Wake Up Call Review

Here are this week's most popular posts:

1. Mr. Olivo goes to Washington


2. Which one is better than the other?


3. Rod Jetton's mouth is a Democrats' best friend


4. Karl Rove's America


5. Suburban Journal leaders meet with Wake Up Call

Since I started the blog in November I have had an increase in hits every month but February was by far the biggest month for Wake Up Call. I hope to keep this trend going in March. If anyone has any comments, story ideas or criticism, you can leave a comment on the blog anonymously or send me an email at rfisc82376@aol.com.

It's 3:00 AM in Missouri, the phone rings...

A new campaign ad put out by Hillary Clinton asks the question who would we want answering the phone at the White House in a crisis? Here is what you could expect if you call a Missouri politician at 3:00 AM.

• Matt Blunt: "I understand it's an emergency but I've already accomplished everything I set out to do."


• Jeff Roe: "No he puts his trash out on Tuesday night you idiot."


• Jay Nixon: "And you're sure it was a Republican involved. O.K. I'll be right there."


• Rod Jetton: "Why don't you get off your lazy a** and do it yourself. What? Oh, um I'm sorry Mr. Plaster, I'll get right on it."


• Kit Bond: "Sam I know it's you. Now quit calling me. I told you my doctor said I needed to rest."


• Susan Montee: Don't worry Mayor Pagano. I'll just say you're clean; nobody actually reads my audits.


• Steve Ehlmann: Answering machine; If you're a developer who has donated money please press 1, If you're a developer who would like to donate money please press 2, All other callers, there is nothing I can do for you.

Blunt and State Senate vote for business as usual

The Columbia Tribune reported yesterday that the Missouri Senate confirmed Gov. Matt Blunt’s decision to reappoint Bill Luetkenhaus to the Missouri Housing Development Commission (MHDC.) The MHDC provides state tax credits on housing projects to developers. Luetkenhaus was involved in a controversial land deal with Columbia developer Jeff Smith last year. In the deal Smith paid Luetkenhaus 1.7 million dollars for a piece of land Luetkenhaus bought two months earlier for $932,000. According to the Tribune article:

• Smith is one of the state’s largest developers of low- and moderate-income housing. As a commissioner, Luetkenhaus votes on whether state subsidies should be distributed to developers like Smith.

When the Tribune reported this deal last year Blunt indicated that Luetkenhaus should recuse himself from any votes involving Smith. There was also talk of revising the standards of conduct policy for the MHDC. According to the Tribune;

• Commission Chairman Richard Baalmann named Luetkenhaus to lead a committee to rewrite the standards. The panel was supposed to meet earlier this month, but Luetkenhaus cancelled the meeting because of other business. A new session has been scheduled for March 21.
  "I think we will get something that will address disclosure more than what the current rules do," Luetkenhaus said.

No need to waste your time on "disclosure" Bill, if anyone was paying attention we wouldn't have to worry about you anyway.

Your Flag Lapel Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore

Which one is better than the other?

And here's my list of donors, I mean contractors I want on the job.

Are you an American or a Republican?

The story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is gaining traction after 60 Minutes aired a story. However, the 60 Minutes story lasted less than 15 minutes, which is barely enough time to cover the highlights. Those interested in this story can read much more about it at the following sites; The Legal Schnauzer, TPM and Harpers. I have read extensively on the Siegelman prosecution, including from those who try to defend the actions of Karl Rove, the prosecutors and Judge Mark Fuller. And after reading all this, it is my opinion that Don Siegelman is a political prisoner.

Included in those calling for an investigation of the Siegelman prosecution is former Arizona Attorney General Grant Wood, a Republican advisor to John McCain's campaign. However, it appears the official Republican response is to stand in support of Karl Rove and defend the prosecution. Of course, when the facts get in the way of the party line, the Republicans turn to one of Rove's favorite tactics, attack the messenger.

The Siegelman case should scare every American without regard to party affiliation. Rather than simply follow the official party line I suggest Republicans review this case very carefully and make a decision; are you willing to support your party at the expense of the values of your country?

Springfield lawyer may play role in Siegelman case

A 2003 affidavit filed by Springfield, MO. attorney Paul Benton Weeks regarding Federal Judge Mark Fuller may play a role in the investigation of wrongdoing regarding the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Fuller was the judge in the Siegelman case and was also the judge in case filed by Weeks. In a story written by Scott Horton for Harpers, Weeks stated he did a routine check on Fuller to see what type of judge would be handling the case. Weeks stated, "I was astonished by what I found,” and that immediately after the papers were filed, Weeks said that Fuller was removed as the judge handling the case.

According to Horton, Week's affidavit accuses Fuller of,

• engaging in criminal conduct both before and after he came on to the bench. The charges include perjury, criminal conspiracy, a criminal attempt to defraud the Retirement System of Alabama, misuse of office as a District Attorney, and an obstruction of his background check by the FBI in connection with the review of his appointment by President Bush to the bench.

What does this have to do with the Siegelman case? Horton writes;

• This means that at the time that Fuller was presiding over the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman, a prosecution brought by Noel Hillman’s Public Integrity Section, he was or should have been the subject of an investigation by the Public Integrity Section. This presents a further appearance of serious impropriety both by Judge Fuller and by the prosecutors handling the case. Our earlier study of Fuller showed that he had three disqualifying conflicts: his undisclosed service on the Executive Committee of the Alabama G.O.P. at the time that it was running campaigns against Siegelman; his suggestion that Siegelman was responsible for “politically motivated” attacks on him in connection with his bookkeeping practices as a district attorney; and his business interests which are tied up almost entirely with U.S. government contracts.

Weeks told Horton that no one from Hillman's office had contacted him in regard to the allegations he raised. One other interesting note; when Siegelman was sentenced Fuller failed to rule on a motion to release Siegelman pending his appeal. The Court of Appeals ordered Fuller to rule on the motion and when he did the Court of Appeals said his order was not sufficient. Fuller eventually issued a 30 page order denying Siegelman's request, however, Siegelman still can't appeal the case. Fuller's court has still not prepared a transcript of the trial which concluded over 20 months ago. The transcript is supposed to be prepared within 30 days of sentencing.

Karl Rove's America

The 60 Minutes story on the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which aired Sunday, failed to appear on a CBS affiliated TV station in Alabama, WHNT-TV. Viewers who tuned in to WHNT instead found the following message:

• We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a technical problem with CBS out of New York.

However, CBS told Scott Horton, a writer who has covered the Siegelman story while blogging at Harper’s, that;

• There is no delicate way to put this: the WHNT claim is not true. There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.

Horton goes on to state "I was told that the decision to blacken screens across Northern Alabama could only have been an editorial call." While WHNT denies it was an editorial decision it later changed its story on why the 60 Minutes piece did not run at the scheduled time. The station ran the segment later.

Why would WHNT censor the Siegelman story? The following from the blog Facing South might help explain the decision;

• WHNT is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, an investment company managed by prominent supporters of President Bush, whose former advisor Karl Rove was implicated in the "60 Minutes" Siegelman investigation. But as the New York Times notes, the station is managed by a separate company, Local TV -- whose chief executive, Robert "Bobby" Lawrence, is a former Clear Channel Communications executive and also a major Bush contributor.

The Siegelman story is not going away but if we are lucky maybe Karl Rove will be, for a long time.

Mr. Olivo goes to Washington

Brock Olivo, a former running back at Mizzou and then in the NFL, announced his candidacy for the 9th Congressional seat being vacated by Kenny Hulshof. Olivo's campaign got off to a rocky start when he was unable to answer some basic questions about why he was running. Things got worse for Olivo when it was revealed he has never voted. Everyone has taken a turn at making fun of Olivo but the more time I've had to think about it the more I think Olivo may be what we need in office.

Maybe Olivo's lack of experience means he won't know how to slip a provision into a lengthy bill to help a friend/contributor. Maybe being honest and admitting he doesn't have an answer is better than the patronizing, misleading answers we get from most politicians. Maybe Olivo hasn't learned how to use power to seek revenge or request special treatment. Maybe Olivo is smart enough to understand who he is supposed to be representing and whose money he is spending.

Maybe Olivio understands freezers are where we keep food, not money. Maybe Olivo understands what the "public" in public records means. Maybe Olivo knows what the definition of "is" is, what an oath means and what the difference is between public service and personal interest. And maybe Olivo knows the difference between right and wrong. If so, maybe we will be alright in sending a political newcomer to Washington because I'm not sure I like what others call "experience."

It's time for Karl Rove to quit hiding and answer questions under oath

60 Minutes did a story on the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman Sunday night. Siegelman is serving a 7 year sentence and many believe he was not guilty of the bribery charges for which he was convicted. Even worse, many believe he was targeted for prosecution because he was considered a threat to the Republican party in Alabama. The 60 Minutes story also discussed allegations Karl Rove, who got his start in Alabama politics, might have been involved in targeting Siegelman. Rove responded to the allegations below;




Rove's denial of the alleagtions raised by Dana Jill Simpson were addressed by Ms. Simpson on the clip below from MSNBC;



Simpson went before Congress and told her story under oath, something Rove refused to do. I'm sure Congress will give Rove another chance and I'm sure Rove won't take it. For those interested in reading more about this story,the following sources may be helpful; The Legal Schnauzer, TPM and Harpers, which has a good story about Rove's appearance on Fox. This is a story that should scare us all.

Translation-Dempsey wants to run for higher office

The Columbia Tribune's Politics Blog had an interesting story yesterday regarding Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles. Dempsey voted for the 2006 bill which eliminated campaign finance limits but he voted against the 2008 bill to do away with the limits. Jason Rosenbaum, of the Tribune, asked Dempsey to explain his vote. Here is what Dempsey had to say along with some comments from Rosenbaum;

• “The bill that I filed didn’t have elimination of limits in it,” Dempsey said. “It did have a component that if you look in the bill that’s filed that raised the limit and eliminated the ten times the limit on the party committees. There was a campaign finance piece. We took that out and sent it over to the Senate side. But the primary drive behind the bill in 2006 for me was elimination of the caucus system that had been abused for decades.”
  Dempsey is referring to a loophole in the lobbyist disclosure process that allowed gifts to be attributed to members of ‘caucuses’ instead of individuals. That prevented disclosure of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of meals and entertainment from Missouri Ethics Commission reports.
  Nevertheless, Dempsey still ultimately voted to pass that 2006 version of the bill. I asked him what made him change his position for this year’s legislation.
  “As I consider what the priorities for the state should be, I frankly didn’t think this was a priority for me. It’s not in my top ten, it’s not in my top twenty,” Dempsey said. “We have a flawed system to do this. While I understand it and agree with it in principle, you’re still going to have negative campaigning. You’re still going to have huge sums of money raised. You’re replacing one flawed system with another somewhat more transparent, but also flawed. For me it wasn’t a priority. And from a timing standpoint with the campaigns this year, it just didn’t think it was something that we should be considering.”

Translating this from "politico speak" into English, I think what Dempsey is saying is that he plans to run for higher office someday and doesn't want a vote to eliminate campaign finance limits to be used against him although he really agrees with doing away with the limits.

You Paid For It story on streets in Bayfield

You Paid For It (which covers waste in government and airs on Fox 2 St. Louis) ran a story on the problems the Bayfield subdivision is having with its streets. I do not have a lot of knowledge on this issue and would like to hear from someone who can better explain the situation. For what its worth, the O'Fallon Journal ran an article on this story a couple of weeks ago entitled Subdivision has checkered jurisdiction, which may help explain the issue. You can view the You Paid For It piece by clicking here.

The Truth Held Hostage-Day 98

Back in November, the O'Fallon Journal reported false information in regard to the Koch Road scandal. The information reported by the Journal was in regard to the date Koch Road was vacated and by falsely reporting that date, Journal readers were not provided information which would show McBride & Sons, the builder and a major advertiser in the Journal, illegally tore out the road. O'Fallon's role in improperly issuing building permits to McBride was also not properly reported because of the Journal's "mistake." It now has been;

• 98 days since I informed the Journal reporter, Elizabeth Perry, of the error in her story.


• 71 days since I was told the Journal would be correcting its "mistake" (after Perry wrote a second article containing the exact same false information) regarding the Koch Road vacation.


• 40 days since Journal editor Erin Schultz told me the Journal "will correct factual errors as quickly and clearly as possible."


• 16 days since Ms. Perry mislead her readers again as to the destruction of Koch Road, and was once again informed of her "mistake."


• 12 days since I met with Bob Williams, the Journal's publisher, Dave Bundy, the editorial director, and Ms. Schultz to explain the "mistakes" the Journal had made in its stories.

Since everyone from the publisher on down knows the Journal incorrectly reported this story, the Journal can no longer claim this was a "mistake." Instead, I think we can now safely state that falsely reporting the story is the official policy of the Journal.

Democrats don't want too much democracy

I've never seen a Democrat claim the Republicans should not have a candidate for President. Instead, the Democrats try to convince the voters they should not vote for the Republican candidate because of policy differences or because the candidate is not qualified to be President. So what's the Democrats problem with Ralph Nader, who recently announced he will run for President in 2008? The fact that Nader is running.

Democrats believe a Nader candidacy could siphon off enough votes from their candidate to help elect John McCain. And to that I say, who cares? Democrats and Republicans have become so arrogant that they now believe the Presidency is the exclusive right for one of their candidates. Third party candidates are seen as a nuisance rather than a democratic option for those of us fed up with the two party monopoly of power. When that nuisance threatens to interfere with the Democrats right to the presidency, Democrats show their true colors. Democracy is great just as long as it doesn't interfere with their power.

Fish & Ships, February 26, 2008

On tomorrow's Fish & Ships program (the most dangerous 15 minutes on the radio) we will discuss;

• Is liberalism a mental disease?


• St. Peters latest problems with Premier 370.


• Ralph Nader enters the race


• The prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

You can hear the show every Tuesday starting at approximately 9:00 AM until 9:15 on KFAV, 99.9. If you can't hear the show live you can go to the O'Fallon Watchdog later this week to listen to the show.

WARNING: Residents of St. Peters are reminded to avoid listening to Fish & Ships. Information on the city can only be obtained through St. Peters PR(avda) department.

Premier 370 work still can't go forward

Work is still on hold at Premier 370 Business Park in St. Peters according to an article in today's Post-Dispatch. Premier 370 is being built in a flood plain and St. Peters has invested millions of dollars in the project, money the city stands to lose if the project does not go forward. FEMA has not yet approved the development for federal flood insurance and until it does the project will remain stalled. According to the Post article, critics of the plan include;

• Illinois officials who contend the levee will worsen flooding in Grafton and other areas.
  


• The Great Rivers Habitat Alliance, an advocacy group for flood plain preservation, which alleges the work on the 4 mile long levee has not been done properly. The levee cost St. Peters 22.5 million dollars to date.

There are also concerns on how the city will handle flooding issues on two spots where railroad tracks cross the levee. The Post article indicates the city has failed to respond to FEMA's latest concerns and that if St. Peters does not respond by March 17 the application will be suspended and the process will have to start over again.

The Premier 370 project has been steeped in controversy from the beginning with other issues including;

• Appraisals not done on some of the land purchased for the project.


• Land Purchased from former Mayor Tom Brown's son-in-law at a much higher rate than other land.


• Bonds not competitively bid on the project.


• No request for proposal (RFP) on the project.


• Failure of St. Peters to keep proper documentation of records on the project.

State Auditor Susan Montee noted the project was "at risk" because the city had not secured final approval from FEMA and she also discussed the other problems mentioned above. However, Montee offered no explanation as to why there was a hold up with FEMA and ignored all the problems set out in her audit when she stated publicly that St. Peters "was a clean city." The Post article further illustrates what a poor job Montee did on her audit and how St. Peters officials have taken unnecessary risks with the taxpayers money.

You Paid For It returns to O'Fallon

You Paid For It is airing another segment on O'Fallon, Mo. Monday night. The You Paid For It team covers wasteful government spending and was in O'Fallon a few weeks ago regarding a story about the Koch Road scandal. Promos running on Fox 2 indicate Monday's story will be about O'Fallon's crumbling roads.

During former Mayor Paul Renaud's tenure as mayor, his friends in the building community (and his employer McBride & Sons) were able to pass ordinances that lowered the standards under which streets had to be poured. In addition, the city failed to properly inspect the work on streets by the developers and it later turned out many of these streets did not meet the lowered standards. Under Mayor Donna Morrow and City Administrator Bob Lowery, the city has returned escrow money to developers who failed to properly pour streets. I'm not sure if this is the angle You Paid For It will be covering but it is a story the residents need to hear.

60 Minutes looks at Karl Rove's Justice Department

60 Minutes aired its much anticipated story entitled The Prosecution Of Governor Siegelman tonight. Siegelman is the former Democratic governor of Alabama who was convicted of bribery. The main charge against Siegelman was that he gave a position on a state board to businessman Richard Scrushy, in return for a substantial contribution from Scrushy to a campaign to bring a lottery to Alabama. Siegelman was a proponent of the lottery.

The 60 Minutes story looks at two issues with the case, (1) Was Siegelman targeted by the Justice Department for political reasons; and, (2) Was Siegelman guilty. Karl Rove, who played an integral role in the Siegelman case, has refused to discuss his role and the White House and Justice Department have not cooperated with an investigation by Congress. The Siegelman case is just one part of a series of allegations regarding the Bush administration's use of the Justice Department for political purposes.

For those of you in Republican St. Charles County who wonder how the people involved in widespread corruption continue to go untouched, take a look at this video and remember our County Prosecuter, Jack Banas, and US Attorney, Catherine Hanaway, are both Republicans.

Obama is a "thoroughly dangerous man!"

1973 at the Dew Drop Inn, Jackson, Mississippi on a Saturday night. (From Uneasy Rider, Charlie Daniels)


Now he let out a yell that would curl your hair,
But before he could move I grabbed me a chair,
And said, "Watch him folk, 'cause he's a thoroughly dangerous man.
Well, you may not know it, but this man's a spy.
He's a undercover agent for the FBI,
And he's been sent out here to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan.

"He was still bent over, holdin' on to his knee,
But everybody else was looking' and listenin' to me,
And I laid it on thicker and heavier as I went.
I said, "Would you believe this man has gone as far
As tearing `Wallace' stickers off the bumpers o' cars,
And he voted for George McGovern for President."

"Well, he's a friend of them long-haired, hippy-type, pinko fags,
I betcha he's even got a Commie flag,
Tacked up on the wall inside o' his garage.
He's a snake in the grass, I tell ya guys,
He may look dumb, but that's just a disguise,
He's a mastermind in the ways of espionage."
-----------------------------------------------------------------


2008 at the Republican National Convention, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, September 1-4.


Now his ole lady told that crowd
What she thinks of our country, she ain't proud
And he don't seem bothered at all by that.
Hell, with a last name like Obama
He's surely an undercover agent for Osama
And he's been sent out here as a Democrat.

I been told he won't pledge to our flag
But that's no surprise from a pinko fag
And he ain't really Christian like you and me.
His preacher is a friend of Louis Farrakhan
Barack wants to talk to the nuts in Iran
And he's probably still on drugs, we should make him pee.

I'm sure he's a Muslim from his name
And those people just don't think the same
Cause they're spending their time reading the Koran
He can't be trusted, I tell ya guys
He may talk nice, but that's a disguise
Because this Obama is a thoroughly dangerous man.

Did Busplunge break the blog ranking code?

Last Sunday I wrote:

• I was ranked as the fifteenth most influential political blog in Missouri last week by Blognetnews.com. I'm not sure what that means but the 100 Year Old Weblog, which posts stories from 100 years ago, was 18. If they ever make it to the 1950's I'm toast.

Well the 100 Year Old Blog stayed true to its name but it still flew past me as I dropped two spots to number 17 while 100 Year jumped all the way to number 11. How Blognetnews comes up with these rankings is a mystery even after you read its explanation:

• BlogNetNews' Blogosphere Influence Rating combines a variety of data sets to determine which blogs are most powerfully influencing the direction of the Missouri political blogosphere. The exact method BNN uses to calculate influence scores must remain proprietary in order to prevent attempts to game the system. BNN's methodology takes into account the fact that all Internet data is profoundly limited in its reliability by using multiple data sets that, when combined, reveal a fair picture of activity in the blogosphere.

Huh? I still haven't figured out how McDonalds makes its special sauce so I'll have to leave the interpretation of that explanation to others. And while I'm not sure if Jim at the Busplunge (coming in at a solid number 7) can tell me what all this means, he may have found the key to the code. In a post titled Homosexual Males Prefer The Color Blue, Busplunge explains the results of its week long study in which "homosexual" or "gay" were the subject of numerous posts. Jim's theory was that posts that covered these subjects would propel him up the Blognetnews rankings and at weeks end he moved up from number 14 to number 7.

While I still haven't figured out how to put this information to use, we should all applaud Busplunge for sharing the results of the experiment. Just think of what could have happened if this information fell into the hands of someone less scrupulous than Jim at Busplunge? I'm not sure we are ready for the 100 Year Old Gay Weblog.