It appears there's stronger Netroots in Missouri than I ever imagined.

Read this DailyKos post on the Eckersley suit and its comments to see how active Democrats will be in 2008.

State senate candidate and out-and-out loon Cynthia Davis took on the issue of installing a bus system in St. Charles County. She's against it. And there is the reasoned argument that suburban bus systems are highly inefficient and would require a certain degree of public subsidization. I even did a little "suburban bus systems" Google News search before this post and read that a service outside of Chicago is getting cut back and citizens are fighting against it.

But Rep. Davis wouldn't make a reasoned argument. Her reasoning?

Most of our people live in cul-de-sacs and don't have sidewalks.

She later touts her role in placing all those cul-de-sacs in St. Charles County. But note she said "most people." St. Charles County is set up in a way that transportation is necessary. Often times work, grocery stores or other necessary destinations are not within walking distance. And this is fine if you can afford a car and gas and have the ability to drive. But if you can't afford these things or if you have some sort of handicap that prevents you from driving (as was the case of one of the citizens in the Chicago service article linked above) then this system really doesn't work.

Rep. Davis believes "we have enough kind-hearted friends and family members who will give a ride to their neighbors who don't drive." Apparently she's been fortunate enough to never be in need. But if she had, she would understand that folks like their independence and don't enjoy feeling like a burden on their friends and neighbors, even if friends and family are happy to help.

Anyone who reads this blog by now knows about Chris Koster's $100,000 from sexy Rexy. But I wanted to make sure everyone read the following quote from the CDT Politics Blog:

"Elisabeth Smith, a spokeswoman for Koster's campaign, said yesterday regardless of where the two-term senator's donations come from, "he will continue to fight for the same things that he’s fought for his entire public service career.”

Umm... does she remember this:

Right after he switched political parties on Wednesday, state Sen. Christopher Koster announced some changes in his political views.

In particular, Koster — now D-Harrisonville — said he is revising his public stance on abortion, one of Missouri's most explosive topics.

So, will he continue to fight for pro-life causes or did Smith get it wrong? Further, later in the CDT post Smith has this to say:

“When people want to support us, we don’t ask whether they root for the Cardinals or root for the Royals," Smith said

I've never known any donor who gives to candidates that don't share their values. Rex didn't just give Koster that money because a thousand labor unions endorsed him, he gave it because Koster supports some of the same things he supports.

Koster still has a long way to go to show he really shares the same values as most Democrats. Taking $100,000 from Rex did not help that at all.

Primebuzz today highlighted who's on the take from pro-voucher activist Rex Sinquefield.

Some other Missouri politicians will be out spreading Rex's voucher gospel October 30 at the Show-Me Institute forum, "From equity to adequacy to choice: perspectives on school finance and school school finance litigation." Sitting on the legislative panel will be pro-voucher Republicans Sen. Jason Crowell and Rep. Ed Robb and pro-voucher Republicans in Democratic clothing Sen. Jeff Smith and Rep. Rodney Hubbard.

Rex will also be speaking at the forum, so make sure you bring your barf bag.

PrimeBuzz continues to refuse to show MoPo the love on its blogroll, but at least we know they're reading us. They linked to Editor's post, but I will not be satisfied until more Missourians are exposed to this truly communal site.

Does anybody want to start a letter writing campaign to Steve Kraske?

Steven Reed hopes so; he's ordering a draft. Check out his site: http://www.draftsarah.4t.com/

Here's a preview (I didn't shorten the list. The "Top 10" list actually stops at 5):

Top 10 Reasons the People of Missouri need Sarah Steelman as Governor:

1. She is a very inspiring person who will inspire the people of Missouri to do their best.

2. She speaks well and can get important ideas across to those who run things. She knows how to listen to the People whom she works for I.E. the People of Missouri.

3. She has made national news and became familiar on the national level as a Treasurer pressing for more accountability and control over corporations and businesses who funnel money into terrorist organizations around the world.

Missouri Net Story

http://www.missourinet.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=0E062801-F212-A114-0A...

4. She has recently been noticed for her calls for a crack down on illegal immigration in Missouri i.e. you got to be tough.

5. She has promoted and made parents across the state of Missouri aware of the special savings accounts that can be used to send their kids to college. She wants all kids in Missouri to have the chance to go to college.

I almost missed this in the PrimeBuzz. Blunt tried to take credit for deciding to lower the flags for September 11, but he forgot to mention that a state law passed by two Democrats requires him to do so. The Democrats were Tim Meadows from Arnold and Jeff Roorda from Barnhart. Here's what Rep. Roorda had to say:

“He might as well lower the flag all the way down the pole and wrap himself in it,” Roorda said.

Sam Unnerstall, chairman of the 158th District Republican Committee in the Southeast Missourian:

Any candidate nominated by the GOP will be well-funded, he said, so the candidate must be willing to try to overcome that advantage through hard work.

"It is a daily chore you have to go through," he said. "You have to hit it every day."

I don't know how a candidate could ever overcome the burden of having too much money. Looks like the Repubs in the 158th are screwed.

(Can you feel the sarcasm?)

Ok, not their traditional stem-cells are bad and Roy-Blunt-is-worth-electing values, but the KY3 blog's Ozark Values series profiling individuals and their political beliefs has been a good read. (Normally I wouldn't post this kind of thought, but things have quiet here on MoPo and I'm trying to push that stupid London Calling song off the front page.)

Today's installment had Republican graduate student Matt Lyons saying some things I can really agree with:

"I'm disappointed with the Governor's performance," he says.

And Lyons calls his State Representative, Charlie Denison (#135), almost useless. "Basically we're the only legislative district without a state representative," he says.

Of course, I wouldn't agree that he's in the ONLY district without a state representative, but Charlie certainly one of the more useless seat warmers.

The whole series has been an insight into minds I could never understand. Some people have no base for their beliefs and others have given it some thought.

I could go without some of the commentary such as this from the Lyons profile:

The thing about Lyons is that he's got strong conservative convictions, without being a partisan. In today's hyper-polarized world, courage like that isn't so easy to find.

It doesn't take courage not to be hyper-polarized when you're not running for office. No body thinks they are highly partisan. It's something that happens to a person during the election process when they're forced separate themselves for their opponent. Or it occurs after being in Washington or Jefferson City and realizing all that is at play.

So keep the profiles coming, Catenese, but leave the editorializing to someone else.

In Shamed Dogan's announcement party filmed by Antonio French the second point Dogan talks about is protecting marriage. Apparently, for Dogan, all of life's problems will go away once gays are extinct.

While Democrats are talking about health care, life saving research, affordable education, etc. Dogan is playing the old gay marriage card? It's as though time has stood still since 2004. Don't we have bigger things to worry about?