McCaskill - Tool of the Right Wing
I've written about Claire McCaskill's abandonment of the people who elected her when the important issues arise. I suppose that, in the context of her blind support of Bush's war, her vote today to support a Senate Resolution condemning MoveOn's "General Betray Us" advertisement is hardly worth mentioning.
But, dammit, what in the hell is she thinking?
I understand the the Republicans like to attack the patriotism and human worth of anyone who dares to question their precious war. I understand that Republicans are offended when someone points out that Bush has hand-picked the lords of this war based upon partisan loyalty and sycophantry (sycophantocity? sycophanthood?) instead of merit.
But why would Claire McCaskill join them in telling America to shut up? Why would she join the Republicans in stifling dissent?
Personally, I think the MoveOn ad was poor judgment and poor taste. Not as bad as a Democratic Senator joining the Republicans to criticize Americans speaking their minds, though.
Has anyone checked McCaskill's wrist for a WWJTD bracelet, in honor of her mentor, Jim Talent?
Labels: mccaskill
posted by Dan at 9/20/2007 08:53:00 PM
13 Comments:
I'll tell you what the hell she's thinking--she's thinking for herself....not a voice of MoveOn or any of the other toadies who spew the same old same. Until we stop the vituperative rhetoric that is sapping the energy out of all of us--on both sides--we are never going to get out of this gutter fight.
Look and listen to this garbage we have daily on the local scene with the Mayor's office. How can anything get better with all the piling on?!!
The MoveOn attack of General P was definitely below the belt because it was not only a slam at Bush et al, but at our soldiers--and ultimately those of us who have family in Iraq. This is the broad brush stroke approach that she is addressing--she's not telling America to shut up.
We are all growing weary of it--and you are expecting her to be the very sycophant to the MoveOn movement that you rail against. Dissent is good and we need to have debate over everything--but we lose our credibility and audience when we attack sacred cow areas, even indirectly.
Dan, you surprise me. You say it was poor judgment and poor taste--and yet you expect her blind loyalty to the ad. Isn't this the same blind partisan loyalty you hate in the Republicans? I don't think the size of the loyalty matters.....
Not at all, Anonymous, not at all. The Senate should have said absolutely nothing about it. She should certainly not have exhibited blind loyalty to the ad - I would be shocked if she agreed with its expression.
But Dan is right - she should not have been a Republican tool joining in a condemnation, either.
Should the Senate review tapes from the Rush Limbaugh show or Bill O'Reilly and condemn them whenever they say something stupid? Of course not.
Why did Claire join with the Republicans to condemn free speech?
"The MoveOn attack of General P was definitely below the belt because it was not only a slam at Bush et al, but at our soldiers"
Thanks for bringing the kool-aid. To question the motives and perspective of a politically appointed and motivated officer, testifying in a political arena with facts and advice vetted by the White House, is an attack on the troops--who, by the way, invented the nickname. Teh Stupid, it burns.
As you know, I'm a conservative. For starters, I have long disdained MoveOn.Org and their chief funder, George Soros. In my opinion they got more dangerous as time went on, even openly stating they bought and owned the democratic party.
Now, on to Claire McCaskill and the ad and the subsequent vote. Ditto to what Anon #1 and Les said. In addition, Claire is a new senator, owing nothing to MoveOn.Org and from everything I have seen of her this year (and I do pay attention to her at hearings, etc.) she is decisive and right on the issues. She is a democrat that I would vote for if I lived in Missouri.
MoveOn got a little too overconfident and cocky and thought they could get away with this stupid, disgraceful ad. Well, they didn't and the democratic party will pay the price for being "owned" by this organization.
(Fully prepared to duck stones..lol)
Dan, you left that comment at my place this morning, and inspired a rant. I give credit where it is due. :)
8:57--You are 100% correct in that the Senate should not have said anything...period. It has everything to do with the "arena" that such things are being voiced and played out.
But I still believe that since it was brought to this level, that she cannot take a side, either side, simply for the sake of the party affiliation...ignoring her own principles. I do not believe Claire is anyone's tool. And I do not believe she was condemning free speech by her action....
Again, you are correct, it should never have been brought to the Senate...it belongs on Rush and Bill....
Alas, it gets more absurd everyday.
One more comment on this from a more objective position. I think the problem with this and other contentious issues in the Senate are really due to the leadership of Reid. In my opinion, this guy has set up ugly confrontations time and time again and could be the Republicans decided it was payback time. I don't think he's a good leader and could name many democrats who could do a much better job. I may be a conservative, but I'm not far right. I can listen to and can even agree with some of the democratic party initiatives, such as health care, and even changes in the tax rate, but with Reid at the helm, I wonder if there's any hope of coming up with something that can be embraced by both parties.
Did anyone here actually read the ad? It pointed out reasonable issues raised by Petraeus' testimony, and potentially negative consequences to the country from continuing failed policies. You can whine about the Betray-us jibe, although as noted above it was coined by troops under his command. But the wah-wahing about attacking the troops and demeaning a brave, decorated soldier--especially coming from the crowd that joyfully wars purple heart band-aids, enjoys trashing McClellan and Murtha, and routinely questions the competence and patriotism of officers, retired and otherwise, who dare question the rationale and conduct of King George's War, is just more distraction from the failures of that war. That the Senate wasted its time on the resolution, while filibustering bills that might actually do something for the troops, is empty, fatuous grandstanding. And that Democrats voted for it is cowardly pandering--to whom, I can't really figure out.
By the way, Travelingal, I think you missed my point.
And because I'm on a mini-roll, Travelingal, I suggest you check out statistics on use of the filibuster in the current Senate. It's hardly Reid's fault that substantially every action requires 60 votes, which the Dems don't have.
You're right Les. I misread your quote as your own statement about the ad. I retract what I said about your statement.
Whine about the 60 vote rule all you want, it's the rule to protect the minority from getting railroaded. Reid knows this but doesn't build any consensus beforehand, knowing full well he has to if he wants to pass anything. Instead he invokes cloture too soon, shuts off debate and amendments and gets slammed in return. The Immigration bill was a classic example.
I want Move-on to be the public face of the Democrat party.
Karl Rove
Looks like the ultra-liberals were wrong about Petraeus, and McCaskill was right. Bush wasn't ever going to withdraw troops during his term, and McCaskill's vote of confidence in Petraeus indicates that she was more intelligent than the 25 that voted against him. He brought down casualties significantly, and was much better than the past generals.
Post a Comment
<< Home