I am not a Bond fan, but I must admit he has a mixed record of achievements and political positions. I disagree with much of his politics while gov and disagree with his current positions on the war and “enhanced techniques” which most of the world call torture. However, Bond has a good record in other areas. The list of his votes that I disagree with is very long, but some I do agree.

He did at least support bailout of auto industry, something many in GOP are grandstanding about. He did do a few more good things, that I will give the man

“Sen. Bond always said pork is a mighty fine diet for Missouri: low in fat and high in jobs.”

That is a true statement and Bond did bring many a project to Missouri and that helped employment and industry.

As a Republican I must say Mr Bond was one of my least favorite congressmen. He was wrong on just about every issue. He oversaw a time where Republicans turned from a small decentralized government to nothing more than what Democrats used to be 15 years ago.

His support of war is particularly troubling. Until the Bushes took over, Democrats had always been supporters of war as a means for government to take more power from the people (Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson).

His support of the war was simply an extension of his belief that government is the answer to each individuals problems. His recent support of the bank and auto bailouts would have meant a significant decrease in support from true Republicans who believe in liberty and freedom.

Unfortunately, all of the people named by the PD represent the same ideals as Mr. Bond. It is my hope that another person, one who actually believes in the freedom and liberty of the people of Missouri, will represent our great state.

–
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington

Well, there is one thing we know for sure, which is that the PD EP, if still in business, will with out a doubt support the Democrat who runs for his seat in 2010, whomever that may be, over the Republican whom they will sumarily trash.

A little research would have revealed that on Oct. 24, 2004, we published the following endorsement editorial:

Bond for Missouri

MISSOURIANS have a tough choice in the U.S. Senate race. They can re-elect Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond who is familiar, experienced, powerful and committed to cities. He is weak on the environment, overly partisan and unrealistic about the war in Iraq.

Or they can choose state Treasurer Nancy Farmer, a less familiar commodity, but a woman with a good record in state government who understands the realities of Iraq. But she lacks Mr. Bond’s experience, clout and depth on federal issues.

When Mr. Bond, now 65, first ran for public office — an unsuccessful bid for Congress in 1968 — he was a moderate Republican, a breed now all but extinct. As the party moved right, Mr. Bond went with it, and excels at the nasty partisanship that has become the norm on both sides of the aisle.

Still, Mr. Bond has a long and consistent record of commitment to urban issues. His imprint and influence are visible in Murphy Park, the new urban community on the near North Side, and the Hope VI project on the near South Side. He is more progressive than the Bush administration on national housing policy.

He has been a leader in providing energy and funds for the city’s listless effort to end lead poisoning its children. He obtained about $15 million of federal money to help the city end this silent plague by 2010.

As the Senate’s most powerful voice on transportation, Mr. Bond is in a prime position to obtain money for the much-needed new Mississippi River bridge at St. Louis. He is proud of his record of hauling the bacon home. A spokesman once bragged, “Sen. Bond always said pork is a mighty fine diet for Missouri, low in fat and high in jobs.”

Mr. Bond’s greatest weakness is his execrable record on the environment. Time and again, Mr. Bond has used his Senate power to add anti-environmental riders to appropriations bills. He boasts about an absurd war he waged against California clean air standards, purportedly to save jobs at a lawn mower manufacturer in Missouri. He trumpets his vote against better fuel efficiency standards as important to Missouri auto plants. He has blocked efforts to save endangered species on the Missouri River in order to preserve a dying barge industry. And he is pushing full steam ahead on the proposed locks on the Mississippi River, despite serious questions about its economic need and environmental wisdom.

Like the president, Mr. Bond is unrealistic about the situation in Iraq. He still talks about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi ties to al-Qaida. And he even suggests that the daily casualty count in Baghdad isn’t much worse than in Washington, D.C.

On intelligence, Mr. Bond’s record is mixed. He voted against setting up the 9/11 Commission, and used a Senate intelligence report for a misleading partisan attack on Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the president. But Mr. Bond has pressed to give real power to a new national intelligence director.

African-Americans say that the last time Mr. Bond was running, he promised to support Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White for a seat on the federal bench. But after then-Sen. John D. Ashcroft launched a venomous attack on Judge White, Mr. Bond reneged.

Ms. Farmer, 48, worked her way up from her working class roots to become an effective three-term member of the Missouri House before winning election as state treasurer in 2000. In that job she has effectively invested the state’s money. In the Legislature she was a strong advocate of women’s rights, influential in passing historic preservation tax credits and eliminating the state sales tax on food.

Ms. Farmer emphasizes job creation, suggesting that the federal government should have subsidized development of hybrid auto technology so that the United States would have been “ahead of the curve.”

But Ms. Farmer’s economic analysis is thin. Without direct government intervention, the free market responded to the popularity of the hybrids with Ford producing a hybrid SUV.

The Democratic candidate criticized Mr. Bond for keeping California from adopting more stringent environmental standards than the federal government’s. But she doesn’t offer much of an alternative on the environment. She supports the construction of locks and dams on the Mississippi and the barge interests on the Missouri.

Ms. Farmer would be a progressive vote on nominees for the federal bench and on abortion rights. Mr. Bond is anti-abortion but is willing to support the kind of stem cell research that is important to Washington University, despite opposition from Archbishop Raymond L. Burke. “I don’t happen to agree with the archbishop on that,” Mr. Bond says.

Ms. Farmer realizes the mistake the United States made in diverting the war on terrorism into Iraq. Voters for whom Iraq or abortion rights or the environment is a central issue will want to vote for Ms. Farmer.

But Ms. Farmer herself says Missourians should vote for the candidate who is best at bringing benefits to Missouri. By that standard, Mr. Bond is the stronger candidate. Voters should re-elect Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond because he is committed to the cities, has a proven record of accomplishment and a deeper knowledge of national issues.

Also, two m’s in “summarily.”

OOOOPS!

While you did Bond and his ability to bring home pork, A Centrist is probably correct in his comment that you will suport the Democrat that runs for the seat in 2010.

I will say this much in Senator Bond’s favor, at least he knew the correct pronunciation for the state that he represents. A lot of the prople who live here do not.