freedom. Unfortunately, it does not appear that will be the case.

Tom Daschle, President-elect Obama's nominee for secretary of health and human services, and point man on healthcare reform, recently stated when referring to passing healthcare legislation that “Details kill. If we get too far into the weeds, if we produce a 1,500- or 1,600-page bill, we're going to get hung up on all the details and we're never going to get to the principles." It is the lack of details that got us into this mess and Daschle is calling for more of the same.

As a nation we are truly at a crossroads and nothing less than our form of government is at stake. You can choose to be responsible and become involved in saving our nation from dimwitted, self-interested politicians bent on the accumulation of power at your personal expense, or choose to stand on the sidelines and hope for the best while being willing to accept the worst.

(Catch Russ at The Landmark party on Friday or by email to russp842@yahoo.com)

APPOINTMENTS ARE A GUT CHECK FOR OBAMA

Posted 12/4/08

President-elect Obama is moving with all deliberate haste to fill his cabinet. His choices show a pragmatism born from necessity. While he was able to run for the office of President of the United States from the left, he can effectively govern only from the center.

It is true that the Democratic Party now controls the United States Congress. But the Democratic Party is a big tent, and although self described progressive Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the house, she does not always speak for every member of the house. The same can be said of Harry Reid in the senate.

President-elect Obama is, therefore, placed in the unenviable position of inheriting a not only nation in crisis, but a political party best described as a dangerous swamp full of alligators, any one of which might attempt to pull Obama under and nibble on his carcass for political gain.

Pelosi is just such an alligator. She does not seem to understand, or possibly she simply does not care, that Obama is the President-elect and she is not running the policy arm of the Democratic Party. Everyday she is hogging the camera, proposing, demanding or taking credit for something. This week she called for another $500 billion in stimulus to be ready for Obama's signature on the day that he takes office. Never mind the fact that she has no details to offer, the number sounds good.

To navigate these dangerous waters, the President-elect must build a ship of state in the form of a cabinet that can bring all the disparate interests on both side of the aisle together to work out real solutions to the problems facing all of us.

Clinton as Secretary of State is just the type of appointment that will help Obama accomplish that task. Clinton brings a large and devoted base of support to Team Obama, many of which did not support him, or did so only grudgingly after the primary. She will help Obama secure his left flank.

Hillary is also well known and generally well liked on the international stage. Having named her as his secretary of state will only help Obama's reputation with international leaders. Furthermore, she is also no wallflower. She will be a tough, smart and effective.

Keeping Robert Gates on as secretary of defense, the same position he currently holds in the Bush administration, helps Obama protect, if not secure his right flank. Gates provides continuity and a base of knowledge that Obama does not have and would have trouble finding elsewhere. So long as Obama does not let the tail wag the dog, like Bush did with Rumsfeld, he should, with Gates’ help, still be able to accomplish all of his goals in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Governor Janet Napolitano as the choice to lead homeland security may be the most controversial appointment that Obama has made. Napolitano's hard line on illegal immigration certainly appeals to elements of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party. However, the appointment may cause Obama's stock to drop considerably in the Latino community. Perhaps Obama feels that appointing Governor Bill Richardson to a cabinet post will balance the books. I for one doubt it.

At the end of the day, all of the appointments boil down to guesswork and a gut check on the part of President-elect Obama. Republicans and Democrats all need to wish him luck and an iron stomach because none of us can afford for him to fail.

(Our left side columnist Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee and can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

DEMOCRATS HAVE MANY REASONS TO BE THANKFUL

Posted 11/26/08

Thanksgiving: family, friends, all of the turkey you can eat, and a four day weekend gives everyone something for which to be thankful. Even with all of the challenges that our nation is facing we Democrats have so much more to be thankful for than is usually the case following a presidential election cycle.

First and foremost we can be thankful for electing Barack Obama as next President of the United States. He is already demonstrating the type of leadership that will be necessary to get the nation back on the right track. His choices for key cabinet positions reflect a pragmatic approach necessary to the task at hand. He is choosing bright experienced people that will be able to hit the ground running.

Not only have we elected a president, we control both the house and the senate. And in Missouri, Jay Nixon literally destroyed his Republican opponent on his way to becoming our next governor. The offices of governor, auditor, secretary of state, treasurer and attorney general will all be held by a Democrat in Missouri come January 2009.

As a nation, we can all be thankful for the fact that Democrats and Republicans all want what is best for the country, no matter how much we disagree on what that might be or the best way to reach the goal. We must also be thankful for, and at the same time amazed by, the fact that following an election we do not even question whether or not the transition of power will be peaceful. It is part of what makes this nation great.

We can do battle with each other in the arena of ideas, engaging in exchanges that run from the intellectually obtuse to vicious gutter politics, and when all is said and done and a winner is declared, power goes to the victor. There is no attempt at a coup. Groups of citizens are not rounded up and imprisoned, tortured or killed. In fact, a week following President-elect Obama's victory, President George Bush met with him at the White House to begin the transition.

I am personally thankful for many things, including the opportunity to write this column each week. One reason I enjoy the column so much is that it sometimes gives me the opportunity to take Ivan to task. For example, in last week's column, Ivan took great pleasure in pointing out that my state representative, Jason Grill, received 600 write in votes against him in the last election.

What Ivan missed is the fact that Jason received more votes than any other Democratic candidate running for a state representative seat in Missouri. Also, Ivan missed the fact that Republican Sheriff Richard Anderson, also running unopposed, received over 800 write in votes opposing his reelection.

In the 32nd District we should all be thankful for having such a great state representative. Jason works hard and I suspect he will continue to serve the citizens of the State of Missouri for years to come.

While giving thanks, we must also give thought to assisting the less fortunate among us. That is why I am closing the column this week by asking you to consider making a donation of money or non-perishable food items to Hillcrest Transitional Housing. You can drop off your donation at my office at 6114 N. 9 Highway in Parkville, The Landmark office or at the Hillcrest location on Prairie View Road. Have a great Thanksgiving!

(Our dedicated Democrat can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

IT'S TIME TO PROVIDE A HELPING HAND

Posted 11/21/08

The holiday season is upon us. It is the time of year that people of goodwill reach out and provide a helping hand to those in need. With that in mind, my fellow columnist on the right side of this page and I have decided to engage in a little bipartisan effort/competition, all in the spirit of helping the less fortunate in our area.

We are both encouraging all of our readers, as well as friends and neighbors, to make a donation of food, or clothing to Hillcrest Transitional Housing. Donations can be dropped off at my office at 6114 N. 9 Highway in Parkville, The Landmark Newspaper office at 252 Main St. in downtown Platte City or at the Hillcrest location on Prairie View Road. We will end this effort on Dec. 12, 2008, the date of The Landmark Christmas party. If you don’t donate prior to The Landmark party, bring your donation to the party Dec. 12 at the Comfort Inn in Platte City. I have bet James that Democrats in Platte County will donate more than Republicans, so be sure to mark your bag of donations with a “D.” As always, call or e-mail me for more information.

While we here in Platte County are trying to provide a hand up, everyone in Washington, including the auto industry, appears to be seeking a handout. According to the industry it will fail without an immediate cash infusion from Uncle Sugar in the amount of $25 billion. But not just any $25 billion: The auto industry wants a piece of the $700 billion bailout. What the industry does not want is to have the $25 billion give away to the automakers that has already been approved by congress, for retooling to build “greener” vehicles, to be redirected to help stop the alleged imminent collapse of the industry.

The industry's position is ridiculous. First of all, it is based on the false premise that without the money it will collapse and disappear completely from the American business landscape. It will not. GM, Ford and Chrysler may have to seek bankruptcy protection. However, that may be the strong medicine each needs to become competitive and profitable.

But, assuming for a moment that the auto industry is facing its imminent demise without a cash infusion right now, why not support redirecting the retooling funds? If the industry is going to fail without money now, it will not need to retool in the future. The obvious answer is that if it can get another $25 billion from another source, it will have $50 billion instead of $25 billion.

Whenever I would get greedy as a kid, my dad would always say “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” American automakers should keep that thought in mind while searching for truffles on Capitol Hill.

Unfortunately, many Democratic leaders are siding with the auto industry. In a knee jerk reaction, that lacks measured reflection or diligent research into the issue, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are acting like kids in a candy store with our money. They both are doing all they can to hand over $25 billion from the bailout fund that was never intended for such a purpose.

GM, Ford nor Chrysler has offered any definitive plan relating to the money will be used. Will there be top to bottom restructuring? Will labor and management all make sacrifices to be competitive? Will the industry agree to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. from Mexico? There are too many questions that have not been answered because they have not been asked.

No one wants the auto industry to fail. However, a handout will not save it. There is already $25 billion that, with a few changes in the legislation, can be made available to the industry. Provide that helping hand with strings attached. But do not get in the business of simply handing out our tax dollars to businesses that make bad decisions.

(Get your questions answered each week here in The Inconvenient Truth. Email Russ at russp842@yahoo.com)

THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE WILL BE IMPORTANT

Posted 11/13/08

It has been over a week since the election. We have all had the opportunity to celebrate victory and agonize over defeat. It is time to wrap up the ‘08 cycle and look to the future.

The 2008 Democratic Party election results in Missouri remind me of some of the weight lifters I run into. You have all seen the type, beefy upper bodies mounted on pipe cleaners. Democrats were strong at the top of the state ticket but lacked the legs to carry the down ballot races.

Governor-elect Jay Nixon and Secretary of State Robin Carnahan exhibited real strength. In the end Nixon defeated Kenny Hulshof with 58.4% of the vote. Carnahan destroyed Mitch Hubbard, garnering 1,746,516 votes which set a record in the state.

Unfortunately, the success of Nixon and Carnahan was not enough to help Sam Page unseat Peter Kinder. Luckily, Clint Zweifel narrowly defeated Brad Lager for state treasurer and Chris Koster narrowly defeated Mike Gibbons in the attorney general race.

This strong statewide showing did not carry over into Platte County. For example, while less than 5,000 votes separated McCain and Obama statewide, McCain beat Obama by 3,000 votes in Platte County. As the chair of the Platte County Democratic Party Central Committee, the buck stops with me. I accept responsibility for this poor performance and I am looking to all of you to help me fix the problem.

After World War I, Dwight Eisenhower, and George Patton were both young officers with time on their hands. Somehow they acquired a tank. The two stripped it down and rebuilt it just to know how it worked. We Democrats must take apart the tank in Platte County and learn from our mistakes. If we are successful, the Democratic Party will be stronger for our efforts.

The next election cycle is too important to neglect. Even though it is not a presidential year, the results of the 2010 election will be felt in Missouri for the following decade. Those elected in 2010 will be responsible for redistricting following the 2010 census. Republican control will mean districts that favor the election of more Republicans.

Platte County will also have an open seat in the state senate due to the fact that Republican Charlie Shields is term-limited and will not be able to run again. The seat encompasses all of Platte County and all of Buchanan County. For a Democrat to take the seat Platte County must perform.

There will also be two open legislative seats in Platte County in 2010. Both Martin Rucker and Jason Brown will be termed-out. Prosecutor Eric Zahnd must run for reelection along with Presiding Commissioner Betty Knight.

If you need any more reason to be motivated to help turn Platte County around in 2010 consider this: Sam Graves’ defeat of Kay Barnes has made him, behind Kit Bond, the strongest Republican in the State of Missouri. He will also be on the ballot in 2010. Depending on how things work out on the Republican side he may even be running for the United States Senate.

2010 may seem like a long way off. It is not. If you consider yourself a Democrat get involved now. Call or e-mail me and I will tell you how.

(Join Russ in his march to 2010 via email to russp842@yahoo.com)

HUGE CHALLENGES FACE THIS NATION

Posted 11/6/08

“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.” Revelation 6:8. We are not there yet folks. Contrary to the views expressed by so many Republicans, the election of Barack Obama cannot be equated to the death of the United States of America and a looming Armageddon.

President-elect Obama is not the anti-Christ or any other type of bogeyman. He does not represent neosocialism. He is not a communist, a dictator in waiting or the latest incarnation of Mussolini.

President-elect Obama is but one man representing but one branch of government. 535 men and women of different temperaments, talents and convictions, to quote an old fraternity saying, make up the legislative branch. And, though less in number, an equally diverse group constitutes the judicial branch.

The President of the United States is not a monarch. We have simply been led to believe that over the last eight years. The founders designed a complex system of government with checks and balances that serve to limit the consolidation of power. The founders designed our government in this way because they knew Lord Acton was correct when he said that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Democrats should take some time and celebrate victory and the Republicans are entitled to mourn the defeat of John McCain. However, not too much time can be spent on such self-indulgence. Huge challenges face this nation and time is a commodity that is running short.

If the election has taught us anything it is that neither political party has been given a mandate by the people of this country to go forth and attempt to implement an agenda based on a political ideology that leans either too far to the right or too far to the left. Neither the loony left nor the retarded right represent the political sensibilities of a majority of the American public.

As is evident from Missouri's position as the bellwether state, it is the people of the State of Missouri that truly represent the political pulse of this nation. In Missouri, we favor change when it offers us something better, but oppose change for change sake. We do believe in “country first” with the understanding that our country is made up of a government, that in the words of Lincoln, is “of the people, by the people and for the people,” a concept of which many politicians on both sides of the aisle have lost track.

And in Missouri hope springs eternal. Not the fancified political sound bite called “hope” that represents little more than a hollow promise of some future illusion, but hope for better days ahead for ourselves and hope for a better world for future generations. We hope for these things while knowing their realization can only be born from hard work, self sacrifice, generosity and a commitment to excelling in all our endeavors whether they are business, personal or spiritual. I guess you could call this the Missouri Doctrine.

The Missouri Doctrine has been fully realized in the election of Barack Obama. President-elect Obama represents the realization of the hope of not just one man, or one race, but the realization of the hope that gave birth to the greatness of these United States of America: A nation where any person from any race or socio-economic background can become the leader of the greatest country on the face of the earth.

Politicians of all stripes would do well to consider the Missouri Doctrine when charting the course for the next few years. Politicians, partisanship and pundits are not what made this country great. This country became great and has remained great due to the leadership of the generations that came before us. Leadership in large part based on the beliefs still held by the average Missourian. The people have elected another slate of politicians including President-elect Barack Obama. Is there a leader among you?

(Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Commmittee and can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

HOW MUCH UNSPOKEN RACISM STILL EXISTS?

Posted 10/31/08

On Monday in Ohio, Barack Obama summed up the importance of next Tuesday with his usual eloquence by stating that "In one week, we can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo. In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history. In other words, vote for the Democrats.

At this point, things do look very good for the top of the ticket. However, as Democrats we cannot become too cocky or too complacent. Remember, not a single vote has been counted. I fear two things: First, a backlash brought on by media fawning over Obama; and, second, racism.

It is not hard to see that at least a bit of a backlash is taking place. One need only consider Sarah Palin's continued and ever increasing popularity to see that there is a disconnect between the media's anointing of Obama and what is going on down in the trenches.

The general public, Democrats included, cannot help but be puzzled by the fact that the media has focused so much attention on the tone of Palin's voice, her occasional verbal gaffes and the cost of her clothing, while at the same time failing to ask any hard, issue oriented questions of any of the candidates. Joe Biden is at least as verbally challenged and does not receive anywhere close to as much scrutiny. It is sexist. It is biased. And, it has moved more people toward McCain than it has pushed away.

What happened to the feminists? Palin doesn't fit the narrowly defined mold that feminists have created so her success is an affront. It is an unspoken but vicious bias. The existence of the bias leads me to ask: If this type of bias can exist among feminists, how much unspoken racism still exists across the country?

Having grown up in northwest Missouri, I can attest to the fact that racism of the most cowardly, unspoken type does exist here. And if it exists here, it exists nationwide. We all know it even if we refuse to be up front about it. How many of these closet racists will cast a vote for McCain, not because of the quality of his character, but because of the color of Obama's skin? To be certain it will be more than a few.

More than anything else this election has held up a mirror to our society and once again demonstrated that all of the warts and blemishes that we try so hard to hide do still exist. For all of the sound and fury put forth by feminists for the past forty years, this election cycle has demonstrated that it is a shallow and very exclusionary group. Racism is alive and well and living in every community in this country. The media, once considered the “Fourth Estate,” has become little more than a bunch of fawning groupies to whatever candidate each particular outlet supports.

At the end of the day, Obama will win. He will make history and he will be faced with challenges and opportunities the likes of which no President of the United States has ever had to deal with. His biggest challenge may be overcoming the bitter partisan bickering that now passes for statesmanship in our political system. Partisanship is like a choke weed, and is slowly killing our democratic republic. Neither political party is immune to, nor does neither party seem terribly concerned about dealing with, the issue.

On election night enjoy the moment. We will have won the battle but the war will still loom large. Victory cannot be measured by the number of Republican seats that Democrats take, but only by how successful we all are in working together to guarantee that the United States of America remains the greatest country the world has ever known.

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

PAGE IS THE BETTER PERSON FOR THE JOB

Posted 10/24/08

Across the country, races for lieutenant governor generate about as much excitement among the general public as a kiss and a hug from a great aunt that smells like a strange combination of Ben Gay and Jean Nate. In Missouri, however, the lieutenant governor's race between Democrat Dr. Sam Page and Republican Peter Kinder is picking up steam.

As Missouri's current lieutenant governor, Kinder has spent his first term in office acting the part of a low rent Frenchman. For some unknown reason, sipping wine and hanging out with men in biking shorts seems to be much more interesting to Kinder than working for the interests of the average citizen of the State of Missouri. In fact, Kinder spent over $250,000 of our hard earned tax money to prance around and make nice with the pedal pushers.

This is nothing new for Kinder. He has been actively promoting the misappropriation of our tax money since his time in the state senate. While there he was instrumental in diverting taxpayer money to build the new St. Louis Cardinals stadium.

He has also jumped around like a frog in a hot skillet on stem cell. As Jo Mannies recently reported in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, during a fundraising event held for Kinder by a prominent St. Louis Democrat, Kinder said, “You're looking at the guy who stopped the bill to criminalize stem cell research.”

He is now hedging his bets. Presently, Kinder is at best ambiguous on the issue. Why is he closeting his feelings? Is he afraid of being outed by the radical right as holding “unchristian” thoughts?

Perhaps, in an effort to appease those in the radical right that questioned his true beliefs, Kinder did support Governor Not So Sharp's 2005 plan that left over 100,000 children without medical coverage.

Democrat Dr. Sam Page has said that Kinder lacks a moral/ethical gene in his DNA. DNA could explain many of Kinder's political problems. But of course the radical right has trouble believing anyone is born a certain way so Kinder will have to continue living a lie, hiding his true beliefs on stem cell.

Dr. Page is the better person for the job. The married father of three is well grounded. He knows who he is and where he stands on issues. Dr. Page believes in supporting Missouri job creation by doing away with tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas. Dr. Page has supported legislation to end the abuse of eminent domain. Dr. Page also supports affordable prescription coverage for seniors and access to healthcare for our state's children. And of course, Dr. Page supports life sciences including stem cell research.

The race is dead even. However, Kinder's camp is attempting to gear up a negative campaign. Dr. Page believes that a name we are all familiar with, Sam Graves' former Chief of Staff, Jeff Roe, is coordinating the attacks. The first volley was fired by Todd Graves, Sam's brother. Graves has filed a frivolous ethics complaint against Dr. Page's campaign relating to a donation.

As usual, when running behind, the Republicans resort to dirty tricks. Don't be fooled. Kinder is the wrong person to be the lieutenant governor. Vote him out of office and give him some much needed time off to figure out who he is and where he stands on issues important to Democrats and Republicans alike.

(Russ Purvis provides a view from the left wing each week in your Landmark. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGNS ON LIFE SUPPORT IN MISSOURI

Posted 10/17/08

Republican campaigns in Missouri, like vampires exposed to sunlight, are beginning to shrivel up and die.

Over the course of the past three weeks John McNasty's poll numbers in Missouri have fallen faster than General Motors stock. Three weeks ago McNasty was a two point favorite over Obama. According to the October 13th Survey USA poll Obama now holds an eight point lead over McNasty. Now my friends, I am not saying it is over; however, Missouri is a bellwether state, and by anyone's reading of these poll numbers McNasty has had his bell rung.

Things look even better for Jay Nixon. Nixon leads Kenny, I can't believe I gave up my congressional seat to get my butt kicked this bad, Hulshof, by 22 points. I am prepared to say that this race is over. Hulshof has a better chance of scoring a number one hit with his band than being elected governor.

In the 6th District, the poll numbers are tightening and Simple Sam Graves continues to run and hide from his record and from Kay Barnes. Simple Sam is great at putting out negative ads that contain so little truth that they would be comical if not for the hatred, wrong-headedness and disregard for the intelligence of the 6th District voter each one contains.

Like a child hiding behind his momma's apron, Simple Sam prefers to attack from the safety of a TV screen, the radio or by junk mail. Face to face? Well that is a different matter for Simple Sam. Just last week Simple Sam was a no show for a televised debate with Kay Barnes. Kay debated the empty chair, the silence of which, when contrasted with statements Graves has made in the past, made it appear to be a genius. Prior to that no show, Simple Sam refused to debate Kay in Maryville, Missouri, his own backyard.

Simple Sam is proving that he is exactly the puppet we have suspected him to be since he was first elected to Congress. For the last eight years the Bush administration has acted as his puppet master. When the Bushies pulled a string Simple Sam did their bidding over 90% of the time: a perfect record as puppets go. Studies show all puppets are generally 10% defective whether by mechanical or operator error.

The Bushies are now on their way out and Simple Sam has no one to stick a hand up his butt and move his mouth. It is little wonder that he will not debate Kay. A woman of such intelligence and accomplishment must make him feel all empty inside.

This race is still too close to call. But with Simple Sam on the run and Kay continuing to play an aggressive offense, one more incumbent should wind up out of a job.

Nationwide, and in our little corner of Missouri, the Democratic Party is edging closer to not simply victory, but the wholesale destruction of the Republican Party as it now exists. It is not too late to be a part of this great undertaking.

Call me or e-mail me and I will tell you how you can still help stick a stake in the blood sucking vampire called the Republican Party.

(Just in case you couldn’t tell which way he leans, Russ Purvis is chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

GRAVES HELPED FERTILIZE THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

Posted 10/10/08

It is the Gambler, and fried chicken baron, Kenny Rogers, that best sums up what everyone needs to do when considering any Republican candidate in this election. Rogers' advice has always been that “you have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away and know when to run.” Now is the time to run from every Republican candidate.

John McCain fancies himself to be a gambler. Big bets in glitzy casinos apparently turn McCain's crank. Of course he never uses that description on the campaign trail because it is too telling about his character and how he might make decisions. But he has gambled with all of our futures as an elected official for over twenty-five years and we have all wound up as losers.

Over the last eight years George Bush, McCain, Simple Sam Graves and the rest of the Republicans have, through action and inaction, brought this country, this planet for that matter, to the breaking point. The U.S. economy is in a free fall and the global economy is following closely behind. All the while Bush stands before us with his “what me worry?” look and demands that we provide $700 billion dollars to bail out his buddies, no strings attached.

In possibly the most economically challenging time since the Great Depression, John McCain, the Republican candidate for President of the United States, has admitted that he knows nothing about economics. He did state that he bought Greenspan's book. Much of Greenspan's philosophy regarding economics has been discredited by the latest crisis so McCain may need a new book. Maybe Palin can advise him. She can count to twenty using all of her fingers and toes.

Bush, McCain, Simple Sam and the rest of the retarded right claim we should all be happy about Iraq because the surge worked. First, such a statement requires that we accept the premise that we should have been in Iraq in the first place. We should not have been there. We were duped by King George. Second, the surge has not worked.

The surge was supposed to reduce sectarian violence and provide the Iraqi's with time to put a truly functioning government in order. Violence may be down but Iraq's government is still a dysfunctional cesspool of corruption.

All the while Simple Sam Graves has been happy to be a jester in the court of King George. He stands pie eyed before the 6th District offering lies and incoherent platitudes but no solutions.

Simple Sam refuses to accept any responsibility for the current financial crisis. The facts tell a different story. Simple Sam opposed increased oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several years ago, at time when such oversight would have put the breaks on the criminal behavior the two organizations were engaged in. At the same time he voted to increase the amount of money each organization could loan. Simple Sam helped fertilize the root of the current problem.

While farmers across the 6th District are held hostage by high oil prices, largely due to price gouging and speculation, Simple Sam has flown about in his airplanes, or those owned by rich buddies, oblivious to the reality on the ground below. Over and over again he has accepted contributions from Exxon and other big oil companies. At the same time he has voted in favor of outrageous subsidies and tax breaks to those same companies.

This election year, like no past election cycle, demands that we take a stand, run from Republicans, vote for change, vote for Obama, Barnes and every other Democrat on your ballot.

(After a week away, Russ is back. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

THE ECONOMY AND MCCAIN HEALTH TAX

Posted 10/3/08

Special to The Landmark
Written this week by special guest
Susan Montee
Mo. State Auditor

As I read the headlines about the crisis on Wall Street, foreclosures on every block, and Americans losing their jobs, I recalled better times just ten years ago. During the 1990's, our economy was strong and our nation enjoyed both peace and prosperity. American workers earned more than ever before, our children could afford college and we all could save for retirement. In short, the future was promising.

We now know that the economic policies of George W. Bush have been a failure. Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, we can all plainly see that massive tax cuts for millionaires and wealthy corporations do not help ordinary families. Neglecting the middle class undermines our whole economy, which is part of why we're in this mess today.

I watched the debate on Friday, and listened closely to John McCain, but he did not say anything about helping middle-class Americans. Perhaps that's because he gives the majority of his tax cuts to the very wealthiest and argues that giving a tax cut of $290,000 to people making $2.8 million per year will eventually help everyday Americans. But that trickle-down philosophy has been proven wrong. We can, and we must, choose a better course for our country.

Barack Obama has a plan to help all Americans, including folks who aren't going to pull in $3 million this year. Under Obama's plan people earning less than $250,000 will not see their taxes increase by one dime. His plan will also:

•Give a tax credit of up to $1,000 for all working families

•Provide a $4000 tax credit for college tuition, to make college more affordable for everyday families

•Increase the child tax credit for all families because raising our kids isn't getting any cheaper

•Help homeowners with a tax credit so that every dollar spent on mortgage interest is a dollar less you pay in taxes

•Eliminate taxes for seniors with income less than $50,000

These days, more than ever, Missourians worry about our health care, as much as our bank account. Our health care bills are killing us. Too many people have to put off taking care of themselves because they just can't afford it. That's not right.

Unfortunately, John McCain just doesn't understand. If he did, he wouldn't propose taxing the health care benefits of working Americans. While he taxes health care benefits with one hand, he says he'll give families a health care tax credit, which covers less than half the average cost of a family health plan. What's more, McCain's plan is essentially privatizing and deregulating our health care the same privatization and deregulation that led to the meltdown of our financial sector. Can you imagine if our health care system had a similar crisis?

Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama will protect and improve our health care system. Obama will save the average family $2500 per year in health care costs. Obama will preserve the employer-based model, and also offers an affordable public plan option. Under an Obama Administration, those with pre-existing conditions will still get treatment. The Obama plan will cover all kids, and provide sliding-scale tax credits to help the uninsured afford coverage.

In these times of financial and economic turmoil, we must remember how we got here, and how we can avoid making the same mistakes again. Only one candidate for president promises to do so; that's why I believe that Barack Obama is the clear choice for President of the United States.

(The Landmark thanks Susan Montee, Missouri state auditor, for pinch-hitting for Russ Purvis this week. Purvis will be back in the saddle next week)

CAPITALISTS EMBRACING FULL BLOWN SOCIALISM

Posted 9/26/08

When did our nations' leading capitalists decide to embrace full blown socialism? The United States is about to embark on the largest experiment in the use and abuse of a centralized economy that the world has ever seen. The proposed $700 Billion dollar bailout will effectively nationalize the largest and strongest free market economy the world has ever known. Get your frog suits out and start eating snails, we are all about to become French.

Our government is about to address a problem created by governmental intervention in the market by intervening. Government intervention in the housing market was the seed that created this disaster. Now that mistake will be compounded by this misadventure.

The government created Fannie Mae for the alleged purpose of providing affordable home loans. The company was “privatized” in the late 60's and the government then created another “private” company called Freddie Mac in 1970. By 2003 the two companies controlled 90% of the mortgage market. The companies were not traditional private businesses. They were both GSE's, government sponsored enterprises. This meant that unlike a real private corporation, they were not subject to SEC oversight or state or local taxes. Most importantly, both companies had a line of credit with the treasury at an interest rate no private company could match.

Fannie and Freddie, with such a sweetheart deal, became Fortune 500 companies. They did this by taking on riskier positions in the mortgage market and taking on more and more debt. By 2003, the companies' debt was equal to 46% of the national debt. They also ventured outside the mortgage markets, playing the spread between the interest rate available from the Treasury and the return available on outside investments.

In 2003 Freddie Mac was found to have accounting errors totaling $4.7 billion. The government considered action. But the politicians were bought off by Freddie and Fannie lobbyists. Freddie and Fannie have spent $174 million on lobbyists over the last ten years. Freddie and Fannie executives, politicians and their friends all got rich and nothing happened to slow down the train wreck.

So here we are: Fannie and Freddie are in a government conservatorship; $85 billion is being loaned to AIG; and, the Treasury Department wants each of us to pony up roughly $2,000 to craft a $700 billion dollar bailout.
I say NO BLANK CHECK! The Wall Street wonderfuls that helped make the mess this big have been trying to put a fingerprint on the bailout. If the Wall Streeters get what they want, the most culpable parties will be allowed to dump their trash in our collective back yard to rot and walk away. If you want proof, consider the fact that up to $25 million of the AIG loan may be reserved for bonuses to top executives, the very people that drove the company into the ground.

If government money has to be placed into the market to avoid a complete meltdown, then craft a loan package that allows for borrowing at a high rate and attaches many strings. Force the companies that borrow to give the taxpayers an equity stake in the business for the term of the loan, and limit executive compensation until the loan is repaid.

Some companies have hinted that they will not participate if the terms are too onerous. That means they do not really need the money. Faced with bankruptcy, or a loan at a high rate that allows the business to survive, the loan will be taken every time.

The economy is a mess and securing the financial markets is a necessity; however, writing a $700 billion blank check is not the answer.Members of Congress should follow the Hippocratic Oath and “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, if they were smart enough to be doctors they would not be running our country.

(Email Russ Purvis at russp842@yahoo.com)

HULSHOF IS LIKE THE DEAF, DUMB, AND BLIND KID

Posted 9/19/08

As we continue the long march toward the general election, I continue to be amazed at how boring the Republican candidate for governor actually is. He makes dishwater seem exciting. I cannot decide if it his personality, his lack of original ideas, or a combination thereof that makes me need to take a nap whenever I see his image or hear him speak.

Not only is Kenny Hulshof boring, he is wrong for Missouri. Hulshof has spent his time in Congress supporting the failed Bush agenda over 90% of the time, voting for over 11,000 earmarks and simply missing votes.

Hulshof supported earmarks for Palin's bridge to nowhere as well as the Main Lobster Institute and the perfect Christmas tree. Palin has disavowed the bridge while keeping the funds. Hulshof has tried to distance himself from earmarks by telling all of us rubes how complicated congressional spending is.

It is not that complicated. Politicians like Hulshof take our hard earned tax dollars and use it like monopoly money to help each other get reelected. All the while the economy falls apart and ordinary citizens lose healthcare, homes and jobs.

Hulshof cares so little about the average Missourian that he could not even find time to vote for disaster relief when his own congressional district was under water. In June of this year, with flood waters ravaging his district, Hulshof skipped a vote on emergency flood aid to attend a fundraiser and accept an award from the Farm Bureau. Out of touch or out of his mind?

Even fellow Republicans were outraged. Former Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson stated at the time that it was “appalling to know that while his Congressional district was under water, Congressman Hulshof was campaigning. Given all the suffering that is going on in northeast Missouri, he should have had the guts to show up in Washington and do his job.”

Missing votes is not rare for Hulshof. In fact, he has missed 30% of the votes taken in the United States House of Representatives during 2008. He is a busy man. Fundraisers to attend, awards to accept and a campaign to run, how can he possibly be expected to do his job as a congressman?

While doing so little he has expressed a lot of truly stupid ideas. This year he has supported both the Blunt and Bush agenda, stating that both were right for the State of Missouri and the country as a whole. At the same time, Missouri has lost more jobs during the last year, 14,700, than the eight states that border her combined. The country has witnessed the day of reckoning for the Bush economic plan, as the very foundations of our financial markets have begun to collapse. But in Kenny's world all is well. He is the deaf, dumb and blind kid. I wonder if he plays a mean pinball?

He has proposed a healthcare plan that does nothing to address the over 100,000 people that the Blunt administration cruelly left without healthcare coverage in 2005. In fact, the plan has been panned by critics as doing little, if anything, to help anyone that actually needs healthcare, and cannot otherwise afford the same, obtain it.

He has also proposed an energy plan. I can describe it in seven words: billions in tax breaks to big oil.
Jay Nixon should win this election going away. The most current polling shows that Nixon leads Hulshof by fifteen points. The people of Missouri have met the enemy and he is Hulshof. Luckily we are smart enough to vote against him.

(Russ Purvis won’t put you to sleep. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

MCCAIN IS JUST ANOTHER GLADHANDING POLITICIAN

Posted 9/12/08

The Republican lovefest ended last week as it began, devoid of substance. Palin lied about turning down the bridge to nowhere. In fact, she campaigned for governor favoring the issue and then used the money, just not to build the bridge. John McNasty, (not a nickname original to me, he has been called that since high school) delivered a typical horrid speech about his version of the need for change.

Apparently, in McNasty's world, all of Washington needs to change. Well, all of Washington with the exception of John McNasty. This attitude can be traced back to his involvement with the “Keating Five.”

For those of you too young to remember, so old you have forgotten, or maybe you are among those that simply never new about this aspect of the Nasty Man, the Keating Five scandal occurred during the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980's. In 1987 Charles Keating was the owner of an Arizona savings and loan. He thought that the government was going to seize the S&L and sought the help of McNasty and four other senators to keep that from happening.

McNasty and the other four met with the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and with other bank regulators. Keating's S&L was not seized for another two years. Ultimately, the taxpayers had to bail out Keating's failed S&L to the tune of $2.6 billion. Investors in the S&L lost $190 million.

At the time of McNasty's intervention, Keating had donated more than $112,000 to McNasty campaigns. The McNasty family had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense to Keating's Bahamas getaway. McNasty did not report the trips as required by congressional rules until after the scandal became public. If that were not suspect enough, the year before the intervention, Cindy McNasty and her father invested over $350,000 in a strip mall being developed by Keating.

Following the failure of Keating's S&L, the Keating Five were investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. While finding that McNasty's action did not rise to the level of criminal activity, he was found to have exercised very poor judgment. Keating was ultimately convicted of criminal fraud after a long drawn out legal battle.

In typical political fashion, McNasty cried crocodile tears about the whole affair. Ironically, he, along with many ill-informed Americans; now consider McNasty a champion of political reform. However, not everyone shares this view. Uber conservative Mark Levin has for years railed against McNasty on the issue. In a 2001 National Review Online article regarding the Keating Five affair, Levin wrote that “the John McCain of old should be thankful that his political fate wasn't determined by John McCain the reformer” because “by his own standard, McCain is corrupt.”

Many Republicans act offended when this matter is brought up. They always trot out the old chestnut--McCain's POW experience. The two are not related. In fact McCain's actions as a United States Senator, and the lack of judgment that he has shown in that capacity, provide much better insight into how he might handle being president of the United States.

McNasty is not a maverick. He is just another glad handing politician, the type that needs to be changed, who will say and do anything to win. His pick of Palin has settled any debate about just how calculating he actually is. McNasty is willing to place within a heartbeat of the presidency a liar that believes that attempts at book banning and selling a state asset on eBay represents executive experience and leadership.

Don't be fooled. McNasty represents everything you hate about the current political culture. He has shown the same lack of judgment during this campaign that he did during the Keating Five scandal. Do the right thing. Vote for real change. Vote for Obama.

(Russ Purvis is a Landmark maverick. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

IS SARAH PALIN PREPARED TO BECOME PRESIDENT?

Posted 9/5/08

Sarah Palin. Really? John McCain has picked an inexperienced right winger from a state most people in the continental United States can barely find on a map. Good call. Even the Republicans alleged biggest supporter, God, seems to disapprove of the pick, using a hurricane to delay the Republican's convention for a day.

In all seriousness, the pick makes little sense. By picking Palin, McCain may be trying to overcome the age gap, and appeal to women that really wanted Hillary. Palin will not help him with either issue. First of all she may be only 44, but she is now going to be a grandmother. Grandmother and young are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Second, any woman that supported Hillary on issues will not vote for a woman that is a lifetime member of the NRA, opposes abortion rights and opposed teaching sex education in schools. Although, she is probably reconsidering that last decision.

The right wingers have attempted to shore Palin up with what little lumber they have available. She has been described as a “maverick” and as a “true conservative.” If a “maverick” and “true conservative” is a governor currently under investigation for ethical issues relating to the attempt to fire her sister's ex-husband from his job out of spite, then she qualifies as both.

The person filling the role of vice president is literally a heart beat away from being the president of the United States. Like his policies or not, the Republicans have to acknowledge that if called to do so, Joe Biden can fill the role. McCain is 72 years old and has suffered from several cancer scares. Can any Republican actually argue with a straight face that Sarah Palin is prepared to become president?

Even newspapers in Palin's home state have questioned McCain's pick. In an August 29, 2008, editorial, the Fairbanks News-Miner wrote, “Most people would acknowledge that, regardless of her charm and good intentions, Palin is not ready for the top job. McCain seems to have put his political interests ahead of the nation's when he created the possibility that she might fill it.''

Aside from all of the issues relating to Palin personally, there is the larger issue of what this pick says about McCain. McCain is supposed to be the “Maverick”, a reformer that will take on his own party and will not play politics as usual. The Palin pick represents absolutely the opposite of what McCain is supposed to be about.

Palin is simply red meat for the conservative party faithful. She is a superficial pick designed to make McCain more palatable to the most conservative wing of the party. Guns, babies and oil, she appears to represent everything they seem to care about. McCain, with this pick, has provided proof that it is all smoke, mirrors and marketing with the Republicans.

Palin has the distinction of being the first female Republican to run for vice president. She will also have the distinction of being the first Republican woman to lose such an election.

Go Obama!

(In case you couldn’t tell, Russ Purvis is this page’s Democrat voice. He’s also chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

BIDEN'S ABILITY TO LAND PUNCHES WILL COME IN HANDY

Posted 8/29/08

After biding his time, Barrack has picked Biden. Let the caterwauling begin. Biden is too old. Biden is too much of a political insider. Biden does not represent change. All of this and more has been alleged since the announcement was made last Saturday.

The truth of the matter is that Obama has finally demonstrated one quality that, like it or not, is required of a President, pragmatism. Biden is not the perfect pick. He has suffered from foot in mouth and diarrhea of the mouth on more than a few occasions. That being said, he provides Obama with two things that he is lacking as he campaigns against McCain: vast experience in foreign policy; and, the bare knuckled sensibilities of a street fighter when it comes to destroying a political opponent.

Those that argue Biden does not represent the “change” that Obama has made his mantra, do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that change involves much more than disregarding the past based on the hope of finding a better future. True fundamental change involves three things: first a thorough examination of the problems that we are facing; second, there must be a sorting process during which things that work are preserved and those that are not are set to the side to either be repaired or disregarded; and, third, based on what has been discovered during the first two steps of the process, new ideas will emerge and can be implemented.

Biden, because he has been a public servant for so long, will bring a lifetime of insight and ideas regarding the problems that this country is facing and what is and is not working. He represents a solid foundation upon which Obama's vision of change can be built. Furthermore, as a political insider, he understands how to operate the levers of power and should be able to put Obama's agenda on a fast track.

Biden's ability to land punches against the opposition is also critical. Too many Democrats suffer from the view that nice works in political campaigns. Nice does not work. Politicians that campaign nicely can be described with one word: losers. As an aside, that word also describes the so-called Democrats for Graves that have been popping up in our community and which I am sure we will be outing/discussing very soon.

Obama has been too nice for too long. Negative campaigning is necessary because it works. Biden will have no problem wielding a stiletto in one hand and a ball bat in the other. Let the carnage begin! Or as Michelle Obama put it during her speech Monday evening: “Stop doubting and start dreaming.”

Republicans argue that Biden cannot be trusted because he allegedly plagiarized a speech during a prior campaign. John McCain's first marriage ended in large part because he screwed around on his wife, so who really cannot be trusted? If you are truly a part of the family values crowd your answer has to be McCain.

Obama and Biden form a strong ticket that we can all support and elect in November. In the words of Ted Kennedy, “The work begins anew. The hope rises again, and the dream lives on.” Give 'em hell, Obama/Biden!!

(Russ Purvis bring bare knuckled sensibilities to this page every week. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

DONNELLY'S DECISION HURTFUL TO DEMOCRATS

Posted 8/22/08

Every once in a while we all have those “what the %#*!” moments. Two of our Democratic candidates have caused me such moments in the last few weeks.

My first “what the %#*!” moment involves Hillary. Still trying to “triangulate” her way into relevance at the convention next week, she has threatened, pleaded or somehow bullied Obama into agreeing to a process wherein she does not do the gracious and correct thing, which would be to release her pledged delegates. Instead Hillary's name will be placed in nomination and her delegates will be required to cast at least one ballot for her. She claims this is for Democratic Party unity. That is only true if soothing Clinton Incorporated's wounded ego is good for the Democratic Party.

What this action really does is hurt the Democratic Party and hurt Obama. Democrats will appear split and undecided on a candidate requiring Obama to spend time stating how great Hillary is, time which needs to be used setting forth a more detailed vision of how he will lead this country when elected.

Hillary supporters offer lame excuses which all come across as whining. Hillary lost. If you were a Hillary supporter that is still threatening to vote for any candidate other than Obama for President then you are not a Democrat and should leave the Democratic Party. You, nor Hillary, are entitled to or should expect special treatment at the Democratic National Convention.

My second “what the %#*!” involves Margaret Donnelly. Ms. Donnelly was one of the Democratic candidates for Missouri Attorney General that lost to Chris Koster in the primary on August 5th.

The race was close. Donnelly lost to Koster by 794 votes. Donnelly has now demanded a recount. It is Donnelly's contention that a one vote swing in 25% of the precincts, not counties, could turn the race in her favor. The assumptions that have to be made to come up with that bit of logic almost defy description.

First, one has to assume Koster will not pick up any votes to offset Donnelly's gains. Second one has to assume the Donnelly will not lose any votes due to tabulation errors and the like. Third, one has to discount the fact that the third candidate, Jeff Harris, may also pick up a few votes in the recount at Donelly's expense. Finally, one has to assume, after taking into account all of the above, that there are enough incorrect or uncounted votes to make up the difference between Koster and Donnelly.

Koster is hard medicine for many to swallow. He is a recent convert and many question his credibility. But in this race, for this office, he is now the Democratic nominee and he will be the Democratic nominee on the November ballot. Donnelly, like Hillary, is only hurting the Democratic Party with her actions.

Koster's decision to leave the Republican Party and join the Democrats has come at a high personal and political cost. He lost many friends, gained many enemies and was left to wander in the political wilderness by most. Yet he remains a Democrat. I find it hard to believe that he did this out of simple opportunism. Those that do might want to first walk a mile in his moccasins.

Donnelly needs to do the right thing and drop the recount. All of us that call ourselves Democrats must do the right thing and vote for Koster in November.

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

RUSSIA HAS REASSERTED ITSELF WITH A VENGEANCE

Posted 8/15/08

The oppressive heat of August gave way last week when a new and possibly more volatile version of the old Cold War blew across the United States with the force of a hurricane. The Bush administration, caught unprepared, is frantically searching for shelter from what could be a very long, cold, hard winter.

Late last week, the former Soviet republic of Georgia decided to invade South Ossetia, a region bordering southern Russia and northern Georgia that declared its autonomy from both years ago, but politically leans toward Russia. It is undisputed that Georgia's action resulted in a great loss of life and destruction of property.

Georgia has not provided an adequate explanation for its military misadventure. No matter the stated reason, a powder keg has been set off that the Georgians cannot contain. Russian troops quickly responded to aid South Ossetia and, at this point in time, Russia has effectively cut Georgia in half. It is unclear if the Russians will occupy the country or simply overthrow the existing government and disable the military.

For years, Bush has held Georgia up as an example of a flower of democracy growing out or the ash heap of the old Soviet Union. It turns out that Georgia may have simply been a noxious weed more concerned with settling old blood feuds than a democratic republic focused on becoming a vital player on the world stage. I say may have been because whatever it was is gone, and whatever it is to become will be determined by Vladimir Putin.

If you view the world as a chess board, the Russians have now placed the United States in “check.” The U.S. is faced with limited options, all of which will have to be designed to save face without escalating tensions with the Russians. Even if the Russians can be convinced to withdraw from Georgia, they have still accomplished an unstated goal: Mother Russia is back and ready to assert itself over the entire region that was once the Soviet Union and beyond, and there is nothing any country can do to stop it.

Historians will point to this moment when discussing the utter collapse of the Bush administration's foreign policy apparatus. As a result of invading Iraq and failing to plan for peace and allowing all of the early gains in Afghanistan to begin to rot on the vine, the economy is not stable and our military is stretched to the breaking point. At the same time, Bush has consistently misjudged Russia.

Bush once stated that he got a sense of Putin's soul when he looked into his eyes. He should have been looking for the knife Putin was palming in his hand because it is now firmly lodged in the back of the United States.

Russia simply bided its time. Flush with oil money and a feeling that it has not been given proper respect on the world stage, Russia has now reasserted itself with a vengeance. By contrast the United States appears to be a feeble old eunuch.

It will be left to the next administration to lead us out of this cold spell. Politically this issue should be advantageous to McCain. He has always been an extreme voice on Russia. He should be able to use this issue to rally conservative Republicans that are lukewarm to his candidacy. He has stated that he too has looked into Putin's eyes and all he saw was K.G.B.

Obama is a blank slate. He must define himself on this issue before McCain owns it. Somewhere between Bush's extreme incompetence and McCain's simplistic extremism is the path to a resolution of this issue. Obama has to find it for his sake and for the sake of all of us.

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

THE RISING NATIONAL TREND AMONG VOTERS

Posted 8/8/08

The countdown to victory is on. The primary season has ended and we are finally ready to get down to the serious business of electing new, Democratically controlled governments at the national, state and local level across the country. As Democrats we have to feel great about our chances.

At the national level the Obama wave rolls on and is about to wash over John McCain with such force and effect that he will be a little more than a historical footnote. When the best seawall you can construct against an incoming tidal surge is a lame ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton, you know you are about to be swamped.

Still national, but with a great deal of local flavor, is the congressional race pitting Self Dealing Sam against Kay Barnes. Barnes has raised more money from a wider range of voters than Graves and, with each new round of polling, is showing that she is that much closer to burying Graves. The latest polls show Self Dealing Sam receiving less than 50% of the vote in the general election. That is a terrible percentage for a well-financed incumbent.

As exciting as Obama's historic race and Barnes potential butt kicking of Graves is, a rising national trend among voters may actually be more important to the future of the Democratic Party as a whole. The New York Times recently reported that since 2005 there has been a reduction in the number of voters registering as Republican and a rise in the number registering as Democrat. The Times article went on to report that in “Nevada and Iowa, Democrats have surprised their own party officials with significant gains in registration. In both of those states, there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans, a flip from 2004.”

One might argue that this is a short term blip on the electorate radar. However, researchers who study elections and voting trends believe that a movement is underway. According to the Times article, year-to-year swings in party registration are not that uncommon but for a trend to go on for over three years is, as the Times put it, “remarkable.” Michael P. McDonald, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, believes that the trend is “very suggestive that there is a fundamental change going on in the electorate.”

I for one say THANK GOD! Although, if the Republicans are correct, God cannot have a hand in this because he (the Rs always apply the masculine here) is on their side.

The article is also interesting for the fact that Senator McCaskill is prominently pictured. McCaskill is evidence of the fact that even in states like Missouri where we do not register by party, the trend toward Democrats is occurring.

How do we capitalize on all of this good news and win not only 2008 but in the years to come? It requires hard work. Coach Bobby Knight once said that while “most people have the will to win, few have the will to prepare to win.” Preparation requires the involvement of each and every one of you. If you have not been involved in a political campaign, now is the time to do so. It is very simple. Stop by county campaign headquarters or call me and you can get started immediately. Complaining is easy. Preparing to win is hard. Failing to win would be disastrous.

(Russ Purvis is chairman of the Platte County Democratic Party. Contact him at Russp842@yahoo.com)

WHY GOVERNMENT DEFICITS DO MATTER

Posted 8/1/08

Senator Kent Conrad sure got it right when he said that “if they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze.” Shrub is now the proud papa of what is expected to be the United States' highest budget deficit on record, coming into the world at a whopping $482 billion dollars.

Bush, in announcing the arrival, said it was a short term phenomenon relating to economic pressures. I think he was trying to say that this baby was an unplanned surprise. I wonder if he gave any thought to abort… never mind that is another column. His excuse might be easier to accept if he had not previously brought four other record setting deficits into the world. Eight years in office and five record setting deficits will be a part of his tortured legacy.

Those Republicans that bloviate daily on talk radio, such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, about the good old days of Reagan must be pleased as punch. Not since Reagan has the deficit been this out of control. As Representative John Spratt of South Carolina recently pointed out, “Mr. Bush came into office with the biggest surpluses in history and he will leave office with the biggest deficit in history.”

Based on Shrub's performance I think that we can finally put to rest the rumor that Republicans represent small government and fiscal restraint. In 1981, the first year of Reagan's administration, the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was at its lowest point since 1931. What did Reagan do? He went on a spending spree. By 1992, the end of Bush the elder's term, national debt was at a high point not seen since the Korean War.

Luckily, Bill Clinton came along. By the end of the Clinton term the country was looking at a budget surplus. Shrub quickly changed that. Republicans now spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince all of us that deficits do not matter. Deficits do matter.

When your government overspends it is forced to borrow. It issues bonds to cover the debt. Fully 75% of the deficits during the past eight years have been financed by foreign countries such as China and Middle Eastern oil exporters buying the bonds.

When a government is too deep in the red it crowds out other investors by shrinking the amount of available investment capital. The result is that businesses find it more difficult to borrow funds to expand or buy capital goods which has a negative impact on the economy, reduces tax revenues and leaves government needing to borrow more.

The cost of borrowing the funds further impacts the government's ability to deliver services. The interest on government borrowing is currently $377.3 billion per year. In the long-term, this expense combined with defense spending, social security and Medicare and Medicaid is simply not sustainable.

McCain claims that if elected he will balance the budget by 2013. He offers absolutely no explanation as to how he will do this. If a tax increase is truly off of the table he will be forced to drastically cut government spending across the board, including military spending. Simply containing the growth of government will not be enough. Bush has put all of us in a terrible situation. But don't give up Hope. There is still time enough time to Change course. Yet one more reason to vote Obama.

(Russ Purvis, chairman of the Platte County Democratic Central Committe, gives you his thoughts in The Landmark each week. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

A CONTEST TO DETERMINE THE TALLEST MIDGET

Posted 7/24/08

The Republican Primary for Governor of Missouri has started to resemble a contest to determine the tallest midget, or height challenged individual to those concerned with political correctness. Both Sarah Steelman and Kenny Hulshof appear shorter than Matt Blunt which is a real challenge, since at last check he was four feet nothing and shrinking under the weight of his failed administration.

If the race was based solely on the ability to raise money, Hulshof would be winning the battle. During the past quarter he raised almost four times more money than Steelman. Money will play a role but raising it will not necessarily spell victory.

If the race was based solely on physical appeal, Steelman would win the contest. Hulshof looks drawn, tired, and slightly bug eyed. By comparison, Steelman generally appears happy and energetic, like a hyperactive PTA mom, even when she is evading anything resembling a penetrating question. But being better looking than Hulshof will not be enough for Steelman. Republicans are not known for basing elections on looks alone. In fact, Republicans tend to have a habit of electing candidates that resemble Alfred E. Neuman - think Matt Blunt and George Bush.

Both candidates appear to be playing the “family values” card. In Steelman's case that means opposing stem cell research and expressing an antiquated fear of homosexual rights. For Hulshof it appears to mean opposing stem cell research while favoring Medicaid reimbursement for Viagra.

Hulshof's Viagra position is interesting. He supports Governor Blunt's decision to figuratively screw 200,000 poor people out of Medicaid coverage and at the same time supports Medicaid coverage which will allow those with sexual dysfunction to literally screw again. Of course birth control is not covered. It is a family values thing.

With regard to stem cell research, both voice strong opposition but their actions indicate otherwise. Hulshof has pointed out that Steelman has received contributions from groups favoring stem cell research. Steelman has pointed out that Hulshof has invested in a life sciences research mutual fund and he also accepted donations from groups supporting stem cell research.

This is a fun knife fight to watch for a couple of reasons. First, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of both candidates on the issue. Second, it shows that both are attempting to cater to the radical right of the party which means that in the general election Jay Nixon should be able to craft a message that will appeal more moderate voters.

The only other issue of substance that Steelman and Hulshof have sparred over is ethanol. As we all recall many Missouri Republican officeholders, or their immediate family members, are attempting to get rich off of an ethanol mandate pushed through by the Republican controlled legislature. To her credit, Steelman has used her office to attempt to curtail the profiteering by elected officials. However, both Steelman and Hulshof have supported the mandate.

As a result of the mandate, the average Missourian pays more for food. Steelman has reversed positions and Hulshof claims she has flipped on the issue for political expediency.

Where are the big issues and ideas? None have been discussed. As Democrats we have to hope that in the primary election Hulshof turns out to be an inch taller than Steelman. He will be easier for Nixon to beat in the general election because, in the words of that former Democrat Dick Morris, “voters in Missouri often send their state officials to Washington to clean things up but rarely invite Washington politicians to move to Jefferson City to dirty things up!”

(Russ Purvis is not only a Landmark columnist. He’s also chair of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Reach him at russp842@yahoo.com)

WE HAVE BECOME A NATION OF WHINERS

Posted 7/17/08

This past week, former Senator and current McCain economic advisor Phil Gramm was scorched by a firestorm of criticism after he stated that “[w]e have sort of become a nation of whiners.” McCain quickly distanced himself from the statement and Obama took great pains to draw a little political blood. Neither candidate demonstrated the courage to start a dialogue with the American public about whether there is some truth to Gramm's statement. There is.

We have become a have-it-all and have-it-right-now culture. Pain of any kind, real or imagined, mental, physical or economic cannot be tolerated. This is a relatively new phenomenon, the beginnings of which can be traced directly to the birth of the Baby Boom generation. Prior to the end of World War II, Americans were generally forged in a furnace of deprivation and tempered by the cold reality of hardship. The end result produced citizens that birthed a nation, kept it from splitting apart, dominated the industrial revolution, won two world wars and created the highest standard of living in the history of the human existence.

The Boomers and subsequent generations have been forged in the furnace of abundance and tempered by nothing more than a sense of entitlement. As a result, we have become a nation of whiners.

The current economic situation proves the truth of the statement. Let me begin by stating that we are not in a recession. A recession is defined as two successive quarters of declining real gross domestic product. We have not even had one quarter of declining GDP. In fact, the economy grew by 1% last quarter and close to that amount during the fourth quarter for 2007. Compare this growth to the almost 30% decline in GDP during the Great Depression.

What about unemployment? In February of 2008 it was 4.8%. The rate is currently 5.2%. I had an economics professor in college in the 80's that insisted that anything under 5.25% was full employment. Compare these numbers to the Great Depression when 24% of the workforce was unemployed.

The press has overblown the fact that a large bank in California failed. Never mind the fact that the accounts are insured up to $100,000 and that several banks fail each year. In fact, a bank in Kansas City, Kansas failed just last year. Here again, compare this with the Great Depression when roughly 40% of all banks failed and there was no such thing as FDIC insurance.But the stock market is falling. The market is always subject to correction but over time it has shown a steady growth. It is a long term investment not the day trading profit-right-now game that many wish it to be. During the Great Depression the market lost 90% of its value.

Much is being made of the price of gas. Well, we have to be honest and admit that we have failed to take action to secure the resources necessary to be energy independent. Gas is now about $3.89 a gallon. Adjusting for inflation, a gallon of gas in 1918 was over $3.50 per gallon.

The largest group of whiners involves home foreclosures. According to the media, not a single homeowner facing foreclosure is in any way at fault for the situation. No person is entitled to own a home and no one should buy a home that he or she cannot afford. Doing so results in a hard economic lesson for those involved. However, the rest of us should not have to bail our neighbor out because he or she gambled and lost.

Of course Uncle Sugar is more than willing to come to the rescue. Politicians buy votes anyway they can. But enough is enough. You enter this world with nothing and leave it the same way. Everything in the middle is gravy, so stop whining and enjoy the time you have on the planet.

(Russ Purvis is chairman of the local Democratic Party. Contact him at russp842@yahoo.com)

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGALS AND ILLEGALS

Posted 7/11/08

John Adams has been credited with stating that ours is a “nation of laws, not men.” Unfortunately, that fundamental concept of our democratic republic is often overlooked when discussing the illegal immigration issue in the United States. No one person or group of people can be allowed to operate outside of the law. Illegal immigrants are doing just that and certain groups continue to attempt to justify this action.

As a party, Democrats need to keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between legal and illegal immigration. The Democratic Party cannot allow itself to be hijacked by the far left wing that attempts to paint every reaction to illegal immigration, and every action taken to curb it, as a racist attempt to exclude poor immigrants from all our great nation has to offer. To view illegal immigration through this broken prism of political correctness is simply absurd.

To be certain, immigration policy is not perfect. In fact the federal government, bowing to pressure primarily from business interests, has done little in the last twenty years to make improvements to immigration laws or, until recently, to properly enforce laws currently on the books. Ironically, the new attitude toward enforcement has created strange bedfellows. Far left Democrats and business interests now both complain about immigration policy but for completely different reasons.

The far left argues that it is a human rights issue. However, existing laws allow for human rights abuses. Individuals can petition for political asylum. A bad economic situation and a desire to escape from it while often heart wrenching is not a human rights issue. For the vast majority of illegal immigrants crossing the border is a purely economic decision.

The business backlash results from the fact that illegal immigrants provide a large pool of very cheap labor. Illegal immigrants, by virtue of their lack of legal status in the country, have no bargaining power as it relates to wages so they can be and are used and abused by certain unscrupulous employers. These employers justify this action by arguing that no American will take the jobs. The argument is simply a lie. The truth is that they can find no takers at the wage being offered which means that the businesses in question have outsized profit expectations or are based on flawed business models.

If a business cannot survive unless it hires illegal immigrant workers at an artificially low wage rate then it is a business that should fail. The market will always correct for such inefficiencies. A higher wage rate may lead to a higher cost to the consumer; however, if it is a product that consumers desire it will be purchased. If not, it is a product that does not belong on the market.

By blurring the lines between legal and illegal immigrants, a great disservice is done to those who came to this country legally and to those currently attempting to do so. To immigrate legally demonstrates a great desire to become a part of the fabric of our society and a respect for the rule of law. Illegal immigration demonstrates a willingness to break the law to achieve a personal goal.

Issues surrounding immigration policy will always exist and society must work to create fair and workable solutions. However, the nation cannot bow to or be bullied by the disparate interests promoting wide open borders.

(Chairman of your local Democratic party, The Landmark’s Russ Purvis can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

GASOLINE PRICE GOUGING DOESN'T CONCERN GRAVES

Posted 7/3/08

How can you tell Sam Graves is lying? His lips are moving. He simply cannot stop himself and by doing so continues to provide evidence of the fact that he is not fit to serve as our congressman. For the past several weeks he has been making appearances around the 6th District alleging that the Chinese are drilling for oil no more than forty miles off of the coast of Florida. The story is a lie.

Graves, in a convoluted conspiracy theory, alleges that China is taking oil from forty miles off of the coast because of an alleged 1970's treaty with Cuba. As Republican Senator Mel Martinez stated on the floor of the United States Senate on June 11, 2008, this is nothing more than an “urban legend”. According to Senator Martinez, no country is currently drilling in that area. Dick Cheney has also stated that there is no truth to the story.

When presented with this evidence what did Graves do? He appeared in Parkville on June 16, 2008, and told the story again. The story serves a dual purpose for Graves. First, it scares the voters and allows him to appear to be a man on a mission to stop such dastardly actions by foreigners. Second, as a pawn of Big Oil, it allows him to push Big Oil's agenda, which calls for drilling in the area.

The lie is bad enough, but the fact that he is doing it to serve the interests of Big Oil makes it worse. The average price for a gallon of gas is $4.06 per gallon. Oil companies are making record profits and Graves is placing Big Oil's interests in front of the needs of his constituents.

While Graves attempts to scare us with his Florida story, he gave Big Oil a pass on failing to explore 68 million leased acres of federal land. Graves voted against a bill that would have required Big Oil to explore or relinquish their existing leases before receiving new ones.

Since 2001, Graves has voted for over $50 billion dollars in corporate welfare for Big Oil at the expense of every citizen of the 6th District. Keep in mind that the country's five largest oil companies made a combined profit of $123 billion in 2007. Even so, Graves voted this year to maintain over $18 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil.

With the price of gas and the amount of profit generated, price gouging has to be a concern for the citizens of the 6th District. It does not concern Graves. He has, on four separate occasions, voted against measures that would have allowed the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute price gouging.

While supporting corporate welfare for Big Oil, he has turned his back on supporting alternative energy such as wind power. He voted five times against renewing the wind power production tax credit. He has also voted against increasing funding for renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy.

He does support ethanol, which is driving up the price of food. Of course the family has an interest in an ethanol facility.

The reason for the sellout to Big Oil is as old as politics itself--money. Graves has received $53,000 from oil and gas interests. Exxon donated $2,000 just a few days before a key energy policy vote.

Our economy is burning and Sam Graves is helping Big Oil fan the flames. If you do nothing else this year, show up at your polling place on Election Day and vote against Big Oil, vote against Sam Graves.

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

DEMOCRATS SELL OUT ON EAVESDROPPING ISSUE

Posted 6/27/08

You may not even know it yet, but all of us, every last man, woman and child living in the United States of America were all the victims of a violent and horrific crime last Thursday. Like a thief in the night, our congressional leaders snuck up behind us, stuck a knife in our collective back, left us bleeding in the street and ran off with our Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

It is doubly painful for those of us who consider ourselves Democrats. We were all living under the assumption, which sadly turns out to be false, that all of the Democrats in Congress cared about our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.

The crime in question involves the overhaul of the rules relating to the eavesdropping powers of the federal government. In December of 2005, Criminal in Chief Shrub Bush was caught breaking existing laws relating to eavesdropping. It was his contention that warrants and such were simply not required when the Commander in Chief is acting in defense of the nation.

The telecommunications companies also played the role of willing accomplice in the conspiracy to steal our right to privacy by providing all of the information requested without requiring the necessary warrants. At present, there are more than 40 class action lawsuits pending against the industry relating to the release of the information.

According to Missouri's own Roy Blunt, under the agreed changes to the eavesdropping statutes the telecommunications companies will be granted immunity and the current lawsuits will be dismissed. The administration will not be held accountable for the six years of illegal eavesdropping that started after September 11th.Warrants for eavesdropping will not be required if the case is one where the administration determines that “critical intelligence could be lost” in the time it might take to go see a judge. In other words, warrants are not required.

Furthermore, the White House will not go on record stating that the legislation, to the degree that it requires anything of the executive branch, is controlling. The Shrub White House is still of the opinion that the Commander in Chief can circumvent the law.

How big was the Democrat sellout? In the words of Senator Kit Bond: “I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get.”Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, one of the few critical Democrats, best described the outcome when he stated that the deal “is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.”

This is why and how the Democratic Party loses. As a Party, you cannot sell out a constitutionally protected right. What if the far left decided to push legislation that would impair the right to bear arms? You can bet the Republicans would not fold up, run away and call it a compromise. The real kicker is that we Democrats are in the majority. We control the flow of legislation. If our Democratic leaders had one set of stones among the entire lot of them, the matter would never have even made it to this stage.

Steny Hoyer, House Democratic Majority Leader, played a major role in this debacle and then tried to put lipstick on the pig. He stated that the agreement “is the result of a compromise, and like any compromise is not perfect, but I believe it strikes a sound balance.”He is an idiot who should be voted out of office as soon a possible.

If there is a lesson to be learned from this it is that all of us have to pay very close attention to what is happening in Washington. Our Constitutional rights are ours to lose and last week we let one get away.

(When he isn’t penning a column for The Landmark, Russ Purvis is an attorney and chairman of the Platte County Democratic Central Committee. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

WHAT WILL SHRUB DO TO CIRCUMVENT COURT DECISION?

Posted 6/19/08

Late last week, the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush handed down its decision regarding right of those being held at Guantanamo Bay to a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In doing so, it dealt another stinging defeat to the Shrub's Imperial Presidency.

Despite all of the hand wringing and histrionics by the right, the court made the correct decision. The decision is limited to prisoners held at Guantanamo. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a legal concept that has been around since the middle ages. Habeas Corpus is Latin for “you have the body.” As a legal principal, it stands for the proposition that a prisoner has the right to be brought before a court to know the nature of the charge against him or her, the factual basis for the charge and whether he or she should continue to be detained. No citizen of the United States should disagree with this concept.

Unfortunately, many citizens do. A large number of Americans have decided to surrender liberty for safety, or at least the illusion of safety. It appears that even the great Justice Scalia has succumbed. In his dissent to the Boumediene opinion, he actually writes that the decision will “certainly cause Americans to be killed” and “[t]he Nation will live to regret what the Court has done.” Such statements are simply raw meat for the conservative masses. Scalia has no basis for making such wild accusations. He is simply playing to his audience.

When we begin to surrender our liberty are we not surrendering our way of life? If that is true then we have already lost the war on terror no matter how many people we detain. It was Benjamin Franklin that said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Neither our liberty nor safety will be compromised by the granting of a Writ of Habeous Corpus. If reason exists to continue the detention of an individual, he or she will be detained. If not, then our government owes a great debt to any person held without reason.

Opponents of liberty (EOLs), such as Scalia, base their arguments against allowing detainees the right to a Writ of Habeous Corpus on a flawed premise that every detainee is an enemy combatant. It is a leap of logic based on the necessity of believing our government never makes a mistake and never lies. The Bush administration is often mistaken and often lies when the truth might serve it better. Remember “weapons of mass destruction?”

The EOLs take the argument one step further and allege that these “enemy combatants” should be compared to POWs from World War II held on U.S. soil. In point of fact, World War II was a declared war, not a misadventure brought on by the oversized egos and undersized brains of a group of neocons that were not willing to listen to military advice. The POWs were by and large soldiers captured on the field of battle. They were not individuals that have often times been grabbed from their homes in the dead of night.

Many of the detainees currently held at Guantanamo have been held without charges for six years. If they are lucky enough to be brought before a combatant status review tribunal, they are not allowed access to any alleged evidence, they are deprived of legal counsel and the tribunal is required to assume that any information provided by the government is genuine and accurate.

The whole process has been mind-bendingly Stalinesque. Fortunately, the rule of law has finally prevailed. The question now becomes what will Shrub attempt to do to circumvent it?

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

OBAMA NEEDS TO MAKE THIS ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY

Posted 6/13/08

The field is finally set: Obama v. McCain. Not quite the "Thrilla in Manila" but it will have to suffice. Both of the fighters enter the ring at a little less than 100%. Obama is still smarting after having barely won a fifteen round decision against Hillary Clinton. McCain is entering the ring without his guaranteed knockout punch, the evangelical Christian vote that twice brought George “the Shrub” Bush victory in 2000 and 2004.

Obama's biggest shortcoming is still the fact that he lacks an identifiable, long term victory strategy. Like boxers, politicians can learn a great deal by studying those that came before them. In this campaign, Obama need look no further than the last great Democratic presidential pugilist, Bill Clinton. Just as in Clinton's title fight against George “I am not a wimp” Bush in 92, the 08 contest is about “the economy stupid”.

McCain's biggest disadvantage, aside from the rift in the Republican Party regarding who is mean, I mean conservative enough, is his admitted lack of knowledge regarding the economy. This past December McCain actually stated that "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," He went on to say "I've got Greenspan's book." He has a book? Wow! Hopefully he will have time to read it after he loses in November.

Obama should have a decided advantage over McCain if he will make the fight about the economy. With gas at $4.00 per gallon, the unemployment rate rising, inflation creeping up and the foreclosure mess still bubbling away, Obama should be loaded with good combinations to use to pound on McCain and the Republican Party. Unfortunately, Obama has already dropped his gloves and opened himself up for a punch to the face for his position on repealing the Bush tax cuts, and opposing the repeal of the estate tax.

Increasing the federal government's largess will do nothing to help the economy. It will simply act to enlarge the ever increasing size of the federal bureaucracy. Leaving the money in the pockets of the citizens that make up the government will allow for greater direct investment into the economy which will allow the economy to recover and grow at a faster rate.

Obama can recover from this misstep by changing course. Proposing a comprehensive program that maintains or even reduces the tax burden on all Americans; moves the country toward energy independence by exploring alternative sources of energy and using the natural resources we already control; and, rewards businesses that employ American citizens while punishing those that outsource to other countries that provide cheaper labor will help turn the economy around.

Obama is perceived as an agent of change. Combining this proposal with the fact that so much of the economy is based on perception should be just the one-two punch that Obama needs to defeat McCain.

While there are a host of other issues that the far left wants to discuss, this campaign will not be decided by arguing about global warming or the plight of the spotted owl. If the Republicans are to be knocked out, we Democrats cannot use a rope-a-dope strategy. Obama has to clean McCain's clock on economic issues. He should start now, before McCain finishes reading his book.

(The Landmark’s Russ Purvis can take and deliver punches with the best of them. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

BARNES REPRESENTS A SENSE OF MORALITY AND FAIR PLAY

Posted 6/6/08

Sam Graves has finally revealed himself for what he has always been, a hatemonger. His recent ad campaign against Kay Barnes is proof of this fact. Yet another reason, as if another reason is needed, to vote for Barnes and send Graves packing.

The recent ads are designed to promote racism and homophobia, containing images of black and white people dancing together in clothing that, in the mind of Graves, reflect the style choices of the gay community. The voiceover is more of the same, attacking Barnes as being a liberal with “San Francisco values.” The voiceover even refers to Kay Barnes as “Gay Barnes.”

Graves has always operated in the gutter during his political campaigns. Lies and distortions have always been his stock and trade. While running against Charlie Broomfield in 2002, Graves sent out a mailer that made it appear that Charlie had recently voted for tax increases as a state representative. Charlie had not been a state representative for almost 40 years and the votes were from the early 1960's.

During his 2006 campaign against Sara Jo Shettles, Graves ran an ad picturing Shettles with a XXX next to her image and a voiceover that led listeners to believe that she had been employed in the porn industry. The ad was a flat out lie. Shettles had previously worked for the science magazine Omni which was owned by General Media which also happened to own Penthouse.

In 2008 Graves is standing before the voters, much like the emperor in the old fairy tale the Emporer's New Clothes, stark naked, with nothing to show for his eight years as a congressman and no vision for the future. All he can do is attempt to manipulate us into believing that he is fully dressed by launching unfounded personal attacks against Kay Barnes and accessorizing himself in a cloak of racism and homophobia.

Graves will continue with this charade until he is voted out of office in November. Having allowed himself to become a shill for big oil and an unapologetic supporter of every failed Bush policy that has come down the pike, he cannot run a positive campaign because he has been such a negative for the 6th District.

By continuing with this type of negative campaigning Graves will bring not only more dishonor to himself but disgrace to the people of the 6th District. The ads have already gained national criticism and will further perpetuate a stereotype that Graves had not intended to promote, that people in this part of the country are racist homophobes one generation removed from a lynch mob.

The true measure of a man or woman is how that person is remembered after they are gone. For example, Robert Kennedy is remembered best by the description provided by his brother Ted, as “a good and decent man who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.” Based on his record and his campaigning, after Barnes defeats Graves in November, he will be remembered as a hatemongering deceitful man that saw wrong and helped to perpetuate it, saw suffering and chose to ignore it, saw war and helped to continue it.

Time is too short and the issues too important to allow Graves to serve for two more years. Vote for the candidate who will work for the 6th District and not for big oil. Vote for the candidate who represents the sense of morality and fair play that defines the 6th District. Vote for Kay Barnes in November.

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

MCCAIN'S OPPOSITION TO GI BILL SHOWS ELITISM

Posted 5/30/08

John McCain has finally allowed himself to be caught up in the strong undertow of his casual elitism. No longer can it be said that McCain is a straight talking, independent maverick. He is now flying the battle flag of the elitist, rich, business uber alles flag of the Republican Party.

McCain's opposition to the bi-partisan GI Bill which has passed both houses of Congress with veto proof margins is a prime example of his elitist nature. The Senate version of the GI Bill will provide veterans with benefits comparable to the GI Bill passed following World War II.

McCain's casual elitism is a result of his life experience. Born to privilege, he was never forced to clear the hurdles of obtaining an education to better yourself that the average returning veteran faces. He did serve with distinction and suffer greatly at the hands of the enemy. This may be why he relates to the problems of soldiers in the field while being so dismissive of the problems faced by those returning home without education or financial means.

McCain opposed the new GI Bill and was not even present for the vote - he was in California fundraising. True to his elitist nature, he issued a ranting statement when criticized for his position by Obama. At the heart of it he implied that Obama should not criticize his position because he has military experience and Obama does not.

History proves that having military experience is not a valid argument for alleging that you are better positioned to address the needs of returning veterans than someone that does not have such experience. For example, General Macarthur's treatment of the bonus marchers after World War I was at best a callous abuse of power and, at worst, criminal. Either way, it demonstrated neither empathy for nor an understanding of the problems facing returning veterans. John McCain also suffers from this same lack of insight.

His opposition to the new GI Bill is that it provides too generous a benefit and would encourage soldiers not to reenlist. McCain would prefer, as the New York Times recently stated, “that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.” This is an ironic position for someone who was educated on the government dime.

In is rant against Obama, McCain also bemoaned the fact that it is expensive to train noncommissioned officers and that with the new GI Bill they might not reenlist. Is that the type of reasoning that we can expect if McCain becomes President? Should we limit the availability of higher education simply to keep people in certain jobs?

McCain also alleges that the bill will result in a 16% overall drop in reenlistments. While this may or may not be accurate, the other side of the coin is that the bill is also expected to generate a 16% increase in new recruits.

As Obama stated in response to McCain's rant, “there are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”It is time to stop simply making sweeping statements about supporting the troops on the battlefield and time to give them real and meaningful support when they return home. John McCain has proven to be unwilling to provide this type of support.
Therefore, you should be unwilling to support him for President.

(Never an elitist, The Landmark’s Russ Purvis can be reached at russp842@yahoo.com)

THERE ARE MANY THINGS FOR WHICH TO THANK JASON BROWN

Posted 5/22/08

"With a lame-duck governor who was a non-factor in the legislative process and a lame-duck House speaker who weeks ago publicly declared his apathy about accomplishing anything, it is no surprise that the legislature achieved virtually nothing this year," said House Minority Leader Paul LeVota. "Instead of improving access to health care, strengthening public education and working to improve accountability and integrity in state government, the Republican leadership skated through legislative session."

Paul is absolutely correct. The Republican led legislature proved to be a bigger embarrassment this year than in years past. That is truly an accomplishment. It would be funny if not for the fact that the Republicans' actions, and in some cases inaction, will prove to be, in the coming months and years, so harmful to the citizens of the State of Missouri.

The only solution is to vote each and every Republican that is up for reelection, out of office in November. We can start in Platte County by electing Democrat Maryanne Baier to replace Republican Jason Brown in the 30th District. Vote Jason out and let him stay home next session. He is, has been, and if reelected, will be part of the problem with the Republican controlled legislature.

When you see Jason tell him you are going to help him remain closer to home next January and thank him for all of his work on the fine Republican accomplishments that occurred during the 2008 legislative session. For example, thank Jason for the fact that the Republicans, in literally a last minute boondoggle, rolled back Missouri's campaign contribution limits. That is right, the small government, obey the will of the people and rule of law crowd rolled back the very contribution limits approved by 74% of the citizens of Missouri in a statewide election in 1994. Thanks Jason!

While you are at it, in this time of economic recession, where most of us are pinching a few pennies, thank Jason for taking such a strong stand against increasing the salaries of our Missouri House members. Wait, he did not do that. Oh well, thank him for Republican efforts to allow our poor, overworked, underpaid House members to receive the 14.6 % pay increase they so richly deserve. Thanks, Jason!

Also, thank Jason for being so sensitive to the plight of employers that are literally forced to hire illegal immigrants because none of us lazy Americans will take the jobs. Jason and the Republicans blocked tough penalties that would have been imposed on employers that knowingly hired illegal aliens. After all, businesses have to make a profit. Thanks, Jason!

Don't forget to thank Jason for his respect for the legislative process. At the beginning of the last day of the session only 47 bills had received final approval. Proving to be masters of the legislature, Jason and the Republicans passed an additional 72 bills during the final day of session. Amazing! How did they do it? Well, by limiting discussion and debate on the bills of course. Never let it be said that Jason and the Republicans will let democracy get in the way of passing Republican, special interest legislation. Thanks, Jason!

Finally, be thankful you have a choice in November. Vote for Maryanne and thank Jason for making the decision so easy. Thanks, Jason!

(The Landmark’s Russ Purvis is a leader in local Democratic politics. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

IT'S TIME FOR HILLARY TO SHOW A LITTLE BIT OF CLASS

Posted 5/15/08

A simple message to Hillary Clinton: Get out! For the sake of the Democratic Party, for the future of the United States of America, to ensure the world does not have to face the possibility of a McBush presidency get out of the Democratic primary today.

Every hour that Clinton remains in the primary only serves to make John McCain's road to the White House resemble more of a super highway than the bumpy, pothole filled, back road it has been for the last several months.

There is a school of thought that Clinton benefits Obama by staying in the primary. The theory is that by remaining in the race Clinton helps Obama become battle tested. That theory is, as my grandma Purvis might say, hogwash. My grandpa Purvis would have used a stronger term, still involving an animal, they were farmers after all, but you get my point.

The theorists pontificate on the possibility that airing Obama's dirty laundry now will save him from the fate suffered by Dukakis and Kerry. In the view of these self-described experts, both Kerry and Dukakis would have been better served by facing stronger primary competition. In my view, the theory is like a boxer asking his trainer to punch him below the belt just before stepping into the ring for a title fight, to teach him to take a punch; nothing good can come of it.

Clinton is not stupid. She has to know that she is making it harder for Obama to be elected in November. So why is she still hanging around? The answer can only be that her ego is so large that it has its own gravitational field. At this point in the game, she cannot possibly be waiting for the other shoe to drop, and for something so harmful to Obama to become public that he will be forced out of the race. If such a nuclear option existed she would have already dropped that bomb.

Clinton has no cards left to play. She can loan her campaign another $6 million and it will not make one bit of difference. Every day that passes results in Obama picking up more super delegates. If she is angling for a payoff to get out, that ship has sailed. At this point, she has nothing to offer Obama. He obviously does not need her for fundraising and, as a potential vice presidential candidate, she adds nothing to the ticket.

Clinton has said it is not too late. It is not too late for what? The only way she even has a remote chance at the nomination is by waging war at the convention. To do such a thing will splinter the Democratic Party and guarantee that McBush will be the next President of the United States.

Hillary has become the old rummy sitting at the end of the bar, a half hour after last call, with no money, asking for one last drink, too deep into her cups to know it is time to go silently into the night. The bar has closed, Hillary. Go home and sleep it off. Show at least a little bit of class and don't make us bounce you out on your rear.

(Russ Purvis is recovering from what he says was an uneventful Missouri State Democratic Convention. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

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)

ARROGANCE OF THE ELECTED PERMEATES OUR GOVERNMENT

Posted 11/16/07

In 49 B.C. Caesar crossed the Rubicon and set in motion a series of events that led to the fall of the Roman Republic and Caesar becoming dictator. On Nov. 8, Mayor Mark Funkhouser and the Kansas City Council tested the waters and crossed Kansas City’s Rubicon by voting to repeal the voter approved light rail plan.
The vote destroyed even the illusion of a democratic form of government in Kansas City, Missouri. It is now quite clear that the Kansas City residents are living under a Funktatorship.

There are those that will argue that the voter approved plan was bad. The plan may have been bad. However, the voters chose it. The voters also had the power to alter it. In fact, a citizens group was in the process of doing just that by following the process that would have put the matter back before the voters. The issue at hand is not the plan, but the un-democratic, high handed action taken by city government.

According to the Kansas City Star, council member Russ Johnson now fears placing the issue back before the voters in February of 2008, because some voters with “extreme” views might reject whatever alternative the Funktatorship offers. Extreme? What can be more extreme than disenfranchising the 74,000 voters that passed the original light rail plan?

Why should anyone that does not live in Kansas City care? Everyone should care because the action is indicative of the arrogance of the elected that permeates our government at every level. It is this arrogance that leads to voter apathy and the decline of our governmental system. We cannot afford to be apathetic.

John Quincy Adams said “[d]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.' If we, the citizens that government is supposed to represent, stand idly by and allow ourselves to be ruled and not represented, we will all be guilty of taking part in the murder by a thousand cuts of our great democratic republic.

Whenever the national government invades our collective privacy in the name of security, freedom is lost and another wound is opened. When our state government refuses to conduct business in an open fashion, attempting to keep us on the outside looking in, freedom is lost and another wound is opened. And when a local government votes to simply disregard the will of its citizenry, as reflected in a valid vote of the people, freedom is lost and yet another wound is opened that weakens our form of government

This is not a partisan issue. In fact, Kansas City’s government is elected in a nonpartisan manner, no political party affiliations appear on the ballot. There is no short-term solution to the problem that we, the ordinary citizens are facing; however, there is a simple one. Vote and otherwise get involved!

By voting and getting involved you will make a difference. You can hold your government accountable. You can make your elected officials represent, not rule you. It is not difficult to do. Voting simply requires registering nd showing up. Volunteering is also easy. Volunteer in a political campaign or get involved with a political party or club.

If you do not know how, e-mail me. Obviously, I am a Democrat but I don’t care about your political affiliation, I will give you information. You can also contact my fellow columnist, James Thomas. James' e-mail address appears on this page and he will also give you information.

The issues are too important and the stakes too high for you to do nothing. If you choose to do nothing, nothing is very likely what you will get.

(Russ Purvis, who is active in Democratic politics, will carry on a fight against arrogance among the elected exclusively in your Landmark. Email him at russp842@yahoo.com)

A VICTIM OF BLUNT TRAUMA CANNIBALISM

Posted 11/15/07

Blunt and company are beginning to look more and more like the Donner party. Lost in a criminal wilderness of their own making, they have resorted to eating their own.

The latest victim of Blunt Trauma Cannibalism is Republican, Scott Eckersley, former deputy general counsel to the governor. Why? Eckersley chose to speak truth to power regarding issouri’s Sunshine Law. Apparently, speaking the truth is a mortal sin to Blunt and his cronies.

Since taking office, the Blunt administration has played fast and loose with the Sunshine Law. The Sunshine Law is designed to make sure the public can obtain the records of its government.

In August, the governor’s chief of staff, Ed Martin, responding to a Sunshine Law request, claimed that he had rightfully destroyed e-mails relating to his attempt to perform a hatchet job on Jay Nixon. Reporters began asking questions and Blunt and Martin wandered deeper into the wilderness.

According to guidelines established in 2001 by the State Records Commission, which Blunt, who was Secretary of State at the time, chaired, the e-mails should have been retained for three years. Blunt stated he was unaware of any retention policy in his office.

Eckersley informed the governor’s office that there is a written retention policy. Martin blatantly violated it. Eckersley told the truth and Blunt and Martin decided that shooting the messenger was not sufficient and began setting the table to feast on Eckersley’s carcass.

Trying to avoid a public scene, Eckersley, a Mormon, offered to leave quietly. His only request was a letter of recommendation from Blunt to fellow Mormon and friend of Blunt, Mitt Romney’s campaign. Blunt chose instead to publicly barbecue Eckersley.

Martin fired up the grill by illegally terminating Eckersley. Another attorney in the governor’s office, Rich Aubuchon, attempted to tenderize and season Eckersley by forwarding to the press reams of documents, papers and e-mails, many of which were personal, according to reporters receiving them such as Tony Messenger of the News Leader.

Adding a little garnish to the plate, Blunt and company refused to provide those same type of documents to Eckersley’s attorney. Yes, he hired an attorney after feeling the jackboot of injustice firmly across his neck. Blunt attorney Henry Herschel informed Eckersley’s attorney that the records were closed pursuant to state law. If that is true then Rich Aubuchon has broken the law and should be indicted.

Not being one to miss a good meal, Jeff Roe, Sam Grave’s attack whale, then viciously slandered Eckersley on his blog, alleging that Eckersley is both a liar and a pervert. Of course, no Republican stoning is ever complete without John Hancock throwing a rock or two, in this case basically repeating Roe’s allegations. A Mormon has not been so viciously attacked since Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered.

Blunt and company have violated the Sunshine Law by deleting e-mails, illegally terminated an employee and, by their own admission, violated state law by releasing closed records. The sad truth is that none of this had to happen. Ed Martin could have said he was wrong and taken his lumps.

The question is why did Gov. Blunt not fire Martin and instead engage in this act of cannibalism? What does Martin know about the Blunt administration that has led it to attempt a low-rent Watergate?

We may know one day. Cover ups have a way of blowing up.

(Points from Purvis in the form of The Convenient Truth can be found each week in your Landmark. Russ Purvis, an attorney in Platte County, is active in Democratic politics. Reach him via email to russp842@yahoo.com)