Charlie Dooley Calls Obamacare Protestors “Nothing But Haters”
“John Brunner’s a friend of mine. I have a lot of Republican friends– [and] a lot of Republican contributors.”— STL county Executive Charlie Dooley
STL Beacon:
There’s an old saying that politics makes strange bedfellows. And that adage came alive, so to speak, during a clash between the three major Republicans running for the U.S. Senate…Brunner has donated to Dooley over the years, including when the Democrat was locked in a tight race with Republican attorney Bill Corrigan. Steelman wondered aloud at a Republican debate at Washington University why Brunner would support someone who was, in her words, “pro-abortion, anti-gun and pro-Obama”. Brunner responded that Dooley was a friend who “understood what the issues are for the minorities and jobs in that area.” Read more…
Soooo, Bill Corrigan didn’t understand what the issues were for minorities and jobs in the area? Really? We have to commend Mr. Brunner, he’s been good at giving programmed answers -even under tough questioning. A few weeks ago, his handlers had him conveniently throw his children under the bus when donations to a radical animal rights group were brought to light:
MOPNS:
Just curious. How is this an attack on Mr. Brunner’s children when no one knew until now that his children ran the charity in question? Read more…
Last weekend proved that all the money, handlers and consultants don’t make a dime’s worth of difference when you really don’t know the issues and you’re simply trying to buy a senate seat:
Columbia Daily Tribune:
U.S. Senate candidate John Brunner, a leading Republican candidate hoping to take on U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall, yesterday was unable to name a single federal program popular among Missourians that he thought spent too much money. His rhetoric about making tough decisions was tested, however, when time came for questions.
Wayne Ambrust of Columbia asked Brunner to name a popular program in Missouri that deserves to be cut. “To me that is the true test of someone who really wants to cut spending,” Ambrust told Brunner. “What about things that are popular here that I think are totally wasteful, like ethanol subsidies and solar energy and wind power and things like that?” Brunner was unable to come up with specifics in Missouri.Read more…
My fundraiser’s Special Guests: Cole McNary, State Treasurer Candidate with no Republican opponent (pretty much won the primary like me. On my right is another special guest Kurt Bahr, current State Rep. Also Dr. Siddiqi and his wife and Mr. Sabaz Khan & his wife. Doctor by profession & Medical Professional, two important men from Pakistani Community of the South Asian Community!
I am very impressed by the support I got today from fellow Republicans from my party, from Immigrant Community and South Asian Community and American Community!!! I am glad people understood that we the Politicians are here for public service for the people and over all Public Good and make policies that will make everyone’s lives better collectively as a society! Thank you all for coming to my fundraiser.
Michael Butler, candidate for state rep, sent out a campaign mailer focused on public schools, and his primary opponent Martin Casas – who has been shaking school choice money trees for campaign funds – responded with a email blast with a misspelling in the subject line: “Education Reform is more then [sic] political rhetoric, it’s personal,” Casas declared. Reform thyself, starting with the correct spelling of “than.” Read more…
The Hill reported yesterday, “Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and eight other Senate Democrats proposed new legislation on Tuesday that seeks to counteract the 2010 Citizens United case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot limit political spending by corporations, unions or other groups.”
And according to National Journal today, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is packing the summer schedule with symbolic, campaign trail-themed votes. . . . Democrats also plan next week to force a vote on a new version of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill to require disclosure of campaign spending by corporations and other groups.”
Of course in his speech to AEI last month, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell explained what Democrats’ partisan DISCLOSE Act is really all about: “This is the Democrats’ legislative response to Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court correctly ruled that Congress may not ban political speech based on the identity of the speaker. The DISCLOSE Act aims to get around this ruling by compelling certain targeted groups to disclose the names of their donors, while excluding others, such as unions, from doing the same. . . . What this bill calls for is government-compelled disclosure of contributions to all grassroots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents are willing to admit. Because if disclosure is forced upon some but not all, it’s not an act of good government, it’s a political weapon. And that’s precisely what those who are pushing this legislation have in mind. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to exposes its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies. And that should concern every one of us. Those pushing the DISCLOSE Act have a simple view: if the Supreme Court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, they’ll find other ways to do it.”
Indeed, in its Citizens United opinion, the Court explained, “Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. … the government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. … The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. … We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.”
Leader McConnell said, “Earlier this week, President Obama reiterated his long-standing desire to raise taxes on small businesses earning over $250,000 a year. I and all of my Republican colleagues oppose this tax hike for the same reason the President opposed it two years ago — because raising taxes would only make a bad economy worse. But here it comes again, like a bad penny, the liberal crusade for more government, regardless of the circumstances, the impact it would have on working Americans, or the broader economy.”
He asked for two votes, “One on the President’s proposal to raise taxes on nearly one million business owners in the middle of the worst economic recovery in modern times, and one that would extend current income tax rates for one year and task the Finance Committee to produce a bill that would enact fundamental, pro-growth tax reform. The Senate should make itself clear which policy it supports. This is our chance to do it. On Monday, the president said if the Senate passes this tax hike on small businesses, he would sign it right away. That’s what he said Monday, two days ago. I can’t see why our friends on the other side wouldn’t want to give him the chance.”
But Reid objected and strangely accused Republicans of filibustering the current bill on the floor simply by offering these amendments.
The AP headline basically says it all: “Democrats block Senate vote on Obama tax plan.” The Hill adds, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday rejected a Republican request to vote on President Obama’s income tax plan amid defections within his caucus on tax policy. . . . Senate Democratic leaders are worried about potential defections within their caucus on taxes. At least seven Democratic senators have declined to rule out supporting a temporary extension of the Bush-era income tax rates. Several Senate Democrats running for reelection and Democratic Senate candidates have balked at Obama’s proposal to extend income tax rates only for families earning below $250,000.”
Following Reid’s objection, McConnell responded, “Let me simplify this for everybody. The president on Monday asked that we have the vote that I’ve just offered to the majority. We have a clear contrast here, 41 straight months of unemployment over 8 percent. If this is a recovery, it’s the most tepid recovery in modern times. The President’s solution to that is to raise taxes on about a million small business owners representing about 53 percent of small business income and up to 25 percent of the work force. . . . And so my recommendation is we give the President what he asked for. He wants to have a vote on raising taxes, on individuals making over $250,000 year which, of course, includes almost a million small businesses that pay taxes as individuals, not as corporations, either S corps or LLC’s. The most successful small businesses in America, in fact. That’s a vote we welcome. It’s a vote the President’s asking for. It’s a vote I just asked for. . . . Why not have those votes today? And that’s what my consent agreement was about. I’m a little surprised that we’re not willing to give the President what he asked for, which is a vote on a clear distinction for the American people. So they can understand how the two sides look at this important issue.”
While exploring the Missouri Ethics Commission web site I found an oddity under one particular committee name that deserved a closer look, Koster for Leadership Committee.
Koster for Leadership, a Missouri committee, contains just one transaction in the amount of $23,254.25 with no assigned (MEC) Committee ID#. Problem is who was the donor? Why is it that no committee ID# exists under (MEC)?
According to (MEC) disclosure reports $23,254 was contributed to Missourians for Koster Committee #C031159 from Koster for Leadership PAC, P.O. Box 9, Harrisonville, MO 64701 as disclosed on April quarterly report 2007. The funds transfer transaction date is January 2, 2007 according to (MEC).
First let’s reflect. When did Chris Koster change party affiliation? Koster announced his change in party on August 1, 2007. Based on ‘staging influence’ web site the $23,254 was donated to Koster while Koster was still a Republican in January 2007, and likely earlier because January 2, 2007 is just the transfer funds date from PAC to PAC…Chris Koster was receiving democratic funding months before his change in party affiliation. Read more…
Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to deal with the massive tax hike scheduled for January 1st under current law: he’ll allow that tax hike to hit small businesses while putting it off for another year for other taxpayers.
As The Wall Street Journal editors put it today, “So the 2013 tax cliff is a big enough economic problem that President Obama now wants to postpone it for some taxpayers. But it isn’t so big that he’s willing to curb his desire to raise taxes on tens of thousands of job-creating businesses. That’s the essence of Mr. Obama’s announcement Monday that he wants Congress to extend current tax rates for a year, but only for those making less than $200,000 a year.”
Nearly two years ago, President Obama signed an extension of tax rates for everyone, arguing that tax increases then “would have been a blow to our economy.” But the economy today is performing even worse than it was in December 2010. At that time, real GDP growth over the prior four quarters was 3.1%, but today real GDP growth over the four previous quarters is only 2%. If tax hikes would have hurt a struggling economy then, why is the president pushing for them now?
The WSJ editors note, “Mr. Obama is demanding tax increases, not tax cuts, and large increases at that. If the Bush tax rates expire as scheduled on December 31, rates on the top two income brackets will jump to 39.6% from 35%, and 36% from 33%.” Importantly, they explain, “Congress’s Joint Tax Committee—not a conservative outfit—estimates that in 2013 about 940,000 taxpayers will have enough business income to meet Mr. Obama’s tax increase threshold. And of the roughly $1.3 trillion in net business income, about 53% will get hit with the higher tax rates. This is because millions of businesses report their income as sole proprietors and subchapter S corporations that file under the individual tax code.”
No wonder the AP reports today, “The economy and uncertain political climate are taking a toll on small business owners’ optimism, making them hesitant to expand. The National Federation of Independent Business said its index of small business owners’ sentiment fell 3 points in June to 91.4 after edging lower in May. The index, compiled from a survey of NFIB members, shows that business owners are concerned about the economy. The number of owners expecting business conditions to improve in six months fell 8 percentage points and the number expecting their sales to rise slid 5 percentage points. . . . Owners said they are scaling back plans to hire and to buy equipment. That’s a troubling sign for the U.S. labor market, which is struggling to gain traction.”
“Conservative Republican” John Brunner’s conservative bona fides have taken quite a hit these last couple of weeks. First, he basically throws his children under the bus after it was revealed that a charity he and his wife control gave money to a radical animal rights group. Next, we learn that he donated money (here and here) to his “friend” Charlie Dooley when Dooley was in a very competitive race with a real conservative Republican back in 2010. And now this disturbing news from Politico:
John Brunner, the wealthy Republican businessman locked in a competitive three-way primary for a shot at the first-term Democrat, was more than two months late paying property taxes on his company’s private aircraft in 2006, according to records provided to POLITICO by a Democratic operative.
According to St. Louis County property tax records, Vi-Jon Services — the hand sanitizer company where Brunner was CEO — paid $9,287 in taxes on March 9, 2007. It owed $8,589 on Dec. 31 of the previous year but was charged close to $700 for being tardy. Read more…
Mr. Brunner seems to be a nice man with a very successful track record as a businessman, but after watching his debate performances, it becomes more apparent that he doesn’t have a clue. When he answers questions, it’s like watching Watson the computer from Jeopardy searching through it’s memory banks for the correct answer. You almost expect to see a string hanging out the back of his suit that you can pull to get the right programmed answer from his handlers. In one debate, Mr. Brunner actually said he’s going to Washington to be bi-partisan. No Mr. Brunner, we’re not looking for bi-partisanship, we’re looking for a strong conservative to stop the Obama agenda and the decline of our country.
