I Like Jay Nixon

I think I like Jay Nixon, the Democratic governor of Missouri. He just vetoed two ridiculous bills motivated by wingnut conspiracy theories and fake cries of persecution, one involving the “war on Christmas” and another involving Agenda 21, and minced few words in doing so:

Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a pair of bills Monday that he said targeted imaginary problems pertaining to federal holidays and United Nation’s policies, but which he said could have been costly to local communities.

One of the vetoed bills would have banned public entities from restricting celebrations or discussions of federal holidays.

The other would have forbidden governments from enacting policies traceable to Agenda 21 – a nonbinding resolution adopted in 1992 by the United Nations that encouraged sustainable development.

“While the problems these bills ostensibly aim to fight are only imaginary, the headaches they could create for local governments would be very real and costly,” Nixon, a Democrat, said in a news release announcing the vetoes. “The new and unnecessary mandates imposed by these bills would have infringed on the rights of local communities and prompted a flood of frivolous litigation.”


"Ha! I just suggested that myself"

Sanders Refusing to do Press Briefings ..."
"I don’t know how they managed it, but I am sure the Deep State was ..."

Sanders Refusing to do Press Briefings ..."
"So the claim is that Sanders had looked into her soul and found the shriveled ..."

Sanders Refusing to do Press Briefings ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • He’ll change his mind once the UN storms in and confiscates his “Winter Holiday Tree”.

  • John Pieret

    Here are some more:

    Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation Friday that would have made it a Missouri crime for federal agents to attempt to enforce federal gun laws in the state and could have landed journalists in jail for publishing the names of gun owners.


    The wingnuttery is stron in the Missouri legeslature.

  • How did Jay Nixon get elected in such a loony state? Perhaps he represents hope for the future.

  • Chiroptera

    … the headaches they could create for local governments would be very real and costly.

    Yeah, I guess there’s that, too. Me, I’d’ve just said, “Oh, grow up already!” and left it at that.

    And then blown the “grow up” part by raising my middle finger and saying, “Over ride THIS!”

  • laurentweppe

    How did Jay Nixon get elected in such a loony state? Perhaps he represents hope for the future

    They saw “Vote Nixon” on signs and had a pavlovian reaction.

  • tbp1

    I love it he didn’t mince words at all, calling the problems imaginary, which of course they are.

    Cue the fake outrage from the Tea Party.

  • Chiroptera

    laurentweppe, #5:

    Heh. It’d be really funny if the lieutenant governor had a name like “Tim Agnew” or something.

  • Trebuchet

    How did Jay Nixon get elected in such a loony state? Perhaps he represents hope for the future.

    The answer to that is almost certainly gerrymandering, which is highly effective at electing state legislators, a little less so at electing US Representatives, and not at all effective on statewide elections for Governor or US Senator. It’s not that the state is loony, just that the loons have been able to set themselves up with safe disctricts while concentrating opposition into only a few others.

  • a miasma of incandescent plasma


    How did Jay Nixon get elected in such a loony state? Perhaps he represents hope for the future.

    Hey now, we had a choice between John Ashcroft and (a Progressive) Dead Guy for Senate – we chose the dead guy.

    Stick to the far East (STL), the Middle (Columbia) and the far West (KC) and you’ll like MO.

  • thebionicmommy

    I’m in Joplin, Missouri and I voted for Nixon. My main complaint about him is I think he is a bit too centrist and not liberal enough, but he and Claire McCaskill are the best we can elect in our state right now. So even here in southern Missouri, some of us are horrified by the Tea Party legislators in Jefferson City. Thank goodness Nixon can veto some of their crap, but they do have a veto proof majority.

  • meg

    Ok, dumb question time – what exactly is so scary about Agenda 21? I honestly don’t know what it’s all about, but in this part of the world, sustainable development is encouraged. Hell, it even sounds good.

  • It’s the UN. Fringers have a mythical belief in the power of UN activities.

  • Rey Fox

    It’s nice that there’s still a responsible adult in charge of this state. It’s not so nice that the bar is set so low.

    Ok, dumb question time – what exactly is so scary about Agenda 21?

    Something something freedum

  • Lofty

    “a flood of frivolous litigation.” Sounds like fun, can I have some too?

  • If Clinton had similarly vetoed DOMA and DADT, then regardless of how they passed, I would not object to giving him a pass. He’d have tried. As it stands, he is just trying rewrite history with pathetic excuses.

    Good for Jay Nixon. It is good to see a Democrat with a spine, at least you know they are evolving at that point

  • Trebuchet

    If Clinton had similarly vetoed DOMA and DADT…

    You (and many others on both left and right) are forgetting that DADT was a major liberalization of policy toward gays in the military. Before DADT, the slightest suspicion that a service member might be gay was grounds for a dishonorable discharge. The right wing, who are now so outraged by the repeal of DADT, were also outraged by its enactment.

  • Ok, dumb question time – what exactly is so scary about Agenda 21?

    1) it involves the environment, which means it’s a secret plot to take our freedom away.

    2) it comes from the UN, therefore, black helicopters.

    3) black president. Even though Agenda 21 was formulated under Bush 41, it didn’t become the global plot to seize our golf courses until the Evil Kenyan Usurper came along.

  • I’m one of those Missouri people. I get to have a Tea Party nut, Billy Long, for my Representative. But St. Louis and Kansas City have enough of a chunk of the population to balance things out some, at least on the state-wide votes. At least they’re somewhat rational, but not exactly liberal. There’s plenty of other wingnutty things getting sent to Nixon.

  • Ben P

    Ok, dumb question time – what exactly is so scary about Agenda 21?

    Rey Fox’s “something something freedom” and d.c. wilson’s comment are about right. But here’s what wingnuts actually say about it.

    Gleen Beck wrote a *fictional* book called Agenda 21, this is it’s inside cover blurb

    A violent and tyrannical government rules what was once known as America. The old, the ill, and the defiant all quickly vanish. Babies belong to the state. Against all odds, one young couple risks everything to expose the truth. But are they too late?

    Just a generation ago, this place was called America. Now, after the worldwide implementation of a UN-led program called Agenda 21, it’s simply known as “the Republic.” There is no president. No Congress. No Supreme Court. No freedom.

    There are only the Authorities.

    Woken up to the harsh reality of her life and her family’s future inside the Republic, eighteen-year old Emmeline begins to search for the truth. Why are all citizens confined to ubiquitous concrete living spaces? Why are Compounds guarded by Gatekeepers who track all movements? Why are food, water and energy rationed so strictly? And, most important, why are babies taken from their mothers at birth? As Emmeline begins to understand the true objectives of Agenda 21 she realizes that she is up against far more than she ever thought.

    With the Authorities closing in, and nowhere to run, Emmeline embarks on an audacious plan to save her family and expose the Republic’s true agenda.

    Here’s what Alex Jones’ Infowars says about Agenda 21

    ccording to Agenda 21 human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good. Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet. If you are thinking that this sounds like it is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers intended when they established this nation, you would be on the right track. Those that promote the philosophy underlying Agenda 21 believe that human activity must be “managed” and that letting people make their own decisions is “destructive” and “dangerous”. Sadly, the principles behind Agenda 21 are being rammed down the throats of local communities all over America, and most of the people living in those communities don’t even realize it.

    So how is this being done? Well, after Agenda 21 was adopted, an international organization known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI) was established to help implement the goals of Agenda 21 in local communities. One thing that they learned very quickly was that the “Agenda 21″ label was a red flag for a lot of people. It tended to create quite a bit of opposition on the local level.

    As they try to implement their goals, they very rarely use the term “Agenda 21″ anymore. Instead, they use much more harmless sounding labels such as “smart growth”, “comprehensive land use planning” and especially “sustainable development”.

    *snip* of rant about how building codes are really a UN plot.

    Even if you have your mortgage completely paid off, that doesn’t mean that you really “own” your property. If you don’t pay your taxes and obey the “codes”, you could lose your property very rapidly.

    The philosophy behind all of this is the same philosophy behind Agenda 21. The elite believe that you cannot be trusted to do the “right thing” with your own property and that your activity must be “managed” for the greater good. They believe that by controlling you and restricting your liberties that they are “saving the planet”.

    Unfortunately, you can probably expect this to get a whole lot worse in the years ahead. Our society is shifting from one that cherishes individual liberties and freedoms to one that is fully embracing collectivism. So our politicians will likely be making even more of our decisions for us as the years move forward.

  • meg

    Thanks all for the responses.

    @d c – um, do they realise that the UN actually doesn’t have a standing army? No, scratch that. The other responses I got essentially answer that one, don’t they.

    @Ben P – I used to just laugh at Alex Jones. Now he scares me a little.

  • cactuswren

    @meg: Fred Clark, at Slacktivist, has pointed out that the people of whom we’re speaking genuinely believe that the UN is a world governmental body — and that as such, it has power over national governments. Just as state law overrides county legislation, just as the Federal government overrides state law, so UN decrees override ALL national governments:

    Their actual view of the UN and its relationship to its member states is more like a feudal model in which the many nations are like quasi-independent baronies and fiefdoms, but in which all are subject to the king. “Secretary General,” they believe, is just fancy UN-speak for “High King Over All the World.”

    Thus, right now, in 2007, they truly believe that Ban Ki-moon outranks, and is more powerful — politically, militarily, internationally — than U.S. President George W. Bush.

  • Draken

    I guess the irony eludes them that a christian theocracy is looming much closer than a UN superstate.

  • DaveL

    You’ve got to love the whole Agenda 21 fiasco. 21 years into a supposed global conspiracy to eliminate private property and 85% of the world’s population, what do we have to show for it? Nearly two billion more people, low taxes, a mandate for insurance-covered birth control, some electric buses, and bike paths.

  • Freeman

    I’ve liked Jay Nixon since he was MO’s Attorney General, when he developed and vigorously enforced one of the country’s first DO NOT CALL laws. I signed up on the list, and the volume of annoying spam calls to my home phone dropped dramatically. The few I continued to get would immediately stop once I reported them to Nixon’s office. Beyond that issue, I’ve found that Jay possesses a degree of common sense unusual in your average politician.

    I don’t often vote for Democrats (and even less often, Republicans), but that’s only because both parties have a serious lack of candidates who possess the kind of qualities that I want in my elected representatives, and a serious glut of candidates whom I don’t want representing me. I have enthusiastically voted for Jay Nixon whenever he has appeared on my ballot.