Claire McCaskill - Bad to Worst?
Finally, George W. Bush has done something sooo far beyond the pale, sooo ridiculously irresponsible, sooo wrecklessly wrong-headed that even Kit Bond voted to over-ride his veto. It's the first time since Bush has been in office that Bond has stood up to one of Bush's vetoes.
Bush's veto was on a bill to help restore the Everglades. To help rebuild the levees in New Orleans. To protect Missourians from deadly, costly floods. The Senate voted 79-14 to over-ride this unacceptable veto. The vast majority of Republicans voted to rebuke Bush.
McCaskill was one of only 14 Senators to vote in favor of Bush.
Seriously. What is her problem? Not even Jim Talent would gone so far.
Coincidentally, I received an invitation to donate to her PAC this week. Yeah, right. Not even if she gives me one of her WWJTD (What Would Jim Talent Do?) bracelets.
posted by Dan at 11/11/2007 03:06:00 PM
6 Comments:
It was also a bill loaded with pork which is the reason it was so easy to override the veto. I'm sure McCaskill had stupid reasons for voting to not override the veto but can you say the same for Feingold? Once again congress has proven that it's really easy to spend other people's money.
Claire explained her vote the other day on NPR--and she convinced me her vote was smart.
I missed the explanation - honestly, the only redemption I could imagine is if she says she knew it had plenty of support anyhow, and she could gain some incredible legislative advantage or trade-off for an essentially meaningless vote.
But have you ever written to her office? What's the point? She'll take a few weeks to get an off-point word-processed cut and paste job back to you.
I read the explanation in the Columbia Tribune. She said . . . wait a minute, it's worth it . . . because . . . it's a waste of money!!!
No, really, she said that!! This Jim Talent wannabe seriously claimed that saving Missourians' lives and reclaiming New Orleans is a waste of money. AFTER VOTING FOR UNRESTRICTED FUNDING OF BUSH'S OPTIONAL WAR!!!
I suppose it's important to account for every single nickel when it comes to saving lives, though it's okay to blow billions to fund a quagmire . . .
I agree that it is pretty hypocritical to cite fiscal responsibility on the water bill when you vote for funding on the war. But, it doesn't make it the wrong vote. Congress could have pared that bill down to 1/5th the cost and done the same amount of good.
Wait a minute. Exactly who is the Jim Talent wannabe? You're twisting her argument for voting against it by suggesting that she thinks saving lives is a waste of money. That's not the case. There was a ton of pork larded into that bill, and she has made fighting pork a major priority in the Senate -- even when it's not politically expedient, as with this vote.
You might bother to look at the principle of her actions rather than leaping to conclusions and then twisting the facts once you've finally bothered to do any research. You saw in the paper that she voted against it, you then slammed her without bothering to find out why she voted that way, and then once someone told you there might be a good reason, you offered up a jaundiced interpretation of her vote.
Come on Dan, if someone offered up such a twisted attack on Funkhouser, you'd be crapping your socks to call them on it.
Post a Comment
<< Home