ABC News political correspondent Jake Tapper filed a report on Good Morning America about how some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from President Bush as the November election approaches.
Tapper mentions Sen. Jim Talent in his piece . . . "When Bush was high in the polls, Jim Talent cemented himself to him . . . Talent's new re-election ad does not mention the president or even identify the party Talent belongs to."
You can watch it by clicking here.
Meanwhile, Claire McCaskill is up on television with her own ad that doesn't mention her party either. The ad focuses on McCaskill's work "standing up for Missouri seniors," as state auditor.
It obviously includes older file footage of McCaskill.
"As auditor, she took on the big drug companies to lower costs and save taxpayers millions," the voiceover reads, citing audits of healthcare and nursing homes with 90 findings.
This comes at a time when Republicans are working hard to raise questions about McCaskill's effectiveness as an auditor and a fiscal steward.
McCaskill's ad apparently tries to capitalize on two issues unpopular with people . . . social security reform and the Medicaid cuts. "Now a McCaskill plan to stop the Medicaid cuts and protect Social Security . . ."
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I haven't exactly heard McCaskill outline a feasible plan to stop the Medicaid cuts. Not even sure she would have the power to do so if she did have a plan. Is McCaskill trying to link an issue decided by state lawmakers to a U.S. Senate campaign? And if so, is that fair? The other point is that the President's social security reform proposal is basically dead, so is that an issue voters really are worried about anymore?
McCaskill reverts back to the drug company line to tag off the spot . . . "It's a Senator's job to always put our seniors before big drug companies and Washington special interests."
Big drug companies . . . Big oil . . . Expect to hear a lot more about big, bad things from the McCaskill camp as the campaign proceeds.
4 comments:
The plan to avoid Medicaid cuts is simple. They weren't required. Blunt underestimated revenues to create a budget "crisis" and then used the "crisis" to justify cutting meidicaid. Revenues exceeded projections by more then the entire amount of the cuts. Remember when Blunt, Champion and their Republican friend talk about the "savings" they include the Federal portion of the medicaid program (around 60% of the cost) which has no iimpact on the state budget but has a huge impact on services to Missourians. The Federal money is still being spent-- only for services to residents of other states.
Bobicus you must be listening to the Republican propoganda and not researching for yourself. Look at the increase in General Revenue the last two years (the one Blunt takes credit for even though the first year could not have possibly been related to his actions). Then look up at the savings Blunt claimed from the medicaid cuts. The revenue increase far outpaced the state savings from the cuts. Now Blunt wouldn't have been able to give all the new tax credits he gave out and wouldn't have been able to give away revenues from fee offices to political insiders but he suure didn't need to make the cuts.
If their was waste in the program I would love to see it eliminated but he cut many who realy need the benefits.
By the way what is your source on this 1/5 of the population on mediciad you always quote? I think independant research will show that also is false and a scare tactic used to justify shifting money from the medicaid that help the disabled , poor and elderly to tax credits for wealthy political contributors.
Republican Senators like Champion knew the truth about these cuts but were afraid to stand up to the Governor.
Two Wings. Show me where the Constitution guarentees free healthcare for its citizens? Its not there because it is not the governments job to be your insurance company. You want a safety net buy some netting and do it yourself.
I was a staffer at Jeff City during the session of the cuts and there is no reason why a family of 4 should make 45,000(? but it is close) a year and get medicaid. To keep those currently on the system before the cuts (Medicaid), Education (which is constitutionally required to be funded) would have had little left. welfare belongs at home or the church. To tax me to pay your bills is called communism.
Flurharty:
Pitting educational funding against medicaid is an old ploy of Republicans. Government is not limited to doing only what the Constitution requires but is prevented from doing what it prohibits. (The constitution does'nt require roads or a national weather service or a a national park system. That doesn't mean they aren't good ideas or the right thing to do)
We are too good and too moral of a people to pretend we can't afford to both educate our children and health care to the poor and diaabled.
Bobicus: The fact is the state can afford both a quality educational system and medicaid for the needy with the present tax structure if we would quit giving money away to wealthy businesses and individuals in the form of "tax credits" and "consulting contracts" and "land leases" and "fee agent contracts" that have nothing to do with economic development or government efficiency but have everything to do with political paybacks for huge campaign contributions which allowed Rebpublicans to claim a majoity of the legislature. The corruption of the current Rebpublican leadership in Jefferson City and Washington is the reson Republicans had to cut medicaid. So they could reward political friends.
Post a Comment