Democrat Claire McCaskill told "Hardball's" Chris Matthews today that incumbent U.S. Sen. Jim Talent "pretty much does what the president tells him to do."
She cited a laundry list of national problems, ranging from the response to Katrina to what she called dramatic overspending in Washington, to explain why she can beat an incumbent in November.
And she pledged to be a senator who would work to find "common sense common ground." McCaskill said the height of irresponsibility was going to war without a plan for peace. But now that American troops are there we need to find a political solution. The administration, she said, needs to emphasize building civilian infrastructure to win the support of the Iraqi people, particularly infrastructure that people use every day, not just oil pipelines.
"You don't build democracy with the barrel of a gun."
Matthews said may of the same arguments were made by John Kerry two years ago but President Bush still won Missouri. McCaskill replied that public perception changed when retired generals started publicly questioning the conduct of the war. Talent declined to appear on the program, but Matthews said he would try to have the senator on another time.
A video link to excerpts of the McCaskill interview is at www.kansascity.com.
Posted by Steve Kraske and Kit Wagar
Go Claire! This will be a fun race to watch!
Posted by: putkidsfirst | June 28, 2006 at 06:13 PM
Go Claire. This will be a fun race to watch YOU WIN!!!
Posted by: Political Moderate | June 28, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Does she even realize what is going on in Iraq. There are schools being built, more paved roadways, cellphone ownership is higher than ever before. Also her "the height of irresponsibility was going to war without a plan for peace" comment just blows my mind. We go to war to win the war. After that there is a period of peace. What does she think this is a game of Risk, OK I have cover 70% of the board now I win. Peace everyone. Its not that I am a Talent fan, but if you are running for an office like that, make an educated statement based on facts, not talking points. By the way we tried political solutions with terrorists before, it was called the Clinton Administration. I tell you it was the easiest 5 years in the Marines I ever had. I went no where, but I did help dismantle two bases. Good bye El Toro and Tustin.
Posted by: JC_in_KC | June 29, 2006 at 05:57 AM
That comment wasn't me. I agree with Claire. Although, I'm not sure we've reached the height of irresponsibility yet. I think Ol' G.W.'s got something left up his sleeve.
Other JC, you said we went to war to win. Can you define winning? Does winning include attracting terrorists from around the region? Maybe that's part of the reason some Iraqis aren't so happy. After we win there is peace? Based on comments from the Good Old Boys in the White House, that's a long way off.
I sincerely hope things in Iraq end up well, but my ultimate fear is that Iraq does model our society, and the rest of the Mid East hates them for it. After all, G.W. says the terrorists hate us for our freedom. Will we ever be able to leave? If we do, which neighbor is going to attack? Will things in Iraq be much different from things in Israel?
Posted by: JC | June 29, 2006 at 08:37 AM
I saw Claire on Hardball yesterday, all I can say is, "You go girl!"
for the first JC, this isn't a real war, this is a "I wanted to outdo Abe Lincoln, so I started this lousy military thing and now I'm in a pickle."
Posted by: Gingersnapp | June 29, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Ginger - What is it a fake war. Those are fake terrorist. We are dropping fake bomb. We are reporting fake casualties. After serving in the military under 2 administrations, I think I am compitent enough to say that this is a war. As a matter of fact this is the most important war that may ever be fought. See before the countries we were at war with only wanted to kill certain races and fought the war accordingly. Now the cells, not countries, want to destroy our entire country and sneak around. They act like you or I until the day they decide to fly a plane into a building. Maybe next time it will be something bigger and better for them. So darling, this is a real war. It might not be as conventional as our past wars, but that was dictated by the enemy not us.
Posted by: JC_in_KC | June 30, 2006 at 08:05 AM
Jim Talent is increasingly discovering he is out of step with the majority in Missouri.
The fact that he is on the wrong side of important issues such as stem-cell research, healthcare, medicare, Iraq, flag-burning and so on makes him extremely dangerous.
When you aren't aligned with the issues, one must resort to attacking the opponent on personal issues.
We can expect to see a vicious campaign ahead with lots of low punches and irrelevant but nasty attacks of Claire McCaskill.
He has the larger war chest to fund a television assault on Ms. McCaskill. Expect him to do that soon.
Personally, his record of ineffective service to Missouri speaks for itself. He may go down as one of the worst senators in the history of this state. That says a lot.
I'll measure Ms. McCaskill's record and positions against Jim Talent any day. Strictly based on the record, I think Missourian's will recognize Claire McCaskill stands head and shoulders over Jim Talent.
Claire McCaskill has earned the vote of Missouri.
Posted by: Political Moderate | July 01, 2006 at 07:52 AM
PM, Well said.
Posted by: Ed Friedemann | July 01, 2006 at 10:50 AM
I voted for Jim Talent because I know he is a good man, and I still feel that he is a good man, but he has failed Missourians, as his record shows.
And, as to the war, it will be never-ending. We are talking about the Middle East here, which no one even appear to have considered before going in there. It was the most ill prepared war ever.
We started this mess of a war, now we must stay there to the very end, which will probaly mean forever and ever. We made our own beds here. And, wrongfully so, may I add.
The BIG question is, how are we going to continue to finance this war?
Maybe Halliburton can help financially instead of just reaping in profits from this war.
Posted by: D. Walker | July 01, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Oh, Cheney and Rumsfeld had a "plan" all cooked up just waiting for the "right time" to spring it.
Notice on their map which country is first.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Posted by: Ed Friedemann | July 01, 2006 at 01:07 PM
Cheney and Rumsfeld on their rise to power.
The Dark Side
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Posted by: Ed Friedemann | July 01, 2006 at 01:11 PM
After 9/11, I don't understand why more people's conscious did not tell them that something was not genuine and right about the decision to go into Iraq. It just was not adding up before we went in, on top of not having enough support to back us up from other countries. Now, we have ALL the proof needed that this was the wrong decision, first it was because they were responsible for 9/11, then because for the democracy of the people of Iraq.
We have since learned that they were ALL intentional and misleading lies.
The mind sets of our people are extremely frightening, and our people will be the cause of our own destruction. Just reflect back and remember how those who questioned and disagreed were treated. Like the #1 enemies! How ignorant and evil in itself.
Our arrogance have kept us from repenting and owning up to our wrongs concerning this war. And, our poor troops, we owe them dearly.
Many have accepted and ignored the deceit, claiming, Oh well, Sadam Hussain deserved this because he was evil, and we have instead of 9/11 or nuclear bombs, we have freed a country from that evil man. Do those who feel this way, have a conscious, or any common sense?
Do you even stop and ask yourselves the question, why did they really want to go into Iraq so badly?
Posted by: D. Walker | July 02, 2006 at 08:01 PM