Claire McCaskill Wants to Listen to Real Missourians - Without a Warrant
I received an email from McCaskill's folks yesterday morning, inviting me to a "Kitchen Table Talk" at room 502 of Penn Valley's Central Campus building on Monday from 2 until 3. She's hoping to hear "common-sense feedback from Missourians".Remember, this is the woman who abandoned the Democratic caucus to vote for the Bush Administration's campaign of warrantless searches. McCaskill has demonstrated her willingness, even eagerness, to listen to Missourians whether they want to be listened to or not.
Now, if Claire McCaskill were sincerely interested in hearing from "real people, not lobbyists", as she claims, why in the world would she schedule her one single hour of availability for the middle of a workday afternoon? Why wouldn't she follow the lead of our Mayor, who schedules his town hall sessions in the evenings, or our former-Mayor-now-Congressman, who schedules his listening sessions on Saturdays? Perhaps, having wed a multi-multi-millionaire, she's lost touch with those of us who work during the day.
And why is it only an hour that she chooses to mingle with the unwashed masses - is that how long it will take to top off the tanks on her private jet (please, someone ask her the same transportation question that our Congress asked the big 3 auto leaders!)?
Claire McCaskill supports warrantless unconstitutional spying on Americans, so the length. location and timing of her listening session is immaterial. Her pals over at the NSA can provide her with all the information she wants about "real people", thanks to her support of the Buah administration.
My only hope is that, at the forum, some strong true Democrat stands up and asks McCaskill why she gave blank checks to the Bush administration for its optional war, why she attacks progressive organizations for free speech, why she supports warrantless spying on Americans, and, yes, how she traveled to Kansas City. And I hope that person is inspired by the feeble answers she offers - inspired enough to run against her when she is up for reelection in 2012.
This is a woman who lost to Matt Blunt. A good Democrat could crush her, and, if a good Democrat doesn't do the job, a mediocre Republican just might.
Labels: mccaskill
posted by Dan at 12/11/2008 05:46:00 AM
13 Comments:
Did Claire not give you a job or something?
What Dem will run against her in 2012? Maybe you can run Jason Kander? Or better yet - the Funk!!!!
We can't all have Russ Fiengold or Barabara Boxer as our Senators and Claire is a hellauva lot better than Jim Talent or any other of the regional party of the South.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe you are wrong and Clair is right on the wiretapping of overseas phonecalls coming into the U.S.?
Was saying that the President let people die in New Orleans not far enough left?
I've contacted Clair on Energy issues, and beleive me, she's got the leftwing boilerplate down pat on that.
Oh shut up, Dan. Claire is a good Democrat. She may not be 100% in line with your ideal, but she's far superior to what we had before.
Want to go back to the glory days when we had both Bond and Ashcroft as our Senators? Because your pipedream of a "good Democrat" is a surefire loser statewide.
If the perfect Kos dream candidate couldn't unseat Joe "Sleezebucket" Lieberman in Connecticut, what possible chance does an uber-progressive have of winning in the Show Me State? Zero.
Give it a rest already.
Geeze, Dan, how did you get to be the home of the official Funk Derangement Syndrome Brigade? I too wish Claire had a better appreciation for constitutional rights and less knee jerk fear of the Scary Brown People. On the other hand, I'll surely take a straight up trade for either of my guys--Sam "God is my constituency" Brownback or Pat "Oversight? What oversight?" Roberts.
If Obama turns out to be as moderate as he appears to be, I predict once McCaskill gets another 4 years under her belt, Obama will find a place for her in his admin or cabinet.
WOW!
inafunkaboutthefunk was right - you really do get your feelings hurt easily! I guess you can dish it out but you can't take it.
How many other comments do you delete each day?
Did you ever stop to think that maybe you are wrong and Clair is right on the wiretapping of overseas phonecalls coming into the U.S.?
Nobody AFAIK is against wiretapping the phone calls of terrorists, or even necessarily overseas phonecalls. What opponents of warrantless wiretapping are against is the complete lack of oversight for such wiretapping. Under FISA, the president can order a wiretap for national security reasons on an American citizen for 48 hours before submitting a request for a warrant to a secret court, which has almost never turned down a request. And the president doesn't need a warrant to wiretap conversations between noncitizens. Evidently, that was too strong for Bush, because he started wiretaps without regard for even a court which approves all of his warrants.
Apparently McCaskill doesn't like the Fourth Amendment, because she agreed with Bush.
Sorry Dan I too support Claire and think she is at the very least a voice for common sense.
Dan: love your posts, hate the preponderance of gomers in your comments section.
Keep holding McCaskill's feet to the fire. She needs it badly.
Settling for triangulating Democrats who happily sign off on the destruction of our civil rights just because they are "better than having a Republican in there" is tantamount to serfdom.
I want a Democrat who stands for the values of the Democratic base and I reserve the right to heap scorn on those who piss on our values. We should do it whenever any politician displays a blatant disregard for our civil rights. Bush, Cheney, Claire and Obama. All of them.
Hey DKC, what is "common sense" about signing on to trash the Fourth Amendment and letting the Telecoms off the hook by voting for immunity so we will never know the laws that were broken? When did the Bill of Rights become such a radical concept for you that when a Democrat stomps over it simply because they are scared that someone will claim they are soft on the Gawd awful woeful war on terror, you consider that to be a voice for common sense?
The most important issue is whether or not a Senator supports Kansas City, especially the urban core.
There are some really stupid people out there and Salino runs right behind the Governor of Illinois.
Salino - I deleted your comment because of rude, bigoted language. You can express the same concepts without resorting to that kind of language, and you are welcome to try again.
Nobody AFAIK is against wiretapping the phone calls of terrorists, or even necessarily overseas phonecalls. What opponents of warrantless wiretapping are against is the complete lack of oversight for such wiretapping. Under FISA, the president can order a wiretap for national security reasons on an American citizen for 48 hours before submitting a request for a warrant to a secret court, which has almost never turned down a request. And the president doesn't need a warrant to wiretap conversations between noncitizens. Evidently, that was too strong for Bush, because he started wiretaps without regard for even a court which approves all of his warrants.
So what's the problem? You tap for 48 hrs then apply for the warrant, as per FISA, as per Clintoon, and Bush I. Yes, it's truly insidious. I wonder, can anyone prove harm from this jack booted procedure? It's been so long since this dumb debate that I've forgotten the specifics of it, I'll admit. It doesn't worry me nearly as much as just voting the SEIU control over home health care in MO.
Post a Comment
<< Home