In his latest post on Missouri Pulse, lobbyist and GOP consultant John Hancock rips into the media for its lack of coverage of Attorney General Jay Nixon's connection with the Missouri Foundation for Health.
In his post, Hancock points out a column by Cape Girardeau Southeast Missourian Publisher Gary Rust (pictured), which takes the media and Nixon to account.
What Hancock does not point out is that Gary Rust, his beacon of truth, is one of those journalists who likes to play kingmaker and not just dispassionately report on the day's events.
Missouri Ethics Commission records show that three times in the past four years, Rust has donated the maximum amount allowable to Missourians for Matt Blunt, the governor's campaign committee, including $1,275 on June 16, $1,175 on Dec. 20, 2003, and $1,200 on Nov. 2, 2004.
As a citizen, Rust has every right to make those contributions. When he begins writing criticism of Blunt's opponent in the 2008 election, it would be nice if he would disclose this information to his readers.
6 comments:
Now that you've thrown your punch at a Republican, Randy, how about telling us what you think of Nixon's cozy relationship to the Missouri Foundation for Health.
And you are right, Mr. Rust has every right to make contributions to candidates or parties of his choice. That information is public so why should he have to mention it or that he contributes to Public Television or the Baptist Children's home or the American Red Cross?
Randy, you are losing some credibility on these issues because you pick and choose the issues and do so only to bash someone rather than address the issue at hand.
You know, Randy (or I hope you know-even though you don't want to admit it) that you are not serving your readers well by this. Your voice becomes weaker and weaker as you practice this more and more. You appear to be writing your blog on Democrat talking point sheets.
You once were a good reporter (bad editor, but good reporter), but you are failing and, even though we disagree almost 100 percent of the time, I find it sad that you are sinking to this level.
That's very disingenuous of you.
Why does Hancock feel the need to publish the Nixon Donor Depot? Why does Hancock cite Tony Messenger on his website as one of the websites that he likes? And finally why does Hancock use a quote from Nodler? (Note to Randy, I left off the adjective that I wanted to apply to Nodler. And Nodler, if you're out there think about it a while, I'm sure you'll stumble over the insult eventually)
Hancock could have taken the high road and given us some insight in how government works and positive aspects of our government. He could have become an educational reference for students and even adults. Instead he has chosen to take the political low road. As far as I'm concerned, his website is a disappointment.
I don't see the previous poster's point. It is relevant information that Rust is a Republican who has financially supported Blunt.
The Missouri Foundation for Health has funded a lot of stuff and it is reasonable to question where those dollars have gone. I am open to discussion about this but I don't particularly see anything innappropriate about the foundation.
Rust complains about the Missouri Budget Project but I think they have been mostly right in their criticism about Blunt. The health care cuts were too extreme and should be reversed.
The Budget Project has also criticized Democrats a number of times. The Budget Project supported the tobacco tax which was on the ballot. Many Democrats, including Nixon did not support this tax.
Finally, if you read the comment section in response to Rust article there is an interested post takes Blunt to task for misusing economic numbers.
Isn't it interesting how Republicans think any reporting of their activities is slanted. No Democrat should point out their shortcomings whatever they are. When a party has as much garbage with them as the Republicans what good could be reported. There is none.
To you Democrats:
Good job cutting off funding to the War and pushing through the no-confidence vote on Gonzales . . . must be nice to be in the majority.
So...if you contribute to a campaign, you're either buying off the campaign or, paradoxically, being bought off by it. I'm thoroughly confused. How is it a conflict of interest to support someone with both money and words? If some politician paid a writer for a job, I'd expect the writer to be honest and disclose the fact that his opinions might be influenced by the money. If the writer supports a politician with his money, all that tells me is that he's putting his money where his pen is. It only reinforces the credibility of his convictions.
Post a Comment