Democrats should rethink guv candidate

Democrats should reconsider anointing Jay Nixon as the party's nominee for Governor. With Republican Gov. Matt Blunt no longer seeking reelection, it is no longer good enough just to attack Blunt's record, because he's gone. With voters no longer preoccupied with "getting rid of Blunt," the Democratic candidate will be forced to make a case for her/himself. In that context, Nixon looks like a poor choice.

Perhaps most important, Nixon's rapport with the black community has always been very poor. So poor, in fact, that when Nixon challenged Republican Sen. Kit Bond for re-election in 1998, enough black voters crossed over to vote for Bond (against Nixon, really) to make the difference that beat Nixon. Nixon's "black problem" stems from his career-long opposition to school desegregation. He angered black leaders by failing to consult with them when he settled the desegregation case, causing then-Congressman Bill Clay to urge President Clinton to cancel a fundraising trip for Nixon in 1998. Nixon is also a strong supporter of the death penalty, whose disproportionate application to African American inmates is an anathema to many black voters. He was also a no-show last year at an important NAACP that even Blunt attended.

This all gets worse when put in the likely political context. While the year looks to be shaping up as a Democratic year based on Bush backlash, a race-warfare crosscurrent seems to be emerging that could drive a wedge between the Democratic Party and its long neglected African American base. Barack Obama's inspiring non-race-based victory in lily-white Iowa has given way to racially charged rhetoric from the Hillary Clinton campaign that has polarized the electorate. The bitter campaign has driven much of Hillary's formerly substantial black support to Obama, while white Democrats have surged to Hillary, for a net advantage to Hillary, now once again the likely nominee. Adding to that toxic climate is the stormy relationship of Democratic St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay with the city's African American community. In addition, it appears increasingly likely that August's Democratic primary in term-limited Sen. Maida Coleman's 5th District will be won by veteran southside state rep. Tom Villa, eliminating the city's last black-held senate seat. In that context, if Democrats nominate Nixon for governor to share the top of the ticket with Hillary, the party will virtually dare African Americans to revolt.

But there's more to fear in Nixon than just his (and the party's evolving) "black problem." With Nixon cruising along as the consensus Democratic nominee, Republicans have fired off salvo after salvo against him. While it's easy for Democrats viewing the allegations through rose colored glasses to dismiss them as politically motivated (which they are), I think many of the independent voters that the winning candidate will need to win over will be troubled by many of them. Among the more troublesome are these:

• Nixon's mishandling of politically sensitive cases in AG's office, including his forced removal in litigation brought by political ally Planned Parenthood; ineffective defense of Missouri's campaign finance law revisions, including possible collusion with his former staffers on the opposing side of the litigation; advocacy of opponents' positions when ostensibly defending Missouri's school funding formula; and acceptance of indirect campaign contributions from Ameren during Nixon's investigation of Ameren's fault in the nearly deadly breach of the Taum Sauk reservoir. While some of those actions were politically desirable to progressives like myself, they were ethically questionable in the context of his job, and are not as well received by independent voters.

• In addition to Ameren, Nixon's campaign has accepted large campaign contributions from affiliates of Charter Communications, the subject of several investigations by Nixon's office for no-call law violations and consumer complaints; also from trial lawyers who prosecute claims against the Second Injury Fund overseen by Nixon; a campaign fundraiser hosted by a Blue Cross executive during litigation by Nixon against Blue Cross; contributions from nursing homes over which he has legal oversight; and from developers seeking business from the Missouri Housing & Development Commission on which Nixon sits.

• Nixon has lavishly rewarded campaign contributing lawyers by outsourcing litigation in his office to them with lucrative contracts.

• Ongoing environmental problems, including a lawsuit by the Missouri Public Service Commission, involving a Jefferson County sewage plant owned and represented by the father and other long-time political supporters of Nixon.

• Nixon's distribution of state funds from the multi-million dollar tobacco litigation settlement through the non-partisan Missouri Foundation for Health (whose purpose is to assist Missourians without health insurance) to finance political allies like Planned Parenthood, Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Jobs with Justice, the National Education Association, and an affiliate of Missouri Pro-Vote. I like these groups personally, but this is public money that was supposed to help folks without health insurance.

• A federal employment discrimination lawsuit against Nixon by a former disabled employee discharged by Nixon.

• Inconsistent record on Medicaid cuts: defending Holden Administration cuts but attacking Blunt Administration cuts. As John Kerry would say, Nixon was for Medicaid cuts before he was against them.

• Similar inconsistency regarding Sunshine Law violations. He was lax during Democratic administrations, but transformed into a Sunshine Law hawk when Blunt took office.

The political motivation behind these accusations don't necessarily mean the charges aren't accurate. I think that, in the minds of independent voters, at least some of the charges will stick And there are so many of them, voters may simply conclude that there's too much smoke for there not to be fire.

Nixon backers point to his track record of electoral success. The problem is, Nixon is great at winning reelection with the advantage of incumbency against poorly financed political unknowns. But he lost two statewide elections (1988 and 1998) in which he faced well-known, well-financed Republicans. This is 2008, and (with apologies to The Weather Channel) Nixon loses on the 8's. His only statewide win against a well-financed Republican opponent was his 1992 run for Attorney General, when he was swept into office with less than 50% of the vote in the Clinton-Carnahan landslide.

It isn't as though Democrats have no one else. Robin Carnahan, Joe Maxwell, Susan Montee, Emanuel Cleaver, Charlie Dooley, and Senators Yvonne Wilson, Rita Days, Joan Bray and Jeff Smith would all make better Democratic candidates than Nixon. Even Bob Holden would be better. One needs to step forward, and party leaders need to persuade Nixon that the party needs him to get out of the way and accept a nice judgeship or something.

Filing for office doesn't start for another month or so, and candidates can file as late as March 25. Republicans are starting off fresh looking for their strongest candidate. Democrats should do the same.