Skip to main content

View Diary: Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's veep dreams are dead (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He vetoes desegregation legislation, that's ok? (9+ / 0-)

    I think not.

    He might stamp a (D) after his name, but he's a segregationist. He's demonstrated this repeatedly. When a MO State Senator tells a national audience that Nixon is a COWARD, that's important. She listed several example of his his failure to address these decades-old issues.

    This was a statement of fact, not rhetoric.

    Last night he said he would go to Ferguson. He showed up in an adjacent municipality. He meets with clergy and older wealthier citizens. Not one of these people were anywhere near the abuse happening in Ferguson. Right at this moment, he's planning on having someone drive him inside an unmarked car through a street in Ferguson somewhere. He actually said he didn't want to be seen being criticized. Yes, he said that.

    He's a coward. Understand yet?

    And this useless coward asshole is just peachy for a VP candidate?

    "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 09:49:50 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your segregationist line is bullshit (8+ / 0-)

      He vetoed a republican bill regarding school transfers from unaccredited districts.  The NAACP supported the veto.

      •  So the Democratic State Senator from Ferguson (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        who endorsed the bill and was pleased that she helped get it passed was lying when she told us why Nixon vetoed this desegregation bill? The Black State Senator who got teargassed herself? The same State Senator who told us that Nixon has never supported anything that benefits her constituents?

        It's HER segregationist line. Not mine.

        "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

        by GrumpyOldGeek on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 10:43:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Her segregationist line is bullshit to. (4+ / 0-)

          Republicans love her.

          •  Tell me more. She has been around for a while. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emelyn, svboston

            And I would expect evidence that she's got some experience in the statehouse. When she went after Gov Nixon and called him a coward on national TeeVee, I thought that was astonishing and meaningful.

            She described that bill as a huge benefit for her constituants, Ferguson-Flourissant is part of that iirc, and spoke as if she's been pushing for improvements in desegregation for years.

            So I did my thing and read a bit about that bill and the background cat fights. You're absolutely correct that this bill is bullshit. Jay Nixon vetoed this thing appropriately.

            Now I know that this state senate district has a problem. I won't try to diagnose any of this.

            I'm reminded of a couple of situations that have seem to have changed the behaviour of previously strong Democrats in drastic ways.

            I'm just wondering if you've observed similar sudden changes in behavior. Or if she seems to be a solid progressive Democrat except for this one single issue. Whenever I observe a behviour that seems uniquely out of place relative to otherwise normal behavior, that's a red flag for me. Red flags energize me. I dig deeper. Occasionally, my effort reveals a surprise or two. Mostly, I learn something.

            That's just me, though. YMMMV.

            Gotta go listen to Jay Nixon's presser now....

            "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

            by GrumpyOldGeek on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 01:58:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Link? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      Back it up.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 01:09:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bill contained attacks on public schooling (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson, emelyn

      The situation with the unaccredited districts in Missouri is complex.  At its root is the deep plan of the Norquist crowd to destroy free universal public schooling finally reaching endgame and destroying whole districts at a shot.  Unanticipated by Norquist was that when things reached that point some people would be decent enough to try to figure out a way to actually help kids and families.  The result has been a very complex and difficult situation that no one has a full handle on.

      So there was a lot of sincere effort put into that bill in an attempt to solve some of the problems that the original law created [1].  That said, there were also some very, very bad points to the bill stuck in there by the home school people and the for-profit charter school corps (Imagine/Rhee/Duncan).  While the immediate effect of the bill would have been to relieve some issues the medium-term effect (within 2-3 years) would have been to start the domino toppling of destroyed public schools districts that Norquist has been working toward for 30 years.

      So - Nixon did the right thing in vetoing the bill.

      [1] I've seen some criticism of the Missouri Supreme Court based on the family of one of its members.  I'm no lawyer, but as I read the series of the decisions the court acted correctly.  They basically said, the law says this, the consequences are that, that the consequences affect some wealthy communities does not bear on the law, follow the law.  Implying, if you don't like the law change it in the legislature.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site