The amount of damage a sumo wrestler inflicts by sitting on someone's chest depends on whether he lowers his whole weight. And then bounces a few times. When VoteVets sat down on Roy Blunt's chest last month with a $600,000 TV ad buy, they bounced a couple of times. After pointing out that the Christmas bomber was on that plane because of our oil addiction, the veteran narrating the ad mentioned Blunt's vote against clean energy legislation. One bounce. It talked about the thousands he's taken in campaign contributions from big oil. Another bounce. Oof.
Now VoteVets is unhappy with Claire for signing that letter "seeking to stop EPA regulation of CO2 emissions from 'stationary sources' (e.g. coal-burning utilities and factories)." They've just put out another ad.
They're not going after Claire like they went after Roy. The ad mainly makes their case that getting off of oil is a national security issue. Oh yeah, it makes that case vividly. Then it mildly urges McCaskill to lead on this issue. Picture the sumo wrestler straddling her torso. He isn't sitting down yet. Or bouncing. But he could.
Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning (r - obstruction) blinked:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 2, 2010
Statement by President Obama on Signing of UI Extension Bill
"During these difficult economic times, supporting American workers, their families and our small businesses must be everyone's focus. The bill passed tonight by the Senate will extend access to health care benefits for workers who have lost their jobs, help small businesses get loans so they can grow and hire, and extend unemployment insurance benefits for millions of Americans who are looking for work. I'm grateful to the members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle who worked to end this roadblock to relief for America's working families."
##
We received the following statement from Senator Claire McCaskill's (D) office:
"The idea that someone would play politics with unemployment benefits while our country is facing ten percent unemployment is offensive," McCaskill said. "This emergency extension was about keeping food on the table for thousands of unemployed families, yet Republicans were more concerned with holding things up in the Senate. When Americans see this sort of thing happening in Congress, they have every right to be frustrated. Frankly, I'm frustrated too."
Interesting news about ACORN today - according to Salon's Mike Madden:
Brooklyn district attorney announced the local ACORN office there hadn't engaged in any criminal conduct -- despite the hyperventilating by Breitbart and on Fox News. And in fact, a law enforcement source told the New York Daily News, the hidden-camera tapes James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles made of themselves posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend were "edited to meet their agenda."
Get that - the videos were "edited to meet their agenda." In other words, these full-of-themselves rightwing echo chamber trainees, O'Keefe and Giles, were running a scam.
...that O'Keefe likely the broke the law in at least two states by secretly recording the videos which had voice-overs deceptively edited into them later, "in some cases substantially," according to Harshbarger's report, so that it was "difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding.
What I want to know is when will Blaine Luetkemeyer and Todd Akin take formal steps to disavow the resolution they sponsored to honor "the fact-finding reporting done by Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe III in their investigation in the fraudulent and illegal practices and misuse of taxpayer dollars by the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN)."
It'll have to make your blood boil to watch those tapes and realize that people are actually thinking of helping people by giving them advice on how to evade the law. I think you'll see this organization continue to be marginalized.
Of course, I really can't wait until all the newspaper and TV reporters who gleefully delivered the ugly details of O'Keefe's and Giles smear run the story about their "editing" practices just as prominently - it'll happen any day now, don't ya think?
After months of coy hints, Claire McCaskill finally came out of the closet about her opposition to clean energy legislation when she signed on to a letter seeking to stop EPA regulation of CO2 emissions from "stationary sources" (e.g. coal-burning utilities and factories). One naturally assumes that McCaskill is going for the short-term pander for political reasons - she is certainly not as dim as her various statements on this topic make her sound. However, a new study indicates that McCaskill's stance could well backfire.
This past summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an energy bill that limits pollution and greenhouse gas emissions through what's been called a Cap and Trade plan and also invests in clean, renewable energy sources in America. Soon, the Senate will debate it.
58% of the respondents favored the provisions of the House legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Bill (ACES), while only 37% disapproved. Even more telling in regard to McCaskill and her re-election strategy, 56% said that they would be more likely to vote for their Senator's re-electon if he/she voted for the bill, while 50% said that they would be likely not to vote for them again if they voted against it. Only 37% said that they would vote against their Senator if he/she voted for the clean-energy bill.
The poll also indicated that this level of approval could withstand strong attacks of the cap-and-tax, job-killer, catastrophic energy costs, etc. variety as long as they were met with equally strong messages about the merits of the legislation. For example, respondents were presented with a paragraph that was harshly critical of the economic implications of the legislation, but they remained steadfast in their support when that criticism was balanced by this paragraph:
Other people say opponents of this bill - oil companies and corporate lobbyists - have fought energy reform for decades to protect their profits. They've made America more dependent on oil from hostile nations - hurting our economy, helping our enemies, and putting our national security at risk. We spend a billion dollars a day on foreign oil and this bill will cut that figure in half - creating secure, clean energy sources made right here in America instead of sending that money overseas to countries that support and finance terrorists groups.
And, just to put the cherry on the sunday, the poll also found that:
The public's desire to regulate carbon polluters is so strong that, by large margins, voters believe the EPA should act if Congress doesn't.
Does anybody besides me think that maybe all that Tea Party Sturm und Drang last summer impressed our junior Senator overmuch? If so, she could be in for just as rude an awakening as Blanche Lincoln over in Arkansas.
The race for Missouri Auditor is typically low-key enough that it can be overlooked. The primary for Missouri Auditor has that same problem, only worse.
For those of you who haven't heard, the Republican Primary for Auditor is between Allen Icet (Architect of the House Republican Budget) and Tom Schweich (Who flirted with running with the Senate last year). Tom Schweich has a bit of a problem, he donated money to Claire McCaskill. Not in 2006 when she was running for the Senate, but 2001 when she was about to run for re-election as Auditor (McCaskill won re-election in 2002 by one of the larger margins ever, because her Republican opponent was an ex-felon who was ignored by the Republican establishment).
Dave Catanese of Politico has an idea for how Tom Schweich can make Republicans overlook the donation and like him again:
"Schweich should devote a speech to his $500 contrib. to @clairecmc. Say if the GOP wants to b party that excludes indys, it won't prevail."
When I learned via Prime Buzz that Ike Skelton and Minnesota's Collin Peterson have introduced legislation that would "veto the EPA's finding in December that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare," I was not really as surprised as Caesar was by Brutus' nasty knife in the back. Just another Missouri Democrat out to establish his credentials as a running dog for big coal - first Claire McCaskill, and now the ever-predictable Mr. Skelton. Nevertheless, I did wonder if he couldn't have just waited and voted on some other jerk's bad legislation? Did he have to initiate?
The real eyeopener, though, can be found in the comments on the Prime Buzz article. One blighted-in-the-bud intellect declares that no matter what Skelton does, the voters of his district will never regard him as anything other than "just another Pelosi lackey." Too bad nobody told Pelosi - she could surely have made much better use of Skelton had she known that he is just another one of her lackeys. Of course, on the other hand, some of us are more concerned about Peabody Coal's lackeys than Pelosi's.
Yesterday I wrote about Claire McCaskill's sad decision to join a cabal of Democratic senators out to derail the EPA's authority to regulate green-house gases from industrial sources. Today we learn that their efforts have succeeded in delaying new EPA rules - which were devised in the first place to compensate for the unwillingness of the Senate to respond to our developing climate crisis.
The reason McCaskill and her fellow letter writers give for their delaying tactics is that they represent the interest of coal-dependent states. Of course, one goal of the EPA regulations as well as the the cap-and-trade provsions in proposed House legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), is to wean the U.S. from its coal addiction - currently 50% of U.S. electricity is coal generated.
Coal is definitely not a benign source of energy. Its extraction destroys our natural environment, the fine particles produced by burning coal are harmful to human health, and, of course, coal constitutes one of the main factors exacerbating the climate crisis we face since coal-burning plants are the largest producers of CO2 emissions in the U.S.
So why is McCaskill, a politician who loves to claim that she shares the progressive values of the Democratic party - in fundraising letters at least - trying to prolong Missouri's dependency on coal? Instead of whining about the short-term costs of moving us from coal dependency, shouldn't she be exercising the leadership we expect from her?
I would suggest that McCaskill could learn from the example of Russ Carnahan, who, in his just released economic action plan, A Regional Approach to Job Growth, emphasizes the importance of legislation like ACES in guaranteeing Missouri's continued, long-term prosperity:
Nations around the world are emerging as leaders in clean-energy production creating jobs in their respective countries because of the growing demand of these technologies. Clean energy technology can and must be made in America. The Clean Energy and Security Act - which was passed by the House of Representatives in June, 2009 - would create millions of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, making America the global innovation leader; it would increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and it would preserve our planet by reducing the pollution that causes global warming.
Too bad McCaskill, who has signaled her opposition to ACES, doesn't have this kind of vision or courage, but, instead, seems to be choosing to work against our long-term good to further the goals of the powerful coal-lobby and placate brainwashed rural voters.
As far as our climate crisis goes, you either get it or you're part of the problem. Unfortunately, Claire McCaskill just can't seem to get it; she has, along with a gaggle of other "coal-state" Democrats, just signed onto Senator Rockefeller's letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging the agency's efforts to regulate green-house gases from stationary (i.e. industrial) sources:
In their letter, the Democratic senators do not object to the EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-trucks, but they do question the agency's power to do anything else under the Clean Air Act. The letter asks Jackson clarify the EPA's timetable and suspend any regulations for coal-fired utilities and other industrial facilities until Congress acts on climate and energy legislation.
Let's see ... "until Congess acts" ... guess their big-coal contributors and lobbyist pals won't have to get their knickers in a twist for a long, long time if we have to wait for these clowns to get serious.
But this isn't the worst of it. Alaska big-oil proxy, Lisa Murakowski, has already introduced legislation to block EPA action; the signatories to the Rockefeller letter indicated possible support for this or a related measure:
... Among their concerns were whether Congress would be able to review the EPA's carbon regulations and how the agency would assess the "direct and indirect cost implications" of its new rules.
Do you ever wonder why these folks are so unconcerned about the "direct and indirect cost implications" of the climate crisis for the welfare of their states? Or why almost none of them have ever admitted that the proposed House legislation includes safeguards for the welfare of coal dependent states? In McCaskill's case, do you think it could have anything to do with the
$10 million that Peabody Coal has spent since 2008 to stop climate-crisis legislation?
...an astroturf "populist" lobbyist, and a few ankle biters.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) busted the chops of the republican leadership of the Missouri General Assembly over their hypocrisy when it comes to using federal money. The Twitter flurry started on February 10th.
Sent letter yestrday askng budget chairs in Mo legis what programs they'd cut if they didn't have almost billion $ in stimulus this year. 8:58 AM Feb 10th from web
They dnt wnt the stimulus $$ but if MO residents r paying @clairecmc 's earmark big debt bill, how cld they not spend it? RT @ChadLivengood 2:15 PM Feb 10th from TweetDeck
@clairecmc now that gun has bn held 2 leg head, they r n box. Ur vote forced Missourians 2 pay 4 the big debt so how cld leg not spend $$? 2:19 PM Feb 10th from TweetDeck
@clairecmc Leg shld not have spent $$ 2 begin with, MO wld pay taxes 4 ur vote 2 indebt them. They shld start by not spending $$ on HB22. 2:22 PM Feb 10th from TweetDeck
@clairecmc my point is using orig $$ which they hd no real choice 2 do places them in a hole. I wld sprt tkng $$ bck & hvng thm mke decisns 2:33 PM Feb 10th from TweetDeck
@clairecmc U ddnt ask how they wld spnd b4 voting 2 put MOians n debt so asking now is pol. Vote 2 pull remaining $$ & lt thm do thr job. 2:44 PM Feb 10th from TweetDeck
@clairecmc decisions 2 cut always tuf but stimulus $$ jst delayed it & now made decisions harder. 2:45 PM Feb 10th from TweetDeck
Senator McCaskill finishes with:
Going forward,if we pull back unspent stimulus $, how will the budget in #MO be balanced? Who will take the billion $ cut?Impt to be honest 2:24 PM Feb 10th from web
The usual right wingnut suspects - teabaggers, tenthers, and numerous and sundry members of the political lunatic fringe join the fray:
Claire McCaskill recently wrote a letter to state legislators who have been carping about the stimulus spending that has sustained our state budget. Taking them at their word, she asked them just what the impact would be if unspent portions of the funds were returned to the government, and whether or not these brave souls wish to forgo further stimulus funds, given their strong convictions.
With much spluttering and bombast, State Rep. Allen Icet (R-Wildwood), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, responded today, managing in the process to avoid answering any of the quite legitimate issues that McCaskill posed. Instead, shaking a metaphorical finger at the errant Democrat, he claimed that he and his fellow anti-stimulus stalwarts could not possibly answer McCaskill's questions until she and her Democratic cohorts in Washington had performed four magical tasks:
(1) balance the federal budget just as we do every single year in Missouri
Bear in mind that this demand comes from a member of the political party that voted against PAYGO in the U.S. Senate. Does Icet really not understand that if the federal budget were to be balanced right away, somebody would have to answer much harder questions than those that McCaskill put to the state's budget vultures? Could it be that his brave demand is nothing more than bluster by which he hopes to divert attention from his inability to answer the hard questions without exposing the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of Republican rhetoric?
They complain, they say they're a'gin it, they show up on the Faux News Channel to mouth unintelligible random health care obstruction talking points, but when it comes down to it, Missouri republicans, in all their hypocrisy, will still take the check. Senator Claire McCaskill (D) called their bluff:
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill sent a letter today to leaders in the Missouri State Capitol asking for their input on whether the federal government should rescind previously passed but as of yet unspent aid for state governments that was part of the federal stimulus bill. In the letter, she also asks whether additional aid from the federal government for state governments should be provided during these difficult economic times.
As the state begins to determine budget priorities for Fiscal Year 2011, McCaskill is asking leaders in Jefferson City for more information on how federal aid is being used in this year's state budget, as well as what programs and services the state would cancel in next year's budget if the federal government chooses not to extend any additional aid.
"Washington doesn't know best," McCaskill wrote in an open letter to state elected officials. "That's why three-fourths of the [stimulus] money has gone to the states, tax cuts, and unemployment and COBRA benefits. If you want us to rescind the remaining money that you will spend this year and next, please let me know how Missourians will be hurt, so I can make an informed decision."
McCaskill, who has fought against bad spending habits in Washington over the last three years, has heard from many state legislators that they are unhappy that the federal government provided financial aid to states last year as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. However, since the state government is required to balance their budget, they used approximately $1.5 billion of this federal aid in their Fiscal Year 2010 budget and are set to use $858 million in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. McCaskill also asked for clarity on what areas of state budget would have been cut last year had the lawmakers not had available the $1.5 billion in federal aid...
...Although McCaskill sent the request as an open to letter to all state legislators, she also sent individual copies to the leadership of both the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives.
Okay, that's a start. It would have been nice if our Democratic members of Congress had acted like, you know, Democrats nine months ago.
And, as for those republicans in control of everything in Jefferson City, are they willing to play chicken with Missouri's economy and the quality of life for everyone in the state?
Paul Krugman compares the deficit scare talk that is becoming ubiquitous to the false "groupthink" that led us into the Iraq War. At the opposite pole, the St. Louis Post-Dipsatchprinted a story about how attendees at the Tea Party convention are seeking to define their hitherto diffuse, rage-impelled "movement" as a "push for limited government and fiscal conservatism" where "Criticism of the deficit and debt is a growing rallying cry."
Where do our local politicians come down on this choice between the views of a reality-based Nobel laureate, and sound bites and fury from the same corrupt fools who sold grandma on death panels? The Republicans, of course, have all been pre-programmed to grunt in unison about evil taxes, wasteful spending, and deficit horrors (often, oddly enough, while putting holds on vital appointments in order to get their earmark money). Sadly, however, when it comes to some members of the Missouri Democratic congressional delegation, the answer seems to be pretty clear - they'll go for the short-term pander as well.
Take, for instance, Claire McCaskill, who loves to talk about how tough she is - she claims she "has never shied away from taking on the special interests, and she has never feared asking the tough questions." But when it comes to the spending necessary to prime the economy and create the jobs, this is what she has to say :
The friction between job creation and watching our spending, getting control of deficit is huge.
Why that should be so, particularly for a Democrat, is a mystery. People with jobs pay taxes, which creates revenue. People with jobs cost the government less in unemployment benefits, in Medicaid, in any number of necessary social services. People with jobs drive our economy.
Want to fix the deficit? Do what is necessary to create jobs - by which I don't mean more of the voodoo tax cuts of our Republican past - and the deficit will take care of itself. And while that is happening, the job of politicians like McCaskill is to use their considerable communication skills and access to the media to help their constituents understand how it works.
Update: This graph (via TPM) makes the relationship of jobs and stimulus spending pretty clear:
The red bars show the rate of job loss during President Bush's last year in office; the blue bars show job loss slowing during President Obama's first year of office ... and McCaskill thinks that the deficit is the big problem for our economy right now?
The Senate Armed Services Committe held a hearing today on "don't ask, don't tell" - the policy concerning the service of gays and lesbians in the United States military (Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill asked a few questions at 267 minutes into the hearing):
....Senator Claire McCaskill: Thank you Mister Chairman. Uh, I just want to make sure that we're crystal clear about a couple of things here. First, are gay and lesbian Americans currently serving in our military?
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen: Yes.
Senator McCaskill: And in fact, isn't the foundation of the current policy that we welcome their service?
Admiral Mullen: Yes.
Senator McCaskill: Are you aware of any morale issues or discipline, disciplinary problems surrounding the current service of gay and lesbian mem, members, Americans as members of our military?
Admiral Mullen: Certainly not broadly.
Senator McCaskill: Now, here's my, I, I think what you're, uh, embarking upon is important. I, I think it is welcome, but here's my problem, we now have established that we have gay and lesbian Americans serving in the military, that they are not broadly causing any kind of disciplinary or morale problems, that we welcome their service, so the issue isn't whether or not gay and lesbian Americans are serving in the military, it's whether or not we talk about it. So, how are you going to get their input in this survey?
[sound of applause in background]
Admiral Mullen: Oh I, actually, I mean, my take on that is, um, well, hang on a second. Um. I think that, that we would have to, uh, look very carefully at, at how we would do that. [crosstalk]
Senator McCaskill: And that's the point I [crosstalk] would like to leave you with today is that, um, unfortunately because of this policy, we welcome their service [crosstalk]...
Admiral Mullen: Sure.
Senator McCaskill: ....They're serving bravely and well. We don't have [inaudible] any kind of issues with morale and cohesiveness, uh, surrounding their service, but yet when it comes time to evaluate their service, um, they're not allowed to talk about it. And so you have a real challenge in getting perhaps, uh, maybe some of the most important input you may need as you consider this policy. And I'll be anxiously awaiting how you figure that one out.
Admiral Mullen: Yes ma'am.
Senator McCaskill: Thank you Mister Chairman.
Senator Carl Levin: Thank you, senator [crosstalk].
Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates: Uh, one approach, senator, is to talk to those who have been separated.
Senator McCaskill: And I think that's terrific. I think the ones who have been separated would be a great place that you can get good information, but I don't know that you're going to be able to get at those that are currently serving, um, because obviously they're not gonna be able to step forward and talk about it. So, but I, I agree Secretary Gates, that's a great place, because so many of them voluntarily separated because of issues of integrity. Thank you....
Our previous coverage of DADT and Claire McCaskill:
Taking a leaf out of the McCaskill "fiscally responsible" playbook, Robin Carnahan yesterday revealed that she was no slouch when it comes to pandering to the received wisdom about deficits:
From where I stand here in Missouri, I'm disappointed in the President's budget recommendation. Budgets are about setting priorities and it's time Washington started making fiscal discipline and tackling the long-term budget deficit higher priorities.
Carnahan even resorted to McCaskill's favorite cliche, comparing deficit spending to household finance:
Missouri families have to balance their checkbooks and our government should be no different
Problem is the comparison is not only trite, but wrong. As former Treasury Secretary Robert Reich puts it:
... If John Maynard Keynes taught us anything, it's that a federal budget is not at all like a family budget. In fact, it's precisely because families have to pull in their belts that the federal government has to let its belt out. When consumers and businesses aren't buying much of anything, the government has to fill the gap. That's the only way to get jobs and get the economy moving again. Once the economy is percolating, the government can pull back. By then, tax revenues will soar, and the long-term deficit will shrink.
Don't believe me? Think about Herbert Hoover and the great depression. Then think about the prosperous, post-war years when Keynesian theory was given its head.
The Keynesian formula has worked well in the past, and can work well again - even the itty, bitty stimulus program (relatively speaking) that was put into place last spring has had positive effects. But it will only work again if we stop allowing our media and politicians to indulge in irresponsible rhetoric about "irresponsible" spending. At all costs, we should certainly hold our Democratic representatives accountable for more than leadership by slogan - al least when the slogan is demonstrably, disastrously wrong.
Oh wait, except that Scott Brown (r-teabagger pinup) hasn't taken his seat yet. Senator Claire McCaskill (D) via Twitter:
So close. Three votes short on Session-McCaskill discretionary spending freeze amendmnt. 57 yes. Good bipartisan support. about 19 hours ago from UberTwitter
I believe it was this vote:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session
Question: On the Amendment (Sessions Amdt. No. 3308 ) Vote Number: 11 Vote Date: January 28, 2010, 11:15 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3308 to S.Amdt. 3299 to H.J.Res. 45 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To reduce the deficit by establishing 5-year discretionary spending caps.
Vote Counts: YEAs 56 NAYs 44
The Democratic "Yea" votes: Bayh (D-IN),Begich (D-AK),Bennet (D-CO), Carper (D-DE), Hagan (D-NC), Klobuchar (D-MN), Lincoln (D-AR), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Risch (R-ID), Shaheen (D-NH), Tester (D-MT), Udall (D-CO), Warner (D-VA), Webb (D-VA)
At tonight's monthly Johnson County Democratic Central Committee meeting the committee passed the following motion:
On Wednesday, January 27th President Obama ended his State of the Union Speech with this exhortation:
The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year had come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment - to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.
We, the Johnson County, Missouri Democratic Central Committee, urge our representatives in Congress, Senator McCaskill and Representative Skelton, to not quit. To seize the moment and carry forward our Democratic agenda of affordable health care for all and programs that get Americans back to work.
This site has been known to criticize Claire McCaskill--twice in two days last week, in fact (Uh, Claire, you got to dance with them what brung you and Claire never fails to disappoint, does she?). We take no joy in attacking one of our own. We'd so much rather be able to praise her. So herewith are some words of commendation from a progressive who has worked with her and her team. Andy Levine of RepoWEr America talked to me about Claire's attitude toward the upcoming clean energy legislation:
hotflash: Tell me what you know about Claire McCaskill's attitude toward the energy bill.
Andy Levine: (inaudible) a kind of studied neutrality about it. It's what you'd expect out of Senator McCaskill. She is, uh, she's sharp. She's gonna want to really get into the issue in a detailed kind of way and know what's going on on all fronts. They've had some concerns they've talked about before in costs and jobs. And a lot of those we kinda feel have been allayed, or at least we've been able to have good dialogue. And they've been able to see that the bill is or at least the frameworks for the bill aren't gonna do those, the worst case damages that they've heard about from the other side.
One of the more recent concerns that she's talked about has been with the creation of an entirely new financial market, which, you know, there would be under cap and trade that'd create a new market for trading carbon permits back and forth. To me, that signals that she's ready to engage. You know, when she starts putting the auditor hat back on, that typically means that she really is going to get into an issue, she's thinking about it in the way that she thinks about things, and hopefully it means that she's gonna be a participant and make this a better bill and help pass it.
The Johnson County, Missouri Democratic Club meets monthly on Thursday evenings in downtown Warrensburg. The membership of the club includes Democratic Party activists and a significant number of the members of the Johnson County Democratic Central Committee. A motion addressing health care reform, and specifically, Senator Claire McCaskill's (D) recent statement, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special senate election was offered under new business by a member of the club and central committee.
The monthly meeting of the Johnson County Democratic Club in Warrensburg, Missouri.
The motion:
January 21, 2010
We, the members of the Johnson County Democratic Club, are disappointed by the recent statement Senator Claire McCaskill made after the special senate election in Massachusetts. We are especially disappointed in the following:
As I said to somebody last night:, everybody needs to get the Washington wax out of their ears and listen and pay attention that people out there believe that we are going too far, too fast. (January 20, 2010)
Actually, the results Massachusetts indicate that by not passing health care reform and proposing a watered-down version the Democratic-controlled Congress has not gone far enough and has gotten there much too slowly.
First, polls show that a majority of voters for the winning Republican candidate support a single payer option.
More importantly, voting patterns reveal that the strongest areas of support for President Obama in Massachusetts had a turnout lower than the statewide average. In other words, the results in Massachusetts suggest that Democrats did not vote in necessary numbers because the democratic-controlled Congress has not gone fast enough and far enough in enacting the agenda we elected them to pass.
We, the members of the Democratic Club of Johnson County, worked last year for health care reform and regulation of our financial institutions and government support for working people.
If our elected officials do not feel that the Democratic agenda is worth fighting for after the loss in one special election, we will surely lose in November.
We, the members of the Johnson County Democratic Club, call on our elected officials in Washington, Senator McCaskill and Representative Skelton to remember that they are Democrats first and enact the agenda we all fought for in 2008.
If they fight for us in Washington now, we promise we will fight for them in Johnson County in 2010 and 2012.
There were approximately forty individuals in attendance. These are the local people who go door to door, make the phone calls, make the literature drops, register new Democratic Party voters (in large numbers), and write the campaign contribution checks. These are also some of the people who know people without insurance or have family members without access to affordable health care or who are without access to affordable health care themselves. And they didn't just work their tails off in 2008. These are the people who are and were the lead volunteers who do and did the heavy lifting in 2004 and 2006, too.
After extensive discussion the motion passed overwhelmingly by a voice vote. There was some dissent.
The club will forward the motion to Senator Claire McCaskill, Congressman Ike Skelton (D), and Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D).
At approximately one hour and forty-one minutes into the health care reform town hall in Hillsboro, Missouri on August 11, 2009:
....Senator Claire McCaskill:...He wants to chew on me. That's okay. [describing the written question] Uh, this is, how long do you think you can keep your job if you vote for this plan or any plan that includes a public option? [applause, cheers, shouts, whistles]...
Voices: Answer it. Answer it.
Senator McCaskill: Oh, um, well, I, I, you know, I'm gonna tell you the truth. Um...
Voice: Good. [shouts, applause, laughter]
Senator McCaskill: I'm gonna do my best. But it's okay if I go home. Um...[inaudible]
Voice: You work for us. You work for us. [crosstalk]
Senator McCaskill: [inaudible][crosstalk] I think one of the problems in Washington...
Voice: [inaudible]...the people.
Voice: [shouted] Enjoy retirement.
Senator McCaskill: I'm gonna try and work hard. I'm gonna try and do my best. I'm gonna try and listen and I'm gonna try to make good decisions that I think most Missourians would agree with. But, if, end of the day Missouri decides they don't want to hire me again, you know, I've had a long, and I can get emotional about this, I've had an incredibly wonderful time working in the public sector. Um, I've done [applause] it for a long time and [inaudible].
When I ran for this office I was unsure I could win. Um, I had just lost a, a, a gut wrenching campaign. And, in, in case you hadn't noticed, campaigns are tough on your family. And the campaigns, uh, against me were particularly tough on my family. And so I kind of ran for this job and I wasn't really sure I could do it. I mean it was gonna be hard. It was the incumbent senator and Missouri hadn't elected a Democratic senator in a long, long time. And, I, it was really an up hill battle. And so, I kind of went into it thinking, hey, it's okay, you know, this doesn't work out, I, I'm lucky. I've got, mom will tell you, I, I, I've got, I've got wonderful kids in, we're blessed, and I, other things I can do. I, I can contribute.
So, at the end of the day, if you guys send me home, I'll still greet you as, hi neighbor, and we'll be okay. So, that's...[applause][inaudible shout]....
Uh, Claire McCaskill has consistently stated that she's going to try to do the right thing as she represents the interests of her constituents in Missouri and if she doesn't get re-elected she'll accept that.
....According to the most recent tally in a database at the Washington Post, McCaskill has voted with her party 77 percent of the time this year, the third-lowest among Democratic senators behind only Evan Bayh of Indiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska....
A question. If the only two Democratic U.S. Senators to the right of you by voting record are Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson, and the right wingers and teabaggers in Missouri won't vote for you anyway, and you're not overly concerned about re-election, why don't you take the job for a spin and see what it can do rather than cater to all the fear mongering obstructionists and the inside the beltway cocktail weenie circuit?
Yesterday I 
I would suggest that McCaskill could learn from the example of Russ Carnahan, who, in his just released economic action plan,
Claire McCaskill recently 
With much spluttering and bombast, State Rep. Allen Icet (R-Wildwood), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, 
Taking a leaf out of the McCaskill "fiscally responsible" playbook, Robin Carnahan yesterday 
This site has been known to criticize Claire McCaskill--twice in two days last week, in fact (
