What's Up With Claire McCaskill
Missouri Just Got Ugly
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Claire McCaskill is running against Jim Talent for the United States Senate in Missouri. But, Ms. McCaskill, it seems, has been the subject of a federal investigation into drug use. See the news clips below:
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Those Other Poll Numbers — Comments (6) »
What's Up With Claire McCaskill 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Claire McCaskill's campaign is becoming such a train wreck. First, it was the mounting questions about her personal finance -- now, we learn about her history of drug use and the federal drug investigation into her activities while in office.
I have taken the "opportunity to contribute financially to [Talent's] campaign." Otherwise, according to the man himself, it could have affected my sleep habits.
Not much to sniff at... yet. Looks like a 'fishing expedition'. Unless they do have something against her and they are trying to get her on record now before they go 'wham'. Looks doubtful.
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
It is very possible that someone makes false accusations against a DA (in this case McCaskill).
I suppose they could be true- I am often shocked at the way drug use can worm it's way into use by law officers.
However, if there were no charges brought that is highly suggestive that there is nothing to it.
On the other hand, I know nothing about Missouri corruption or McCaskill's reputation.
I tended to believe accusations of adultury against Bill Clinton were true because they fit what I got of his character, and it seemed to me that Arkansas was a place that was more willing to look the other way for a good ole boy on issues of sexual indiscretion.
"Were there is smoke there is fire" but sometimes it's just a smoke bomb. I think we ought to give McCaskill the benefit of the doubt until more evidence comes before us.
This McCaskill is a trainwreck. Lets all send some money to Talent. Lets make some news and flood Talent with some fresh funds. We can't loose this guy in November, he is to important.
Seems like a bit of local news hype mixed with a bit of truth, but still great for Talent to edge her out in the polls.
I know Missouri has a history of close statewide battles, but usually the Democrat is somewhat successful at passing his or herself off as a moderate-conservative Democrat. McCaskill is clearly a leftwinger, so it is a sign of a generally gloomy, anti-incumbent, anti-GOP mood that this race is so close, with Talent even trailing in some polls.
Hopefully after Labor Day people will see her for what she truly is, and Talent will surge ahead and save this desperately needed seat for the GOP.
in St. Louis, Willie Nelson is doing a concert. Apparently, he is going to endorse her from the stage (fwiw).
I know she is an unapologetic Ned Lamont type, but the St. Louis media, namely the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, KMOX 1120 AM radio and J.C. Corcoran are still trying to present her as a moderate. They also have declared this a "non-story" and are trying to starve it of oxygen by spiking it. I know this because I have a very leftist brother in law who works for KMOX as a producer who openly admits he knows of the story of the drugs, but said he and the other producers and local on air talent like Charles Brennan, Paul Harris and Carol Daniel refuse to talk about it. Also, he claimed it's "old news". When I reminded him of a certain then-Governor of Texas having to face repeated attempts to bring up rumors stemming from the 1960s and 1970s, and how they were "serious news worthy of discussion", all he said was I shouldn't try to compare apples to oranges and just walked away.
Yet if Talent belches in public, it's a topic for a week in the local media, ala the "macacca" thing by Allen. Go figure.
This is why the "sit this one out" crowd needs to realize what they are doing if they do indeed sink good men like Talent in favor of clowns like McCaskill.
... all he said was I shouldn't try to compare apples to oranges...
In other words, Republicans and Democrats get very different treatment in the MSM. Time to get the word out via other means.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Years ago, the silence wouldn't have flown at "The Voice of St. Louis". The late Bob Hyland wouldn't have stood for it. The late Bob Hardy would have had the guts and integrity to pursue it. If the woman is innocent, then all the investigation and related reporting do is help her image. If she's guilty, then let the cookie crumble.
How far the 'Mighty Mox' has fallen. Of course, most people listening to KMOX already know that.
except for Limbaugh's 3 hours, most KMOX listeners are either living in retirement homes or are diehard liberals, judging by the calls the local shows there get. Most conservatives have gone to 97.1 FM to get Hannity and Ingraham.
The local hosts at KMOX are nothing but shills for the DNC. Paul harris, Charles Brennan, Carol Daniel, Doug McKelvin are all rabid liberals.
Someone serving a jail sentence claims to be innocent. Hmmm, while innocent people sometimes do get convicted, I think I would want more than that before declaring a crisis in American justice.
Investigators spent five years looking for evidence of drug use by Claire McCaskill, and didn't find enough to charge her, let alone convict her. There is a principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' which would seem to apply here.
McCaskill admits that when she was young she did some stupid things. I think she is following a well trodden path here. The phrasing sounds remarkably familiar. I have never believed that George W Bush disqualified himself from public office by making that statement, and nor did Claire McCaskill.
Conclusion 1: worth watching, but unless something a great deal more convincing emerges, not an issue.
Conclusion 2: there are many reasons to prefer Jim Talent to Claire McCaskill. This isn't one of them.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Investigators spent five years looking for evidence of drug use by Claire McCaskill, and didn't find enough to charge her, let alone convict her. There is a principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' which would seem to apply here.
We aren't talking about a court of law. We're talking about somebody trying to win people's votes. Everything is fair game in the voters' analysis. I certainly think this will be considered by some voters, especially since it is so recent. Even if she's not guilty, it may show a serious lack of judgment in the people she chooses as friends... also something that is relevant in a political race.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I don't think it is impossible that it will impact the election. If I were a voter in Missouri, and had been thinking of voting for McCaskill, it wouldn't affect my vote, but I am not everyone. :)
But there is actually nothing in either of these reports which says that she has ever even met a drug user, let alone that some are her friends. One person serving a prison sentence (who claims to be innocent anyway) worked in her office.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Says one of the people involved was a "close personal friend." The other person was supposedly unknown to her.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
No, there is no principle of innocent until proven guilty that would apply here.
That principle applies in the criminal justice system. It doesn't apply elsewhere.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
In my assessment of what I think of people.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I hope you understand, though, that some people when faced with facts, may follow a different policy.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Though I am not sure how it really applies in this case. The facts, as presented in these reports, were pretty thin on the ground.
That said, you make a good point. If the police were investigating for five years it seems likely that they turned something up - even if nothing was revealed in these reports. I am not an admirer of government monopolies, but even a government police force would have given up after a year or two of turning up nothing.
And, I have to admit, I don't always apply criminal standards in my judgements about voting. Sometimes, particularly in a marginal case, I will move away from someone because I have doubts about them, not because I am convinced they have done something wrong.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I don't think this story is from this election cycle. Dave Hellings (the reporter) now works for the Kansas City Star and blogs at: http://kcbuzzblog.typepad.com/kcbuzzblog/.
It seems like this is an old story with old allegations.
Curiouser and curiouser. This may be a good time to send Jim Talent some cash.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill