Remember how Tom Sawyer managed to get out of the onerous job of painting Aunt Polly's fence? He just employed a little misleading rhetoric and persuaded his friends that it was the best fun ever, and if they would only pay him for the privilege, he would surrender the paint brush and let them paint to their hearts content.
Isn't this exactly what the GOP and their media supporters have managed to do in reverse? That is, take a long lineup list of Democratic legislative achievements that will make our lives better, persuade a big swath of not so savy Americans that the list is a criminal indictment, and if they'll only fork over their votes, they'll get in on the fun and get to lob some figurative stones at the responsible malefactors.
Let us be clear - Republicans have done nothing for two years but try to stamp their sclerotic old feet on the brakes. It was Democrats who stabilized the economy and staved off another Great Depression. Democrats gave us health care reform that will provide millions of previously uninsured people with protection, rationalize medical spending and ultimately contribute to lowering the deficit. In spite of massive lobbying efforts to stop them, Democrats took on the broken regulatory system and passed a major financial oversight bill. There are dozens of smaller achievements.
But just today we read in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Robin Carnahan hid from the Vice President when he visited here on Friday. The report details the ways she tries to brush off any association with the successes of the past two years. If you read Michael Bersin's recent Claire McCaskill Q&A posts, you'll note that she's definitely on the defensive also. Which leads one to ask: Why aren't our Missouri Democrats on the attack instead of on the run? Don't they know that if you run, you're gonna get chased down and the end isn't usually pretty?
I don't mean to be too hard on our Missouri Democrats - who would probably love to do the right thing. They are no different from the rest of the party. As a group, they've been outclassed by the Tom Sawyers of the GOP, who have joined up with the media arm of their right-wing noise machine to blast heavy-duty flim-flam from coast to coast - and Americans sure do like them some flim-flam.
In part, this is an issue of what George Lakoff calls framing although I prefer to talk about hijacking. Republicans use simple, frequently dishonest, often manufactured refrains, repeated incessantly and aimed at the gut in order to hijack perceptions. They're cynical enough, crazy enough, or stupid enough to do this without qualms. And how should Democrats respond to being hijacked by crazed morons? Certainly not by pretending to be just as cynical, crazy or stupid.
Remember the Maersk Alabama hijacking? The ship's crew didn't jump overboard - they threw the hijackers off. Before Democrats can successfully reframe their agenda, they have to stand up to Republicans. If they jump off the boat, it's lost.
Instead of hemming and hawing about her previous support for health care, why doesn't Carnahan demand to know how Blunt could vote against the welfare of the millions of Americans? Why aren't Carnahan, McCaskill and other Missouri Democrats demanding that the Republican zealots stand up and face a few unpleasant facts? Why are they all so dammed nice and quiet, only speaking up when they think they might be able to claim a Republican brownie point? Instead of running in the direction that the polls point, why aren't they out there planting the direction signs? Where are our leaders?
* Third from last paragraph edited for clarity. The phrase "frequently dishonest, often manufactured" was added to the second sentence .
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.
The fourth and final part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:
....Question: I feel like when you vote for health care making requirements for individuals, in this country we still [inaudible] individual freedom, the stimulus bill which is gonna cost so much money to my children and grandchildren, and financial reform, we all know has secret provisions in it and when I hear people like Nancy Pelosi and Chris Dodd say, you won't know what's in it 'til we vote for it, why do you vote for those things that are killing America's freedoms?
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Okay, there are three, you asked about what, health care, the stimulus, and financial reg?
Question: Yeah, but I can go on.
Senator McCaskill: Okay.
Question: [inaudible] other examples.
Senator McCaskill: Well, um, I , I will tell you on the stimulus, um. [crosstalk]
Question: You said, Claire, if I can quote you, you said, if it wasn't about jobs. And let me repeat, if it's not about jobs we should not be doing it.
Senator McCaskill: Yep.
Question: Those are your exact words. And, it's not about jobs I don't believe...
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.
The third part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): [reading the question] If you are elected to represent the people of Missouri how can you support the health care bill when the people you represent are obviously against it in light of Proposition C.
Well, believe me, I noticed. Um, and I guess I can tell you honestly [redacted] that [pause] I know I may go home over this vote. I know I may go home over this vote. And when I cast it I knew that. I'm not dumb and naïve in that regard. There are really hard problems that we don't solve in Washington because they, you can't solve them without making people mad. They're big, they're complicated, they're hard and you've got to step on some people's toes to begin to solve them. And one of our problems in this country is people who go to Washington are so focused on staying they are never gonna make anybody mad. They never want to tackle a hard problem 'cause when you tackle a hard problem, you know you're gonna lose voters. It's hard to get anything done without making some people mad.
Now, I think overall, as time goes on and people learn how this bill will be implemented and learn that what they've heard is not true in regards to parts of the bill this bill, I believe, I may be wrong, but I believe it will become more and more accepted by the people I work for. And it wasn't easy for me to vote for the bill knowing how unpopular it was, but I honestly believed it was the right thing to do for health care costs in this country. That's the best answer I can give you....
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a town hall in Concordia, Missouri on August 10, 2010.
The second part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:
....Question: My biggest question is, um, I'm a businessman [inaudible]. My question is, [inaudible] in the thinking process, why was [inaudible]? It does create a [inaudible]. [inaudible] It quadrupled in [inaudible]. [inaudible]
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, actually, I think that they will go across state lines, the exchange in Missouri, because you're allowed to sell insurance across state lines in a cooperative basis. The decision was made to not have the place that people can go to pool risk, which they can't go to now, uh, is all gonna be private insurance companies. And the states are gonna administer that. And the states have every right, if they would like to go together with other states. And I've talked to the man who runs the insurance department in Missouri - it's his intention to try to go together with a number of states so we can make the pool even bigger. And so there will be that...
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.
The first part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:
....Question: Hi, Senator McCaskill. Thanks so much for coming out today. I was just wondering, with oil spill wreaking havoc in the Gulf, what do you propose to do to make sure that a disaster like this never happens to us again?
Senator Claire McCaskill Um, there will be a, um, the question was, uh, with the oil that has spilled into the Gulf, what are you gonna do to make sure that a disaster like the BP disaster never happens again? Um, you, I see your t-shirt. You probably aren't gonna like this answer, some parts of it. Uh, we will not be considering a bill this year to place a price on carbon. And these ladies in the green t-shirt are almost as unhappy with me as [redacted] in that I have disappointed them because I refuse to be supportive of a, a price on carbon. I've, I've been, I have been, um, reluctant to support a price on carbon, um, for a cap and trade bill. On the other hand there is gonna be an energy bill that we will debate when we get back in September that will do three things. The first is accountability for BP, making sure that there's not an artificial lid on what they would be responsible for in terms of the clean up. My job is to make sure taxpayers do not pay for their mistake. And so we want to make sure we remove the lid so BP has no artificial limit on what they would be required to pay to clean up the Gulf, to make those business whole, to make sure the families down there have not suffered because of their carelessness and negligence. Uh, it does some other things, like making sure that the companies that are doing offshore drilling have relief wells before they begin. Um, this problem was, it was never a relief well required. Truth be known, the oversight of oil and gas drilling in this country kinda was in a coma. Uh, and this goes for both administrations. They had not really been doing an aggressive job. And there has been a complete housecleaning over at that, in that regulatory area in the Department of Interior. So, we'll be happy to get you all, you probably have it, as active as you are, you may have all the details of what's in that bill as it relates to oils company accountability for negligence in offshore drilling that's in the bill. The other thing that's in the bill is a incentive to convert eighteen wheelers from, uh, diesel to natural gas. And the final part of it is a homestar provision which provides incentives for homeowners to weatherize their homes. Allow them to do things that will make their homes more efficient and spend less on their utility bills which is a win-win, uh, in terms of carbon emissions and also win-win, obviously, for homeowners in their electricity costs. Those are the three things that will be in the energy bill that we will debate before the end of the year. But I do not believe that the price on carbon will be coming up.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) speaking with a constituent immediately after the town hall in Concordia, Missouri.
After yesterday's town hall in Concordia, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill briefly took questions from media.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) (left) with the "second questioner" (center) and "first questioner" (right) at the media availability immediately after the town hall in Concordia.
[....]
Question: Drove down to say hi.
Senator Claire McCaskill: Yes, look at you all the way down here. You must have something controversial [crosstalk] to ask me.
Question: Nah, nah, nah, not at all, not at all, want to hear what people are saying.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Yeah, good.
Aide: Go ahead.
Question: First, let me ask, did, how did you vote on Proposition [inaudible].
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium yesterday morning. Approximately sixty people attended.
Senator McCaskill stood in front of the stage for the entire event.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ....Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. We have an hour and I will try to get to everyone who has a question in that hour. Um, for those of you who have been to our town halls before, I know a number of you have, what we try to do is get all the questions that people have in a basket and we ask someone to draw the questions out, and we get to as many as many of them as we can in the hour. And we usually average between fifteen and twenty questions an hour. Um, so hopefully we'll get, since this isn't a very big crowd, hopefully we'll get to everyone who has a question within the hour.
Um, I'm going to try and spend some time today talking about the budget. And the, as an auditor, the, the cash flow and the bottom line and the fiscal unsustainability of where we are right now in terms of this country and what our challenges are in the future. And, um, to begin that discussion I have a, we have a hand out that, that all of you will get that will have. Have we handed that out already? [voice: "It just got here."] Okay. Um, that has these two charts on them , but a number of other charts that talk about the debt and the deficit. Let me start with one fact, uh, and I told some of the folks upstairs, the regional planning commission, that we just had a meeting with, if we took out all of the government spending for foreign aid, education, highways, economic development, agriculture, all of that, and we just decided we were not going to spend any of that money, we still have a debt going forward because of two things. Medicare and Social Security. And the reason we have that debt going forward is because the demographics of our country. First, we have health care costs that are going up by huge percentages over the last fifteen years. And that contributes to the problem of Medicare. But also, we have a lot more people that are gonna come into the demographic that are entitled to Medicare and to Social Security because the baby boomers are coming, which means we have a lot more people who are entitled to that money. So, obviously it's important that we look at every single silo of spending in the federal budget...
Two large posters were on display on the stage next to the podium:
This "fair taxer" is for you, RBH. I think he's the same guy from Jefferson City last year. We had a pleasant conversation - he asked me if I'd read the Communist Manifesto. I replied that I had. It turns out that since I support the idea of a progressive income tax he considers me a communist. Go figure. He did give me a copy of his talking points.
Now I understand why Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) wants to be in the Senate.
In The New Yorker:
The Political Scene
The Empty Chamber Just how broken is the Senate? by George Packer
August 9, 2010
"This is just one of those days when you want to throw up your hands and say, 'What in the world are we doing?'" Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, said....
[....]
....But this was not McConnell's agenda. Instead, financial reform became a slightly more polite repeat of the health-care-reform brawl: the Republicans threatened filibusters, the Democrats threatened all-nighters, and thousands of lobbyists prowled the Capitol, charging their Wall Street clients more than a billion dollars....
The nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court was confirmed by the Senate:
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Elena Kagan of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.)
Vote Number: 229
Vote Date: August 5, 2010, 03:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed
Nomination Number: PN1768
Nomination Description: Elena Kagan, of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Vote Counts: YEAs 63 NAYs 37
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2010
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Recovery Act Broadband Awards for Missouri Projects to Bring Jobs, Economic Opportunity to Local Community
WASHINGTON - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced the funding of 8 new Recovery Act broadband infrastructure projects in Missouri. Overall, 126 new broadband infrastructure projects that will create jobs and provide rural residents in 38 states and Native American tribal areas access to improved service are receiving Recovery Act funding today. Broadband access plays a critical role in expanding economic, health care, educational and public safety services in underserved rural communities. Today's announcement is part of the second round of USDA broadband funding through the Recovery Act....
....According to analysis released by the National Economic Council last year, overall Recovery Act investments in broadband are expected to create tens of thousands of jobs in the near term and expand economic development and job opportunities in communities that would otherwise be left behind in the new knowledge-based economy. Recovery Act broadband projects help bring down the cost of private investment, attract Internet service providers to new areas, improve digital literacy among students and workers, and help create new opportunities in employment, education, and entrepreneurship by wiring homes and businesses. With new or increased broadband access, communities can compete on a level playing field to attract new businesses, schools can create distance learning opportunities, medical professionals can provide cost-efficient remote diagnoses and care, and business owners can expand the market for their products beyond their neighborhoods to better compete in the global economy....
You think a lack of access to broadband in rural Missouri isn't a problem that needed to be addressed? Senator Claire McCaskill heard about it in a town hall in Sedalia, Missouri on May 27, 2009:
...Question: My question was about Internet for rural areas. I currently live in Kansas City but I've built a house near... Probably got everything the government wants, geothermal, and [crosstalk]...
Senator McCaskill: Good for you.
Question: ...thermopane glass, and things can I get tax credits. 'Cause I'm trying to move my job from Kansas City to...I can't get Internet connection. I can't apply to the government to get my tax credits. I can't get a job because I can't get Internet. Well, the local Internet company, you can fill the name out here...
Senator McCaskill: It's okay, you can do it [crosstalk]
Question: ...Communications, they told me a year ago, cable's coming up the highway. I have to have Internet secure DSL cable, which is what they provide for my job to let me work from home. So, they said it's coming. So we started building. So now my house is done. All's I have to do is put up a mailbox and I can move in. Well they went in the other direction. They stopped and went north of...so now they, I've got Internet to the south of me, Internet to the north of me, but they won't come between us 'cause there's not enough people there for them to make a big profit. So [crosstalk]...
Senator McCaskill: We can help.
Question: Well I asked about the stimulus money from them.
Senator McCaskill: There's a bunch.
Question: And there's a bunch, and they [garbled] that money. So, a mutual friend of yours...gave me the document for the Internet companies. This money for them is for technology, buy technology to access the lines so they can hang our wires and buy equipment. But it's not providing jobs. ...Communications needs another crew so they can put my Internet in, or they need somebody to say, "Hey, they need a little boot in the behind. Say hey, here's somebody that can..." [crosstalk]
Senator McCaskill: Well I'll loan my boot. [laughter]
Question: I need [crosstalk] [garbled]...
Senator McCaskill: Seriously, you need to talk to my staff when this is over because I think we can help.
I'm on the Commerce committee and there's two pots of money for rural Internet, both USDA and over in Commerce. And it's ridiculous, you know why there's two pots of money? This is embarrassing. There's two pots of money because of the jurisdiction of committees. [laughter] The Agriculture committee didn't want to let go of it and so they wanted it under the Ag committee for USDA. So that's where the RUS program started. But then the Commerce committee didn't want to give it up, so they have another program over, under Commerce. You got two competing programs, and by the way, they are not the same, they're different, and it's a mess. And, and frankly, one of, one of those programs allowed people to use that money to put Internet in the suburbs of Dallas. As opposed to rural Internet. Okay? Because, of course, it was more, they're gonna make more money in the suburbs of Dallas and the way they defined the area. So, we know a bunch about this and there is a bunch of money in the stimulus and it's supposed to be for crews. And if they're not using it for crews I want to know about it. So, let me get involved, we'll find out about your particular situation. It might be a good case study for me to go, "Hey, what about this guy in...?" Okay? All right, we'll do that. That'll be fun. [applause]....
The grants [pdf] announced on August 4th for Missouri:
Last Wednesday, Harry Reid added to the Senate calendar Claire McCaskill's legislative baby, the McCaskill-Wyden-Grassley bill that would put an end to secret holds, which allow a senator to unilaterally stop legislation without identifying him or herself. Claire McCaskill claims she has rounded up 68 votes for the bill which seems to guarantee that it will pass.
While this will be a real feather in McCaskill's cap if it comes to pass and is certainly worthy legislation, since nobody - or at least nobody who is serious - can deny that the more we know, the better off we are, it is, in terms of the Senate's procedural malfunctions, pretty small potatoes. Numerous commentators (see here, here and here) have noted that the problem is not secret holds, but too many holds used as a tool for partisan obstruction, which, as Jonathan Bernstein notes, constitues an actual abuse of Senate rules.
There is little evidence that making holds public will do much to fix that problem. If you really think that forcing these arrogant obstructionists to put their name to a hold will shame them, then you haven't been paying attention to their outrageous behavior for the last two years. When it comes time to stand up for the de facto GOP negative hegemony, you can bet they'll be right where they're needed. There's lots to be said for Bernstein's preferred remedy:
Rather than make Senators explain themselves and have the Majority Leader judge which holds are legitimate and which are not, the Democrats should play hardball: they should let the Republicans know that unless the total number of holds on nominations shrinks dramatically, the Dems will start calling nominations up anyway, hold or not, and force the GOP to find 41 votes against considering them.
And if the Republicans can muster 41 votes, then we come to the issue of reforming the filibuster, which would fix this and lots of other problems. The Senate could change the filibuster rules on the first day of the new session, January 2011, right after the midterms. Of course, McCaskill has lately been been one of the Democrats voting with Republicans to uphold their filibusters - so do you think her concern about making things work might extend to doing something that would really help fix the broken Senate - where, as the new saying goes, legislation comes to die and the will of the majority is routinely flouted?
Last Tuesday (7/27), I posted about Claire McCaskill's vote against, among other spending, the Pigford II settlement which would have awarded $1.25 billion to black farmers who experienced overt discrimination by USDA. Now, however, it looks likes she may get another chance to do the right thing. The Hillreports that there are plans this Monday to put to a stand-alone vote both the the Pigford II settlement and the Cobell settlement, which seeks to resolve Native Americans' claims against the federal government for abuse of tribal land trust accounts.
It will be interesting in this case to see how far McCaskill will go to strut her budget peacock stuff - to apply the Think Progress label for those legislators who prefer to make a show of addressing a long-term deficit problems with ineffectual and potentially harmful short-term cost-cutting fixes - during a major recession yet. Maybe this time, since it involves the government's obligation to right a patent injustice, she'll put the Republican party line aside and come through for the progressives in her base who are, to put it mildly, getting pretty disheartened with her performance.
Of course, precisely because these spending bills would involve righting injustices to minorities, they become especially difficult for timid politicians from red to purple states right now when there is a concerted campaign to whip up a spurious sense of white victimhood. If you doubt this, just consider some the comments to the Hill article. For instance:
More giving away of white peoples money!!! I look at my little 2month old grandaughter and think about the $50,000 in debt this corrupt government has already burdened her with and the total lack of a future for her in the coming third workld [sic] we are becoming.
Or:
We must to stop with the REPARATIONS we have been paying for 50 years. ... The DMV clerk looked at me cross eyed am I entitled to 50K? ... .
There was a time when folks would have been far more careful about this type of overt racial begrudgery, but encouraged by the Tea Party and coddled by the Republican Party in general, they are now flaunting it. No matter how disappointed I am by McCaskill and her budget posturing, I at least understand that the aura of fiscal prudence that she is trying to suggest, no matter how wrong-headed, is at least somewhat respectable. I just hope that she has not so totally succumbed to fear of her constituents darker angels that she will let misguided racial fear and resentment influence her as well.
I assume that everybody knows all there is to know about the Shirley Sherrod affair. There has been plenty of speculation that the edited Breitbart tape was the opening salvo in a Republican strategy that seeks to portray Obama's almost hysterically racially neutral administration as favoring blacks over whites - a commonly voiced fear from elderly and working class voters before Obama's election. An interesting take on the timing of Breitbart's release of the doctored tape that was presented on TPM last week takes this speculation even further:
It's also important to understand that Andrew Breitbart's timing of the release of the grossly distorted video of Sherrod, which he admits having had for weeks, may not be entirely random. Congress will soon vote on whether to fund part of a settlement between the USDA and African-American farmers who faced acknowledged discrimination -- farmers like Sherrod and her husband used to be.
From this perspective, the manufactured controversy might have proven to be an effective ploy - in spite of the fact that Breitbart's selective editing was quickly discovered. Only a few days after all the noise about Sherrod began, the Senate stripped from the war funding bill the allocation for the Pigford II settlement, which would have directed that $1.25 billion in reparations be paid to black farmers who were openly discriminated against by USDA in the 80s and 90s.
Harry Reid's response to the defeat:
I hoped that tonight the Senate could finally right a wrong that has been left unresolved for far too long. ... As recent events have reminded us, the fact that justice and fairness were denied to black farmers for so many years continues to have ramifications today. ... Republicans should be held accountable for standing in the way of justice for those affected.
Reid is right about the injustice, but wrong to lay the blame on solely on Republicans. As usual, many of the hard-core, Democratic "moderates" (self-labeled) in the Senate voted along with the Republicans - a point of shame for us in here in Missouri since our own Claire McCaskill once more showed her contempt for Democratic values by joining the folks on the other side of the aisle, who more and more seem to be her true cohorts.
Why, Claire, one is tempted to ask. Does it have anything to do with her absurd deficit posturing (see also here) - which in itself constitutes a potentially harmful little legislative hobby she has taken up in order, one suspects, to appeal to what she seems to believe to be "common-sense" preferences of small town and surburban Missourians. Or perhaps she is really concerned that the racial overtones that often pervade discourse about government spending in Missouri were just too strong in this case - which means that McCaskill will easily be stampeded to the right in order to avoid the fallout from a Republican race-baiting strategy.
The one thing we can be sure of is that the answer with McCaskill always seems to be that she goes along in order to try to get along. In other words, she has no respect for her constituents and is running scared of what she considers their general meanness. Which means that we'll have to work harder to let her know that we are better than she thinks we are before it's too late.
Action Needed: Click here and pledge to call Claire McCaskill and Kit Bond during the next three days, July 27-29, and let them know that inaction or timid half-steps to combat climate change is not acceptable.
Why? Real, effective climate legislation, that is, legislation that mandates some form of carbon emission control is now officially dead for the present and perhaps the future. As Joe Romm of Climate Change puts it, "the mostly dead climate bill is now extinct."
Naturally, the Democrats want to blame the Republicans, and they are right that the corrupt numbskulls on the Republican side of the aisle played their usual obstructionist role. But Republican obstructionism is not the whole story. This time around, the so-called brown dogs, including prominently our own esteemed Claire McCaskill, have to take their share of the blame:
... garnering 60 votes on a plan that caps emissions is a major challenge as long as Democrats such as McCaskill fear the electoral consequences.
To be sure, Obama and Reid also need some Senate Republicans to play ball if they're going to get a climate bill across the finish line. But the amount of GOP support they will need is directly proportional to the number of Democrats they will lose. And Obama faces considerably more party discord on climate change than he did on health care or Wall Street reform because of deeply rooted regional concerns over energy policy
So you could certainly say without fear of contradiction that Claire McCaskill was instrumental in killing the climate bill. And while she has taken money from coal interests (about $10,000 out of $47,000 total from energy interests), it surely can't be the case that this relatively tiny mess of pottage is is what prompted her to sell out her base. It is far more likely that she is simply afraid of the the political consequences if she takes a principled stand - afraid that if electricity prices or farm energy prices were to go up, she might be out on her you-know-what come 2012.
People in organizations like Repower America know that if we are to revive meaninngful climate change legislation, we need to keep the issue alive and let politicians like McCaskill know that while we'll get their back when they do the right thing, we won't forget when they let us down. More importantly, McCaskill is a co-sponsor of the Rockefeller bill that seeks to neuter the EPA's emissions control rules. And, although, President Obama is poised to veto the bill if it passes, we have to let her know that supporting the coal industry in this way is not really winning hearts and minds at home.
In early days, before McCaskill learned to fear the Tea Party backlash, she was, as Michael Bersin reminded us last week, pretty upfront about her support for cap-and-trade. Such past statements suggest that McCaskill knows what the right thing to do is, but is just too timid to do it.That's why Repower America is asking progressives, environmentalists, and anyone who is concerned about the pending climate disaster, to phone McCaskill tomorrow and remind her of what she already knows.
So by all means get mad. But also take action - click here and make a pledge that sometime during the next three days - July 27- July 29 - you'll phone McCaskill - and poor, hopeless Kit Bond, for what it's worth - and let them know that we demand real leadership to get us through this potentially disastrous environmental crisis.
Afterthought: You don't even have to click and use the Repower America tools - just phone the fools and let them know the folks they work for aren't too pleased. Please. McCaskill's number: (202) 224-6154; Kit Bond's: (202) 224-5721.
I have the good fortune of being able to afford, both in money and time, to go to Netroots Nation.
This is my third one. I'm now in my fourth session.
I have attended one from Rich Mellman's polling on the concern people have that we are no longer a manufacturing country, health care reform, social security, and the fights in education standards over evolution in Texas and Kansas.
The one on Social Security is the scariest. I will talk about it below.
Other senators are just getting testy about the issue. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of the few Democrats still considered "on the fence" when it comes to including climate provisions, flatly refused to discuss the issue with reporters. "I'm not going to talk about energy. I got burned twice last week," said McCaskill, indicating that some unnamed reporter had misquoted. McCaskill is one of the Democrats folks are watching most closely on this issue, since she has yet to weigh in publicly one way or another. I have no idea what quote she is referring to as having been wrong.
She claims she was misquoted so now she'll say nothing? Typical McCaskill. I wonder if this Politico article might be what's got McCaskill clamming up? The author makes the argument that McCaskill's allies, the so-called "brown dogs," are the reason we'll get a safely neutered climate bill if we get anything at all:
... despite months of legwork by the president's Senate allies, few of these so-called Brown Dogs are biting.
He continues, quoting McCaskill:
I think it's still a work in progress," said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, who worries that a cap would be a loser for Democrats in November. "You know, it took 50 years on health care."
...
The party that has moderates is the party that governs," McCaskill said. "If we don't have moderates, we're the minority.
This quote is These quotes are certainly outrageous enough to leave McCaskill feeling burned if she was misquoted. But if she was truly misquoted, why doesn't she just put the record straight instead of equivocating? All I can say is that if she is not trying to play both sides against the middle, she had better get hustling to do just that - because if this quote is not a misrepresentation of her beliefs, she deserves whatever grief she gets.
And if this putative statement is an accurate representation of what McCaskill said, she may have inadvertently put her finger on exactly what is wrong with Washington D.C - anyone who thinks that we've got fifty years to "fix" the climate problem, or that a party of impotent "moderates" gets points for governing without doing anything of substance in the face of a genuine crisis is right there at the heart of the problem. There is no reason that I can think of to send folks to Washington to sit on their hands and make mealy-mouth sounds while the crap piles up - or even, as is closer to McCaskill's case, to make a few prissy gestures about cleaning up around the edges of the mess while shuddering with genteel horror at the thought of tackling the biggest piles.
On Monday morning Senator Claire McCaskill (D) was the first public office holder to address welcoming remarks to those attending the first plenary session of the NAACP National Convention in Kansas City:
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Welcome to all of you. What a grand and glorious sight you are. It is terrific to have you here in Kansas City in this state I love so much, in this city I love so much. Thank you for blessing us with your presence here in Missouri. [applause] One nation, one dream, one people. We live in a wonderful country where so much more unites us than divides us. But so much work remains in this great nation.
I know many of you may realize that I share the pride of a nation on that special night in November when Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. [applause] This nation delivered on its promise of equal opportunity. This nation delivered on its promise that all things are possible for anyone in America. What a moment it was. Exultation. It was thrilling. It made us all so proud. And we were so caught up in the top of the mountain that I think we forgot to look out and see that there were many valleys that remain. Too many of us thought the hard work was over. The hard work remains. This nation needs our passion and our energy. Our President needs our passion and our energy. We soared but now we have [inaudible] jet lag.
I certainly hope the NAACP continues its important work because there is a lot of pain still in America. We need good jobs, we need affordable college education [applause], we need quality day care [applause], we need to make sure that that opportunity remains for everyone in this great nation. [applause]
I hope the NAACP continues to take a leading role in voter education, voter registration. I hope everyone turns their eyes towards November, the next big election in this country, because it's an important one.
And remember, President Obama, like all of us, is one of God's children. He needs our prayers [applause], he needs our energy, he needs our passion [applause]. If I could leave you with any message this morning that you might take from this great hall, it is simply this, now is no time to quit. Now is no time to quit. [applause]
Thank you so much. God bless you and have wonderful time. [applause, cheers]
First Lady Michelle Obama addressed the NAACP National Convention for its first plenary session, focusing her remarks on the problems of childhood obesity and her effort to address the problem through her Let's Move campaign. Prior to her speech Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D) addressed the audience with brief remarks.
First Lady Michelle Obama speaking at the NAACP National Convention in Kansas City.
Yeah, we know. The main press riser was 110 feet from the stage and we weren't lugging a 400 mm telephoto lens because they're really heavy and we can't afford one.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D).
Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D).
Photographers on the main press riser.
The much smaller cut riser to the right of the stage was so packed it looked like a raft with survivors of the Titanic, except in this case they were holding really expensive cameras.
So, what took Senator Mike Johanns (r) so long? It's not like he wasn't aware this has been an issue over the last few months. And he's only now getting on the bandwagon? Just asking.
Giggle inducing title of a new press release from the ever-clueless Todd Akin (R-2nd): "Congressman Akin Condemns Democrats Refusal to Govern." Pretty rich coming from a charter member of the Party of No, No way, Never, Unh-uh.
What Akin is talking about is the House leadership's decision not to pass a budget blueprint this year. According to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:
It isn't possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we've considered the bipartisan commission's deficit-reduction plan, which is expected in December ...
Instead:
The House will put forth a "budget enforcement resolution" rather than a budget blueprint that looks beyond next year and calculates five or 10 years' worth of deficit figures.
The House's "enforcement" - or deeming - resolution will endorse the goals of the president's fiscal commission and reiterate the commitment to vote on its recommendations after the midterm elections. And it will also set limits on discretionary spending "that require further cuts below the president's budget, ...
Not too unreasonable given all the deficit Sturm und Drang Republicans are drumming up and the resulting stampede of ConservaDems. It certainly doesn't sound like refusing to govern. That's what occurs when all members of a political party move in lock-step, for purely political reasons, to obstruct vital legislation and hold-up even minor government appointments - and we all know who's been doing just these things, Rep. Akin.
Actually, insofar as Hoyer seems to be taking a rational approach to the issue of deficits, it might even be heartening news. Hoyer, unlike Missouri's would be deficit mavin, Claire McCaskill, seems to be able to distinguish between short-term, stimulus related spending and long-term, structural budget deficits, cautioning against "overreacting to short-term deficits while we're still feeling the effects of recession."
All well and good, I say - taken at face value, it sounds like responsible leaders taking into account the circumstances on the ground, and at the very least, it's no big deal. But, of course, Rep. Akin doesn't see it that way:
This decision sends a clear message to American families that Democrats in Washington still don't understand the seriousness of our fiscal crisis and they still view working Americans as the 'cash cow' to fund their excesses.
What excesses? Massive tax cuts for the wealthy? Invading Iraq on trumped up reasons? Giveaways to the energy, banking, you-name-it industry? But wait - didn't that happen while Akin and his pals were running the show?
Maybe Republicans in Washington just like to throw temper tantrums to pass the time - it must get pretty boring doing pretty much nothing that really amounts to anything. To bad they're doing it on our dime.
Remember how Tom Sawyer managed to get out of the onerous job of painting Aunt Polly's fence? He just employed a little misleading rhetoric and persuaded his friends that it was the best fun ever, and if they would only pay him for the privilege, he would surrender the paint brush and let them paint to their hearts content.
I assume that everybody knows all there is to know about the 
Reid is right about the injustice, but wrong to lay the blame on solely on Republicans. As usual, many of the hard-core, Democratic "moderates" (self-labeled) in the Senate voted along with the Republicans - a point of shame for us in here in Missouri since our own Claire McCaskill once more showed her contempt for Democratic values by 
Giggle inducing title of a 