McCaskill’s ‘Hardball Hypothetical’ Senate Ethics Problem

April 24, 2012
The “real” Claire McCaskill

Our very own “Cacklin” Claire McCaskill seems to have ignored Senate Ethics rules Monday night and solicited campaign funds right from the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building.

 The Daily Caller reports that while appearing on MSDNC’s “Hardball” to bemoan to her bff Chris Matthews how out of state Super PAC’s were targeting her with attack ads she crossed the line when she told the audience:

“on, people can give 25 bucks and, if we get a lot of those, we will have our own super PAC, and that’s the kind of PAC that should be super, made up of regular people giving small amounts.”

 So desperate is Claire to distract Missouri voters from her actual record she now feels that not even Senate Ethics rules barring campaign activity in any federal building applies to her.  (But then again she had to be embarrassed into paying taxes on her plane so why should we expect her to abide by ethics rules in her effort to retain power?)

 Responding to The Daily Caller’s request for comment, McCaskill spokesman John LaBombard forwarded the Caller to the Missouri Democrat Party whose spokeswoman Caitlin Legacki said among other things:

“It’s hard to talk about the evils of anonymous Super PAC influence on our elections without describing the alternative in an understandable, hypothetical way like Claire did tonight,”

 “Hypothetical” Caitlin?  Did you bother to read the transcript? 

 Claire specifically directed viewers to her website and specifically mentioned a dollar amount.  Only in the Alice in Wonderland world that is the Democrat party of today is an actual quote from an actual appearance considered a “hypothetical”.

 But then again when you look at McCaskill’s voting record “hypothetical” begins to make a lot more sense. 

 When her constituents were telling her to vote NO on the stimulus waste she must have thought they were only “hypothetical” voters who really didn’t matter.

 When the New York Times reported on our Obamacare Prop C vote in August of 2010 that Missouri had become “the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.” (and that dismay was at over a 70 percent level), Claire must have taken that as but a “hypothetical” exercise as well.  For when she had the chance to reverse her vote in 2011 she again sided with Obama and against her constituents.

 And this very week we’ll get a chance once again to see whether Claire will stand with Missouri and jobs or Obama and his union bosses. 

 The Senate is currently debating  a resolution that would reverse the National Labor Relations Board unprecedented ruling to give unions the power to force “ambush” elections on companies that would require a vote within as little as 10 days from date of initial notice and a vote could come as early as this afternoon. 

 Are there any takers on whether Claire will for once break ranks and vote with her constituents and against big labor and the Obama administration?  Didn’t think so.

 Claire is very skilled at doing just enough small stuff to put herself out as a “moderate” to the politically ignorant in KC and St. Louis, but the reality is that on every major issue she has sided with Obama and Harry Reid, and against the interests of the whole of Missouri.

 The betrayal is even worse when you consider how she deceived Missourians when campaigning in 2006 as a fiscal hawk. 

 Here’s Cacklin Claire from an earlier “Hardball” appearance when she was running for her first term:

 MATTHEWS: “Welcome back to Hardball. . . . Why do you think you can beat an incumbent U.S. senator, Claire McCaskill?”

MCCASKILL: “Well I just think Missourians frankly and I think most Americans have — there’s kind of a laundry list. I mean, you can start with incredible overspending, blowing the deficit out of control.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/28/06)

 Tell us Claire, just how soon after your election did you lose that laundry list?

 Tell us Claire, just how many trillions in overspending and new debt does it take before you would consider it “out of control”? 

 Tell us Claire, just how many days has it been since your Democrat controlled Senate put forth a budget?

 Yes, yes, please tell us Claire, just which one of you should we believe? 

 The “real” one who signs Obama’s blank checks or the “hypothetical”, “moderate” that appears on t.v.?

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to McCaskill’s ‘Hardball Hypothetical’ Senate Ethics Problem

  1. anson burlingame on April 24, 2012 at 11:01 am

    And there we have the essence of the coming Senatorial campaign in Missouri, McCaskill’s record versus what a GOP candidate would do instead.

    McCaskill votes to spend $Trillions but chairs a committee to chastize grave diggers in Arlington National Cemetery!!!.

    But the unanswered question is who will be her GOP candidate and what will he DO, not say he will do, if elected becomes to big question(s).


  2. Geoff Caldwell on April 24, 2012 at 11:31 am

    I’ve got more details to sort through but at this point I really think Bruner is our best bet in this climate.


June 2022
« Apr