Follow by Email

Thursday, July 12, 2012

John Brunner, (Career) Politician

I had a kindergarten teacher who read the story of Clifford to the class. When talking about the story, she would always say, “Clifford, the BIG RED DOG.” It was as if she were physically incapable of saying the name Clifford without immediately following it with the modifier “BIG RED DOG.” Even at age five, I found it quite irritating. I didn’t understand her compulsive need to tell us over and over again something we all already knew.

In the same way, it seems that Missouri Senate Candidate John Brunner has a pathological need to remind people that he is “not a career politician” every time he opens his mouth. Anyone who lives in Missouri and even vaguely follows state and national politics is well aware that Mr. Brunner has never held public office. To some, that is one of his most attractive qualities. But having taken an interest in this particular campaign, I have found that in his race no one on the trail has acted more like a career politician (despite his factual claim to the contrary) than John Brunner.

For a few primary debates and appearances, Brunner was the only one of the three major primary candidates who hired a professional stylist and makeup artist. His speech patterns have even changed since his first radio ads ran months ago, moving from a rural Missourah feel to a more polished presentation. (Although whoever Brunner’s handlers are may want to note that in his most recent ad he did say “exspecially,” so obviously there is still some work to be done…)

Several months ago, his Democrat opponent, sitting MO Senator Claire McCaskill, attacked a St. Louis Tea Party activist with a twisted and factually inaccurate narrative. Within hours of the story breaking, Brunner’s campaign had jumped into the fray, siding with McCaskill.

When it was uncovered that Brunner’s company, Vi-Jonn, had failed to pay property taxes on a privately owned aircraft (which, ironically, is exactly what Senator McCaskill has been in hot water over), the Brunner campaign swiftly blamed an accountant for failing to file the proper paperwork. While that is completely understandable and the taxes and penalties were paid, Brunner’s response to questions asked on the Dave Glover Show were quite telling. “It’s regrettable, but I’m not attacking anyone about taxes. That’s not what’s important to Missourians. Jobs are what’s important.” Or, in simpler terms, “What I did isn’t important because it was someone else’s fault and I want to change the subject.”

In Brunner’s most recent ad, besides the grammatically disturbing “expecially,” he has referred to opponent Claire McCaskill as “the deciding vote” in the passage of Obamacare. It is true that she voted for the abomination. It is also true that if she had not voted for Obamacare, a Republican filibuster would have been a near certainty. However, to call Senator McCaskill “the” deciding vote is at best disingenuous, and here’s why: McCaskill’s vote was never in question. In 2010, according to a CongressionalQuarterly analysis, Claire McCaskill voted with President Obama (even when it meant going against party) 98% of the time. To suggest that there was a possibility that she would have voted against Obamacare is nearing ludicrous. In addition, any one of the sixty senators who voted for Obamacare (some of whom were far more likely to flip) could have been considered the deciding vote in terms of preventing the filibuster.

So despite the fact that Brunner truthfully claims that he is not a “career politician,” it is clear that he absolutely is a politican. And it is also clear that he is not above misdirection, siding with progressives, and embellishing the truth in order to become a career politician.


  1. Sorry Ginny, I have to disagree. Here's how a CAREER POLITICIAN behaves:

    I'm not normally one to send around links to Todd Akin's campaign website, but this is too funny to pass up. Watch the hilarious video in the first link below, read the others, then ask yourself - does this pompous politician even listen to his own B.S.?

    Invoking Reagan's "11th Commandment", Akin and his campaign have resorted to questioning the "leadership" and "patriotism" of opponents who dare to challenge his record of voting for bills that spend on on big-government programs like Obama Care and Planned Parenthood, as well as bills that would EXPAND Obama Care (H.R. 525). What makes the above video of his particularly hypocritical is that as recently as LAST MARCH the Akin campaign ran press releases criticizing both Sarah Steelman and John Brunner:

    Apparently in Akin's mind the "11th commandment" applies only to his opponents but not himself. Is this an example of "the divine right of kings" Akin mentions in the video, or has the career congressman just gotten used to not living under the same set of rules and laws he passes (and funds) by which the rest of us ordinary folks are forced to abide? Akin probably has John Locke spinning in his grave at this point. At best good old Todd is acting like the tattle-tale school kid who shoves everybody standing in the lunch line, then runs crying to the teacher when someone pushes him back... "Johnny and Sarah just pushed me!"; at worst he's expecting to be treated with kid gloves, like royalty. From what I have seen, both the Brunner and Steelman campaigns have had the backbone to deal with criticism head-on rather than whining about being criticized, whether they felt the criticism was warranted or not. This should make us all wonder if Akin will look for some "commandment" to hide behind if he wins the Republican nomination and the McCaskill team rains a continuous golf-ball-sized-hail stream of criticism on him between August and November (since both Akin and McCaskill are career DC politicians there may be some unwritten rule against excessive criticism that we in the unwashed masses don't know about, it certainly appeared that way in 2008 when McCain ran against Obama :-? thinking).

    So to Todd I say: "Sorry "Pilgrim", if we apply YOUR own set of standards to the information on YOUR website, you are neither a "real Leader" or a "patriot" by YOUR definition." Is the lack of those qualities what we want in our next Senator? I certainly don't, and while I am at this time still undecided as to which candidate I will vote for in the Senate primary, those who know me know who it WON'T be.

  2. I find your response interesting. I posted solely about the behavior of one candidate, John Brunner. I intentionally did not mention any other candidate in that particular race. Instead of refuting any of the information I presented, you chose to redirect the narrative by flinging accusations at another candidate. That particular move betrays an inability to refute said information. It's the debate equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I know you are but what am I?"

  3. Did the title to your piece not include the words "Career Politician"? My point is that in the Missouri Republican Senate race there is only on true "career politician" - Todd Akin. Trying to frame someone who has NEVER held office as a career politician is ridiculous on its face. My response would have been the same had you written a hit piece about Steelman, who has been in-and-out of politics her whole life but certainly hasn't made politics a career.

    If you would bother to even read your own article, you will notice that you say " one on the trail has acted more like a career politician...". My previous post, with the links to prove it, does in fact REFUTE that statement. As you can see, there IS another who behaves exactly as one would expect a career politician to behave because having been in politics for nearly a quarter-century, Akin IS one.

  4. So in your mind the man with the most conservative congressional record, a proven willingness to go toe to toe with a President of his own party (as Akin did with George W. Bush over TARP), and the notion that when you attack other Republicans it should be to present facts rather than insults presents a problem? Simply because he literally fits the definition of a career politician?

    I suppose you're right then. It IS better to go with a guy who isn't a career politician. It's better to go with the guy who has no congressional record, even though his campaign record consists of siding with Democrat opponents when it is politically expedient. I'm sure that, once elected, he will become a different person entirely.

    My point wasn't that Brunner IS a career politician - only that he acts a lot like one for someone who spends most of his airtime telling us he isn't one. Kind of like Obama tells the biggest whoppers right after he says "Let me be clear..."

  5. I also can't help but notice that you have yet to debunk any of the information I presented concerning John Brunner's activities.

  6. Akin voted with his establishment leadership to EXPAND Obama Care in early 2011.

    He also voted for the CRs that FUNDED Planned Parenthood, Obama Care, the EPA, etc. throughout 2011; ignoring even Steve King's cry for help from other conservatives to stand on principle.

    Of course, all of these votes cast by Akin and his friends in the Republican establishment resulted in an increase to our already massive federal debt.

    Neither Brunner OR Steelman have ever done this to our country. They may, but as of this date, they haven't. The issues you mentioned are certainly of concern and probably do warrant an explanation, but NONE compare to the sell-out votes Akin cast last year to curry favor with the DC establishment. Had Akin stood on the "principles" he espouses and voted with the likes of Flake, King, Amash, Bachmann and others on these CRs, Brunner wouldn't even be in the race.

    Mistakes on tax returns and supporting an occasional Democrat are TRIVIAL in comparison to casting votes that help fund Planned Parenthood and Obama Care, wouldn't you agree?

  7. Let me point out that neither Brunner NOR Steelman have done anything, as they have not had the opportunity to do so. And Brunner gives no indication that he would break with party or establishment on principle, as his pattern thus far is to place politics over principles as nontrivial as, say, the First Amendment.

  8. And to my original point: I made a mistake. I allowed you to define what constitutes a career politician. I will correct that now.

    A career politician is someone who either enters politics or attempts to remain in politics more for personal gain than for the constituents he purports to represent. He gears all votes toward that which will secure reelection rather than that which will benefit their district or the American public as a whole. Examples we could likely agree on would be Bill Clinton (who became decidedly moderate in order to secure his reelection in 1996), Harry Reid (who has flip-flopped on the anchor baby/Dream Act issue in order to curry favor with a growing illegal population in Nevada), and our current President (who cut all visible ties with radical socialists in order to appear more moderate in 2008).

    Todd Akin may have had a long career in politics, but that is not the same thing as being a career politician. His willingness to vote against party and even President when necessary (as dictated by personal principle), though occasionally it has led him to votes I would personally disagree with, shows that he is NOT a career politician based on the definition I used. In fact, the only definition of "career politician" that fits Akin is "one who has a long career in politics."

    John Brunner, in contrast, has proven in just nine months of campaigning, that he is not above taking cheap shots at fellow Republicans (who basically agree with him on the issues but stand in his way of getting into public office). He is not above using progressive tactics and siding with Democrats (when they are in the wrong on Constitutional issues) when he believes it could help him politically.

    By the definition of "Career politician" that I have presented here, John Brunner fits in with the examples listed far more neatly than Todd Akin.

    And again, by your definition, all you have proved is that Akin has had a career in politics. Which, to my knowledge, is a matter of public record.

  9. So by your analogy if you were a guard at a bank you would view a guy who has robbed a bank as LESS likely to rob it again than a guy who has never robbed it, because the guy who has never robbed it MIGHT rob it?

    I can't seem to wrap my mind around your definitions here. It takes an unbelievable amount of mental gymnastics to buy into your definition of "...someone who may have had a long career in politics..." as NOT being a career politician. Yet a guy in his 60s who has been a businessman his entire life and never held public office for one minute IS a career politician?

    You can define "career" as whatever you want it to mean in YOUR world, but the common definition of the word is the one I choose to use.

    Sorry Ginny, but this is the type of intellectual gibberish that we get from the left. You can close your eyes to Akin's recent votes and blindly support him regardless of whether he votes to expand and fund Obama Care and fund Planned Parenthood if you so choose, but his recent voting pattern certainly doesn't fit the common definition of "conservative" so you'll need to change that definition as well to fit your Akin-centric world view.

    And you never did answer my previous question, so I'll ask it again:

    Mistakes on tax returns and supporting an occasional Democrat are TRIVIAL in comparison to casting votes that help fund Planned Parenthood and Obama Care, wouldn't you agree?

  10. Let me take these one at a time.
    1)Your analogy is flawed. If you assume that Akin robbed your proverbial bank, then what you forgot to mention is that Brunner is sitting outside the bank in an unmarked van wearing a ski mask and packing an automatic weapon. And you want me to assume that because he hasn't robbed the bank yet, he won't. My point is simple: while I have already said that I don't agree with every move Representative Akin has ever made, and I don't expect to, John Brunner has done more in the last nine months to concern me than Akin ever has (and I have known the man, both personally and politically, for 20+ years).

    2)A "career politician," the way I used the term, is a figurative definition rather than a literal one. You had trouble with that the first time which is why I explained it in a previous comment. And I did not say that John Brunner IS a career politician (in fact, I agreed that he wasn't several times), I merely suggested that he is acting like one.

    3) The votes you linked to were interesting, as neither one was quite straightforward (common for Congress, I know). The one that "expands Obamacare" does so in a backdoor fashion, and more directly applies to the education and grants that are available for veterinary students. As for funding Planned Parenthood, that was an unfortunate byproduct of a vote that kept the government from shutting down. If Obama had not held our Armed Forces in the balance and threatened not to pay our troops serving overseas, who knows how Akin would have voted?

    4)In answer to your previous question, a mistake on a tax return IS trivial, and I said so. I said it was understandable, and I made it clear that the mistake had been corrected. Brunner's reaction - blaming an unnamed accountant and quickly changing the subject - may be less trivial, as it sheds light on how he might handle mistakes made once he took office. And I don't care if he sides with a Democrat. I don't even care if he agrees with Claire McCaskill on things from time to time. When siding with a Democrat puts him on the wrong side of the First Amendment, I care. You should as well.

    So while the tax mistake and agreeing with a Democrat are trivial things, the light they shed on who John Brunner is as a person and a Senate candidate are decidedly less trivial.

    I am amused by your terminology, however. You tell me I have an Akin-centric worldview. Actually, I have a God-centric worldview. I happen to know Representative Akin well enough to know that he shares that (God-centric) worldview, so I can see how someone might make that mistake.

    That being said, I would like to point out just a couple more things. First, I am defending Akin because you attacked him. Had you attacked Steelman or her campaign, I would likely defend her in the same way, but you didn't. And second, I live in Illinois. I have no skin in this game, no horse in this race. I am simply concerned by the behavior I see in John Brunner and I believe that the best voters are educated voters.

  11. It is estimated that around 300,000 unborn babies are aborted each year by Planned Parenthood. Our government currently funds Planned Parenthood. All CRs that Akin voted for last year funded Planned Parenthood abortion clinics as well as the military. Military funding could have been broken out in a separate bill had enough Republicans stood with the true conservatives in the House and voted "no" on these CRs. At best, Akin chose to fund the troops in an expedient fashion at the expense of 300,000 innocent lives. This same funding also funded Obama Care, a program that has now been used to strip conservative Christians of their religious liberties and force some to actually pay for abortions through the insurance mandates; putting Akin, in you words, "on the wrong side of the First Amendment".

    What is our military for if not to protect life and liberty? Using "funding the troops" as an excuse to fund programs that destroy innocent life and strip us of our religious liberties is merely an attempt to justify having made an unprincipled politically motivated vote.

    Truth is, the troop funding could have waited while Democrats were forced to deal with principled Republicans on their terms, rather than the sell-out establishment Republicans like Akin and the rest who just kicked the can down te road while the innocent unborn paid with their lives. I find it very sad that someone who says their life is God-centered finds this acceptable. Michele Bachmann and other truly principled conservatives certainly don't, as evidenced by their consistent opposition to these very funding bills that Akin supported.

    As for Brunner - and Steelman - your suspicions may some day be born out should either of them eventually make it to the Senate. But WE REALLY DON'T KNOW. In Akin's case we DO know, the record shows it.

    Steelman is not a career politician and has never held federal office. My "attacks" on Akin have been grounded in his documented voting record and documented statements and press releases on his campaign site, all of which support my point that AKIN is the career politician in this race who HAS put casting a politically expedient vote ahead of refusing to force you and me to pay for the destruction of innocent life; again, something neither Brunner or Steelman have never done in either of their lives.

    Your attacks on Brunner's potential behavior as an elected official are purely speculative. You have convicted the man before he has spent even a second in office. It's like punishing a child who has done nothing for something he MIGHT do, but rewarding a child who has clearly done something wrong for his bad behavior.

    I will agree that voters need to be educated. Unfortunately our agreement ends there because my education is based on judging critical votes cast, yours seems to be on personal attributes that you deem "favorable" and "unfavorable" regardless of a politician's voting voting record, even when juxtaposed against their campaign rhetoric. Your approach is a fool's errand and is precisely the reason career politicians become entrenched in their establishment bubble and quit listening to their constituents. It's called a "cult of personality".

    In August of 2010 71% of Missourians passed Prop C to take a stand against Obama Care. What then gives Akin the right to vote for CRs that fund this program if he is supposed to be representing the people of his district and state? Akin may have voted opposite McCaskill on the passage of Obama Care but he has certainly voted 100% with her on the FUNDING of it. Both Akin and McCaskill paid for Obama Care, now they both own it. And I'll say it one last time - something neither Steelman or Brunner have EVER done in their ENTIRE lives. So if you are going to be critical of Brunner for voting FOR a Democrat, you should at least be intellectually honest and criticize AKIN for voting WITH a Democrat. In this case it's much worse.

  12. I would love to address every one of your points, and I plan to do so. However, I feel that I would be remissed in doing so before you bother to respond to the one point I have presented. The sole point of my post was to question John Brunner's qualifications as a viable candidate, and instead of telling me why John Brunner IS the right guy, you have done nothing but tell me why Akin ISN'T. I'm not saying that you haven't made valid points, only that you seem to think that you can win an argument by changing the subject.

    So I ask you, what is it that makes John Brunner the right guy?

    The fact that you have yet to answer that simple question leads me to believe that you are unable to defend him on the issues I have presented, as it would have been far more expedient to do so much earlier in the conversation. I believe it was President Obama who said, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you must paint your opponent as someone to run from." You may want to aim higher the next time you choose a playbook, IMHO.

  13. Exactly what "issues" have you presented? Once again you are blurring distinctions by conflating the meaning of the word "issue" with the word "concern", so YOU might want to aim higher with your command of the English language. ;-)

    Obama Care and Planned Parenthood funding votes are political "issues". Suspicions about someone's tax returns and their past support of Democrat candidate are personal "concerns". Shouldn't an establishment candidate's unacceptable voting record in congress on recent issues trump suspicions and concerns about a new candidate? In one case we know that the guy has sold us out, in the other case we fear that he MIGHT sell us out, but we aren't quite able to say how or why.

    Your question presupposes that I believe that John Brunner is the "right guy". I have never stated that and as I said earlier, had you written a similar hit piece on Steelman my response would have been identical. The ONLY "career politician" in the Missouri Republican Senate race is Todd Akin. To imply otherwise is misleading at best and a down right intentional falsehood at worst.

    You see, Ginny, since Obama Care passed in 2010 I have essentially become a single-issue voter. I believe if WE THE PEOPLE are ever going to have a chance of overturning it we need to vote out any politician, regardless of party affiliation, who supports it in any way, shape, or form. In 2011 Akin voted to expand it, then to fund it through the unconstitutional CRs that he voted for to continue funding the government (I won't even go into the violation of the sacred oath he took by doing that here). Akin's Obama Care funding and expansion votes that he cast last year immediately disqualify him to represent Missouri in the Senate in my mind. It really doesn't matter what his past record was, what matters is his failure to represent the will of the people from his district and state with the votes he cast in Washington on the seminal issue of our time last year.

    We realistically have 3 Republican Senate candidates running in the Missouri Primary. At this point in time I can honestly say that I have NOT decided whom I will support, but Akin has disqualified himself and it's between Brunner and Steelman. Honestly, I may not know until I roll out of bed the morning of August 7 which of the two I will vote for, but whichever of the two it turns out to be, NEITHER will have the stink of Obama Care on their hands.

    I'll throw you this bone, however, in terms of attributes I find appealing about both Brunner and Steelman:

    Brunner understands how to run a business and the effects of burdensome regulations on small and medium-sized businesses. Brunner has never held elected office, and like our founders envisioned I do believe in the concept of a "citizen senator", even if he happens to be a millionaire (imagine where would we be today had we elected Ross Perot in 1992). Brunner's lack of a voting record is somewhat of a concern, it's a wild card. But I would much rather have a person with NO record than one with a BAD record on the Obama Care issue, as Akin does.

    The times I have talked with Steelman she has impressed me with her understanding of the concepts of limited government. Although she is from a political family, I don't consider her a career politician. Unlike Akin she has not spent the last quarter-century as a representative living off the public feed-trough, and she DOES have a record of standing on principle against her own party when she held elected office. The fact that she is a woman would help neutralize the "Republican war on women" card that McCaskill and the Dems will almost certainly play in the coming months. My concern with Steelman is her inability to speak publicly. She stumbles grammatically and searches for words during debates and media interviews, coming across as unsure or being vague about her positions.

  14. On my command of the English language:
    As a political candidate, John Brunner's actions become fair game as political "issues." The fact that they reflect on his character may make the whole of his character also a "concern." I have not confused the meanings of the two words, nor have I used them in an interchangeable manner. Are you sure "conflating" is the word you meant to use?

    The fact that you have yet to offer substantive information that debunks my point in the original post again suggests that you do not have the ability to do so. The fact that you insist in relying on semantics as an escape hatch suggests that you place more faith in your command of the English language than your command of the subject at hand.

    Now, back to your distraction from the main point:
    You keep bringing up two instances in which Todd Akin voted against your wishes. What you fail to mention is that nowhere in the veterinary services bill is it stated that the funding will come from Obamacare, thus expanding the program. The idea that Obamacare funding could be used to facilitate the implementation of that bill can only be reached by a convoluted series of steps in which parts of Obamacare were injected into the Public Health Service Act of 1944. If it were intended to be a direct byproduct of the Obamacare legislation, it would have been submitted as an amendment rather than a freestanding bill. Do you not agree that there is a remote possibility that, since Obamacare was already before the Supreme Court when HR525 was passed, that Representative Akin was confident that Obamacare would be overturned and that HR525 would therefore stand as a legitimate extension of the Public Health Services Act?

    You also talk about the vote for the debt deal, and (although he did vote at least once to fund the government in an interim period to allow for further negotiations) Akin did not vote for the final debt deal. To say that in this way "Akin chose to fund Planned Parenthood and thus facilitate the murder of over 300,000 babies" is beyond ludicrous. While I think we can agree that the murder of only 1 baby is reprehensible, if you want to make that claim about Representative Akin you also have to condemn any member of Congress who EVER voted for any budget resolution since the government started giving money to Planned Parenthood.

    Now add in this little tidbit:
    Todd Akin has a 100% pro-life rating from the NRLC, and is endorsed in the current primary campaign by Missouri Right to Life PAC. John Brunner has no such endorsement from either group. Why not? Not because he is not pro life, but because he has no record with which to prove that he is.
    Akin is also endorsed in this primary by Rep. Steve King, who you suggested in an earlier link was disgusted by Akin's disregard of a vote that would allow continued funding for Planned Parenthood. It seems that Rep. King, who I'd bet knows Mr. Akin quite a bit better than you do, believes that his record speaks louder than a single possibly disappointing showing.

    Add all these things together, and this is the end result: let's say that you are the manager of a championship baseball team. You have two outfielders to choose from - a 12 year veteran and a rookie. The veteran has a .450 batting average, and the only reason you're considering dropping him is the fact that this season he has dropped one fly ball that didn't even cost you the game. The rookie has never had a professional at bat, so you have no idea what his batting average will be. All you know is that he says he can hit the ball, and in batting practice he swings at every pitch - including the ones he shouldn't be swinging at.

    And you're telling me that, in this case, you should dump the proven player?

  15. I am not nearly as educated on these issues as I should be, and quite honestly I found this blog by mistake. But I looked up the roll call vote Mr. Jim posted and I am very confused by his link to planned parenthood. The bill doesn't say anything about planned parenthood funding, and even if it did, the bill has a 10% chance of even being signed into law according to so I guess I am just completely confused what all the fuss is about.

  16. Ginny,

    Have you read the Obama Care bill? Bills are passed every day that reference and insert language into previous acts like the one you referenced. Check the date; the H.R. 525 was cast LONG before any lawsuits were filed, so your assumption is erroneous. I put much more stock in a politician's voting record than their endorsements. People get endorsed all the time on single-issue positions, oftentimes out of habit or for the sake of friendship or political payback, as I suspect is the case with the King endorsement. All three Senate candidates have been endorsed by right-to-life groups, some even by the same group. Akin is the ONLY one of the three who has voted for bills that fund Planned Parenthood. Does Planned Parenthood perform abortions? Does giving them money facilitate this? Yes and yes. So whose hands are cleaner in that regard - Akin's or Brunner's, Akin's or Steelman's? Certainly NOT Akin's.

    As for your baseball analogy, I'd take the rookie over the veteran any day if I knew from his record that the veteran was a turncoat. Think 1919, Shoeless Joe Jackson, the Black Sox scandal.


    The roll call vote was for HR 525, the Obama Care expansion bill discussed in the link above the roll vote link. The chances of it passing should be irrelevant for a politician who claims to cast votes "on principle". Clearly Akin didn't in this instance.

  17. I have read the Obamacare bill. It made me physically ill.

    I have also read Akin's voting record. I read the details of every budget vote he made in 2011 (the ones you seem to be having an issue with). In every budget extension he put his name to, there were specific provisions as to what was to be financed, such as the military, etc. Planned Parenthood was not named in any one of the bills he voted for. In fact, he did vote to defund them entirely. He voted to defund NPR and several federal housing projects. He voted to keep government from shutting down - with provisions for spending cuts - and the budget extensions he voted for WERE NOT the ones that ultimately passed, funding Planned Parenthood. He voted for extensions that had no hope of passing the Senate because he stood firm on cuts to the budget that neither the Senate nor the President would ever approve.

    I admire your tenacity, but if you're going to insist on only telling one side of the story, I'd prefer you'd keep things like that on "I Heard the People Say." I will not tolerate it here.

  18. Jim, perhaps you should ask Brunner to go on record as to why he is really running against Akin in the first place. In fact, I triple do fare you...if he us going to be perfectly honest, the friend and former largest financial contributor to Akin will tell you that he specifically told Akin that he would no longer support Akin, should Akin NOT vote for TARP.
    Akin voted against TARP, which not only enraged Brunner, but the Establishment as well. The E wants Akin out to punish him for his vote. Enter John Hancock, who needed someone to run...who he knew could be controlled by Danforth dollars. Brunner was a perfect fit. True, Mr GermX does not need the money, rather, something to occupy his time.
    Brunner himself said that in the future, he would not support such bailouts..hind-sight is such a novelty, don't you think? He conveniently omitted the harsh convoy he had with Akin...and a quick look at Akin's campaign financial records completely backs this up.
    So, go ahead...ask Brunner to go on record with this. Doubtful that he would be honest about this though...the truth just isn't so pretty sometimes.

  19. For someone who claims to have no skin in the game and no horse in the race, you sure seem to be tie into the Brunner rumor mill. Throughout this entire discussion I have backed up my allegations about Akin with links to sources. I now challenge you do the same - i.e. what or who is the source of these allegations you are charging Brunner with?

    Since you seem to put so much stock in endorsements, consider this: Sarah Palin today endorsed Sarah Steelman, which in a roundabout way confirms my assertion that Akin is an establishment insider since she has a record of endorsing candidates who run against the establishment incumbents. Akin may not technically be an incumbent in the Senate, but his 12 year career in congress qualifies him as a D.C. "incumbent.

  20. I posted links to all of the information I posted about John Brunner. I have no issue with Sarah Palin endorsing Steelman. It's not even sort of a surprise, considering Steelman had already locked up the Tea Party Express endorsement a few months ago. I don't necessarily agree with Palin's decision to do so, but I find no fault with Steelman.

    I made a point in my original post. You seem to disagree, but can present no proof to that effect. Instead, you proceeded to twist the argument and present proof (however relevant to YOUR point, it was completely irrelevant to mine)of a completely different point, and you assume that makes the conversation into something it never was.

    I will say again, take your one-sided BS and sell it at I Heard the People Say. I have far less tolerance for trolls than they do.

  21. Jen, I'm telling the side of the story that YOU refuse to acknowledge. There are two sides to every story, even Akin's stories. At your request this will be my last post. You might want to ask AKIN why it was so important to vote to fund the troops in 2011 when the funding was bundled in bills with Planned Parenthood and Obama Care, but not so important in 2010 when the funding was broken out separately.

    Akin and his supporters like you have propagated the myth that Todd's support for funding the troops trumped his opposition to funding Planned Parenthood and Obama Care on these votes; that poor old Todd was forced to vote, kicking and screaming, for these bills that funded hideous programs for the sake of the care and feeding of our military. To do otherwise, the Akin camp likes to imply, would be "unpatriotic". Not surprisingly, Todd's voting record in the not too distant past contradicts this. We need look no further back than to the year 2010 to see the flaw in their reasoning, when Akin actually FAILED TO VOTE FOR BILLS THAT FUNDED THE TROOPS.

    The bill:
    The vote:

    The bill:
    The vote:

    The congressional record shows Akin as "Not Voting" to fund the troops in 2010 when the funding was broken out separately from the funding of other parts of the government, but voting FOR "funding the troops" in 2011 when the funding was bundled in a bill that included funding of other government programs such as Obama Care and Planned Parenthood.

    Here is a link to just ONE in the series of funding votes Akin cast in 2011 for comparison to the similar vote in 2010 above, notice from the summary in the link below the vote link that this bill contained funding for the ENTIRE government, including HHS where the Obama Care and Planned Parenthood programs reside:

    In the link above see:
    Title VIII: Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies - (Sec. 1801)
    Health and Human Services, funded in the bill referenced above, is the federal department that runs programs like Planned Parenthood and Obama Care.

    While it is true that some Title VIII funding was cut in 2011, the fact remains that these programs were STILL FUNDED. Republicans were elected to STOP this in November 2010, not to merely slow the growth! The accounting gimmicks used by establishment Republicans to take credit for "defunding" Obama Care while actually FUNDING it were pointed out in an article by the National Review:

    Was this the "vote to defund Obama Care" that Mike Huckabee refers to in the T.V. ad currently being run by the Akin campaign?

    A fairly comprehensive list of Akin's military funding related votes in recent prior years can be found here (note the "nay" votes throughout 2010):

    You should demand an answer from Todd to be certain he is not playing you for a fool. Here's my theory:

    One thing that changed between the time he did not vote for troop funding in 2010 and the time he voted FOR funding the troops along with Obama Care and Planned Parenthood in 2011 was that we conservatives had just worked our tails off to give Republicans the majority in the House after the 2010 election. As a result of our hard work, Todd was subsequently named Chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces in 2011 and the personal stakes have changed since 2010 for this career establishment politician. Is this principled? I think not.

  22. I find it amusing that you didn't even bother to change the wording in that last comment. I guess it's easier to cut and paste?

  23. And for the record: You said earlier that if I had attacked Steelman you would defend her. Why is it that when others, to include John Brunner, attack Steelman you remain silent.

    If Akin is mentioned in a positive light, you attack him.

    If Brunner is mentioned in a negative light, you attack Akin. (I don't think I need to post additional links, as you have done so right here.)

    I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that if Sarah Steelman were ahead in the polls and I wrote a piece detailing her achievements and qualifications that you would either turn on her or find a way to change the subject and attack Akin.

    You claim you are not a part of the Brunner campaign staff, and that may be true. But the indisputable fact is that, paid or not, you are working for John Brunner.

    I say again: TROLL.

  24. Jen the anti-trollJuly 17, 2012 at 5:32 PM

    I think Jim has lost track of who he is talking to.

    And yes, some of us fling poop...and the rest of us are classy enough not to.

  25. Replies
    1. Jen the anti-trollJuly 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM

      Dude, you CAN'T do that! Totally unfair! nO birthday party invitation for you! RACIST! (does that apply here?)

  26. Jim's negative is that Akin is an incumbent! yes! Let's vote all of the incumbents out! Even the good ones! Because we need more people who love Charlie Dooley enough to fund him in higher office. Like Ginni, I'm still waiting on what Brunner's qualifications are aside from not being Akin.

  27. Ginny,

    If you would bother to read everything I have written, you will quickly realize that my objective has been not to promote, defend, or criticize either Brunner or Steelman but to point out Akin's recent DOCUMENTED voting record and the DOCUMENTED inconsistencies with what he says and how he behaves or votes. As for never defending Steelman, one of the first posts I made to this blog pointed out Akin's "11th Commandment" proclamation inconsistency because he already HAD criticized Steelman.

    My beef with Akin is simply this: he voted to expand Obama Care, then to deficit fund both Obama Care and Planned Parenthood in 2011 with OUR money - mine, YOURS, our kids, and grand kids. This should disqualify Akin in the minds of ALL intellectually honest conservatives, including Mr. Harvey. Other criticisms are second-tier issues that I pretty much choose to remain silent on as I decide between Steelman and Brunner which of the two will get my vote.

    If you recall, my INITIAL post to this blog (above) was to challenge your ridiculous implication that John Brunner is a "(Career) Politician" (YOUR words, not mine), pointing out that by any reasonable standard the ONLY career politician in the race is Todd Akin.

    So back to our original argument with some "career politician" food-for-thought that PROVES MY POINT. Career D.C. politicians tend to have campaign fund raisers around the beltway and in D.C. Did you or Van get an invitation to this one from the Akin campaign?

    They seemed to have left me off the invitation list.

    And yes, "Anonymous" I DO support term limits. I hate seeing the babies thrown out with the bath water, but right now it appears that, with only a couple of exceptions, the "babies" will either drown in the D.C. bath water or learn to like drinking it. This is what I believe has happened to Congressman Akin - he has swallowed too much D.C. bath water in the last 12 years and has lost his "principles". To do this right, term limits need to start with the PRIMARIES.

  28. I never said or implied that John Brunner *is* a career politician. I said that he *acts* like one, a statement I stand behind now. Your inability to understand that suggests that you should not be someone whose political advice is taken seriously.

    I say again, TROLL.

  29. Ms Kruta, now that the election is over and your man Akin has won. I would like to set you straight on a few things. John Brunner was never in favor of TARP. This was just another falsehood perpetuated by the "oh so innocent" Akin campaign. You claimed in one if your posts that the money dried up. Not suref you are aware of campaign finance rules, but John Brunner had made the maximum donation he could in March Of 2011. TARP occurred years earlier so your statement is flat out wrong. I am John Brunner's wife so I can speak with authority and proof to this matter instead of speculation and rumor. I have heard Mr. akin speak about his donor who refused to support him after not voting for TARP and it is not John Brunner. You should check your sources before writing if you ever want to be taken seriously. I have read your blogs about John Brunner and I am amazed at your lack of integrity and professionalism.

  30. Ms. Brunner, all due respect:
    I never claimed in any of my posts that John Brunner stopped funding the Akin campaign because of TARP. I said that by voting against TARP, Congressman Akin irritated the GOP establishment.

    I also said that funding for Congressman Akin from John Brunner dried up when he announced his Senate campaign. I read the donation history, and none of that is inaccurate.

    You asked me to "check my sources," and since everything YOU have just accused ME of doing is, as you said, "flat out wrong," I respectfully ask that you do the same.

    I wrote my posts for a very simple reason - not to level personal attacks at John Brunner, but rather to point out the "lack of integrity and professionalism" inherent in such a negative campaign.

    I regret for your sake that your comment has only reinforced my position. When John Brunner ran a campaign to promote himself, he did so by attacking Congressman Akin. When you felt the need to step in and defend him, you did so by attacking me. That's exactly the kind of negativity that makes people weary of politicians.

    And one more thing: if I were truly insignificant enough to not be "taken seriously," I doubt you would have bothered to take the time to insult me.

  31. My question: If these "allegations" that Ginny *didn't* make were false, why was nothing said until now?
    Sounds like sour grapes to me.
    And precisely why Brunner will never win an election...pol wife commenting on blog? Ouch!