McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - July '09 - SurveyUSA

Interesting numbers (0.00 / 0)

And yes there is a lesson - an easy lesson if she'd just pay attention.

What should grab her attention is her atrocious "independent" numbers.  She may try to convince herself that Dems may disapprove of her but will still vote for her but we all know Missouri independent voters are key to any election.

Independents like politicians who stand for something - even when they might not agree with that something.  

It's really hard to tell what Claire stands for and it has been hard since she was elected.  

I had such high hopes for her when she was elected and I truly wish that she could turn things around and be the DEMOCRAT that we all thought we were working to get elected.  

---

by: maryb2004 @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 20:53:42 PM UTC

Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

It's interesting that McCaskill's numbers are dropping a lot more among independents while she's bending over backwards to show that she is independent by occasionally casting votes against the Democratic agenda, and speaking out against climate change legislation and parts of the stimulus like Cash for Clunkers.

---

by: Clark @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 22:32:21 PM UTC

Or in other words (0.00 / 0)

What Mary said.

---

by: Clark @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 22:32:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From a conservatives view..... (0.00 / 0)

Clarie made a big mistake by sponsoring the senate resolution 511 falsely sanitizing John McCains POTUS eligibility (he was born in Panama, not on US soil).  In that resolution (511) it states that that a natural born citizen includes a person born abroad to "citizen parents" - plural.  Senator Leahy added "Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Sneator McCain is a natural born citizen.  And finally the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal judge was also made part of the official record.  He stated:  My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural born citizen.

Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be US citizens?  Why did Claire sponsor this bill and why did the senate require two citizen parents?  Why does the Obama State Department continued publication of the foreign affairs manuals also acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?

Clarie looks stupid pushing Senate Resultion 511 while simultaeously backing another canididate who was a native born subject of Great Britain.  She seems REALLY REALLY STUPID to independents now.  Only the hardened liberals refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of her actions.

---

by: babeol @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 01:45:08 AM UTC

Yawn (0.00 / 0)

...When Michelle Malkin is the voice of reason talking you down, you are so far out on the lunatic fringe that you've built a condo out there.

The Birthers

...For example, the nuttiness in some ways helps the White House because it makes the president's detractors look ridiculous. Former Clinton White House press secretary Jake Siewert said, "At some level, they're not that bad to have around because it reminds people that under the mainstream conservative press there's this bubbling up of really irrational hatred for the guy."

And that's precisely what worries some conservatives who want their attacks against the White House to be taken seriously. Michael Medved referred to the Birthers as "crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters" who are "the worst enemy of the conservative movement." He added, "It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company."

So, the "mainstream" right is debating whether they should actively root for Obama's policies to fail, and the "fringe" right is debating whether Obama is even eligible for the presidency.

Just keep on talking, guys.

Yes, yes, keep on talking...

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 02:11:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Locked in your cube (0.00 / 0)

Sad that you had to resort to this rhetoric instead of staying on point.  It is a fact that Claire sponsored this resolution and the contents are a matter of public record.

I am not a birther or a wingnut and the independents look at facts.  That's why her numbers are tanking.

I do however think she handled the last townhall more intelligently that Russ Carnahan, who is is really stupid.

---

by: babeol @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 05:38:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Birther (0.00 / 0)

...while simultaeously backing another canididate who was a native born subject of Great Britain...

...I am not a birther...

Your two statements are in conflict.

Sad that you had to resort to this rhetoric instead of staying on point...

Project much?

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:03:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The real conflicting statements (0.00 / 0)

Factcheck.org: Obama born to British father therefore born as British citizen

Claire McCaskill:  Senate Resolution 511 - Senate affirms two US citizen parents required to be natural born citizen.

Please explain this to me in detail if you guys are so smart and understand this far better than me.  Don't call me a birther.  Provide me with a clear and educated explanation of this conflict.

Then maybe I might consider voting for Clair McCaskill again.  I think she is a do-do for sponsoring this senate resolution.

---

by: babeol @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 15:27:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where does factcheck say this and what is the significance anyway ... (0.00 / 0)

I am a citizen of the U.S. born in the U.S. to parents who are citizens, but I am could also claim dual citizenship with a Ireland since I meet the legal criteria enacted by the Irish government.  

---

by: WillyK @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 21:25:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Irish citizen parent at the time of your birth = not natural born US citizen (0.00 / 0)

The difference is that you imply your parents were BOTH US CITIZENS at the TIME of your birth, which I assume was also in America. Your father was no longer an Irish subject with divided loyalty at the time of your birth.
----------------------------------------------------

Obama's own web site carried an admission that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. That admission was published by Obama's Fight The Smears web site as quoted from a discussion of Obama's UK citizenship written by Factcheck.org.

The Factcheck.org essay went even further than the admission quoted by Obama's site.  It further stated:

"In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC...Obama's British citizenship was short-lived."

Neither Obama nor Factcheck.org dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth.  As you can see, it has been admitted.  All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional.  Obama was a British citizen at birth.  Fact. Checked. Established.  The only question that remains on the issue is whether he's still a British citizen or subject.

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain.  Justice Gray - writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark - quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

"In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. "

Birth and allegiance go together.  Obama's father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth.  His son, Obama Jr., was a natural born subject of the British monarchy.  Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and was a US citizen at birth, nothing can change the fact that he was also a natural born subject of Great Britain as well as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The fact that Obama is a natural born subject has - up until this article - gone largely unnoticed.  According to Blackstone's Commentaries:

"all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;"

Obama's allegiance was - at the time of his birth - divided.  And the framers of our consitution would never have considered him eligible to be President.   The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.

Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government.  The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Emphasis added.)

In George Washington's farewell address in 1796, he stated these most important words which today would be soundly ridiculed by the propaganda of political correct sarcasm:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism...

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another...

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield...

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests...(Emphasis added.)

The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject - a citizen at birth of Great Britain - entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 - and still may be according to Kenyan law - would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief.  And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren't even a serious issue, and call those who are seriously concerned by ugly names.

---

by: babeol @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 23:28:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Birther (0.00 / 0)

Heh. If you obsess like a birther, and you quote like a birther, and you try to convince progressives on their web site that this is all serious business, you're a birther. Embrace your birtherness, we won't think any less of you than we already do...

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 00:02:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sad (0.00 / 0)

Sad you had no facts with which to make a valid argument.  You lose.  All you have is name calling.  

---

by: babeol @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 00:09:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh. As if ... (0.00 / 0)

You lose.

...you get to call it around here?

Birthers and other right wingnuts:

The owner of the blog calls the shots...

...Wailing about being victimized doesn't wear well on anyone. It's laughable when it comes from supposedly self-reliant right wingnuts....

...Trolls and those intent on disruption should be crushed and mocked without mercy - and the management will remove them as soon as possible, leaving their dessicated carcasses as an example for others...

Around these parts birthers are considered trolls.

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 00:24:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lots of words ... (3.00 / 1)

that miss the point (any point actually).  One can meet the legal criteria for citizenship in more than one country. So what?

In the U.S., the criteria for being a  "natural born citizen" has yet to be defined formally by the courts, but the vast body of precedent agrees that people, like Obama, born in the U.S. with at least one American parent are American citizens.  I doubt that this precedent will ever be reversed nor should it.  This is is a non-issue except for a few very simple people who don't really want to respect the result of democratic elections (or who don't really want a black president).

By the way, the quotation from the Federalist no. 68 is only germane to Hamilton's  view of electoral mechanics, e.g., direct election as opposed to a system of electors (similar to our electoral congress).  Sadly, you also seem to misunderstand almost all the points made in Washington's farewell address -- or twist them out of their original context to serve your wishes?  

Anyway, do you actually think that Great Britain wants to control the U.S.?  Is that you are so worried about Obama's putative British citizenship?  

---

by: WillyK @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:50:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

By the way, Resolution 511 address John McCain's situation (3.00 / 1)

... which is that children of American parents born on foreign soil.  It does not unequivocally specify that there need be two citizen parents and could be elaborated to do so or not. It speaks of children (plural) born to American citizens (plural) which could be parsed in number of ways.

Of course all of this is irrelevant to Obama's situation since, as Factcheck (which you seem to believe authoritative) affirms unequivoally, he was born in the U.S.  

---

by: WillyK @ Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 16:30:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Music Professor? (0.00 / 0)

You are a music professor so I guess we have to understand that you don't fully understand our constitution, common law or policy.  But it is sad.  Go and read fact check.org since they are the ones that posted this fact.

Again, throwing out names and labels (birthers) is why the independent voters are turning away from your movement.  You only fuel my vote against your positions.

I only answered the questions posed with my opinion.....but even that had to be "corrected" but the holier than thou people who run this site.  Any you wonder why people dislike you?

---

by: babeol @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 15:05:41 PM UTC

Anonymous rightwing troll? (0.00 / 0)

...holier than thou people...

Again, project much?

...so I guess we have to understand that you don't fully understand our constitution, common law or policy.  But it is sad....

My, that's rather elitist of you. Well maybe it's anti-education. Wait, were you in the movies?

...Any you wonder why people dislike you?

Is it because of our good grammar?

543,895 votes

---

by: Michael Bersin @ Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 15:21:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]