The Joplin Globe has done the right thing and corrected an earlier story on the issue involving Shelly Dreyer and the lawsuit brought by her former partner, Charlie James:

A story in Saturday’s editions incorrectly reported that a deposition in the lawsuit showed that the firm’s majority partner, Charles James, knew about the case referral.

James said that Dreyer while a partner referred a personal injury case to a Chicago attorney and did not keep appropriate records. After she left that firm, Dreyer accepted the direct payment of a fee of more than $35,500 that James contends should have gone to the firm to be reconciled with the division of property due all the lawyers as a result of Dreyer’s departure.

So, now we await both the voters’ decision in the August primary between Dreyer and Bill White and the decision of a court (or negotiated settlement) in the dispute over attorney’s fees.

Which leads me to what I intend as my final word on both Shelly Dreyer and Bill White.

As I have acknowledged, I do not and cannot support either candidate for obvious reasons.  When you put an “R” beside your name, especially these days, you are making a statement about your political philosophy that I cannot accept as my representative in the Missouri legislature.

Bill White built a new 7,500-square-foot house outside of the 129^th District (in the Wildwood Ranch Estates) that he intends to live in—unless voters elect him.  And even if it’s true, as Mr. White says, that the house, contrary to rumors, is not a multi-million dollar house, or “not even a million dollar house,” it is more than a little troubling that a man who wants to be our representative built a house outside our district that is many times more expensive than most of us, who will likely live here long after Mr. White moves on, could possibly afford.

But, to me, that’s not as troubling as his politics, which besides the standard pro-life, pro-gun rights stuff, includes the following statement, which I found on a flyer his campaign left on my door not long ago. It said:

Bill opposes tax increases.

Since Mr. White has already decided that no matter what, and despite the fact that Missouri’s budget is being cut dramatically and the tax burden in Missouri is near the bottom in the country, he is opposed to raising the money to pay for the services Missouri offers, that statement alone should disqualify him from becoming ours or anyone’s state representative.

As for Shelly Dreyer, that fateful day she dropped by my neighborhood campaigning, she left a printout of what looked like a page from her campaign website, “My Pledge To You.”

I happened to compare the page she had prepared to hand out to my neighbors with the one on her website and I noticed the following website “pledge” missing from the one left on my door:

Require random drug testing for anyone receiving Welfare benefits and stop benefits for those found using illegal drugs.

At least three things disgust me—besides the obvious assumption regarding people on welfare—about this pledge to require “anyone” receiving welfare benefits to be tested for illegal drugs. 

One is that “anyone” usually means women with children, and Ms. Dreyer doesn’t explain what happens to those children when she callously cuts off the mothers’ benefits. 

The second disgusting thing is that Ms. Dreyer doesn’t have a similar pledge to test randomly for illegal drugs the management of businesses who receive tax breaks, farmers who receive subsidies, and other examples of corporate welfare.  Or how about politicians who take taxpayer money in the form of salaries?

The third disgusting thing about Ms. Dreyer’s disgustingly disgusting pledge is that she didn’t have the courage to put it on the flyer she distributed to my neighbors, some of whom just might be on welfare, given the times we’re in.  Despite the fact that the flyer was almost an identical reprint of her campaign webpage, she, for obvious reasons, left her nasty appeal to class politics out.

I don’t know, but maybe the campaign has a flyer designed for Snob Hill, which does include the missing pledge to test those drug-doing welfare moms.  In any case, I hope I’ve made it clear that such a policy—apparently designed to appeal to at least some residents of the 129^th District—is as disgusting as it can be.

And that’s why, despite all the other associated issues, I could not support either of these Republican candidates.

Here is a screenshot of the offensive pledge: