Claire McCaskill said today she would "do whatever's necessary to make sure there's no ethical conflict" with her husband's businesses.
The Democrat said that could include placing family assets in a blind trust. Husband Joseph Shepard is a wealthy man as a result of his involvement in developing and managing low-income housing.
"I will put anything in a trust that needs to be put in a trust to make sure that there are no ethical questions," she told The Star's editorial board.
McCaskill wasn't pleased with today's story on the situation. She called it a "driveby," as in drive-by shooting.
Posted by Steve Kraske
No one who knows McCaskill has any doubt that she is an absolute straight-arrow. She's more than proven that she can be trusted to do the right thing on public policy, even if it costs her hubby some dough.
Why is it that there is such a double standard for any Democrat who is wealthy -- and even more so for every woman who has a husband who does well? And especially from Talent -- who got a cushy job between elections so he was free to run full-time against Jean Carnahan! No one is attacking Talent's wife because she's a tax lawyer making a bundle off the tax laws he helped create in the Bush/Chaney raid on the treasury. Willie Sutten would be an ethical improvement over the Repubs. At least he had the courtesy to wear a mask when robbing banks.
Posted by: KC Cicero | October 18, 2006 at 05:18 PM
"No one who knows McCaskill has any doubt that she is an absolute straight-arrow. She's more than proven that she can be trusted to do the right thing on public policy, even if it costs her hubby some dough."
I know people that know her personally from her time as Jackson County Prosecutor. They support her and are going to vote for her, but they would definitely disagree with that statement.
Posted by: craig | October 18, 2006 at 05:26 PM
Kraske, you know that story was a drive-by. Why do you continue to stand by while Matt Stearns covers this race? He's biased beyond belief and should be removed from covering Talent and McCaskill for the duration of the race.
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 07:43 PM
HA! Matt Stearns biased. He does one piece of journalism all year and you call him biased.
It was a drive by, but if memory serves he did the same "drive by" on Jeanne Patterson last year. Perhaps he's just biased against rich people.
Posted by: FarRight | October 18, 2006 at 07:49 PM
Wrong. Stearns carried Talent's water today, just like he has countless times. And if you watched tonight's debate, Talent cited this article in his closing statement tonight. Lucky timing for Talent or a reporter doing his campaign buddies a favor?
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 07:56 PM
No one who knows McCaskill has any doubt that she is an absolute straight-arrow. She's more than proven that she can be trusted to do the right thing on public policy, even if it costs her hubby some dough.
1) The way she handled only giving a slap on the wrist to an employee (and friend) who used goverment computrs to give information to a meth dealer. Lot of trust there.
2) Her husband made a lot of money on tax credits and using the goverment subisdies to build low income housing, nothing illegal that I know of, but definitely crossing the line as being not of high ethical standards.
Posted by: BeProudAmerica | October 18, 2006 at 07:58 PM
"2) Her husband made a lot of money on tax credits and using the goverment subisdies to build low income housing, nothing illegal that I know of, but definitely crossing the line as being not of high ethical standards."
I'm not sure how that brings either of their ethics into question. Would he be of higher standards if he'd made lots of money using government subsidies to produce oil or to farm?
I find that your criticism lacks substance.
Posted by: CRD | October 18, 2006 at 08:19 PM
I'm sick of conservatives trying to smear McCaskill for doing nothing wrong. It's pathetic.
1. Talent's wife advises rich people on how to avoid paying taxes and represents them in court. It's not illegal, but how's that ethical?
2. Jim Talent voted to give billions in tax breaks to Big Oil while we were all paying record prices and at the same time he was taking campaign contributions from Exxon, et al. Nothing illegal there, but how's that ethical?
3. While America is fighting wars on two fronts overseas, Talent doesn't bother to show up for 2/3 of the Armed Services hearings that he's getting paid to serve on. Nothing illegal there, but how's that ethical?
Give it a rest. McCaskill's been a stand up gal for Missouri. Jim Talent's losing on the issues and the merits, and you boys on the right have nothing but personal attacks left to offer.
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 08:34 PM
She wasn't pleased with the story. No kidding.
STEVE KRASKE, I am very disappointed in the Star. Even if the questions are legit, the timing is scurrilous. Not only was it three weeks before election day, there was not adequate time for the McCaskill family to respond by putting the "journalist" in touch with attorneys and others who could explain the complex financial holdings.
Goldstein and Stearns have an affinity for Talent and it frustrates the public interest that you have a duty to protect. These two are harming your paper's reputation. Do you think those 2 will have much cooperation from Missouri's junior senator (who will likely be a member of the majority party)?
I realize it was not your story, but those 2 are in D.C. You are our local political contact for the Star. Make your voice heard in your editorial room, lest your paper's reputation (and Senate scoop) be threatened.
And, Goldstein & Stearns, expect a cold shoulder the next 6 years.
Posted by: chris | October 19, 2006 at 08:34 AM
Noticed that this morning, Stearns, hat in hand, had to write a better story actually discussing the facts and not merely highlighting the attack points that Talent's campaign asked him to make in his first article. We'll never know, but I have a hunch some Star scribes were less than happy with the tone and slant of his first piece. Also I liked the nice bold type in the headline. It doesn't erase Stearns first crooked article, but it's something.
Posted by: | October 19, 2006 at 08:46 AM
McCaskill wasn't pleased with today's story on the situation. She called it a "driveby," as in drive-by shooting.
So 1st she jumps on Neil Boortz's(conservative) made up gas prices conspiracy. Now she's quoting from Rush Limbaugh "driveby" man if I was a dem I would be pissed.
"STEVE KRASKE, I am very disappointed in the Star. Even if the questions are legit, the timing is scurrilous." I bet you wouldn't be disappointed if this report was about the "other" side?
"there was not adequate time for the McCaskill family to respond by putting the "journalist" in touch with attorneys and others who could explain the complex financial holdings." I guess Claire needed "more time" to prepare for this election...hmmmm. Is that going to be the "excuse" if she is elected?
Posted by: LMAO | October 19, 2006 at 09:01 AM
What a crazy world where Republicans beat up on a rich person for political gain and lack the courage of thier convictions to sign thier name.
Makes you wonder about the Foley-type values of the current Republican party. Please bring back Jack Danforth!! Oops, he is back and campaigning for stem cell research, something Talent won't do because he lacks leadership and a strong back bone. Insult people without signing your name all you want, but no honest person can say that Claire McCaskill lacks back bone.
Posted by: Stephen Bough | October 19, 2006 at 10:44 AM
I could post this anywhere in four threads...
You Democrats are getting funnier by the minute!
One 'bad' (meaning fair) article and you go off the wall.
This thing with hubby the slum lord isn't a 'timing thing' we've been talking bout all summer. Claire choose to stonewall it. Now, at the 11th hours and her feet are held to the fire and it's (somehow) 'unfair'
Funny as hell.
Also, anyone seen the latest polls...the ones taken in the last few days?
Looks like ol' Karl just might be right...er...correct.
Could that be a part of the general raising level of bile around here?
Got to go...so many Democrats (though still a minority) to torture so little time...
Posted by: tsquare | October 19, 2006 at 12:13 PM
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1177
Posted by: LMAO | October 19, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Sorry thought I'd play the Ed Friedeman game and post the link in all the different discussions....sorry won't happen again.
Posted by: LMAO | October 19, 2006 at 12:17 PM
LMAO--
You are right, I wouldn't be disappointed if the Star did a slanted, last minutes story against Talent. I hope he loses.
But it still wouldn't be right if they did.
Posted by: chris | October 19, 2006 at 02:11 PM