McCaskill Tries To Falsely Rewrite Her Role On The Stimulus

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:44:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Atrios, the phony "populist," and actual Beltway "bipartisan" BSer, Sen Claire McCaskill (D-MO), tries to rewrite her own pernicious role regarding the severe weakening of the stimulus package by the Senate:

McCaskill began by stating how glad she was that they got a $100 billion cut out of the bill, that the "silly stuff" that Republicans didn't like is now out. She then switches to a passive aggressive mode in defending the cuts - it's basically the same bill and it wouldn't have made it through the Senate - but glosses her own role in making the cuts. From the way she talks about the bill, wouldn't she have been among those voting against the bill if the cuts hadn't been made and new non-stimulative tax cuts hadn't been added in?

This critique, while effective, ignores the most damning evidence against McCaskill, her comments on the stimulus on January 30, before the compromise legislation was even being discussed:

McCASKILL: I think that there have been some mistakes made [by House Dems]. From my perspective there have been mistakes made on the stimulus bill. There has been such a starvation diet for some of these programs that the appropriators got a little over anxious in the House. They probably did some things they shouldn't have...

We do need to look at the safety net side of the stimulus bill that can get into the economy quickly. But we can't right every wrong in terms of programs we support in the stimulus bill. And the other thing is, whether it is the National Endowment of the Arts or some of the STD funding or contraceptive funding, all we did was just tee up ammunition for the other side to tear this thing down. And I would like to think we are smarter than that. I'm hopeful on the Senate side we will be smarter than that.

We will pull some of this stuff out that is not stimulative and we will have safety net in there that will get into the economy quickly, because that is what these tax breaks do, and the unemployment insurance benefits and the food stamps. People need them and they'll spend it, and it will go into the economy quickly. But I think we have to remain very focused on how we are creating jobs in this thing. And I am hoping we will find that middle ground.

McCaskill was one of the people who demanded the changes, well before anyone else did. She can not now seriously argue she would be for a better bill except that it can not be passed. She demanded a weaker, less effective bill. Her attempts to rewrite her own role in this fiasco are mendacious and pathetic.

Speaking for me only

< The Beltway's "Bipartisan" BSers Idea Of "Stimulus" | How Not To Be An Issue Activist, By NARAL's Nancy Keenan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCaskill Tries To Falsely Rewrite Her Role On The Stimulus | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why the hell does this (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:13:33 AM EST

dolt McCaskill get so much airtime?

Why is she the face of the democrats? It sickens me.

The next Joe Lieberman? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Fabian on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:25:57 AM EST

Joe probably is on his last term. Time for the next mealy mouthed, jelly spined DINO to step up!

[ Parent ]

Because of Obama (none / 0) (#6)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:39:32 AM EST

because she switched to him, and because Missouri has this rep as a crucial swing state. So he made her a co-chair of his campaign and gave the airhead all the air time. (See also: Kennedy, Caroline.)

Want it to stop? Tell Obama. He made a first-termer leapfrog over far wiser Dems. He can unmake her . . . even before, we can hope, the people of Missouri do.

[ Parent ]

I doubt BO wants (none / 0) (#14)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 04:07:37 PM EST

McCaskill out; she is doing his bidding.

[ Parent ]

Exactly. She's got a sinecure (none / 0) (#16)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:44:27 PM EST

It's just so high school, like watching the cheerleaders who gushed over the cool guys. I swear, that's where McCaskill got her training -- since she got her refresher course from her teenage daughter who told her to switch to Obama. That a grown woman in her position would not just admit that but blare it with pride in making a presidential endorsement, well, that told me all about McCaskill (and Kennedy).

[ Parent ]

Thank you for saying that (none / 0) (#17)
by Jjc2008 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 07:54:33 PM EST

I mean I all open about talking with the kids, discussion, debate but when 50ish year old adults who spent their lifetime in the political arena tells me they take their cues from their kids, I have to wonder. I thought it was only me.

[ Parent ]

: Oh, it is so definitely not just you. (none / 0) (#18)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:24:00 PM EST

On other boards, also more populated by us women of a certain age, McCaskill's line about taking her political cues from someone still in puberty is just a standard joke now. As is she.
I also am absolutely all for and enjoy discussing politics and much else with my progeny, my students, etc., much as we may disagree. I am willing to give someone another look based upon what persuades them. But even were I then persuaded (it didn't happen last year, but they may learn the hard way:-), it would not be because they "told me" to do so, but because of what I decided for myself.
And for pity's sake, were I a Senator, I would explain my endorsement because of what I decided, not because someone who thinks a thong is underwear said so! (That's to continue the underwear motif from the other thread, where I enjoyed your comments, too.)

[ Parent ]
: Oh, my. She WAS a cheerleader. (none / 0) (#19)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 09:28:42 PM EST

and, yes, prez of the Pep Club. Oh, my, again. I just had to go look up her bio:

McCaskill attended David H. Hickman High School in Columbia, where she was a cheerleader and Pep Club president and was elected homecoming queen.
Uh huh, and what is not there? We know. So . . . she's still ticked about not being prom queen, I betcha.

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Claire. Who needs the NEA (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by oculus on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:24:42 AM EST

anyhow?

P.S. I assume she is the point person on Sunday a.m. news shows because she is who her President wants in that role.

BTW, I am glad because (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by jeffinalabama on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:22:02 PM EST

the bill has been eviscerated by the middle, and doesn't help working people, not for the reasons Shelby gave.

Puppet Master (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by mmc9431 on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:42:23 PM EST

McCaskill is nothing more than a puppet that Obama is using to voice his opinion in order to be above the fray. She doesn't have an original thought in her head. With her, Obama is able to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

I think it's a little funny that in the same (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by tigercourse on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 02:38:15 PM EST

space she brags about getting food stamp cuts and talks about a dinner date with "Joe" (her husband?).

Good stuff.

: Is Joe a plumber? n/t (none / 0) (#15)
by caseyOR on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 06:14:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

She's on MTP now (none / 0) (#1)
by lobary on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:01:24 AM EST

with Barney Frank. Maybe he'll give her some valuable perspective.

Barney was furious on MTP (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by byteb on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 10:30:56 AM EST

He was in great form displaying no patience for the Republican bull.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, exposed some lies about the cuts. n/t (none / 0) (#7)
by imhotep on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:00:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: It reairs at 5 EDT (none / 0) (#12)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:51:28 PM EST

Thanks for the heads up. I decided to skip MTP today because I didn't think I could take the BS after watching Georgie Snuffleupagus. (George Will AND Newt? Maybe we could use that torture on prisoners.) Had I known Barney was going to be on....

[ Parent ]

I 'm glad my senators opposed this plan... (none / 0) (#8)
by jeffinalabama on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:21:05 PM EST

Mind you, we need a stimulus, but is this the stimulus we need?
what in the world is going on here?

I thought Dems controlled the Congress and the White House.

: I would say this is not really (none / 0) (#13)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 03:52:18 PM EST

a stimulus bill. It's a tax cut bill.

[ Parent ]

Obama's stimulus plan (none / 0) (#20)
by Rajan on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:46:59 AM EST

President Obama and his economic team, and even the entire political class in this country, are suffering from collective myopic vision in viewing and tackling the current economic downturn. 2009 is not 1932 but they are trying to apply 1930's prescription to tackle the 2009 problems when the country had undergone a sea-change in its economic activities during the intervening seven decades. During the earlier era, almost everything this country's population needed - even articles like bedspreads, towels, pillowcases, children's clothes and toys, etc. - were manufactured within the country. Today nearly 90 per cent of the items sold in WalMart and Target stores come from China and elsewhere. Add to them all the consumer electronics, computer hardware, home furniture, etc. Any money which will be put in the hands of the general population by way of tax cuts and rebates will straightaway go into purchase of goods manufactured in other countries and will, possibly, ameliorate the economic situation in China, Mexico and other countries and certainly not here. The manufacturing jobs that had gone overseas are gone for good; they will never come back, let us have no illusions about it. No amount of exhortations, like King Canute commanding the tide to stop from coming in, will bring them back. This country, at the prevailing per hour labor costs, cannot afford to manufacture most of the everyday items and even other more expensive durable goods within its borders any more. This applies also equally to the services sector like software development and maintenance and other IT enabled services. The American worker is, of course, more productive than his counterpart in China or India but the advantage from higher productivity certainly does not compensate fully for the factor of 4 or 5 times increase in labor cost. The corporations in this country outsource their products and services from China and India not out of any particular love and affection for the Chinese and the Indians but because that is the only way they can compete and survive in the global trade and commerce.

Economists who draw parallels between the 1930's Depression with today's recession are rather loath to acknowledge the most vital difference between the two era. It is an unpleasant fact - but it is still a fact - that, despite the saintly FDR's valiant efforts to revive the economy, the Depression would have prolonged its ugly reign well into the 1940's and beyond but for the sudden simulataneous appearance of three other not-so-saintly actors on the world stage. It was the evil trio of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and General Tojo who, by plunging the world in a world war, brought a sudden end to the depression in a weird, cataclysmic way. The Allied war effort which created a demand for enormous numbers and quantities of weapons, ships, aircraft and munitions and other war supplies, together with the compulsory military service call-ups of eligible adults, opened up employment opportunities for men and women, which did not exist before. But, today, we are not in such (bad) luck. Even the Russian bear has gone into hibernation and the Chinese dragon has also stopped spitting fire towards Taiwan and is content with making and exporting Barbie dolls and baby diapers to the US and elsewhere. Thus, there are no likely contenders for starting a global conflagration in the near or distant future. All other miscreants like Iran or North Korea are no more than just miscreants and are capable of causing only some easily stoppable nuisance . Hence, the active ingredient that played a major role in stopping the Great Depression in its track is not avialable today.

There should, therefore, be a completely revolutionary change in the mindset of the "experts" who are now entrusted with the task of lifting the country out of the economic morass into which it has fallen. Otherwise, the trillion+ dollars of the stimulus plan will inevitably go down the drain.