Wednesday, August 08, 2007

I Guess We Got Fooled Again

Claire McCaskill has done it again. On Saturday, when faced with one of the biggest issues to define what kind of country we will be, Claire McCaskill joined hands with the Republicans and voted against those of us who elected her. She was one of 16 democrats who cashed in liberty at the pawn shop of political expediency. In return, she received nothing more than an illusion of security wrapped around the threat of a police state.

If you want to read a full-throated roar of disappointment in our supposedly democratic senator, go read this post by the much-loved Blue Girl, Red State blog. A hint at her perspective on the matter may be gleaned by the labels she uses for her post: betrayal, cowardice, FISA, McCaskill (Claire).

Sadly, it's the second time she has had an opportunity to stand up for America, and chosen, instead, to cave to the Bush Administration. Back in May, she was one of the Democratic sell-outs who voted to support Bush's escalation in Iraq. We've seen how that has worked out, haven't we?

Defenders of McCaskill point to her support on the little things, like the largely symbolic minimum wage increase. Well, yes, she's not a perfect clone of Jim Talent, but she can be counted to vote exactly as he would when the big issues come up to the table.

I remember being incredibly proud of Missouri when we tossed out Jim Talent and embraced what we thought would be change. I remember listening to Claire's promises of changed courses and standing up to the Bush Regime, and I fell for it hook, line and sinker. Now, we are stuck with Jim Talent in a skirt, and I don't have any hope that a real Democrat will be able to defeat her in a primary and then go on to win a general election.

If the election were held again today, knowing what I know, I honestly don't know that I would vote for McCaskill again. Talent was a once-in-a-lifetime example of charisma-starved weakness, and I think I would rather have him in office doing the Bush Regime's dirty work, rather than being stabbed in the back by someone who told us she was one of our own. And we would have the opportunity to elect a Democrat with principles in 2012.

Labels: ,


Anonymous jw said...

She has been pretty disappointing so far, aside from her prosecutor/auditor toughness in going after fraud in government.
He stances on energy and security are troubling me... I can only hope she'll come around.

8/08/2007 7:57 AM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

Not only that, she voted against the failed senate immigration bill and spoke out on the floor of the senate for employer sanctions.

My kind of democrat, moderate.

8/08/2007 7:58 AM  
Anonymous the nitwit said...

There you go again, Dan. You posted the same simplistic overreaching drivel over at BlogCCP. You can disagree with McCaskill on these issues. Hell, personally I do too. But that hardly makes her worse than Talent.

She's a moderate Democrat, she ran as a moderate Democrat, and she won as a moderate Democrat. I have no beef with your questioning her votes on this issue, but to suggest that Democrats and even progressives aren't better off now than with Talent is small-minded, if not just plain dumb.

8/08/2007 8:27 AM  
Blogger les said...

I can't figure out what McCaskill et al are caving in to, or for. A massively unpopular president has been routinely violating FISA for years; he's had 6 years of lapdog congresses, that would have given him any law he wanted; and suddenly a Democratic congress has to give him legal cover with a horrible law, because...what? The Great War on Terror suddenly rested on it? Bush suddenly got religion, and decided he's subject to law and constitution? We should be so fortunate. Congress took another action to toady to an out of control administration, in the face of approval ratings plummeting because they are doing exactly that. It makes even less sense than their usual work.

8/08/2007 8:34 AM  
Anonymous dolphin said...

There's nothing moderate about giving the president unchecked power.

That's not something a "moderate Democrat" does. Hell, that's not even something a true moderate Republican would do. It's sad that the country has swung so far towards the authoritarian right, that voiding out parts of the constitution is now considered "moderate."

8/08/2007 8:34 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

I'm not sure which is more disturbing, the thought that McCaskill voted for this as a matter of political calculation (foolish for the reasons les noted), or the thought that she voted for this on principle.

Either way, at least I feel like writing a letter to her about this isn't a complete waste of my time, which is more than I could say when I had Talent and Bond to choose from.

8/08/2007 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Brooksider said...

So far the new Congress in general has blown the chance to hold the Administrations feet to the fire. So far they have also failed to set the agenda for the upcoming Presidential race. And you have to wonder WHY???

In no particular order they could choose from:
--Ending the war now
--More funding for our troops in the battlefield (they should be paid $1 more than the highest paid private contract employee and that should be reviewed every single day!) and after they return home especially in all areas of medical care, immediate and long term. Indeed this could be the blueprint for...
--Healthcare for all
--Alternative energies
--Corporate ethics reform
--Environmental preservation
--Educational funding
--Creating new US jobs
--Now, sadly, a renewed focus on infrastructure maintenance
--Separation of Church and State
--More funding for National Parks and historic preservation
--Reexamining the tax code so that everyone pays a fair share so we can pay our bills

And last but not least...
--World peace – Why has this completely disappeared from our cultural/political discussion and efforts?

Congress should be forcing Bush to veto absolutely every possible pro US citizen agenda item so that there is no place for any politician to run or hide from any of these topics (and more) come November 2008 or November 2010. If that were the case it might help Claire vote her brain and her heart as opposed to Missouri politics?

8/08/2007 11:51 AM  
Blogger Goldstein said...

Why are you suprised Dan.

Both parties are tools of the same corporate interests.

Nothings going to change.

Get over it.

8/08/2007 11:56 AM  
Blogger --Blue Girl said...

Thanks for the link Dan! I have been thinking that Jolie Justice would be a fabulous replacement for Kit Bond when his career winds down, probably after one more term. But now I am having thoughts of a 2012 primary challenge. Wouldn't that be apt, since Claire challenged Holden, and won?

8/08/2007 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that all you people do is complain to each other about Bush/McCaskill or do you actually do something about it?

8/08/2007 10:34 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Nitwit - Where have I said she is worse than Talent? Read carefully, and you'll see that I made no such claim.

What I am saying is that despite running as someone who promised to change courses in Iraq, who spoke of a 24 month framework and who blamed Jim Talent for being a "mindless stay the course Senator", she's voted as a mindless stay the course Senator. Despite running as someone who would insist that surveillance be conducted within Constitutional limits, she has approved of warrantless searches.

Now, why do I wish I had voted for Talent? Because I don't really believe that, with an incumbent's advantages in fundraising, etc., it is likely we can mounnt a successful challenge against her from within the Democratic Party. I think that if we want a Democrat in her seat, it's going to be her.

Now, if Talent had won, we would have an incredibly weak and unattractive Republican in the seat, and, on the important issues, he would not be doing us any more harm than McCaskill. The advantage to having Talent in there, though, is that a Democrat (a real Democrat, instead of a lying, caving-in-to-Bush fraud like McCaskill) could run against him and defeat him in 2012.

8/09/2007 6:58 AM  
Blogger emawkc said...

Don't take this the wrong way Dan, but liberals like you are being used by Democrats in the same way that "neocons" are being used by republicans.

Your leadership is playing to its "base" using phrases like "end the war now" and "nobody died with clinton lied."

When in actuality, the Democrats (at lease in the senate) aren't very far from the administration on what they thing should happen with Iraq.

Unfortunately, your disappointment and chagrin are (at least partially) a function of naive expectations.

8/09/2007 9:46 AM  
Blogger sophia said...


I understand your frustration, but if McCaskill hadn't won, the Republicans would still control the Senate. As depressing as her vote on this is, do you really think the country would be better off with a republican controlled senate?

8/09/2007 9:47 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Game, set, match. Sophia is absolutely correct, and I appreciate her point. As disappointed as I am in McCaskill, at least we have control of the Senate. Thanks, Sophia, for setting me straight.

8/09/2007 12:57 PM  
Blogger emawkc said...

Control is an illusion (so is "we").

8/09/2007 1:12 PM  
Blogger Stephen Bough said...

OK - I'm going to go out on a limb here. I didn't read the warrantless wiretap law. Does it allow warrantless wire taps on non-citizens not in the US? I don't think that is so bad. Warrantless wire taps of US citizens in the US = bad.

Let's not forget, Claire was a prosecutor in Jackson County. She's law and order. She has never been one to shy away from her beliefs.

Additionally, us die hard Dems know that DC is a different place with Claire in the majority party. Just one little senator, even Talent, there's no dragging Gonzales to the judiciary committee. There's no Children's Health Care program. There's no questioning of the oil industry. Bloggers have fun with this one - don't miss the forest for the trees.

A D majority is a check on Bush.

8/09/2007 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan and Stephen,

With all due respect, what world are you guys living in?

What is this “check” that Stephen mentions?

FISA bill – Dems were completely outmaneuvered (and they have admitted it anonymously).

CHIP – there will be no CHIP because Bush will veto it and there won’t be enough votes to override.

Gonzales – political theater that’s a complete waste of time. He’ll be there until the end.

Oil companies – more political theater.

Goldstein is right – both parties are the tools of corporate interests. Nothing will change.

8/10/2007 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Porchpundit said...

Counselor Bough, a D Majority will not be a check on Bush if wanna-be Republicans like Claire (I mean MODERATE Democrats ... sorry) scurry off and vote with the bad guys who see the Constitution as a fig leaf for "The Enemy." There is no reason to believe that Claire would have looked more like a vertebrate if the Ds had been in the majority.

8/11/2007 5:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home