Kit Bond, former Missouri governor, U.S. Senator, dead at 86
Then U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond heads for a closed session of the Senate about the new START Treaty, a ratification of a nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, in the U.S. Capitol December 20, 2010 in Washington, DC. ().
Former Missouri governor and U.S. Sen. Kit Bond, who was the youngest person ever elected to the state's highest office, died Tuesday. He was 86.
Bond was on a Missouri ballot nine times and lost only two races, a bid for Congress in 1968 and his bid for a second consecutive term as governor in 1976. He went on to win a new term as governor in 1980 and four subsequent elections to the Senate starting in 1986.
When he was elected auditor in 1970, Bond was the first Republican to win that office since 1928. When he was elected governor, Bond was the first Republican to win that office since 1940.
In his first term as governor, Bond was seen as a moderate, working to strengthen consumer protection laws and backing the Equal Rights Amendment. The latter position, as well as his support for President Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan for the 1976 GOP presidential nomination cost him support in his party and was blamed in part for his loss for re-election.
In his second term, Bond was faced with a major budget shortfall and economic recession. To combat the recession, Bond worked with lawmakers to pass a $600 million bond issue to fund new state facilities and college campus buildings.
The Parents as Teachers program was also launched in Bond's second term, about the same time his son Sam Bond was born. When he became a senator, Bond sponsored legislation to make it a national program.
'I think that Parents as Teachers is Missouri's greatest export,' Bond said in an oral history interview in 2014. 'We believe that when you advocate Parents as Teachers, you are telling people across the country that Parents as Teachers is Missouri's greatest export.'
In that same interview, Bond said 'the job of governor was one of the most satisfying jobs I've ever had.'
Bond was born in Mexico, Missouri, the grandson of the founder of A.P. Green Industries, a fireclay manufacturer and a major employer at the time.
He attended a boarding school in Massachusetts, Princeton University as an undergraduate and studied law in Virginia, practicing law in Washington, D.C., until he returned home in 1967. His time away became an issue in the 1972 campaign for governor, when opponents alleged he had violated the Constitutional requirement that governors be residents of the state for 12 years prior to their election.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Bond was qualified to be governor because he always intended to return to Missouri despite his years away.
'It has been said that residence is largely a matter of intention, to be determined not only from the utterances of the person whose residence is in issue but also from his acts and in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case,' the ruling in Bond's case stated.
As a senator, Bond became known for his work on the Senate Intelligence Committee, his commitment to national defense and, as illustrated by buildings like the Christopher S. Bond Life Sciences Center at the University of Missouri, the source of earmarked federal funds for local projects. In a tribute on the Senate floor in 2010, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, praised Bond as a fighter and a man of honor.
'There was never a doubt in all of these years of Kit Bond's service that this was not a man of the very highest integrity,' McCaskill said. 'And finally, a work ethic. And gee howdy, Missourians want a work ethic. They want somebody who understands that they are working hard and they want to see you working hard, and that is exactly what Senator Bond has done for these 42 years.'
At a retirement dinner in Bond's honor in 2010, Thomas Payne, then-dean of the University of Missouri's College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, hoisted a large cardboard cutout of an ATM machine with Bond's face on it in reference to the numerous appropriations Bond helped secure for the school. 'You're the chief purveyor of porcine products,' Payne said.
In a 2009 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Bond defended earmarks.
'Trusting local leaders and empowering them to fund critical projects that serve a compelling state or local need is a much better way to help Missouri,' Bond wrote.
Following the news of his death, Gov. Mike Kehoe paid tribute to Bond. In a statement, Kehoe called Bond 'a skilled statesman, public servant, and a man who truly loved Missouri. I am blessed to have known Kit and honored to call him a friend and a mentor.'
During the legislative session Tuesday, state Sen. Lincoln Hough, a Springfield Republican, announced Bond had died and also paid tribute to him.
'The impact of Kit will outlive everyone in this chamber, everyone who serves in the House of Representatives, and his impact will outlive governors,' Hough said. 'We don't have a lot of people like that anymore. We have a lot of people that want a quick hit and post on social media. It is lucky to have lived in a time that he didn't have to put up with a lot of that crap.'
Other remembrances of Bond hit similar themes.
Former U.S. Sen. Jack Danforth, who was attorney general during Bond's first term as governor and worked alongside him in the U.S. Senate from 1987 to 1995, called Bond a role model of a public servant.
'Kit Bond was one of the most consequential people in the history of our state,' Danforth said. 'At each level of his career, he knew the responsibilities of the job he was elected to do, and he did that job very well. As a U.S. Senator, he focused on results for Missouri. From highways and bridges to Parents as Teachers, his contributions are tangible.'
U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Republican who now holds the seat Bond held, said he was sad to hear of his death.
'Kit proudly served our state as governor and then in the U.S. Senate for 24 years, with his trademark sense of humor and dedication to making Missouri the best state in our union,' Schmitt said. 'He helped to improve the lives of generations of Missourians across the Show Me State.'
State Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O'Lauhlin, a Republican from Shelbina, said in a statement that Bond never lost touch with his Missouri roots.
'Missouri lost a giant today,' O'Laughlin said. 'Kit Bond dedicated his life to serving this state with integrity, humility, and an unshakable commitment to doing what was right. Kit Bond was more than a statesman. He was a pillar of Missouri history and a steady hand during uncertain times. From serving as one of our youngest governors to decades in the U.S. Senate, his life was defined by a deep commitment to public service.'
One of the most difficult political puzzles of Bond's second term as governor was how to divvy up the $600 million in bonds for state construction. Former state Rep. Chris Kelly, a Columbia Democrat elected in 1982, said Bond finessed that job well.
Bond kept his eye on the goal of the bond issue, which was to generate jobs and economic growth, Kelly said.
'He got lots of people to work in the state, building infrastructure that we needed very badly,' Kelly said.
Kelly, who was in office from 1983 to 1994 and served again from 2009 to 2015, said the current legislature isn't living up to that legacy. The decision to kill a capital spending bill with more than $500 million of projects for communities around the state is an example, Kelly said.
'His great achievement was this $600 million bond issue,' Kelly said, 'and it's tragically ironic that the legislature would fail to do what he did so well on the occasion of his passing.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: U.S. bombs fall in Iran
Saturday evening, President Donald Trump announced on social media that the U.S. had dropped 'a full payload of bombs' on Iran's most important nuclear site, Fordow, as well as completing strikes on Natanz and Isfahan. The stunning action, which came sooner than even close observers anticipated and is without obvious precedent, embroiled the U.S., for better or worse, in the middle of the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Saturday June 22 turned out to be a historic day with likely far-reaching consequences for the Middle East. Consider: An American attack unfolded inside Iran. Many Americans were unnerved by the President's action and understandably so, given the likelihood of an Iranian response, as we write yet unknown. What should be made of Trump's action? We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy, always preferable to war. His 'two-week' deadline appears to have been a ruse and we prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress. Our qualms do not mean we believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's oppressive and theocratic Iranian regime, which has fought proxy wars by propping up the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Nobody wants that to happen, beginning with Israel, of course, but including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and, well, every nation where rational people dominate public discourse. How close the Iran regime really is to building a nuclear weapon is contested. Those of us with long memories can remember Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear bomb as far back as 1996. More than 20 years ago, Netanyahu was again saying that Iran was very close to building a bomb that could reach the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. All this time, Iran has kept insisting its nuclear program is only for peaceful, civilian purposes. On the other hand, nuclear watchdogs also have consistently raised concerns about the growth of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and Khamenei's regime has not exactly been a model of cooperation. Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, 'is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.' That does not constitute evidence of a plan to build a bomb in and of itself, but the higher the level of enrichment, the closer the uranium gets to 90% weapons grade, and Iran's enrichment level is widely viewed by experts as a significant step closer to weapons grade. For the average American, the truth is not easy to discern even from our own officials. Take U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony to Congress this past March. On the one hand, she said the view of the intelligence community was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' On the other, she also said Iran was suddenly talking a lot more about nuclear weapons. That might sound vague, but it's actually highly significant, given the regime's hatred of Israel and the battles with the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. It's likely that the intra-Iranian discourse has shifted in the light of Israeli aggression. As one of the attendees at the American Nuclear Society's conference in Chicago this past week told us, there likely are those within the Iranian program who are more than interested in building a nuclear bomb to protect the regime, even if the majority are scientists interested only in peaceful, civilian uses and either ambivalent or silently hostile toward Khamenei. The question that does not get enough attention is the balance of power. Some in the latter category, she told us, already have been killed by Israel, much to their colleagues' regret. Some of those in the former category who are still alive thus are most likely newly emboldened. At the time of writing, it was unclear how much Saturday night changed that equation. No doubt there are Iranian voices speaking in favor of a major response. One can only hope other voices are arguing for caution, not least for the people of Iraq who awoke in fear Sunday morning. In terms of realpolitik, of course, Israel most wants regime change in Iran. So does the vast majority of the Iranian diaspora, including some we know in Chicago. So does the vast majority of the Iranian people, given Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with brutal violence, his funding of terror, his denouncement of opposing voices. And that's only the start of the list. This is not a regime worth defending, and recent progressive attempts to link the situation in Iran with the war in Iraq, ostensibly fought over weapons of mass destruction that did not prove to exist at scale, are illogical. This time around, the question in Iran is more about intent, not the existence or otherwise of weapons. And people's intent can change as circumstances change. What is worth debating is whether the Israeli attacks will make the end of the Khamenei regime more likely. You could argue the events of the last several days are weakening Khamenei. You could also argue that spring does not arrive when the sky is full of bombs and people are fleeing Tehran as fast as humanly possible. So where should you stand? Not with the MAGA isolationists, certainly, who claim that none of this has anything to do with this country, a view widely assumed to be cleaving the MAGA movement in two, which is no bad thing in our view. That's not to say the likes of Tucker Carlson are wrong about the potential costs of a war with Iraq; all wars extract their price and too little stateside attention is being paid in our view to the danger of nuclear contamination, which is rightly front of mind in the Persian Gulf States, even though those states are no fans of the Iranian regime and want it gone. But the horse bolted decades ago when it comes to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. But we also don't recommending standing with those far leftists who view Iran as benign, its hatred of Israel as overblown and who overlook Khamenei's human rights abuses to fit some anti-capitalist narrative. When you see the extremes of American political discourse getting into bed together, that's a great moment to leave the bedroom. What has changed the most, of course, is that the Oct. 7 attacks changed the Israeli mindset vis-a-vis Iran, and that Netanyahu calculated that the Trump administration would be more supportive of the kind of systemic change in the region that Israel now sees as crucial to its security. He was not wrong. Trump, we all know by now, is a born improviser, which can be dangerous in situations like these. Some would argue his application of force was necessary if we want to get Iran to halt its nuclear activities. The other view is that actually dropping some massive bomb deep down into the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo will not be worth the cost. Adding to the complexity, arguably the redundancy, of that question is the reality that Israel was not going to stop, whatever the U.S. did or did not do in its support. One hopeful interpretation is that the U.S. action ends with this move against the nuclear facilities and that the talking now starts again. This weekend, though, there is reason to worry about the Iranian people, most of whom long for a deal wherein Khamenei and his crew hop a plane and set the Iranian people free. In his social media post, Trump said this was the time for peace. May he be good for his word.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Meet the unorthodox governor who could be the MAHA movement's favorite Democrat
Over his years in politics, Polis has — if nothing else — stood out. Advertisement A wealthy tech entrepreneur, he bankrolled early efforts to turn Colorado into a Democratic stronghold before running for office himself — first for Congress, where he served five terms. In 2018, he became the first openly gay man to win a state governorship. Since taking office, he's pursued an agenda with centrist, libertarian, and progressive threads, prioritizing cutting taxes but also making kindergarten fully free in the state. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Now, Polis is distinguishing himself as a rare Democrat willing to engage with In an interview with the Globe on Tuesday, Polis declined to praise or criticize Kennedy directly — or talk about him much at all — when asked to assess the secretary's performance. Advertisement Polis expressed 'skepticism and concern with regard to casting aspersions on vaccines that are absolutely critical to protect health and reduce deadly disease incidence.' But where many Democrats have avoided engaging with the 'I mean, we're a proud part of the United States of America, so of course, we're going to work with our own federal government,' Polis said. 'So that means … playing defense where we need to, and it also means seeking opportunities where we can.' The governor argued that as he works with the administration, he's also 'trying to defend and improve and increase vaccine use' and fight sweeping SNAP cuts proposed by Trump's allies in Congress. As Democrats anxiously search for new leaders to meet this moment, Polis has attracted speculation as a contender for the presidency in 2028. And he hasn't exactly shunned the attention. Asked about a presidential campaign, Polis told the Globe that he's 'not thinking about any other job' and that he's focused on 'running through the tape to deliver' as governor until he leaves in January 2027. But he didn't rule out the possibility. Senator John Hickenlooper, the previous Democratic governor of Colorado, predicted that Polis — whom he praised as a 'leader among Democrats' — will 'stay actively engaged' after leaving the governorship. 'He addresses each issue as a unique issue, and he doesn't worry about what other people said or what other people think,' Hickenlooper said. Advertisement Polis may not worry about it, but he draws strong — and often polarizing — reactions in Colorado. In recent years, he's alienated some fellow Democrats, raising doubts about how solid his base would be if he pursued national office. Howard Chou, a former state party vice chair and a Colorado delegate to the Democratic National Committee, argued Polis has become 'very unpopular' within his own party. His openness to Kennedy hasn't helped. 'I'm OK with working with people to get stuff done,' said Chou, 'but also to facilitate some of Kennedy's craziness has not gone off well.' One of Polis's more controversial moves was his recent vetoes of Democratic-backed legislation, especially a bill that would have Through a spokesman, Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib, who participated in demonstrations against Polis's labor stance, declined to be interviewed. Polis told the Globe he has 'very strong' relationships with Democrats and downplayed any lingering differences. Meanwhile, some Colorado Republicans appreciate his independent streak. 'One of the things I really like about Governor Polis is the fact that he doesn't have to accept every aspect of somebody in order to find the things he can connect with them on,' said Kelly Maher, a GOP strategist who previously worked on efforts to defeat Polis. Polis's unconventional approach, and his interest in issues now close to the MAHA movement, dates back to his time in Congress. In 2015, he was a lead co-sponsor of bipartisan legislation to legalize the sale and shipment of raw milk across state lines. He's since attempted to legalize raw milk in Colorado as governor. Advertisement Broadly, Polis may reflect Colorado's liberal but libertarian-tinged politics as well as its environmentally focused and health-conscious populace — the type of milieu from which Kennedy emerged in the first place. And nowhere in the state are those tendencies stronger than in Polis's hometown of Boulder, In his first year as governor, Polis opposed Democratic-backed legislation intended to increase childhood vaccine uptake in Colorado, objecting to a provision requiring parents to seek a child's vaccine exemption from officials in person. The bill never became law. After the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Polis advocated for the new vaccines and blamed misinformation for packing hospitals with unvaccinated people. 'It's just like, science solved this thing but then people screwed up the solution,' he said in an interview at the time. But the governor also became an early Democrat to lift masking requirements. In welcoming Kennedy's appointment, Polis credited him with opposing vaccine mandates and felt he would 'shake up' the nation's public health establishment. Now, with Colorado's The governor said he only met Kennedy once, at a national governors' event, but that he has worked more closely with Rollins, a self-described 'MAHA mom.' Rollins began working with a handful of governors to align states with MAHA priorities by encouraging them to exclude sugary drinks and other 'ultra-processed' foods from food stamp eligibility. Among the first nine governors to request waivers, Polis was the lone Democrat. Advertisement Noting Colorado is 'a very health-conscious state,' Polis said he was interested in pursuing the waiver as a 'powerful and compelling way to drive down health care costs by reducing chronic disease and preventing diet-related illness.' There's debate among nutrition experts over the possible impacts. Kate Bauer, an associate professor at the University of Michigan who studies SNAP, argued that such waivers 'make life hard for SNAP users and make people not want to be in the program.' As for Polis, he sees more opportunities to work with MAHA, telling the Globe he supports Kennedy's efforts to ban artificial food dyes that have been linked to some health risks. Ted Trimpa, a Colorado Democratic strategist who has known Polis for decades, said that 'what makes Jared authentic' is that he 'understands you have to work with people you don't necessarily agree with.' 'We can't wave a wand and make RFK Jr. go away. You can either try to find glimmers of hope in the craziness … or not,' he added. 'Jared is willing to walk down that path and some politicians aren't. But that's what makes him different.' Sam Brodey can be reached at
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Congress exists': Bay Area lawmakers deride Trump's decision to bomb Iran as unlawful
Bay Area congressional Democrats condemned the U.S. bombing of nuclear sites in Iran Saturday, saying President Donald Trump overstepped his authority and thrust the country into another risky Middle East conflict. Gov. Gavin Newsom said California's State Threat Assessment Center is monitoring for potential impacts in the state. 'While there are no specific or credible counter threats we are aware of at this time, we urge everyone to stay vigilant and report suspicious activity,' he tweeted. 'Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization,' House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi posted on X. 'I join my colleagues in demanding answers from the Administration on this operation which endangers American lives and risks further escalation and dangerous destabilization of the region.' Rep. Ro Khanna said on X called on congressional leaders to return to Washington to pass a resolution 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.' After announcing the attack on social media Saturday afternoon, Trump said during a speech at the White House Saturday night that the bombings of the Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan sites had been 'a spectacular military success' that 'totally obliterated' the targets. Other Democratic politicians voiced concern with the escalation of the conflict with Iran, while Republicans backed up Trump's move. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, called Trump's action 'an act of war,' that could lead to 'terrible consequences for our troops, our national security, the Middle East region, and what's left of our global credibility.' Huffman said there were smarter ways to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. 'This is a dark day for the Constitution and for peace,' Huffman said. Khanna and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Antioch, both pushed members of Congress to return to session to pass Khanna's War Powers Resolution, co-sponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican. The resolution aims to limit the president's power to commit the United States to armed conflict. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Castro Valley, said Congress 'should have been briefed, voted on and able to set parameters on this action.' 'Donald Trump is not a dictator. And Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. That's why in a democracy, Congress exists,' Swalwell wrote on social media. 'Trump's actions — without pursuing proven congressionally authorized diplomatic efforts — threaten to mire the United States in ANOTHER endless Middle East Conflict.' The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations California condemned Trump's 'illegal and reckless' bombing, calling it an 'act of war that prioritizes (Israeli) Prime Minister Netanyahu's agenda over the interests of the American people.' 'This escalation, driven by pressure from an out-of-control Israeli government, risks dragging the U.S. into yet another unjust war in the region,' the organization said in a statement. CAIR said that while Trump previously promised to not start wars, he is now 'fueling dangerous escalation based on lies.' Rep. Sam Liccardo, D-San Jose, was more reserved in his criticism of the action, calling to 'refrain from further military action, and urge all parties back to the negotiating table before there is additional escalation.' Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, also criticized the lack of congressional authorization, but affirmed that 'Israel, the United States, and the world are safer without Iran having nuclear capabilities.' Rep. Lateefah Simon, D-Oakland called Trump's bombing of Iran 'lawless, dangerous, and immoral. This decision was made without the consent of Congress and without regard for the human lives that will be lost. This kind of power, wielded without accountability, puts all of us, our American troops and American families alike, in danger.' Rep. Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, voiced his support for Trump's 'decisive action to eliminate the nuclear capabilities posed by the Iranian regime was a necessary one to prevent a real and catastrophic threat.
