Wes Shoemyer Working on Grain Elevator

As the elections are approaching nearer, candidates are producing more and more ads in order to convince voters to elect them. Even Wes Shoemyer, who had so far not been seen in internet ads, has released a new ad.

Shoemyer's talks about how he has been working with Governor Jay Nixon for a new Grain Elevator in Canton, Missouri. A Grain Elevator is a tower that contains a bucket elevator which is used to elevate and then drop grains at a storage.

The ad starts with Shoemyer stating that "we have been waiting years, we have been waiting for generations for this elevator." The rest of Shoemyer's ad explains why this elevator is required. According to Shoemyer, this elevator will help farmers a lot because the only other elevator right now is located across the Mississippi river. Shoemyer says that the elevator will save farmers in Missouri lots of money in terms of transport costs. In addition, it will also save them time and decrease safety risks.

Throughout the time Shoemyer talks, he constantly identifies himself with the farmers, and with Missourians. Shoemyer ends his ad by saying that this is a "win-win situation" for everybody involved and that the people of Missouri will be extremely happy with this Proposition before stating that when he drives up to the elevator and sees trucks unload and grain flowing in the Missouri side, he will ask some of the farmers if having the elevator was great, they would answer by saying that they had waited a long time and would thank him.

Shoemyer's ad can be watched here.

Shoemyer: A Good Attempt at Appearing Legit

So the other day I got this 8 x 11 inch flyer in the mail from Missouri Senate incumbent, Wes Shoemyer, that compares himself to his opponent, Brian Munzlinger. (See poorly taken camera picture below)

Now, what originally impressed me was the fact that it had references listed as to what bill exactly Shoemyer was making claims such as that he "pushed for legislation to allow farmers to save their genetically modified seeds for future use." He directly cited Senate Bill 68 to argue that point and to say that his opponent didn't want the good ol' farmers of Missouri to save their genetically modified seeds.

When I first saw that he referenced a bill I thought, "Well, hey! This should make verifying the facts a lot easier!" and I expected to just verify that he was telling the truth, since he did in fact list the actual bill for reference. I guess he didn't expect people to actually look at the bill?

For this example, it's a bill that Shoemyer himself put forth that actually advocates for farmers to have to pay a fee to keep their genetically modified seeds. Now, maybe that's a step up from the current legislation, but we can't seem to find anything that says that previous legislation wouldn't allow farmers to keep their seeds before this regulation. It was obviously not the best reference bill Shoemyer could have used if that was the case anyway.

Anyone else know of the previous GMO (genetically modified organisms) legislation?

Also, for everyone's enjoyment, in a couple hours it's my birthday! Yayyyy! (-Samantha)

Roy Blunt and Potatoes

This week, again, we have to talk about Carnahan and Blunt's campaign as the ad war between these candidates is now actually becoming funny.

Carnahan's ad, popularly known as 'Potatoes' attacks Roy Blunt again in the same way these two have been attacking each other throughout their campaign. It now seems that instead of talking about issues and saying why they are a better candidate than the other, these two are hell bent on talking about why the other candidate is worse.

Carnahan's ad starts by asking what "this museum for teapots, this swimming pool, and this center for studying potatoes have in common" It continues, "Thanks to Roy Blunt, they've been getting your tax dollars." The ad continues saying that Blunt has become a leader in allowing earmarks to get out of control. "He's been called a 'prodigious pork-meister' for earmarks that cost you $20 bullion a year. That's a lot of potatoes. I'm Robin Carnahan and I approve this message because I'm banning earmarks once and for all" concludes the ad.

Robin Carnahan's ad can be seen here:

This ad refers to the money for three earmarks included in various spending bills. The teapot museum was part of an overall spending bill supported by Blunt and was not a subject of a separate vote. The other two earmarks were considered separately, and Blunt voted to keep them just like a large majority of House members. A Democratic Representative had actually defended one of these earmarks by saying that the potato research goes to developing potato varieties that will help both producers and consumers financially and in terms of health.

The claim of earmarks costing $20 billion a year turns out to be not completely accurate, but far from a lie. Although the amount is not that high, estimates for earmarks this year range between $11 billion and $16 billion (www.kcstar.com). 

Although Carnahan and Blunt have not actually been lying in any of their ads, there seems to be plenty of spinning and inaccurate criticizing going on. It is now going to a point where at least we bloggers find it amusing than anything else.

And the fighting continues...

I know we seem to talk a lot about Carnahan, but it's just because this race is so filled with drama that it's pretty similar to reality tv shows, which are all the rage these days. In the last debate of Senate campaign, Carnahan and Blunt did not let down those hoping to see more squabbling between the two of them.

No nice words were exchanged between them, except when Blunt mentioned he respected those who participated in the political process. Carnahan mentioned that Blunt did a great job as secretary of state for Missouri, but quickly commented that he changed all that once he became a Washington insider. (To see an article with more detailed insults, click here)

Again, the attacks from Carnahan were that Blunt had more loyalty to his campaign supporters than to his constituents. The two essentially called each other liars back and forth. They both accused each other of wasteful spending--Carnahan attacking Blunt for the bailout money on Wall Street and Blunt attacking Carnahan for the 2009 Federal Stimulus which greatly benefited Carnahan's brother's wind farm.

According to reports, Carnahan was the lead aggressor, which makes sense considering that she is behind in the polls and looking to decrease support for Blunt in whatever ways possible. However, with the identical attacks being repeated by Carnahan and Blunt, we find that neither has much new to say and seems to be resorting to last minute personal attacks to sway undecided voters.

Did Robin Carnahan's Brother Get $107 Million from President Obama?

As I was talking to a few Kirksville residents about the upcoming elections, we were discussing the negative campaigning done by Robin Carnahan and Roy Blunt. It seems that these residents have had enough of the negative campaigning.

As we were discussing that a third candidate for Missouri Senate race might actually be good for the voters, one of the residents mentioned to me that Robin Carnahan's brother, Tom, received $107 million in stimulus funds as a "pay off" for Robin supporting President Obama's economic package and for her brother's help raising money for Obama's 2008 campaign. When I asked the Kirksville resident what her source was, she replied, "Roy Blunt's ad."


On checking with different sources, it is true that a company founded by Carnahan's brother received stimulus fuding for a wind farm project in Missouri, but there is no evidence that Robin Carnahan had anything to do with it or her brother got a "special deal."


After questioning the value of the stimulus legislation, the Blunt ad asks: "Where’d our money go? Ask Robin Carnahan. Her brother’s wind farm got over a hundred million stimulus dollars." True enough, but why ask Robin Carnahan about it?

Carnahan did support Obama and the stimulus package like the ad says. But Carnahan, the Secretary of State is a Democrat, so this comes as no surprise. The ad also claims that "her brother lobbied for his special deal and was a top Obama fundraiser." It is true that Tom Carnahan was a fundraiser for Obama, but there is no evidence of a "special deal".

Furthermore, Tom Carnahan did receive $107 million as part of the stimulus. But, he received it for his company, Lost Creek Wind, a project of the Wind Capital Group. However, this $107 million was part of a total of $5.2 billion awarded to 1,000 companies nationwide. According to the Treasury, "qualified applicants receive payments generally equal to 10% to 30% of the basis of the property, depending on the type of the property. The Lost Creek Wind was awarded the 12th largest payment."

Wind Capital Group also states that Lost Creek project had a total cost of $300 million and was the largest private sector investment made in Missouri in 2009 and that it generated 2,500 U.S. jobs. This statement from Wind Capital also rubbishes claims from Blunt's ad when he says that Obama's stimulus (supported by Carnahan) did not provide any of the promised jobs and just added more generations of debt.

100% Positive?

As a blog posted as part of a Truman State University class, we cannot ignore a look at the former Truman professor, now Democratic incumbent for the Missouri State Representative, Rebecca McClanahan.

McClanahan has stated multiple times that she will always run a 100% positive campaign and refrain from negative ads directed toward her opponents. It has seemed to work well for her. Instead of ads directed at insulting other candidates, her ads are focused on reasons why you should vote for her, not reasons why you shouldn't vote for her opponent. A popular ad by her in the previous election is a good example:





With the upcoming ads we expect for the coming elections, will she be as focused on her positive campaign? Has she been 100% positive on all her advertisements before? When her opponent began negative ads directed toward her she put up the following ad:



Personally, the advertisement was a great way to counter the negative pressure she was receiving without seeming like she was breaking her promise to being positive. However, the ad did seem to imply that her opponent was being untruthful in his accusations and the beginning humor with the man saying that she loves puppies in a negative tone made the implication that her opponent was saying ridiculous things.

While this was a much more positive way for McClanahan to respond and possibly the best way to react rather than ignoring the negative ads against her, it can't be considered 100% positive. Additionally, her implications that her opponent was saying things as ridiculous as it being negative to love puppies is a bit exaggerated.
A well played ad? Definitely. (After all, she is from Truman.)
100% positive and completely spin-free? Not quite OR maybe she is just defending herself by criticizing her opponent for attacking her.

"Days Later"

Robin Carnahan released a new ad on her website www.robincarnahan.com called "Days Later", adding more substance on her views about Roy Blunt. The ad, which starts after the approval of Carnahan, refers to $13,000 that Blunt received from business executives and a political committee associated with a California defense contractor named Brent Wilkes. One of his firms received a $1 million earmark eight days earlier. An earmark is a legislative provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.

After the company gave Blunt the money, Carnahan claims, Blunt repeatedly flew on their company planes. On checking with news sources, this turned out to be true.

Carnahan's ad then talks about the fact that when Wilkes was later charged with bribing another congressman, Roy Blunt was called to testify as a defense witness which he refused to. The ad ends with asking if "Roy Blunt had Missouri values"?

This is another ad from Carnahan attacking Roy Blunt, but this time her facts seem to be more accurate than her previous ads.

"Insider" vs. Experienced?

One of the major distinctions Carnahan seeks to make between herself and her opponent for U.S. Senate, Roy Blunt, is that Blunt is a "Washington Insider" and Carnahan is working for the people. In an ad she sent out to gain fund-raising support during the summer, Carnahan makes this distinction very clear.

Her advertisement is pretty great if you ask me in terms of straight facts. In fact, she posts direct charts from Opensecrets.org, the website we use to check about campaign contributions, and all her information about Blunt is quoted almost entirely from news sources such as NPR and news sources such as the Kansas City Star.

We are confused by this negative image of a "Washington Insider" however. Yeah, we get that the large amount of lobbying money Blunt has received means that if he follows most politicians, he'll be more loyal to the companies that finance his campaigns, than he will be to his people. Carnahan does make a good point there since Blunt received over double the amount of funding for his campaign from PACs (Political Action Committees) than Carnahan did.

But when did the idea of having "too much" experience in Washington come about? One of the first things that her advertisement mentions is that Blunt is a 7-term representative and a former majority leader of the House! Isn't being experienced something that voters look for? Wasn't Obama heavily criticized for not having enough experience? It seems to us that there is a huge contradiction between voters wanting someone with experience in getting things done in politics and someone who appears more close to home. Some want their candidate to have (Washington) experience, while others want their candidate not to have any (Washington) experience, so the candidate can change the things the people do not like about Washington. And, won't Carnahan start becoming an "Insider" once she's whisked away to D.C. to act as Senator? While some people may dislike political experience, the listing of Blunt's credentials near the beginning of her advertisement may impress people more than it turns them off from Blunt.

Besides that dilemma, the biggest issue with this ad as far as facts go is the implication that Blunt was one of the causes of the spending increasing from a $128 billion surplus to a $1.2 trillion deficit. This is not to argue that Blunt did not support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, but that bill passed with bipartisan support and Blunt did not support the bailout of the auto industries. (See the 110th Congress voting records) Would Carnahan have voted differently and will she act any differently toward government spending if she does become Senator? Republicans typically stress fiscal restraint while Democrats tend to support government involvement in the economy assistance to those in need. It is hard to say that Carnhan's implication that Blunt helped cause the large deficit is really legitimate as we cannot look at what she would have done differently. The problem though, is that people are judged on their past actions.