Talent-McCaskill
George Will has an analysis of the Talent-McCaskill race for the U.S. Senate here in Missouri, and he makes some decent points but I think his analysis falls short. Being a native Missourian, let me throw my two cents in.
First, I live in St. Louis and saw the Democratic vote fraud first hand; Talent`s ``loss`` in the Governor`s race was absolutely disputable, given the circumstances. He lost by 21,445 votes. A judge friendly to the Democrats ordered the polls to be open late, and busses were traveling from one poling place to another here in St. Louis. (I suspect something similiar was happening in Kansas City as well.) The polls were kept open almost an hour past closing before another judge overruled this blatantly partisan decision. Why no action was taken to impeach this judge is beyond me. I`m not at all sure Talent lost-he was just too decent to throw a temper tantrum like Al Gore.
Talent`s narrow victory over Jean Carnahan was also not indicitive of his relative strength/weakness; Carnahan was ``the widow Carnahan`` and many people voted for her out of purely sentimental reasons. She was a quiet, decent woman and had avoided offending anyone in her short Senate term. Her strong showing against Talent really did not reflect poorly on Talent so much as the strength of an incumbent non-politician who was liked and pitied.
McCaskill`s victory over fellow Democrat Holden in the Gubernatorial primary was illustrative of the abyssmal failure of Holden`s administration. Holden had been an awful governor, and was so unpopular statewide that the Democrats knew the seat was lost if they didn`t replace him. McCaskill had done some high-profile audits and was the only real alternative the statewide party machine had to offer.
The fact that she could lose to Matt Blunt- a political novice and Doogie Howser-like figure with a well-known father does not speak well of her electability. I remember seeing Blunt at a Bush rally; he looked like a sophomore in College. I fully expected the mature and dignified McCaskill to destroy him during the debates, especially because Blunt isn`t that conservative and doesn`t really sound like he knows what he is talking about. She used the ``too young and inexperienced`` card against him, too, but it didn`t help and Blunt won the Governorship (and has done a poor job, in my humble opinion.)
I can`t believe that someone who couldn`t beat a lightweight novice for the Governorship can take down an experienced and effective incumbent Senator.
Talent`s problem is that he has moved to the left on key issues-most notably the stem-cell business. He has angered many in his base by doing this, but he did it because former Senator John Danforth and a coalition of rich businessmen threatened to strangle him financially if he didn`t play ball with them. Talent`s campaign for re-election has been a ``move to the center`` approach, and his base has cooled as a result of this.
I still support him; he answered an e-mail I sent him demanding he vote against the Senate`s comprehensive immigration reform bill. He is firmly on our camp on this matter, and he made that plain in response to me (it may have been a staffer who wrote back, but it was personalized and could have been written by the Senator.)
It should be pointed out that McCaskill wants to close the barn door AFTER the horse has gotten out in regards to illegal invasions; she wants an ``enforcement`` approach which puts all the onus on employers, while not bothering to secure the borders. Stupid.
People are angry in Missouri and across the nation, and McCaskill may profit from this anger. I still suspect she will lose; I don`t think the anti-incumbent mood is strong enough to push her over the top. She tows the party line of Iraq, and that is only going to take her so far in a fairly conservative state like Missouri; even the loyal Democrats in this state are blue-collar, Truman types who aren`t pleased with the treasonous behavior of the national party. (This is why the AFL-CIO has been fracturing; the rank-and-file union men don`t like the weakness on national defense.)
I predict a Talent victory in the coming mid-terms. I hope I`m right.
First, I live in St. Louis and saw the Democratic vote fraud first hand; Talent`s ``loss`` in the Governor`s race was absolutely disputable, given the circumstances. He lost by 21,445 votes. A judge friendly to the Democrats ordered the polls to be open late, and busses were traveling from one poling place to another here in St. Louis. (I suspect something similiar was happening in Kansas City as well.) The polls were kept open almost an hour past closing before another judge overruled this blatantly partisan decision. Why no action was taken to impeach this judge is beyond me. I`m not at all sure Talent lost-he was just too decent to throw a temper tantrum like Al Gore.
Talent`s narrow victory over Jean Carnahan was also not indicitive of his relative strength/weakness; Carnahan was ``the widow Carnahan`` and many people voted for her out of purely sentimental reasons. She was a quiet, decent woman and had avoided offending anyone in her short Senate term. Her strong showing against Talent really did not reflect poorly on Talent so much as the strength of an incumbent non-politician who was liked and pitied.
McCaskill`s victory over fellow Democrat Holden in the Gubernatorial primary was illustrative of the abyssmal failure of Holden`s administration. Holden had been an awful governor, and was so unpopular statewide that the Democrats knew the seat was lost if they didn`t replace him. McCaskill had done some high-profile audits and was the only real alternative the statewide party machine had to offer.
The fact that she could lose to Matt Blunt- a political novice and Doogie Howser-like figure with a well-known father does not speak well of her electability. I remember seeing Blunt at a Bush rally; he looked like a sophomore in College. I fully expected the mature and dignified McCaskill to destroy him during the debates, especially because Blunt isn`t that conservative and doesn`t really sound like he knows what he is talking about. She used the ``too young and inexperienced`` card against him, too, but it didn`t help and Blunt won the Governorship (and has done a poor job, in my humble opinion.)
I can`t believe that someone who couldn`t beat a lightweight novice for the Governorship can take down an experienced and effective incumbent Senator.
Talent`s problem is that he has moved to the left on key issues-most notably the stem-cell business. He has angered many in his base by doing this, but he did it because former Senator John Danforth and a coalition of rich businessmen threatened to strangle him financially if he didn`t play ball with them. Talent`s campaign for re-election has been a ``move to the center`` approach, and his base has cooled as a result of this.
I still support him; he answered an e-mail I sent him demanding he vote against the Senate`s comprehensive immigration reform bill. He is firmly on our camp on this matter, and he made that plain in response to me (it may have been a staffer who wrote back, but it was personalized and could have been written by the Senator.)
It should be pointed out that McCaskill wants to close the barn door AFTER the horse has gotten out in regards to illegal invasions; she wants an ``enforcement`` approach which puts all the onus on employers, while not bothering to secure the borders. Stupid.
People are angry in Missouri and across the nation, and McCaskill may profit from this anger. I still suspect she will lose; I don`t think the anti-incumbent mood is strong enough to push her over the top. She tows the party line of Iraq, and that is only going to take her so far in a fairly conservative state like Missouri; even the loyal Democrats in this state are blue-collar, Truman types who aren`t pleased with the treasonous behavior of the national party. (This is why the AFL-CIO has been fracturing; the rank-and-file union men don`t like the weakness on national defense.)
I predict a Talent victory in the coming mid-terms. I hope I`m right.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home