From morning 'til night, national political reporters are gabbing about Missouri's U.S. Senate race.
During a roundtable discussion on CNN's Paula Zahn Now, the editor-in-chief of "The Washington Monthy," pointed to Missouri as the race to watch Nov. 7th.
"The state to watch, the race to watch is Missouri, my home state. I think Claire McCaskill will -- has a lot of momentum behind her. The -- the sitting senator, Talent, has the organization. Again, that's going to be state where it's going to be organization vs. motivation," said Paul Glastris of The Washington Monthly on CNN.
National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin spoke on NPR's Morning Edition about how Sen. Jim Talent might have never been in this close of a race if not for the war, and compounding national mood.
"Let me make the opposite argument. We wouldn’t be talking about Mike DeWine in Ohio or Jim Talent in Missouri if there were not an anti-Republican mood based really on President Bush’s low numbers, the low approval rating of Congress, and the war in Iraq," said Rudin.
"Because Mike DeWine has really done nothing wrong. Jim Talent has really done nothing wrong that would warrant them being defeated in 2006, and it’s really the war and the anti-Republican mood."
Meanwhile, The Hotline's Chuck Todd ranks Missouri's Senate contest as the 5th most competitive in the country.
"While most of the major Senate battles feature candidates who are less and less liked by the voters every day, this is one race where both nominees (Talent and McCaskill) are still well-liked. That probably explains why the negative ads from both parties have been what we like to call 'soft negatives,'" Todd wrote on MSNBC.com.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Talent's PayDay Loan Bill
From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Interest rates on payday loans to military service members would be limited under an agreement reached Friday by House and Senate Republicans.
The measure imposing a 36 percent cap on the annual interest rate for payday loans to service members or their spouses will be included in the defense authorization bill. The House passed the authorization bill Friday, but it stalled in the Senate.
"We need to enact these new protections for our troops and their families because a growing predatory lending problem has impacted our operational readiness," said Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., who pushed the measure in the Senate.
Talent and other lawmakers contend payday lenders target military personnel, offering quick cash advances at outrageously high interest rates that trap unsavvy borrowers in a cycle of debt.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Interest rates on payday loans to military service members would be limited under an agreement reached Friday by House and Senate Republicans.
The measure imposing a 36 percent cap on the annual interest rate for payday loans to service members or their spouses will be included in the defense authorization bill. The House passed the authorization bill Friday, but it stalled in the Senate.
"We need to enact these new protections for our troops and their families because a growing predatory lending problem has impacted our operational readiness," said Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., who pushed the measure in the Senate.
Talent and other lawmakers contend payday lenders target military personnel, offering quick cash advances at outrageously high interest rates that trap unsavvy borrowers in a cycle of debt.
Friday, September 29, 2006
WSJ/Zogby: It's Talent By 2
The latest Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll gives Senator Jim Talent a two-point lead over his Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill.
Talent 47%
McCaskill 45%
An early September poll gave Talent a 4-point edge. No surprises inside this one. In this poll, as in others, Talent wins suburbs while McCaskill wins cities. McCaskill leads among women; Talent among men.
"This race is going to be one of the closest in the nation," Zogby says.
The poll was taken between Sept. 19-Sept. 25 with a 3% margin of error either way.
Talent 47%
McCaskill 45%
An early September poll gave Talent a 4-point edge. No surprises inside this one. In this poll, as in others, Talent wins suburbs while McCaskill wins cities. McCaskill leads among women; Talent among men.
"This race is going to be one of the closest in the nation," Zogby says.
The poll was taken between Sept. 19-Sept. 25 with a 3% margin of error either way.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
DougTV to Debut Friday
Doug Harpool's state senate campaign is announcing the launch of DougTV Friday.
Harpool is a Democrat challenging Springfield Sen. Norma Champion.
The Harpool news advisory calls DougTV, "a series of Internet exclusive messages from Harpool."
The first is to make its debut at 2 p.m. Friday.
To check it out, visit harpool2006.com and click on DougTV. But remember to wait until 2 p.m. Friday.
Tell us what you think.
Harpool is a Democrat challenging Springfield Sen. Norma Champion.
The Harpool news advisory calls DougTV, "a series of Internet exclusive messages from Harpool."
The first is to make its debut at 2 p.m. Friday.
To check it out, visit harpool2006.com and click on DougTV. But remember to wait until 2 p.m. Friday.
Tell us what you think.
In Arkansas, It's Beebe By 15
It could be quite a Democratic sweep in Arkansas this November if the numbers hold up.
A new SurveyUSA poll gives Democrat Mike Beebe a whopping 15-point lead over Republican Asa Hutchinson, 55-40%. Beebe's lead has actually dropped 2 points since the last poll was taken four weeks ago, but other statewide races look promising for Arkansas Democrats as well.
The Democratic candidates for Secretary of State and Attorney General hold significant leads, and Lieutenant Governor candidate Bill Halter holds a narrow 4-point edge over Republican Jim Holt 48-42%.
Friday, Mike Beebe will be campaigning in Boone County, attending a Harrison rally between 6-8 p.m.
A new SurveyUSA poll gives Democrat Mike Beebe a whopping 15-point lead over Republican Asa Hutchinson, 55-40%. Beebe's lead has actually dropped 2 points since the last poll was taken four weeks ago, but other statewide races look promising for Arkansas Democrats as well.
The Democratic candidates for Secretary of State and Attorney General hold significant leads, and Lieutenant Governor candidate Bill Halter holds a narrow 4-point edge over Republican Jim Holt 48-42%.
Friday, Mike Beebe will be campaigning in Boone County, attending a Harrison rally between 6-8 p.m.
Talent Sits on Edge - 48% Approve
Sen. Jim Talent registers a 48% approval rating in the latest monthly SurveyUSA tracking poll. 44% disapprove of the Senator and just 4% are undecided.
Talent's number is down 4 points from August, when he scored a 52% rating in the same poll.
Overall, it shows the Senator sitting on the edge of that magic 50% approval rating -- the number most politicos believe divides the "safe" incumbents from the "vulnerable" ones.
Quick Breakdown:
Talent wins males by 11 points, but loses females by 2.
He scores highest (50%) with younger voters, the 18-34 year-old range.
Independents disapprove of the junior Senator 49%-42%.
Moderates disapprove of him 50%-44%.
50% approve of him in St. Louis, and 54% give him the nod in the central part of the state.
Here in the Ozarks, respondents approve of Talent 54% to 39%.
Again, keep an eye on the Ozark numbers. This is obviously not a head-to-head matchup with Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, but Democrats believe if McCaskill can net between 40-41% of the vote in Southwest Missouri, she can win the race. Anything more, they believe, and she's won it. On the other hand, in a close race, 39% probably won't cut it.
This was a poll of 600 Missourians taken between Sept. 14-Sept. 20th with a margin of error of about +/- 4%.
Talent's number is down 4 points from August, when he scored a 52% rating in the same poll.
Overall, it shows the Senator sitting on the edge of that magic 50% approval rating -- the number most politicos believe divides the "safe" incumbents from the "vulnerable" ones.
Quick Breakdown:
Talent wins males by 11 points, but loses females by 2.
He scores highest (50%) with younger voters, the 18-34 year-old range.
Independents disapprove of the junior Senator 49%-42%.
Moderates disapprove of him 50%-44%.
50% approve of him in St. Louis, and 54% give him the nod in the central part of the state.
Here in the Ozarks, respondents approve of Talent 54% to 39%.
Again, keep an eye on the Ozark numbers. This is obviously not a head-to-head matchup with Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, but Democrats believe if McCaskill can net between 40-41% of the vote in Southwest Missouri, she can win the race. Anything more, they believe, and she's won it. On the other hand, in a close race, 39% probably won't cut it.
This was a poll of 600 Missourians taken between Sept. 14-Sept. 20th with a margin of error of about +/- 4%.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
"Politics Lost": The Kansas City Focus Group
I just finished Joe Klein's "Politics Lost - How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid." It's a book about political consultants, advisors and hacks and the polls, focus groups and other tactics they use to direct their candidates. Klein gives countless examples of how they've steered presidential candidates in the wrong direction for decades. For junkies and insiders, it's definitely worth a read.
But amid our own Campaign 2006 here in Missouri, where we have a host of contentious races and ballot initiatives and candidates strategizing over decisions and positions, I had to share the following excerpt about a Kansas City focus group back in 2004.
Klein attended this focus group in Kansas City in late September of 2004. The members of the group were undecided between George W. Bush and John Kerry.
Again the excerpt is from the final chapter of Joe Klein's "Politics Lost":
"For most of the two-hour session, the participants said nothing very interesting. They were entirely predictable citizen pundits. They thought Bush seemed like a regular guy and Kerry was aloof. They said they wanted more specifics from the candidates and more high-minded coverage from the media, but the information they possessed seemed to come mostly from negative ads. The conversation was at bottom, synthetic - and yet I sensed some frustration among the participants. They were searching for a quality in the presidential candidates that they couldn't describe. Finally, [the pollster] asked, 'It's the morning after the election. You have exclusive access to the next president of the United States. What advice would you whisper in his ear?'
Silence. Not a single hand was raised. 'Anyone?,' [the pollster] pleaded. And finally a middle-aged white man, a Bush-leaner named John Kenny, said, 'My opinion doesn't have to count.'
Again, silence. No one seemed to understand what he was saying. But then I realized that Kenny was delivering a revolutionary message, undermining the very purpose of the focus group. He was saying: Don't listen to me! The next president, he said, has to 'stand up on his own and do what he thinks is right.'"
While the negative advertising part was certainly notable, the plea for courage and leadership out of our politicians from this undecided voter was refreshing.
Call it a call for conviction. Call it telling voters something they don't want to hear, standing up for a principle that's grossly unpopular because it is in your gut. Call it naked, unvarnished, spontaneous authenticity.
Ok, call me idealistic.
But I'll call it the John Kenny standard, one that more politicians of all parties everywhere should give a try.
But amid our own Campaign 2006 here in Missouri, where we have a host of contentious races and ballot initiatives and candidates strategizing over decisions and positions, I had to share the following excerpt about a Kansas City focus group back in 2004.
Klein attended this focus group in Kansas City in late September of 2004. The members of the group were undecided between George W. Bush and John Kerry.
Again the excerpt is from the final chapter of Joe Klein's "Politics Lost":
"For most of the two-hour session, the participants said nothing very interesting. They were entirely predictable citizen pundits. They thought Bush seemed like a regular guy and Kerry was aloof. They said they wanted more specifics from the candidates and more high-minded coverage from the media, but the information they possessed seemed to come mostly from negative ads. The conversation was at bottom, synthetic - and yet I sensed some frustration among the participants. They were searching for a quality in the presidential candidates that they couldn't describe. Finally, [the pollster] asked, 'It's the morning after the election. You have exclusive access to the next president of the United States. What advice would you whisper in his ear?'
Silence. Not a single hand was raised. 'Anyone?,' [the pollster] pleaded. And finally a middle-aged white man, a Bush-leaner named John Kenny, said, 'My opinion doesn't have to count.'
Again, silence. No one seemed to understand what he was saying. But then I realized that Kenny was delivering a revolutionary message, undermining the very purpose of the focus group. He was saying: Don't listen to me! The next president, he said, has to 'stand up on his own and do what he thinks is right.'"
While the negative advertising part was certainly notable, the plea for courage and leadership out of our politicians from this undecided voter was refreshing.
Call it a call for conviction. Call it telling voters something they don't want to hear, standing up for a principle that's grossly unpopular because it is in your gut. Call it naked, unvarnished, spontaneous authenticity.
Ok, call me idealistic.
But I'll call it the John Kenny standard, one that more politicians of all parties everywhere should give a try.
The #136: Marsh vs. Owen on Minimum Wage
Republican Rep. B.J. Marsh (#136) said if forced to, he could not live on Missouri's current minimum wage, but added that he still does not know how he will vote on a ballot initiative on the issue this November.
Marsh said he has "mixed feelings" about a proposed ballot initiative to raise the state's minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.50 an hour. "I know I couldn't live on it. That being said, I'm not saying I'm for it or against it," Marsh told me in a recent interview. "It's certainly difficult to raise a family on it right now," he said.
When I asked if his constituents deserve to know how he will ultimately vote on the issue, Marsh replied, "I don't tell anyone how I vote."
"I don't tell anyone how I'm going to vote before I cast a vote in the legislature, that's just how I am," Marsh added.
Democratic challenger in the #136, James Owen, said he will vote to raise the minimum wage.
"It will raise the standard of living, produce jobs and attract a stronger, more professional workforce," Owen said.
Opponents of the minimum wage increase have said the cost of the hike would fall on small businesses, and could force some of them to leave the state or shut down altogether.
"I don't believe that," Owen replied, when I put that argument to him. "I believe it will improve the jobs we already have."
Why should the government have anything to do with setting workers wages?
"That's like saying we shouldn't have government people inspecting meat. We need to have the free market be as effective as possible, but it also needs to be fair. Everything else is going up with inflation," Owen said.
In his nightly door-to-door travels, Owen said he has met countless people in the #136 district who depend on the minimum wage.
"A lot of people are on it, and they are not just in college or high school. They are older people, raising families. Maybe they don't have time to train for a higher wage or promotion. I don't think those people should be punished," Owen said.
So far, Owen estimates he has talked to around 3,500 people in the district. He said while people are split, "basically 50-50 on stem cells," he has not met one person against the minimum wage.
Marsh said he has "mixed feelings" about a proposed ballot initiative to raise the state's minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.50 an hour. "I know I couldn't live on it. That being said, I'm not saying I'm for it or against it," Marsh told me in a recent interview. "It's certainly difficult to raise a family on it right now," he said.
When I asked if his constituents deserve to know how he will ultimately vote on the issue, Marsh replied, "I don't tell anyone how I vote."
"I don't tell anyone how I'm going to vote before I cast a vote in the legislature, that's just how I am," Marsh added.
Democratic challenger in the #136, James Owen, said he will vote to raise the minimum wage.
"It will raise the standard of living, produce jobs and attract a stronger, more professional workforce," Owen said.
Opponents of the minimum wage increase have said the cost of the hike would fall on small businesses, and could force some of them to leave the state or shut down altogether.
"I don't believe that," Owen replied, when I put that argument to him. "I believe it will improve the jobs we already have."
Why should the government have anything to do with setting workers wages?
"That's like saying we shouldn't have government people inspecting meat. We need to have the free market be as effective as possible, but it also needs to be fair. Everything else is going up with inflation," Owen said.
In his nightly door-to-door travels, Owen said he has met countless people in the #136 district who depend on the minimum wage.
"A lot of people are on it, and they are not just in college or high school. They are older people, raising families. Maybe they don't have time to train for a higher wage or promotion. I don't think those people should be punished," Owen said.
So far, Owen estimates he has talked to around 3,500 people in the district. He said while people are split, "basically 50-50 on stem cells," he has not met one person against the minimum wage.
The Hill: Can Dems Capitalize on Issues?
Are Democrats doing the groundwork to capitalize on two big ballot initiatives in Missouri to help their U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill?
Some wonder in an article by The Hill (via KC Buzz Blog.)
Two Missouri ballot initiatives, to increase the minimum wage and approve stem cell research, have wide cross-party appeal but some Democrats think Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill is failing to capitalize on them to topple Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.)
Democrats are concerned that McCaskill, the state auditor, and the coalition of labor unions and left-leaning pressure groups that organized the petition drive to get the minimum wage measure on November’s ballot have done too little to mobilize the Democrat’s traditional base voters.
“It leaves something to be desired and could be infinitely more powerful,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), former mayor of Kansas City. “The proponents of the [wage] initiative should have gone on radio shortly after the August primary. The message has to be out repeatedly until it becomes a McDonald’s discussion.”
Some wonder in an article by The Hill (via KC Buzz Blog.)
Two Missouri ballot initiatives, to increase the minimum wage and approve stem cell research, have wide cross-party appeal but some Democrats think Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill is failing to capitalize on them to topple Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.)
Democrats are concerned that McCaskill, the state auditor, and the coalition of labor unions and left-leaning pressure groups that organized the petition drive to get the minimum wage measure on November’s ballot have done too little to mobilize the Democrat’s traditional base voters.
“It leaves something to be desired and could be infinitely more powerful,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), former mayor of Kansas City. “The proponents of the [wage] initiative should have gone on radio shortly after the August primary. The message has to be out repeatedly until it becomes a McDonald’s discussion.”
WSJ: Boehner Doing More Than Blunt To Reign In Pork
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board doesn't seem impressed by former interim Majority Leader Roy Blunt's efforts to reign in spending during his watch.
The board says current Majority Leader John Boehner -- who, in an upset, beat out Blunt for the top post last February -- is at least moving in the right direction.
This from Tuesday's WSJ editorial:
As Republicans lurch toward November, they're trying to reclaim their birthright as fiscal conservatives. So far they're moved up to a D from an F, with a chance to still grab a gentleman's C.
In the small favors department, the House this month passed an "earmark" reform to bring more transparency to the runaway process of sticking pork into appropriations bills.
Give House Majority Leader John Boehner credit for staring down his party's Appropriations Committee barons on this one; that's more than Tom DeLay or Roy Blunt ever did when they ran the majority.
Lawmakers will now have to sign their names to earmark requests, although the loopholes in this requirement are still large. The rule applies only to non-federal earmark recipients, which means that pet projects aimed at, say, the Department of Defense will still be secret. The definition of a "tax earmark" was also deliberately kept narrow, shielding many of those expensive giveaways.
The board says current Majority Leader John Boehner -- who, in an upset, beat out Blunt for the top post last February -- is at least moving in the right direction.
This from Tuesday's WSJ editorial:
As Republicans lurch toward November, they're trying to reclaim their birthright as fiscal conservatives. So far they're moved up to a D from an F, with a chance to still grab a gentleman's C.
In the small favors department, the House this month passed an "earmark" reform to bring more transparency to the runaway process of sticking pork into appropriations bills.
Give House Majority Leader John Boehner credit for staring down his party's Appropriations Committee barons on this one; that's more than Tom DeLay or Roy Blunt ever did when they ran the majority.
Lawmakers will now have to sign their names to earmark requests, although the loopholes in this requirement are still large. The rule applies only to non-federal earmark recipients, which means that pet projects aimed at, say, the Department of Defense will still be secret. The definition of a "tax earmark" was also deliberately kept narrow, shielding many of those expensive giveaways.
2006 Truthwatch: "What Has Jim Talent Been Working On?"
We continued our *2006 Truthwatch* Series Tuesday night on KY3 News @ 10. Monday night, I broke down a national Republican ad targeting Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. Tuesday night, I looked at a national Democratic ad that takes aim at Senator Jim Talent.
Watch our latest Truthwatch HERE.
Watch our latest Truthwatch HERE.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The #136: Marsh vs. Owen on Stem Cells
Rep. B.J. Marsh of district #136 seemed to signal how he will vote on a constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research without ever really saying it.
Meanwhile, his hard-charging, self-described "pro-life" Democratic challenger is clear. "I'm going to vote for it," said James Owen.
At the outset of my interview with the #136th incumbent Tuesday, Marsh seemed initially reluctant to stake out a position on Amendment 2. "The people are going to vote for it one way or the other. So hopefully, I won't have to," Marsh said. "However they vote, I will accept it."
When I asked Marsh his personal position, he replied, "that's my business." "I don't necessarily have a position on it. I don't even think most of my constituents care how I'm going to vote on it. They'll decide. It is a public issue but I don't necessarily see everyone going around saying how they'd vote on it," Marsh said.
But when pushed a bit more, Marsh began to open up about his personal health problems, and other afflictions that have faced his family.
"Of course my personal problems influence it. My wife passed away from brain cancer. I have a daughter-in-law with cancer, in chemo right now. I just think we need more research. We can't have too much research. I'm not for human cloning, but I'm not opposed to research," Marsh said.
He then went on to open up more about the politics of stem cell research. "I just don't know how I'm going to vote, David, I'm not trying to dodge you though. On stem cells, I flip back and forth. I lean towards supporting it, but then I wonder, where are they going to get the embryos from? That's the problem. I'm right in the middle," Marsh said. "But I can't see why we would stop any research. I think you can pretty much tell how I'll lean."
When asked about his opponent, James Owen, Marsh said, "My opponent, I know is a lot smarter than me."
But Owen said this race for the #136 legislative seat is about conviction. "He doesn't like to take positions on things. That's how he survives," Owen said.
But while Owen is clear on how he'll vote for the stem cell initiative, his logic could leave him open to critics.
"As long as the science is conducted in an ethical and moral manner, I don't think the progress needs to be stopped," Owen said.
Since Owen told me he considers himself pro-life, I asked if he believed an embryo was a life. "I do believe that it is a life at that stage," Owen responded.
Then, how could the pro-life Owen justify destroying a human life? "Well, what fertility clinics do is ok. As long as they take embryos from fertility clinics and not abortion clinics, that's acceptable. Do you think fertility clinics are destroying life,?" Owen said.
Then I asked Owen about his "pro-life" credentials.
Catanese - Why do you consider yourself pro-life?
Owen - Because I believe we need to be doing everything we can so there are fewer abortions. We need to promote adoption and healthcare programs.
Catanese - So do you believe abortion should be completely banned?
Owen - I don't think we can do that.
Catanese - Why not, couldn't Missouri pass a law like South Dakota?
Owen - It wouldn't be legal, because of Roe versus Wade.
Catanese - Then, do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
Owen - I'm not running for U.S. Supreme Court.
Catanese - I know, but personally, do you believe it should be overturned?
Owen - I'm not running for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Both seem to be at least leaning towards support for embryonic research . . . So who's the "pro-life" candidate in the race for the #136?
Meanwhile, his hard-charging, self-described "pro-life" Democratic challenger is clear. "I'm going to vote for it," said James Owen.
At the outset of my interview with the #136th incumbent Tuesday, Marsh seemed initially reluctant to stake out a position on Amendment 2. "The people are going to vote for it one way or the other. So hopefully, I won't have to," Marsh said. "However they vote, I will accept it."
When I asked Marsh his personal position, he replied, "that's my business." "I don't necessarily have a position on it. I don't even think most of my constituents care how I'm going to vote on it. They'll decide. It is a public issue but I don't necessarily see everyone going around saying how they'd vote on it," Marsh said.
But when pushed a bit more, Marsh began to open up about his personal health problems, and other afflictions that have faced his family.
"Of course my personal problems influence it. My wife passed away from brain cancer. I have a daughter-in-law with cancer, in chemo right now. I just think we need more research. We can't have too much research. I'm not for human cloning, but I'm not opposed to research," Marsh said.
He then went on to open up more about the politics of stem cell research. "I just don't know how I'm going to vote, David, I'm not trying to dodge you though. On stem cells, I flip back and forth. I lean towards supporting it, but then I wonder, where are they going to get the embryos from? That's the problem. I'm right in the middle," Marsh said. "But I can't see why we would stop any research. I think you can pretty much tell how I'll lean."
When asked about his opponent, James Owen, Marsh said, "My opponent, I know is a lot smarter than me."
But Owen said this race for the #136 legislative seat is about conviction. "He doesn't like to take positions on things. That's how he survives," Owen said.
But while Owen is clear on how he'll vote for the stem cell initiative, his logic could leave him open to critics.
"As long as the science is conducted in an ethical and moral manner, I don't think the progress needs to be stopped," Owen said.
Since Owen told me he considers himself pro-life, I asked if he believed an embryo was a life. "I do believe that it is a life at that stage," Owen responded.
Then, how could the pro-life Owen justify destroying a human life? "Well, what fertility clinics do is ok. As long as they take embryos from fertility clinics and not abortion clinics, that's acceptable. Do you think fertility clinics are destroying life,?" Owen said.
Then I asked Owen about his "pro-life" credentials.
Catanese - Why do you consider yourself pro-life?
Owen - Because I believe we need to be doing everything we can so there are fewer abortions. We need to promote adoption and healthcare programs.
Catanese - So do you believe abortion should be completely banned?
Owen - I don't think we can do that.
Catanese - Why not, couldn't Missouri pass a law like South Dakota?
Owen - It wouldn't be legal, because of Roe versus Wade.
Catanese - Then, do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
Owen - I'm not running for U.S. Supreme Court.
Catanese - I know, but personally, do you believe it should be overturned?
Owen - I'm not running for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Both seem to be at least leaning towards support for embryonic research . . . So who's the "pro-life" candidate in the race for the #136?
KY3 Truthwatch Begins: "Claire McCaskill Talking"
KY3 launched its *2006 Truthwatch* segment last night on the News @ 10. Truthwatch is a series of pieces examining the recent political ads airing, and separating the fact from the fiction. It's also designed to point out what's not being said in the commercial.
On Monday's KY3 News @ 10 we kicked off the series by looking at an ad being run by the National Republican Senatorial Committee against Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Claire McCaskill.
Check out the Truthwatch piece HERE.
Be sure to tune in to KY3 News @ 10 tonight for our look at the other side . . . a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad, attacking Republican Senator Jim Talent.
On Monday's KY3 News @ 10 we kicked off the series by looking at an ad being run by the National Republican Senatorial Committee against Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Claire McCaskill.
Check out the Truthwatch piece HERE.
Be sure to tune in to KY3 News @ 10 tonight for our look at the other side . . . a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad, attacking Republican Senator Jim Talent.
Why Chris Wallace Was Right
It's too timely involving our discussion over the role of a journalist to ignore.
You've probably seen or heard about Fox News' Chris Wallace explosive interview with Former President Bill Clinton by now. But the debate continues about whether Wallace was fair or over-the-line? Some straight sparring? Or a conservative hit job?
To me, Wallace proves the point I've been trying to make over the past 3 days. He was aggressive, he was tough, he even chose to (dare I say!) interrupt a former President of the United States. What he got was a revealing, emotional, raw interview with the former commander-in-chief about some of the most important historical decisions of our time. It is Wallace's right, job and duty to ask those questions. I admire the interview and the job he did.
The only question I would have is whether Clinton was led to believe the interview was mostly to be about his global initiative, including climate change. While a journalist must always be honest about the topic of the interview and what's going to be covered, I do not believe a journalist doesn't have the right to ask other timely questions, especially when sitting down with a former President.
Below is just some of the exchange. (It has been edited down to just show some of the Q & A.) If you believe my questions to Alan Keyes and Rick Scarborough were out of line, I'm sure you will conclude Wallace's interview was also disrespectful, biased and over-the-top; "a TV personality out to get soundbites." I'm quite curious to see where people stand on this.
CHRIS WALLACE, HOST, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY": Do you think you did enough, sir?
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, because I didn`t get him.
WALLACE: You don`t` think that`s a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn`t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many people you asked, Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know how many people you asked...
WALLACE: Have you ever watched "Fox News Sunday," sir?
CLINTON: I don`t believe you asked them that.
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions...
CLINTON: You didn`t ask that, did you. Tell the truth!
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.
WALLACE: I -- I -- with -- with Iraq...
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?
WALLACE: ... and Afghanistan, there`s plenty of stuff to ask, sir.
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?
You've probably seen or heard about Fox News' Chris Wallace explosive interview with Former President Bill Clinton by now. But the debate continues about whether Wallace was fair or over-the-line? Some straight sparring? Or a conservative hit job?
To me, Wallace proves the point I've been trying to make over the past 3 days. He was aggressive, he was tough, he even chose to (dare I say!) interrupt a former President of the United States. What he got was a revealing, emotional, raw interview with the former commander-in-chief about some of the most important historical decisions of our time. It is Wallace's right, job and duty to ask those questions. I admire the interview and the job he did.
The only question I would have is whether Clinton was led to believe the interview was mostly to be about his global initiative, including climate change. While a journalist must always be honest about the topic of the interview and what's going to be covered, I do not believe a journalist doesn't have the right to ask other timely questions, especially when sitting down with a former President.
Below is just some of the exchange. (It has been edited down to just show some of the Q & A.) If you believe my questions to Alan Keyes and Rick Scarborough were out of line, I'm sure you will conclude Wallace's interview was also disrespectful, biased and over-the-top; "a TV personality out to get soundbites." I'm quite curious to see where people stand on this.
CHRIS WALLACE, HOST, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY": Do you think you did enough, sir?
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, because I didn`t get him.
WALLACE: You don`t` think that`s a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn`t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many people you asked, Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know how many people you asked...
WALLACE: Have you ever watched "Fox News Sunday," sir?
CLINTON: I don`t believe you asked them that.
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions...
CLINTON: You didn`t ask that, did you. Tell the truth!
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.
WALLACE: I -- I -- with -- with Iraq...
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?
WALLACE: ... and Afghanistan, there`s plenty of stuff to ask, sir.
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?
Monday, September 25, 2006
Sen. Talent's Votes on Veterans
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill has been running an ad that says Sen. Jim Talent has voted 23 times against veterans.
If you haven't seen it, you can watch it HERE by clicking and scrolling down to "Josh."
We recently caught up with Sen. Talent at a campaign event in Springfield where he won the endorsement of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Here's my exchange with him about those votes McCaskill refers to:
Catanese - Is there any truth to those 23 votes against veterans?
Talent - No, I mean those votes were by and large against tax increases that were linked to some kind of veterans proposal. These organizations (VFW) don't endorse somebody who doesn't vote for VA health benefits. I've been a strong advocate, I voted for $20 billion dollars in VA health increases over the last 4 years and we have been able to significantly increase VA health in this decade. VA health spending is up 50% in the first 4 years of this decade. That's better than it was.
Catanese - I took a look at one of the vote's back in March. The President had proposed to double or triple health premiums for some veterans. Sen. Kerry introduced an amendment to stop the increases.
Talent - I think that one had tax increases in it too.
Catanese - But isn't if fair to say you voted with the President to increase healthcare premiums?
Talent - No, no. I've not voted for health fees or premium increases for veterans programs. What I voted against however is tax increases. I voted for $20 billion in increases for VA health funding. I don't vote for premium increases. What I typically do is vote for the benefit increases without the tax increases. I don't think we need to increase taxes on the American people to support veterans. In fact, veteran spending has gone way up without a tax increase.
Catanese - McCaskill says get rid of the tax cuts for the millionaires and then the veterans wouldn't have to have the burden of higher premiums.
Talent - What she wants is to raise taxes on small business people, professionals. That's what she calls raising taxes on the wealthy, and I'm not for that. Revenue increased last year by almost $250 billion dollars. We don't have a deficit because we're taxing too little. We have a deficit because we're spending too much. But we were able to raise veteran benefits a lot within the context of reducing the deficit because we set some priorities.
Catanese - Do you think there's a such thing as Gulf War Syndrome?
Talent - Oh yeah, I really do.
Catanese - Even in the face of that recent report?
Talent - Oh yeah. Look, one of the problems with the Veterans Administration is you have to constantly stay on top of them to make certain that they are continuing to extend services to the vets . . . They don't do anything unless they get pressured.
If you haven't seen it, you can watch it HERE by clicking and scrolling down to "Josh."
We recently caught up with Sen. Talent at a campaign event in Springfield where he won the endorsement of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Here's my exchange with him about those votes McCaskill refers to:
Catanese - Is there any truth to those 23 votes against veterans?
Talent - No, I mean those votes were by and large against tax increases that were linked to some kind of veterans proposal. These organizations (VFW) don't endorse somebody who doesn't vote for VA health benefits. I've been a strong advocate, I voted for $20 billion dollars in VA health increases over the last 4 years and we have been able to significantly increase VA health in this decade. VA health spending is up 50% in the first 4 years of this decade. That's better than it was.
Catanese - I took a look at one of the vote's back in March. The President had proposed to double or triple health premiums for some veterans. Sen. Kerry introduced an amendment to stop the increases.
Talent - I think that one had tax increases in it too.
Catanese - But isn't if fair to say you voted with the President to increase healthcare premiums?
Talent - No, no. I've not voted for health fees or premium increases for veterans programs. What I voted against however is tax increases. I voted for $20 billion in increases for VA health funding. I don't vote for premium increases. What I typically do is vote for the benefit increases without the tax increases. I don't think we need to increase taxes on the American people to support veterans. In fact, veteran spending has gone way up without a tax increase.
Catanese - McCaskill says get rid of the tax cuts for the millionaires and then the veterans wouldn't have to have the burden of higher premiums.
Talent - What she wants is to raise taxes on small business people, professionals. That's what she calls raising taxes on the wealthy, and I'm not for that. Revenue increased last year by almost $250 billion dollars. We don't have a deficit because we're taxing too little. We have a deficit because we're spending too much. But we were able to raise veteran benefits a lot within the context of reducing the deficit because we set some priorities.
Catanese - Do you think there's a such thing as Gulf War Syndrome?
Talent - Oh yeah, I really do.
Catanese - Even in the face of that recent report?
Talent - Oh yeah. Look, one of the problems with the Veterans Administration is you have to constantly stay on top of them to make certain that they are continuing to extend services to the vets . . . They don't do anything unless they get pressured.
The U.S. Senate Race "Doughnut Hole"
On Sunday night's KY3 News @ 10, I reported on how many seniors across the country are now finding a gap in their prescription drug plan coverage and how that "doughnut hole" is impacting the race for U.S. Senate.
Watch it HERE.
Watch it HERE.
George Will on Ike Skelton
Conservative political analyst George Will spent some time with Rep. Ike Skelton this week and shared his thoughts about him on This Week with George Stephanopolous yesterday.
The topic? Iraq.
"I spent some time this week with Congressman Ike Skelton, a 15-term Congressman from Missouri who will be chairman of the Armed Services Committee should the Democrats take the house. He says the Battle of Baghdad now joined is Stalingrad midway. It's going to be decisive one way or another. And I don't see how it can be unless the government in Iraq insists upon having a monopoly on violence. It can't insist on that until it takes on Al Sadr. Al Sadr was essential to putting Maliki in power," Will said during the roundtable discussion on the show.
The topic? Iraq.
"I spent some time this week with Congressman Ike Skelton, a 15-term Congressman from Missouri who will be chairman of the Armed Services Committee should the Democrats take the house. He says the Battle of Baghdad now joined is Stalingrad midway. It's going to be decisive one way or another. And I don't see how it can be unless the government in Iraq insists upon having a monopoly on violence. It can't insist on that until it takes on Al Sadr. Al Sadr was essential to putting Maliki in power," Will said during the roundtable discussion on the show.
Rothenberg: A Democratic Senate Unlikely
Even with the political winds in their favor, it is unlikely the Democrats will win enough seats this November to take control of the U.S. Senate, according to political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.
Rothenberg calls Missouri a "toss-up."
Below is the full story from the Austin-American Statesman:
WASHINGTON -- In the fight for control of the U.S. Senate this fall, things can change as quickly as you can say "macaca."
Just weeks ago, in Virginia, Republican incumbent George Allen Jr. appeared to be on autopilot in his re-election campaign. Then, at a campaign rally, he referred to a Virginia native of Indian descent as "macaca," a genus of monkey, and mockingly extended a "welcome to America" greeting.
While Virginia still "leans Republican," according to political prognosticators, Allen now is in a tougher-than-expected fight with Democrat Jim Webb and his plans to follow up his Senate re-election with a presidential bid in 2008 may be on hold, permanently.
Still, nonpartisan political analysts say it's a good bet that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate on Nov. 7. Even with anti-incumbent, anti-Republican and anti-war sentiment on the rise among voters, Democrats have too steep a hill to climb to overcome the Republican advantage.
"In a big partisan wave, anything can happen, but so far Democrats still seem short of the magical sixth Senate seat" they need to win the chamber, Stuart Rothenberg concluded in the Sept. 8 issue of his widely followed newsletter, the Rothenberg Political Report.
Thirty-three of the Senate's 100 seats are up for re-election this fall, 18 of which are held by Democrats, 15 by Republicans. Of those 33 seats, leading political prognosticators generally agree there probably are no more than 14 competitive races, perhaps no more than eight of which are "toss ups" with no clear favorites.
Six of the toss up races are over seats held by Republicans. The problem for Democrats is that four of those six -- Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Tennessee -- are in states that President Bush carried in both of his White House campaigns.
Even so, nearly all the political signposts favor the Democrats: Bush's approval ratings, while improved, are still well below 50 percent; for more than a year, more than 60 percent of voters have told Gallup pollsters that they are dissatisfied with the direction of the country; and in the most recent CNN poll, 64 percent of voters disapproved of the way the Republican majority in Congress is doing its job.
"These are numbers that look like 1994," Jennifer Duffy, who monitors Senate races for the influential Cook Political Report, said, referring to the Republican takeover of Congress a dozen years ago. "The wave is out there (for the Democrats). It's just a question of how big it's going to be."
Rothenberg calls Missouri a "toss-up."
Below is the full story from the Austin-American Statesman:
WASHINGTON -- In the fight for control of the U.S. Senate this fall, things can change as quickly as you can say "macaca."
Just weeks ago, in Virginia, Republican incumbent George Allen Jr. appeared to be on autopilot in his re-election campaign. Then, at a campaign rally, he referred to a Virginia native of Indian descent as "macaca," a genus of monkey, and mockingly extended a "welcome to America" greeting.
While Virginia still "leans Republican," according to political prognosticators, Allen now is in a tougher-than-expected fight with Democrat Jim Webb and his plans to follow up his Senate re-election with a presidential bid in 2008 may be on hold, permanently.
Still, nonpartisan political analysts say it's a good bet that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate on Nov. 7. Even with anti-incumbent, anti-Republican and anti-war sentiment on the rise among voters, Democrats have too steep a hill to climb to overcome the Republican advantage.
"In a big partisan wave, anything can happen, but so far Democrats still seem short of the magical sixth Senate seat" they need to win the chamber, Stuart Rothenberg concluded in the Sept. 8 issue of his widely followed newsletter, the Rothenberg Political Report.
Thirty-three of the Senate's 100 seats are up for re-election this fall, 18 of which are held by Democrats, 15 by Republicans. Of those 33 seats, leading political prognosticators generally agree there probably are no more than 14 competitive races, perhaps no more than eight of which are "toss ups" with no clear favorites.
Six of the toss up races are over seats held by Republicans. The problem for Democrats is that four of those six -- Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Tennessee -- are in states that President Bush carried in both of his White House campaigns.
Even so, nearly all the political signposts favor the Democrats: Bush's approval ratings, while improved, are still well below 50 percent; for more than a year, more than 60 percent of voters have told Gallup pollsters that they are dissatisfied with the direction of the country; and in the most recent CNN poll, 64 percent of voters disapproved of the way the Republican majority in Congress is doing its job.
"These are numbers that look like 1994," Jennifer Duffy, who monitors Senate races for the influential Cook Political Report, said, referring to the Republican takeover of Congress a dozen years ago. "The wave is out there (for the Democrats). It's just a question of how big it's going to be."
Sen. Champion Begins to Hit Back at Harpool
So far the campaign for Springfield's state Senate seat has consisted of a consistent stream of press releases by Democratic challenger Doug Harpool.
Harpool's most recent volley accuses Sen. Norma Champion of "hiding her stand on key issues," like the minimum wage and embryonic stem cell research. "She's still waiting on party leadership to tell her what to say," blasts the headline of the release.
But now Champion's campaign seems to be gearing up with more responses, through releases. Champion is dismissing "Doug Harpool's Disingenuous Debate Request," and is calling on him to run a "clean campaign."
"Sen. Norma Champion dismissed Doug Harpool's attempts to jump start his campaign by making disingenuous debate requests designed to garner attention for himself rather than have a serious dialogue about the issues," reads the lede of a Champion release.
"He is obviously trailing in the polls and thinking of anything to get himself some attention," said Mike Barnett, Champion campaign spokesman. "This is not a genuine appeal to discuss issues of importance to Springfield families because Harpool and his allies have already shown they would prefer to make negative personal attacks. We are also calling on Harpool to take a clean campaign pledge," Barnett added.
The release then points out that Harpool is not a fresh-face, noting his other campaigns for statewide and federal offices.
Barnett said Champion is well defined on the issues and has already participated in public forums with Harpool. "The campaign has already accepted invitations for upcoming forums and more than likely, the two candidates will appear together again before the November election," Barnett said.
We would love to host a debate between Champion and Harpool strictly on the issues that could be viewed on our website. Consider this an open request to both campaigns for a debate at KY3.
Harpool's most recent volley accuses Sen. Norma Champion of "hiding her stand on key issues," like the minimum wage and embryonic stem cell research. "She's still waiting on party leadership to tell her what to say," blasts the headline of the release.
But now Champion's campaign seems to be gearing up with more responses, through releases. Champion is dismissing "Doug Harpool's Disingenuous Debate Request," and is calling on him to run a "clean campaign."
"Sen. Norma Champion dismissed Doug Harpool's attempts to jump start his campaign by making disingenuous debate requests designed to garner attention for himself rather than have a serious dialogue about the issues," reads the lede of a Champion release.
"He is obviously trailing in the polls and thinking of anything to get himself some attention," said Mike Barnett, Champion campaign spokesman. "This is not a genuine appeal to discuss issues of importance to Springfield families because Harpool and his allies have already shown they would prefer to make negative personal attacks. We are also calling on Harpool to take a clean campaign pledge," Barnett added.
The release then points out that Harpool is not a fresh-face, noting his other campaigns for statewide and federal offices.
Barnett said Champion is well defined on the issues and has already participated in public forums with Harpool. "The campaign has already accepted invitations for upcoming forums and more than likely, the two candidates will appear together again before the November election," Barnett said.
We would love to host a debate between Champion and Harpool strictly on the issues that could be viewed on our website. Consider this an open request to both campaigns for a debate at KY3.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
An Open Letter to Brian Lewis and my other Countless Critics
As a member of the media and a political reporter I expect criticism, but I don't always respond to it. When it is serious and measured criticism, I take it seriously and think about it a lot. It weighs on my mind. It makes me ponder how I can become a better journalist. I'd never claim to be right all the time. Here's a scoop: I even learn from my critics. They are good for journalism and a free press. But even when I vehemently disagree with the criticism, I still struggle about whether to defend myself and my work, or keep my thoughts to myself.
This weekend, the Springfield News-Leader's Associate Editorial Page Editor Brian Lewis targeted me (without using my name) in a piece about the questions I asked at a recent press conference with Alan Keyes and Rick Scarborough on embryonic stem cell research. Because this was done in such a public fashion, I felt I needed to respond. I also thought I'd use this opportunity to respond not only to Lewis, but to my countless critics in a broad way, who are viewers and bloggers.
Lewis began his piece with this lede: I hate news conferences when television personalities start hunting for soundbites.
First, I don't consider myself a TV personality. That's much too complimentary. I'm just a lowly reporter. But I do love my job. And yes, you caught me . . . I'm still fascinated by the power of television.
But the main argument Lewis makes in his editorial is that I wasn't asking relevant questions at a news conference in a church about embryonic stem cell research.
Lewis questions why I asked Keyes and Scarborough to define cloning. To me, that is a basic question every journalist should ask any person they are interviewing about stem cell research. In this high-charged debate, language is key. It defines the debate. What is human cloning? Cloning an embryo? Cloning a sheep? Cloning a human being? I believe it was imperative to ask them their definition. I just respectfully disagree with Lewis that I was "hunting for a soundbite."
Now, God knows I do love me some good sound! Television is a different medium than print. We have to get in, get out, all in 2 minutes. It's something I struggle with every night. So, yes, sometimes I look for a concise soundbite that makes it easier for people to understand. But I don't ask questions, especially political ones, for soundbites. I ask questions to better understand an argument, or pin a politician down on a position. If the response becomes a soundbite . . . even better! Again, to me, that is the essence of my job.
Lewis then takes me to task for asking the duo if it would be a sin to vote for amendment 2. Again, I believe that is a relevant question. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have called it "sinful and devilish." These are two moral leaders of our time. As they sit in a church talking about the issue of when life begins, how can that not be a relevant inquiry?
And I did ask it 3 times . . . at least. But that's what I usually do when a politician doesn't answer my question directly. I re-ask. And then ask it again. And then again. Sure, it may make me look obnoxious. But follow-ups are the most important parts of interviews. I think it is really important not to let your interview subjects dodge you. Maybe that's not a journalistic technique Lewis admires or respects.
In his writing, Lewis also seems to imply that I am being unfair to Keyes and Scarborough. That I am out to get some "religious folks . . . shouting some irrational hoodoo." I've heard that before. To be honest, I'm a little surprise that Lewis would level that charge. Anytime I go to a press conference and attempt to ask tough questions to one side or the other, someone screams "BIAS." It's tough, because sometimes during tough questioning, you may look like you don't agree with the person you are questioning. But that's just a interviewing technique. I mistakenly assumed Lewis was familiar with it. It's pretty basic devil's advocate questioning. It's almost like I am having an argument with you about the issue, but you don't know my opinion. Heck, I may even agree with the person I'm grilling or I may not have formed an opinion. Whichever it is, I always try to conduct my questioning in a respectful manner. Still, sometimes a reporter has to get a little rough or even rude to get an answer and gain respect.
But I hope people understand that I use the same technique on all sides. I try to be equally tough on Republicans and Democrats, and all other political species. Does it always come out exactly equal in fairness and toughness . . . I would hope so, but probably not. My work is certainly not always perceived fair by partisans and others who have strong opinions one way or another. But I try to make a commitment to be equally fair and equally tough. Then again, objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.
Just for full disclosure, here are some of the other questions (paraphrased) that I posed at the press conference and you can decide if it's "gotcha journalism," as Lewis alleges.
*Why should Missourians believe two out- of-state political and religious leaders over Missouri doctors like the state medical association who have signed on to embryonic stem cell research?
*When do you believe life begins?
*Why shouldn't this issue be settled by lawmakers? Isn't it their job? Didn't they pass the buck to voters because it's too politically complicated and touchy?
Even though I find his complaints baseless, I thank Lewis for sparking a heck of a debate. There is nothing more I like than a rich, passionate debate about big ideas, like embryonic stem cell research and journalism. That's why I like asking tough questions . . . to have a debate. Don't we serve our viewers and readers better that way?
Finally, in his piece, Lewis also asks about the brainstorming sessions in our newsroom. I would say we argue about these same exact issues all the time. Which issues to cover? What questions to ask? What to lead the newscast with? Why would our viewers care? We debate, we argue. Sometimes we even shout. So to answer Lewis, it's a pretty vibrant, thought-provoking environment . . . even for a bunch of TV personalities.
This weekend, the Springfield News-Leader's Associate Editorial Page Editor Brian Lewis targeted me (without using my name) in a piece about the questions I asked at a recent press conference with Alan Keyes and Rick Scarborough on embryonic stem cell research. Because this was done in such a public fashion, I felt I needed to respond. I also thought I'd use this opportunity to respond not only to Lewis, but to my countless critics in a broad way, who are viewers and bloggers.
Lewis began his piece with this lede: I hate news conferences when television personalities start hunting for soundbites.
First, I don't consider myself a TV personality. That's much too complimentary. I'm just a lowly reporter. But I do love my job. And yes, you caught me . . . I'm still fascinated by the power of television.
But the main argument Lewis makes in his editorial is that I wasn't asking relevant questions at a news conference in a church about embryonic stem cell research.
Lewis questions why I asked Keyes and Scarborough to define cloning. To me, that is a basic question every journalist should ask any person they are interviewing about stem cell research. In this high-charged debate, language is key. It defines the debate. What is human cloning? Cloning an embryo? Cloning a sheep? Cloning a human being? I believe it was imperative to ask them their definition. I just respectfully disagree with Lewis that I was "hunting for a soundbite."
Now, God knows I do love me some good sound! Television is a different medium than print. We have to get in, get out, all in 2 minutes. It's something I struggle with every night. So, yes, sometimes I look for a concise soundbite that makes it easier for people to understand. But I don't ask questions, especially political ones, for soundbites. I ask questions to better understand an argument, or pin a politician down on a position. If the response becomes a soundbite . . . even better! Again, to me, that is the essence of my job.
Lewis then takes me to task for asking the duo if it would be a sin to vote for amendment 2. Again, I believe that is a relevant question. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have called it "sinful and devilish." These are two moral leaders of our time. As they sit in a church talking about the issue of when life begins, how can that not be a relevant inquiry?
And I did ask it 3 times . . . at least. But that's what I usually do when a politician doesn't answer my question directly. I re-ask. And then ask it again. And then again. Sure, it may make me look obnoxious. But follow-ups are the most important parts of interviews. I think it is really important not to let your interview subjects dodge you. Maybe that's not a journalistic technique Lewis admires or respects.
In his writing, Lewis also seems to imply that I am being unfair to Keyes and Scarborough. That I am out to get some "religious folks . . . shouting some irrational hoodoo." I've heard that before. To be honest, I'm a little surprise that Lewis would level that charge. Anytime I go to a press conference and attempt to ask tough questions to one side or the other, someone screams "BIAS." It's tough, because sometimes during tough questioning, you may look like you don't agree with the person you are questioning. But that's just a interviewing technique. I mistakenly assumed Lewis was familiar with it. It's pretty basic devil's advocate questioning. It's almost like I am having an argument with you about the issue, but you don't know my opinion. Heck, I may even agree with the person I'm grilling or I may not have formed an opinion. Whichever it is, I always try to conduct my questioning in a respectful manner. Still, sometimes a reporter has to get a little rough or even rude to get an answer and gain respect.
But I hope people understand that I use the same technique on all sides. I try to be equally tough on Republicans and Democrats, and all other political species. Does it always come out exactly equal in fairness and toughness . . . I would hope so, but probably not. My work is certainly not always perceived fair by partisans and others who have strong opinions one way or another. But I try to make a commitment to be equally fair and equally tough. Then again, objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.
Just for full disclosure, here are some of the other questions (paraphrased) that I posed at the press conference and you can decide if it's "gotcha journalism," as Lewis alleges.
*Why should Missourians believe two out- of-state political and religious leaders over Missouri doctors like the state medical association who have signed on to embryonic stem cell research?
*When do you believe life begins?
*Why shouldn't this issue be settled by lawmakers? Isn't it their job? Didn't they pass the buck to voters because it's too politically complicated and touchy?
Even though I find his complaints baseless, I thank Lewis for sparking a heck of a debate. There is nothing more I like than a rich, passionate debate about big ideas, like embryonic stem cell research and journalism. That's why I like asking tough questions . . . to have a debate. Don't we serve our viewers and readers better that way?
Finally, in his piece, Lewis also asks about the brainstorming sessions in our newsroom. I would say we argue about these same exact issues all the time. Which issues to cover? What questions to ask? What to lead the newscast with? Why would our viewers care? We debate, we argue. Sometimes we even shout. So to answer Lewis, it's a pretty vibrant, thought-provoking environment . . . even for a bunch of TV personalities.
Roger Ray Responds
National Avenue Christian Church pastor Roger Ray has just responded to a previous post about his appearance in a political ad by a group called Heartland Democrats of America.
I posted it in the comment section of the post, but thought it was relevant enough to print his response at the top of our page.
Here's what he had to say:
This blog was brought to my attention recently. It contained two surprises for me. The first was that an interview I had given to a Kansas City resident about minimum wage issues was being used in a Democratic ad. I never have and never will endorse, contribute to or otherwise appear to take a partisan side in any political campaign for one party or the other or on behalf of any candidate.
I always speak only about issues which are of a religious and ethical nature. I'm sorry that the interviewer has taken the liberty of featuring me in a partisan ad. That was unethical and iladvised on his part. But possibly of more concern to me is that a "journalist" has taken this an opportunity to invite personal attacks against me. Even if you watch the ad you see that I did not endorse any candidate or party. I was speaking about poverty issues, as did the prophets, the apostles, Jesus and centuries of pastors and priests right up to such modern day notables as Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Somehow, rather than taking a journalist's interests in the issues which impact hundreds of millions of people.... the issues I was addressing, a KY3 reporter took a tabloid view of the world and said "economics, poverty, civil rights, social justice are all too complicated for our viewers, let's just see if we can gather up and slander a local pastor."
And that, I humbly submit, is not journalism. Rev. Dr. Roger L. Ray
Below is our previous post on Ray. Not sure what he means when he accuses me of a "tabloid view," and says I committed "slander." I simply reported what he said in an ad that a source pointed me to. In fact, most of the post is information taken directly from the group. But let me know what you think.
THURSDAY, SEPT. 14th POST
Roger Ray, the senior pastor at National Avenue Christian Church, is appearing in a new political ad by a group called Heartland Democrats of America. Ray has been a political figure in the area for years, delving into a variety of issues like gay marriage and the minimum wage.This group -- Heartland Democrats of America -- describes itself as a group of Democrats ultimately trying to win, "the values debate.""HDA champions strong Democratic values in Missouri and throughout America's Heartland. The era of the apologetic Democrat in middle America is being laid to rest forever - replaced by a unifying values message worthy of the hard-working people of middle America," according to the website. This is a group based out of Kansas City, Mo. Roger Ray is the featured speaker in the group's new ad campaign called "Vote your Values." Ray says the growing disparity between the rich and poor is the top political issue from a spiritual vantage point. Watch the entire ad HERE. Let us know what you think about the ad, and Roger Ray.
I posted it in the comment section of the post, but thought it was relevant enough to print his response at the top of our page.
Here's what he had to say:
This blog was brought to my attention recently. It contained two surprises for me. The first was that an interview I had given to a Kansas City resident about minimum wage issues was being used in a Democratic ad. I never have and never will endorse, contribute to or otherwise appear to take a partisan side in any political campaign for one party or the other or on behalf of any candidate.
I always speak only about issues which are of a religious and ethical nature. I'm sorry that the interviewer has taken the liberty of featuring me in a partisan ad. That was unethical and iladvised on his part. But possibly of more concern to me is that a "journalist" has taken this an opportunity to invite personal attacks against me. Even if you watch the ad you see that I did not endorse any candidate or party. I was speaking about poverty issues, as did the prophets, the apostles, Jesus and centuries of pastors and priests right up to such modern day notables as Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Somehow, rather than taking a journalist's interests in the issues which impact hundreds of millions of people.... the issues I was addressing, a KY3 reporter took a tabloid view of the world and said "economics, poverty, civil rights, social justice are all too complicated for our viewers, let's just see if we can gather up and slander a local pastor."
And that, I humbly submit, is not journalism. Rev. Dr. Roger L. Ray
Below is our previous post on Ray. Not sure what he means when he accuses me of a "tabloid view," and says I committed "slander." I simply reported what he said in an ad that a source pointed me to. In fact, most of the post is information taken directly from the group. But let me know what you think.
THURSDAY, SEPT. 14th POST
Roger Ray, the senior pastor at National Avenue Christian Church, is appearing in a new political ad by a group called Heartland Democrats of America. Ray has been a political figure in the area for years, delving into a variety of issues like gay marriage and the minimum wage.This group -- Heartland Democrats of America -- describes itself as a group of Democrats ultimately trying to win, "the values debate.""HDA champions strong Democratic values in Missouri and throughout America's Heartland. The era of the apologetic Democrat in middle America is being laid to rest forever - replaced by a unifying values message worthy of the hard-working people of middle America," according to the website. This is a group based out of Kansas City, Mo. Roger Ray is the featured speaker in the group's new ad campaign called "Vote your Values." Ray says the growing disparity between the rich and poor is the top political issue from a spiritual vantage point. Watch the entire ad HERE. Let us know what you think about the ad, and Roger Ray.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Jack Danforth on Meet the Press
Fmr. U.S. Senator John Danforth (R-MO) is scheduled to be a guest on NBC's Meet the Press this Sunday to talk about his new book, "Faith and Politics: How the "Moral Values" Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together."
There is an exclusive excerpt of Danforth's new book in Newsweek.
The Christian Science Monitor also has a piece on Danforth's book.
But Danforth has his critics, mainly hard core conservatives. Here's the take from the Conservative Underground.
A programming note . . . this week, Meet the Press will air at noon, due to NBC's coverage of the Ryder Cup.
41% Approve of Bush; 39% Approve of Blunt
President Bush has a slightly better approval rating in Missouri than Governor Matt Blunt, according to the new monthly tracking poll released by SurveyUSA.
The President got a 4-point boost from August's 37% rating. Overall, Missouri voters still disapprove of the president by a 56% to 41% margin. Bush does 9 points better with males than females. His highest approval rating (44%) is with young voters, 18-34. Is it me or is that odd? Independents disapprove of Bush 62% to 36%. But Bush remains strong with Republicans --- 83% approve. Bush wins the Ozarks 51-47%. Which state is Bush weakest? . . . Time is up . . . It's Rhode Island, where he has a 23% approval rating. But Utah remains Bush country. That's where W. remains strongest, with a 59% approval rating.
Go more in-depth on Bush HERE.
Still the 41% rating in Missouri is some better news for Republicans. Months ago, a Democrat told me to watch Bush's approval rating in Missouri. "If he's in the 40s, it's not good news for us," the Democrat told me. "If he's in the 30s, or low 30s, we're in good shape."
Governor Blunt, on the other hand, remains stuck in the high 30s. Blunt's September approval rating is 39%. That's down one basically meaningless point from August, and up one point from July. Like Bush, Blunt has a 7-point gap with males over females. Also like Bush, Blunt narrowly wins the Ozarks, 50-48%.
Go more in-depth on Blunt HERE.
The President got a 4-point boost from August's 37% rating. Overall, Missouri voters still disapprove of the president by a 56% to 41% margin. Bush does 9 points better with males than females. His highest approval rating (44%) is with young voters, 18-34. Is it me or is that odd? Independents disapprove of Bush 62% to 36%. But Bush remains strong with Republicans --- 83% approve. Bush wins the Ozarks 51-47%. Which state is Bush weakest? . . . Time is up . . . It's Rhode Island, where he has a 23% approval rating. But Utah remains Bush country. That's where W. remains strongest, with a 59% approval rating.
Go more in-depth on Bush HERE.
Still the 41% rating in Missouri is some better news for Republicans. Months ago, a Democrat told me to watch Bush's approval rating in Missouri. "If he's in the 40s, it's not good news for us," the Democrat told me. "If he's in the 30s, or low 30s, we're in good shape."
Governor Blunt, on the other hand, remains stuck in the high 30s. Blunt's September approval rating is 39%. That's down one basically meaningless point from August, and up one point from July. Like Bush, Blunt has a 7-point gap with males over females. Also like Bush, Blunt narrowly wins the Ozarks, 50-48%.
Go more in-depth on Blunt HERE.
Blunt: Secure Borders First
Rep. Roy Blunt spoke to Washington reporters Thursday about progress being made on border security.
Blunt told reporters that Republicans have made significant changes in border security in the last year.
"As the speaker said, we're right on the edge of turning 100 percent catch-and-release to 100 percent catch-and-return. We need to have one legislative fix for one group before that becomes 100 percent," Blunt said. "But the Border Patrol agents are there. The detention facilities are there so that that can now happen."
Blunt still said the priority in any immigration bill would be border security.
"You can secure the border first. Our members have believed that. It makes sense to the American people. You know, if you go home and you find out after a rain storm that your basement's leaking, the first person you call is not the remodeling contractor and tell him to get over here this afternoon; we want the new carpet in the basement by tonight. In fact, the first thing you do is not even to start pumping the water out. The first thing you do is try to figure out where the water is coming in. It's a simple thing that people in the country understand. It's fundamental to solving this problem. The House is moving forward to do that," said the House majority whip.
"I'm particularly pleased to see the Senate taking up the significant authorization bill we passed last week for 700 miles of border security fencing, both virtual and actual fencing," Blunt said.
Here is some Q & A with reporters, courtesy of CQ transcripts:
QUESTION: Just either one of you, Mr. Boehner, you had mentioned that you're still working on something more comprehensive later this year. If you don't come up with a (inaudible) broad bill during a lame duck session, do you have smaller initiatives that you can expect to be passed after the elections?
BLUNT (?): Look, what we're trying to do is fix where the problem is, and that's the border. And that's our first focus and that's our major focus.
And once we get that done, then we can look at other things.
QUESTION: Have you done a cost estimate on what the entire fencing that you propose...
BLUNT (?): We've put in $1.9 billion in last -- well, I don't know what was in last year. We've got another $1.9 billion in this year, which goes along with the work that's already been contracted out to Boeing.
BLUNT (?): And that will be fencing, virtual fencing, border impediments, all the way across the border. And so we're trying to figure out how much it will be, but we have been funding it.
QUESTION: Could you explain to us how these bills actually become law? Do they get attached to something? Does the Senate take them up separately? Et cetera, et cetera.
BLUNT (?): It's our intent to try to move them on a bigger package.
QUESTION: What bills are you thinking?
BLUNT (?): Probably homeland security, if we can get it done. That's the plan.
QUESTION: Could you clarify which (inaudible) comprehension were you talking about? The guest worker program?
BLUNT (?): I didn't say "comprehensive."
QUESTION: Is there any agreement (OFF-MIKE) jobs just here in the country, along the border fence, limited (OFF-MIKE)
BLUNT (?): OK. One of the first things we want to do is to make sure the border is secure. You can't really do any program or any project unless the border is secure. If you do, you just bypass all the legislation that we have. We saw that happen in 1986. We don't want to see it happen again.
Blunt told reporters that Republicans have made significant changes in border security in the last year.
"As the speaker said, we're right on the edge of turning 100 percent catch-and-release to 100 percent catch-and-return. We need to have one legislative fix for one group before that becomes 100 percent," Blunt said. "But the Border Patrol agents are there. The detention facilities are there so that that can now happen."
Blunt still said the priority in any immigration bill would be border security.
"You can secure the border first. Our members have believed that. It makes sense to the American people. You know, if you go home and you find out after a rain storm that your basement's leaking, the first person you call is not the remodeling contractor and tell him to get over here this afternoon; we want the new carpet in the basement by tonight. In fact, the first thing you do is not even to start pumping the water out. The first thing you do is try to figure out where the water is coming in. It's a simple thing that people in the country understand. It's fundamental to solving this problem. The House is moving forward to do that," said the House majority whip.
"I'm particularly pleased to see the Senate taking up the significant authorization bill we passed last week for 700 miles of border security fencing, both virtual and actual fencing," Blunt said.
Here is some Q & A with reporters, courtesy of CQ transcripts:
QUESTION: Just either one of you, Mr. Boehner, you had mentioned that you're still working on something more comprehensive later this year. If you don't come up with a (inaudible) broad bill during a lame duck session, do you have smaller initiatives that you can expect to be passed after the elections?
BLUNT (?): Look, what we're trying to do is fix where the problem is, and that's the border. And that's our first focus and that's our major focus.
And once we get that done, then we can look at other things.
QUESTION: Have you done a cost estimate on what the entire fencing that you propose...
BLUNT (?): We've put in $1.9 billion in last -- well, I don't know what was in last year. We've got another $1.9 billion in this year, which goes along with the work that's already been contracted out to Boeing.
BLUNT (?): And that will be fencing, virtual fencing, border impediments, all the way across the border. And so we're trying to figure out how much it will be, but we have been funding it.
QUESTION: Could you explain to us how these bills actually become law? Do they get attached to something? Does the Senate take them up separately? Et cetera, et cetera.
BLUNT (?): It's our intent to try to move them on a bigger package.
QUESTION: What bills are you thinking?
BLUNT (?): Probably homeland security, if we can get it done. That's the plan.
QUESTION: Could you clarify which (inaudible) comprehension were you talking about? The guest worker program?
BLUNT (?): I didn't say "comprehensive."
QUESTION: Is there any agreement (OFF-MIKE) jobs just here in the country, along the border fence, limited (OFF-MIKE)
BLUNT (?): OK. One of the first things we want to do is to make sure the border is secure. You can't really do any program or any project unless the border is secure. If you do, you just bypass all the legislation that we have. We saw that happen in 1986. We don't want to see it happen again.
Roy Blunt Says Drilling Can Wait
U.S. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt says getting a deal on offshore drilling can wait until after November's midterm elections.
This report is from Greenwire, a publication that tracks energy and environmental news.
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) does not believe the House and Senate need to reach an offshore drilling agreement before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections.
Blunt told reporters the September schedule is already busy with the House trying to move several security-related bills and one or two appropriations conference reports before leaving at the end of the month. He said the House sent a "great bill" to the Senate and called for continued talks.
"We are trying to advance offshore deepwater drilling this year," Blunt said. "We want to continue to have the kind of debate that brings real assistance to our energy needs in the country rather than worry about the calendar and what bill we can pass first."
The Senate leadership is pressing the House to accept Senate-passed legislation before the fall break. The Senate bill opens 8.3 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico to new oil and gas leasing, while the House measure is much broader, expanding gulf access but also relaxing offshore leasing bans that now cover most coastal areas outside the gulf.
Senate leaders say the bill focused on the gulf is the most expansive measure their chamber can pass this year. Advocates of the House bill argue the Senate plan does not provide access to enough new resources and say their bill is a more comprehensive approach.
One industry lobbyist said falling gasoline prices may be removing some of the urgency over having an energy measure completed before Congress breaks for fall campaigning.
This report is from Greenwire, a publication that tracks energy and environmental news.
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) does not believe the House and Senate need to reach an offshore drilling agreement before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections.
Blunt told reporters the September schedule is already busy with the House trying to move several security-related bills and one or two appropriations conference reports before leaving at the end of the month. He said the House sent a "great bill" to the Senate and called for continued talks.
"We are trying to advance offshore deepwater drilling this year," Blunt said. "We want to continue to have the kind of debate that brings real assistance to our energy needs in the country rather than worry about the calendar and what bill we can pass first."
The Senate leadership is pressing the House to accept Senate-passed legislation before the fall break. The Senate bill opens 8.3 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico to new oil and gas leasing, while the House measure is much broader, expanding gulf access but also relaxing offshore leasing bans that now cover most coastal areas outside the gulf.
Senate leaders say the bill focused on the gulf is the most expansive measure their chamber can pass this year. Advocates of the House bill argue the Senate plan does not provide access to enough new resources and say their bill is a more comprehensive approach.
One industry lobbyist said falling gasoline prices may be removing some of the urgency over having an energy measure completed before Congress breaks for fall campaigning.
Will the Real Battle on Oct. 16th be the Cards vs. Candidates?
When we were working to schedule our U.S. Senate debate, we were thrilled that both candidates were making Springfield a priority. But trying to pick a day, time and week to get the biggest viewership was extremely difficult.
Our big fear? The St. Louis Cardinals will be in a critical post-season playoff game on the same night and time of our debate. Now we'd never publicly root against the Cards, but it is a real worry. We know if it's us versus the Cardinals, we'll lose.
Our executive producer and my fellow blogger Brad Belote, expressed that exact worry to the Wall Street Journal . . . but also offered a possible solution. It just shows how the media will have to continue to adapt to fight for people's time and eyeballs.
Below is the beginning of the Journal's piece. Heck, Belote made the lede. In fact, his name is the first words in the lede. Kudos to our tireless executive producer!
BRAD BELOTE, executive producer of KYTV in Springfield, Mo., worries the NBC affiliate won't attract much attention on Oct. 16 when it hosts a debate in the U.S. Senate race between Republican incumbent Jim Talent and Democrat Claire McCaskill. The problem: the St. Louis Cardinals are headed for the postseason. "We're a little nervous going up against a potential playoff game," he says.
But this year voters can still see the full debate even if they're watching baseball when it's aired. That's because for the first time KYTV will make a streaming version of the debate available on its Web site. "There's an appetite there for folks who want to see it when they can," Mr. Belote says.
The technology that's been flooding the Internet with videos produced by everyone from teenage skateboarders to major entertainment companies also is beginning to affect the political process. Sites like YouTube.com, Google Video and Blinkx.com already are filling up with candidate commercials, news clips, interviews and even amateur satirical videos.
This new medium naturally opens up new possibilities for negative campaigning and for gaffes to be magnified into major campaign issues. For example, an amateur video on YouTube.com about Montana Sen. Conrad Burns shows him falling asleep at a hearing. Numerous Web sites carried footage of Sen. George Allen, of Virginia, calling an aide to his Democratic challenger "macaca," considered by some to be a racial slur.
But video on the Web is going beyond mudslinging. It's also beginning to help inform voters. Numerous TV stations that televise debates are for the first time posting them on their Web sites so they can be watched at any time. Some civic groups are putting short video interviews with candidates on the Internet so voters can make side-by-side comparisons. Startup sites like thepeoplechoose2006.org and election.tv are trying to create video-rich sites that provide information on races throughout the country.
Our big fear? The St. Louis Cardinals will be in a critical post-season playoff game on the same night and time of our debate. Now we'd never publicly root against the Cards, but it is a real worry. We know if it's us versus the Cardinals, we'll lose.
Our executive producer and my fellow blogger Brad Belote, expressed that exact worry to the Wall Street Journal . . . but also offered a possible solution. It just shows how the media will have to continue to adapt to fight for people's time and eyeballs.
Below is the beginning of the Journal's piece. Heck, Belote made the lede. In fact, his name is the first words in the lede. Kudos to our tireless executive producer!
BRAD BELOTE, executive producer of KYTV in Springfield, Mo., worries the NBC affiliate won't attract much attention on Oct. 16 when it hosts a debate in the U.S. Senate race between Republican incumbent Jim Talent and Democrat Claire McCaskill. The problem: the St. Louis Cardinals are headed for the postseason. "We're a little nervous going up against a potential playoff game," he says.
But this year voters can still see the full debate even if they're watching baseball when it's aired. That's because for the first time KYTV will make a streaming version of the debate available on its Web site. "There's an appetite there for folks who want to see it when they can," Mr. Belote says.
The technology that's been flooding the Internet with videos produced by everyone from teenage skateboarders to major entertainment companies also is beginning to affect the political process. Sites like YouTube.com, Google Video and Blinkx.com already are filling up with candidate commercials, news clips, interviews and even amateur satirical videos.
This new medium naturally opens up new possibilities for negative campaigning and for gaffes to be magnified into major campaign issues. For example, an amateur video on YouTube.com about Montana Sen. Conrad Burns shows him falling asleep at a hearing. Numerous Web sites carried footage of Sen. George Allen, of Virginia, calling an aide to his Democratic challenger "macaca," considered by some to be a racial slur.
But video on the Web is going beyond mudslinging. It's also beginning to help inform voters. Numerous TV stations that televise debates are for the first time posting them on their Web sites so they can be watched at any time. Some civic groups are putting short video interviews with candidates on the Internet so voters can make side-by-side comparisons. Startup sites like thepeoplechoose2006.org and election.tv are trying to create video-rich sites that provide information on races throughout the country.
Keyes, Scarborough Rally Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and national conservative activist Rick Scarborough rallied hundreds of people Thursday night to vote against a state constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research.
The rally was held at the Central Assembly of God church in downtown Springfield. Both men held a press conference with reporters earlier.
Watch our KY3 News @ 10 report by clicking HERE.
Here's more from the press conference that we couldn't fit in the TV piece:
Alan Keyes called Missouri's vote on embryonic stem cell research "the testing ground for fundamental moral approach to this country."
Keyes made the case that just because embryos in a Petri dish don't look like a human life, doesn't mean they are not people.
"That means that you haven't developed to a certain stage that's adequate for other people, to regard you . . . that doesn't mean you are not entitled to be treated with respect for your life," Keyes said.
Keyes said passage of this amendment "would turn the clock back."
Although outspent by the stem cell amendment sponsor, Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, Scarborough said the "anti-cloning" coalition is gaining momentum. "As we travel across this state, there's a growing reaction to the deception that has been put forth," Scarborough said.
Missouri Right to Life's Dave Plemmons tells the KY3 Political blog that opponents of embryonic stem cells will soon begin an aggressive advertising blitz around the state. Plemmons said that while the pro-embryonic groups began the year with majority support from Missouri voters, opponents are gradually making political progress with evangelical and social conservatives, especially in Southwest Missouri. "There will be an infusion from out of state from groups with money to run the ads," Plemmons said.
Keyes said he disregards the politics and polls when he makes these moral decisions. "It's an amazing step we are asking Missouri voters to take and that's to codify and place in their constitution, the obligation to kill a human being to extract a stem cell line," Keyes said.
Republican Greene County Commissioner Roseanne Bentley signed on to support the amendment months ago, when she was asked personally by former Sen. John Danforth to chair the coalition's movement in the Ozarks.
"I'm more of a moderate Republican, more of a Jack Danforth Republican," Bentley said. "I just really like and respect him."
Bentley doesn't believe an embryo is the same thing as a living human being.
"You have to plant that blastocyst in a uterus in order for it to grow and become a human being,
Bentley said. "Don't call doctors and scientists are trying to do authentic research criminals."
But Keyes and Scarborough are calling these doctors much more than just criminals. They are calling them deceptive, morally bankrupt and sinful, and driven by economic gain.
When I asked Keyes if voters should vote FOR the amendment if they do not believe an embryo is a human, he replied by linking embryonic stem cell research to America's dark history of slavery.
"What if you had just said, some people think that black people are not human and other people think they are human, so if you think black people are not human, you should vote for slavery?," Keyes said, adding that he hopes people would be outraged.
"So we're going to go back to these old days when if you don't look the way you are supposed to, then we don't have to treat you as human," Keyes said.
Keyes then referred to America's infamous tenet that "All Men Are Created Equal."
"If says we are created equal, that is from the most beginning you can think of, because creation is the very beginning, we are equal in that sense . . . and (embryos) must be treated with equal respect with that dignity," Keyes said.
Keyes said no matter what the other side says, it's a fact that they are proposing to clone human beings. Keyes said he even accepts his opponents definition. "As I recall, they refer to it as therapeutic cloning. Therefore there is no dispute that it is cloning," Keyes said.
"I abhor cloning and I wouldn't be for this if it entailed cloning," Bentley said. "I'm very opposed to abortion, I'm very opposed to cloning but I think this is completely separate from that."
But Bentley said she tries talks about the issue in more sober terms, without using extreme or dire rhetoric.
"I think it is a shame that it's become so political," Bentley said.
This is about finding lifesaving cures, Bentley said, adding that there is no way her God would consider this procedure a sin.
A SurveyUSA poll conducted in early September showed that 54% of Missourians support a constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research. 24% oppose the amendment and another 24% are undecided. Democrats approve the amendment 10-to-1. Republicans opposed it 3-to-2.
The rally was held at the Central Assembly of God church in downtown Springfield. Both men held a press conference with reporters earlier.
Watch our KY3 News @ 10 report by clicking HERE.
Here's more from the press conference that we couldn't fit in the TV piece:
Alan Keyes called Missouri's vote on embryonic stem cell research "the testing ground for fundamental moral approach to this country."
Keyes made the case that just because embryos in a Petri dish don't look like a human life, doesn't mean they are not people.
"That means that you haven't developed to a certain stage that's adequate for other people, to regard you . . . that doesn't mean you are not entitled to be treated with respect for your life," Keyes said.
Keyes said passage of this amendment "would turn the clock back."
Although outspent by the stem cell amendment sponsor, Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, Scarborough said the "anti-cloning" coalition is gaining momentum. "As we travel across this state, there's a growing reaction to the deception that has been put forth," Scarborough said.
Missouri Right to Life's Dave Plemmons tells the KY3 Political blog that opponents of embryonic stem cells will soon begin an aggressive advertising blitz around the state. Plemmons said that while the pro-embryonic groups began the year with majority support from Missouri voters, opponents are gradually making political progress with evangelical and social conservatives, especially in Southwest Missouri. "There will be an infusion from out of state from groups with money to run the ads," Plemmons said.
Keyes said he disregards the politics and polls when he makes these moral decisions. "It's an amazing step we are asking Missouri voters to take and that's to codify and place in their constitution, the obligation to kill a human being to extract a stem cell line," Keyes said.
Republican Greene County Commissioner Roseanne Bentley signed on to support the amendment months ago, when she was asked personally by former Sen. John Danforth to chair the coalition's movement in the Ozarks.
"I'm more of a moderate Republican, more of a Jack Danforth Republican," Bentley said. "I just really like and respect him."
Bentley doesn't believe an embryo is the same thing as a living human being.
"You have to plant that blastocyst in a uterus in order for it to grow and become a human being,
Bentley said. "Don't call doctors and scientists are trying to do authentic research criminals."
But Keyes and Scarborough are calling these doctors much more than just criminals. They are calling them deceptive, morally bankrupt and sinful, and driven by economic gain.
When I asked Keyes if voters should vote FOR the amendment if they do not believe an embryo is a human, he replied by linking embryonic stem cell research to America's dark history of slavery.
"What if you had just said, some people think that black people are not human and other people think they are human, so if you think black people are not human, you should vote for slavery?," Keyes said, adding that he hopes people would be outraged.
"So we're going to go back to these old days when if you don't look the way you are supposed to, then we don't have to treat you as human," Keyes said.
Keyes then referred to America's infamous tenet that "All Men Are Created Equal."
"If says we are created equal, that is from the most beginning you can think of, because creation is the very beginning, we are equal in that sense . . . and (embryos) must be treated with equal respect with that dignity," Keyes said.
Keyes said no matter what the other side says, it's a fact that they are proposing to clone human beings. Keyes said he even accepts his opponents definition. "As I recall, they refer to it as therapeutic cloning. Therefore there is no dispute that it is cloning," Keyes said.
"I abhor cloning and I wouldn't be for this if it entailed cloning," Bentley said. "I'm very opposed to abortion, I'm very opposed to cloning but I think this is completely separate from that."
But Bentley said she tries talks about the issue in more sober terms, without using extreme or dire rhetoric.
"I think it is a shame that it's become so political," Bentley said.
This is about finding lifesaving cures, Bentley said, adding that there is no way her God would consider this procedure a sin.
A SurveyUSA poll conducted in early September showed that 54% of Missourians support a constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research. 24% oppose the amendment and another 24% are undecided. Democrats approve the amendment 10-to-1. Republicans opposed it 3-to-2.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Final Debate Set in Kansas City
In what will be their fifth and final debate to be announced, Sen. Jim Talent and Democrat Claire McCaskill have agreed to spar in Kansas City on October 18th, two days after our KY3 debate.
Here's the release from both campaigns:
"U.S. Senator Jim Talent and U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill today accepted an offer by KMBC-TV, KCPT-TV, KCUR-FM and the Examiner Independence to debate in Kansas City on October 18. The Talent and McCaskill campaigns have agreed to debate five times before voters go to the polls on November 7. "
"The Kansas City debate will take place at the University Academy charter school located at 68th and Holmes. The debate will be moderated by KMBC-TV’s new anchor Larry Moore. The panelists are KMBC-TV’s political reporter Michael Mahoney, Kansas City Star political reporter Steve Kraske, KCPT-TV public affairs and the news programming director Nick Haines, KCUR-FM news director Frank Morris and Examiner Independence editorial board editor Jeff Fox."
The full Talent/McCaskill debate line-up is as follows:
Sunday, Oct. 8th - Meet The Press - KY3 will travel to Washington, D.C. to cover the debate, with a behind-the-scenes look at the NBC studio. According to Meet the Press production manager Betty Nevins, it hasn't yet been decided if Talent and McCaskill will get the full hour, or just 35 minutes. Nevins says it depends on the news of the day.
Wednesday, Oct. 11th - St. Louis
***Monday, Oct. 16th - KY3 in Springfield***
Wednesday, Oct. 18th - Kansas City
Four debates in in 11 days . . . Whew!
Mega kudos to both campaigns for working together and agreeing to a slew of debates. That's what it's all about! Most campaigns, especially local ones, should follow their lead. Although notice, no Senate debates are scheduled for the last two weeks up to election day. I mean, wouldn't it be great to watch them go head to head the night before?! . . . with everything on the line!
Here's the release from both campaigns:
"U.S. Senator Jim Talent and U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill today accepted an offer by KMBC-TV, KCPT-TV, KCUR-FM and the Examiner Independence to debate in Kansas City on October 18. The Talent and McCaskill campaigns have agreed to debate five times before voters go to the polls on November 7. "
"The Kansas City debate will take place at the University Academy charter school located at 68th and Holmes. The debate will be moderated by KMBC-TV’s new anchor Larry Moore. The panelists are KMBC-TV’s political reporter Michael Mahoney, Kansas City Star political reporter Steve Kraske, KCPT-TV public affairs and the news programming director Nick Haines, KCUR-FM news director Frank Morris and Examiner Independence editorial board editor Jeff Fox."
The full Talent/McCaskill debate line-up is as follows:
Sunday, Oct. 8th - Meet The Press - KY3 will travel to Washington, D.C. to cover the debate, with a behind-the-scenes look at the NBC studio. According to Meet the Press production manager Betty Nevins, it hasn't yet been decided if Talent and McCaskill will get the full hour, or just 35 minutes. Nevins says it depends on the news of the day.
Wednesday, Oct. 11th - St. Louis
***Monday, Oct. 16th - KY3 in Springfield***
Wednesday, Oct. 18th - Kansas City
Four debates in in 11 days . . . Whew!
Mega kudos to both campaigns for working together and agreeing to a slew of debates. That's what it's all about! Most campaigns, especially local ones, should follow their lead. Although notice, no Senate debates are scheduled for the last two weeks up to election day. I mean, wouldn't it be great to watch them go head to head the night before?! . . . with everything on the line!
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Gov. Blunt to visit Mexican Border
Governor Matt Blunt is on his way to the Mexican border today in Yuma, Arizona to visit about 200 Missouri National Guard troops serving there.
Here's the Associated Press story:
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Gov. Matt Blunt was to fly Wednesday to Yuma, Ariz., to visit about 200 Missouri National Guard soldiers deployed there to help secure the Mexican border.
The Guard members, who volunteered from various units across the state, departed Sept. 11 for Arizona and are to come back to Missouri on Sept. 28, said Guard spokeswoman Capt. Tamara Spicer. They are part of President Bush's initiative announced in May to use about 6,000 National Guard members from across the country to support the Border Patrol. Blunt praised Bush's plan at that time and offered Missouri's assistance.
Spicer said much smaller groups of Missouri Army and Air National Guard members had already volunteered for other border patrol missions.
Traveling with Blunt on the military plane will be Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, state Sen. Bill Alter, R-High Ridge, and National Guard Chief of Staff Col. Dwight Lusk, said Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson.
"The issue of immigration in general is one that a lot of states and our federal government are dealing with," Jackson said. "This will give him an opportunity to go to the border and hear directly from people involved in guarding it about the challenges they face."
On Tuesday, Blunt directed all executive state agencies to start using a new hiring procedure by Oct. 6 to verify that prospective employees are legally in the United States. The Internet-based program by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service allows employers to enter information already collected on federally required employment forms into an automated system to verify its authenticity.
Here's the Associated Press story:
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Gov. Matt Blunt was to fly Wednesday to Yuma, Ariz., to visit about 200 Missouri National Guard soldiers deployed there to help secure the Mexican border.
The Guard members, who volunteered from various units across the state, departed Sept. 11 for Arizona and are to come back to Missouri on Sept. 28, said Guard spokeswoman Capt. Tamara Spicer. They are part of President Bush's initiative announced in May to use about 6,000 National Guard members from across the country to support the Border Patrol. Blunt praised Bush's plan at that time and offered Missouri's assistance.
Spicer said much smaller groups of Missouri Army and Air National Guard members had already volunteered for other border patrol missions.
Traveling with Blunt on the military plane will be Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, state Sen. Bill Alter, R-High Ridge, and National Guard Chief of Staff Col. Dwight Lusk, said Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson.
"The issue of immigration in general is one that a lot of states and our federal government are dealing with," Jackson said. "This will give him an opportunity to go to the border and hear directly from people involved in guarding it about the challenges they face."
On Tuesday, Blunt directed all executive state agencies to start using a new hiring procedure by Oct. 6 to verify that prospective employees are legally in the United States. The Internet-based program by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service allows employers to enter information already collected on federally required employment forms into an automated system to verify its authenticity.
CBS Profiles Talent/McCaskill
The CBS Evening News profiled the U.S. Senate race between Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill Tuesday night.
Here's the script from the broadcast:
COURIC: Election Day is just seven weeks from today and control of the House is up for grabs. The Senate may be as well. Both, of course, are now controlled by the Republicans. So how will this election turn out? National political correspondent Gloria Borger went to a bellwether state for tonight`s "Eye on Politics."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLORIA BORGER, CBS CORRESPONDENT: This champion ham fetched a fat 10 grand for the 4-H Club at the Missouri State Fair. But the glad handers outside the tent were more interested in politics than pork.
CLAIRE MCCASKILL, CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE (D), MISSOURI: Good morning, guys.
BORGER: The Missouri Senate race is a dead heat brawl, while the Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill calls for change in Washington ...
MCCASKILL: I think everybody`s had enough, don`t you think?
SEN. JIM TALENT, (R), MISSOURI: Good to see you ...
BORGER: The Republican incumbent Jim Talent declares his independence from Washington.
TALENT: I`m an agent of change and I always have run that way.
BORGER: With control of the Senate hanging by just six seats, both parties call this a must win, and the themes playing here are being rerun in tight races all across the country.
Missouri voters have a history of reflecting the national mood, and right now President Bush is unpopular here. That`s why running as a Republican incumbent requires some distance from the president.
On the Iraq war in particular.
(on camera): Now, you said the administration has made some mistakes.
TALENT: Oh yes.
BORGER: ... in what areas and where?
TALENT: They underestimated how difficult it would be to pacify the central part of the country. I mean, they clearly thought we could get in and out quickly.
BORGER (voice over): Try as he might to run as his own man, Jim Talent is tied to President Bush by his Democratic opponent at every opportunity.
MCCASKILL: Well, he agrees with President Bush more than I agree with my husband.
BORGER: Missouri may be a red, or Republican, state. But Democrats believe the key issues are now turning blue, and it`s not just about the war. In this state, it`s also about local issues like an increase in the minimum wage and support for stem cell research. Both statewide ballot initiatives the Democrats hope will bring out their voters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The stem cell initiative will prevent any unfair bans.
LINDSAYH MCCARROLL, VOTER: I`m really excited about what you`re doing.
BORGER: Missouri Democrats are targeting voters like Lindsay McCarroll, a Republican who thinks her party has lost touch.
MCCARROLL: I don`t think they`re listening to the people, I don`t think they`re doing what the people want. So I`m going to vote for someone else this time.
BORGER: In any other year, Jim Talent might have been considered a sure thing, but this election environment is tough for Republican incumbents.
TALENT: 2004 was a better year, there`s no question.
BORGER: So Talent wants to make this personal.
TALENT: When they get to know you, they tend to vote based on what they know rather than on a national perspective. And this is why people in both parties win elections even when the national climate isn`t so good.
BORGER: Voters in the Show-Me State have an uncanny knack for predicting winners. They picked all the presidents since 1960, and now they could determine who wins the Senate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sold straight out there, $10,000.
BORGER: Gloria Borger, CBS News, Sedalia, Missouri.
Here's the script from the broadcast:
COURIC: Election Day is just seven weeks from today and control of the House is up for grabs. The Senate may be as well. Both, of course, are now controlled by the Republicans. So how will this election turn out? National political correspondent Gloria Borger went to a bellwether state for tonight`s "Eye on Politics."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLORIA BORGER, CBS CORRESPONDENT: This champion ham fetched a fat 10 grand for the 4-H Club at the Missouri State Fair. But the glad handers outside the tent were more interested in politics than pork.
CLAIRE MCCASKILL, CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE (D), MISSOURI: Good morning, guys.
BORGER: The Missouri Senate race is a dead heat brawl, while the Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill calls for change in Washington ...
MCCASKILL: I think everybody`s had enough, don`t you think?
SEN. JIM TALENT, (R), MISSOURI: Good to see you ...
BORGER: The Republican incumbent Jim Talent declares his independence from Washington.
TALENT: I`m an agent of change and I always have run that way.
BORGER: With control of the Senate hanging by just six seats, both parties call this a must win, and the themes playing here are being rerun in tight races all across the country.
Missouri voters have a history of reflecting the national mood, and right now President Bush is unpopular here. That`s why running as a Republican incumbent requires some distance from the president.
On the Iraq war in particular.
(on camera): Now, you said the administration has made some mistakes.
TALENT: Oh yes.
BORGER: ... in what areas and where?
TALENT: They underestimated how difficult it would be to pacify the central part of the country. I mean, they clearly thought we could get in and out quickly.
BORGER (voice over): Try as he might to run as his own man, Jim Talent is tied to President Bush by his Democratic opponent at every opportunity.
MCCASKILL: Well, he agrees with President Bush more than I agree with my husband.
BORGER: Missouri may be a red, or Republican, state. But Democrats believe the key issues are now turning blue, and it`s not just about the war. In this state, it`s also about local issues like an increase in the minimum wage and support for stem cell research. Both statewide ballot initiatives the Democrats hope will bring out their voters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The stem cell initiative will prevent any unfair bans.
LINDSAYH MCCARROLL, VOTER: I`m really excited about what you`re doing.
BORGER: Missouri Democrats are targeting voters like Lindsay McCarroll, a Republican who thinks her party has lost touch.
MCCARROLL: I don`t think they`re listening to the people, I don`t think they`re doing what the people want. So I`m going to vote for someone else this time.
BORGER: In any other year, Jim Talent might have been considered a sure thing, but this election environment is tough for Republican incumbents.
TALENT: 2004 was a better year, there`s no question.
BORGER: So Talent wants to make this personal.
TALENT: When they get to know you, they tend to vote based on what they know rather than on a national perspective. And this is why people in both parties win elections even when the national climate isn`t so good.
BORGER: Voters in the Show-Me State have an uncanny knack for predicting winners. They picked all the presidents since 1960, and now they could determine who wins the Senate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sold straight out there, $10,000.
BORGER: Gloria Borger, CBS News, Sedalia, Missouri.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Willie Nelson busted for drugs
LAFAYETTE, La. (AP) - Willie Nelson is on the road again, after being stopped Monday morning on a Louisiana highway. He and four others were issued misdemeanor citations for possession of psychedelic narcotic mushrooms and marijuana.
Louisiana state police said the citations were issued after an early morning commercial vehicle inspection of the tour bus. Louisiana state troopers say they smelled a strong odor of marijuana when the the bus was pulled over.
A search of the vehicle allegedly turned up a pound and a-half of marijuana and two-tenths of a pound of mushrooms. Citations were also issued for Nelson's sister, Bobbie Nelson, and for Tony Sizemore, Gates Moore and David Anderson. All have been released. Nelson's spokeswoman declined to comment.
If you recall Nelson and company were in St. Louis a few weeks back raising money for Claire McCaskill.
Republicans were quick to jump on the story. The McCaskill campaign asserted her commitment to the law, but still called Nelson a true patriot. They also mentioned Talent cited Willie as a favorite singer in a 1999 profile.
Louisiana state police said the citations were issued after an early morning commercial vehicle inspection of the tour bus. Louisiana state troopers say they smelled a strong odor of marijuana when the the bus was pulled over.
A search of the vehicle allegedly turned up a pound and a-half of marijuana and two-tenths of a pound of mushrooms. Citations were also issued for Nelson's sister, Bobbie Nelson, and for Tony Sizemore, Gates Moore and David Anderson. All have been released. Nelson's spokeswoman declined to comment.
If you recall Nelson and company were in St. Louis a few weeks back raising money for Claire McCaskill.
Republicans were quick to jump on the story. The McCaskill campaign asserted her commitment to the law, but still called Nelson a true patriot. They also mentioned Talent cited Willie as a favorite singer in a 1999 profile.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Monday's election notes
-- The Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments on the tobacco tax's place on the ballot October 3. A Cole County judge overturned Robin Carnahan's decision to deny petitioners a spot on the ballot because they didn't have enough valid signatures.
-- No more freebies from the DOR. The Department of Revenue is going to stop giving away free state ID cards -- they will cost $11. DOR had scheduled visits to nursing homes so that elderly folk without photo IDs could vote in November. But since a judge struck down the voter ID law last week, it has asked a judge to allow the free IDs while the voter ID law works it way through the courts.
-- No more freebies from the DOR. The Department of Revenue is going to stop giving away free state ID cards -- they will cost $11. DOR had scheduled visits to nursing homes so that elderly folk without photo IDs could vote in November. But since a judge struck down the voter ID law last week, it has asked a judge to allow the free IDs while the voter ID law works it way through the courts.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
That Other Debate . . . Montee vs. Thomas
Despite all the focus on Friday's first U.S. Senate debate of the campaign season, there was another debate between the four candidates for State Auditor.
Republican Sandra Thomas and Democrat Susan Montee went head-to-head in a battle over what should be the role of the state auditor, and how their priorities would be different.
Thomas, the Platte County Auditor, came out in support of a constitutional amendment that would force the auditor to be a certified public accountant. Buchanan County Auditor Montee opposes an amendment that would require the auditor to be a CPA. "I do think you should elect a CPA, but also an attorney," Montee said. Montee, of course, is both. She said being an auditor is more than just accounting for money. "It's about efficiencies, legal procedures and analysis," Montee added.
Montee promised to spend more time in rural counties, providing them with ways to better manage money with scarce resources. Thomas advocated having a more visible presence and "coming in" more often to counties with special circumstances.
Libertarian candidate Charles Baum and Progressive candidate Terry Bunker also participated in the debate, and spent most of their time articulating why the two-big parties can't be independent auditing the state.
Here are other quick takes on questions and answers, paraphrased and edited for space and clarity:
Q: Is there any way to work better with prosecutors when you find abuse?
Montee- Most of the cases aren't criminal. It's more a systematic problem. Some recent audit recommendations have not been followed. It's not a partisan thing, it's about working better with the press and legislators to let people know about the abuse.
Baum - The auditor should have more authority, not less, and be more forceful in shutting down a program with a history of abuse.
Thomas - The auditor needs to do a better job at making the recommendations known to the general public, through the press.
Bunker - The auditor needs to follow-up and make sure recommendations are carried through. Full disclosure is key. I'll make sure to eliminate the fraud as quickly as possible.
Q: Does the auditor have the legal authority to conduct performance audits?
Baum - I don't know if they have the legal authority, but they should.
Thomas - Politics has no place in the auditor's office and a lot of people have come to see performance audits as political audits. They need to benefit the state, not to be used for political purposes.
Bunker - I'd be an independent focused on performance audits. The auditor does not have enough authority. Performance audits are essential.
Montee - I believe the statutory authority exists. If we had a referendum, the taxpayers would come down on the side of performance audits. Much of the performance audits are triggered by press reports and they are an essential part of what we do.
Q: How would you restore professionalism to the office?
Thomas - This current auditor's office is playing politics. This auditor focuses on political gain. I will go into the Governor's office the same way I will go into other offices.
Montee - I don't think independence is a matter of party. This administration is playing a lot of politics. I believe the auditor's office is professional now.
Baum - Both political groups are so big and large it's almost impossible for them to be independent and objective.
Bunker - (Answer not recorded)
Q: Would you accuse any of your opponents as being incompetent?
Montee -Let's look at the facts. In Platte County, we've had an independent auditor attribute the problems to the county auditor. In my case in Buchanan County, the prosecutor and judge even said I had nothing to do with the problem.
Baum -I'd never consider any of my opponents to be incompetent.
Thomas - I believe competency is an issue in the race. In Platte county, there was a discrepancy found, but there was no missing money. As the auditor I did a good job in finding the problem. In Buchanan County, they use a different cash basis method that could lower their bond rating. This does speak to competency.
Bunker - I have no reason to believe anyone is not competent. I have no reason to believe any of my opponents would not be capable of the job.
Q: What's the most egregious use of taxpayer money that you have seen?
Baum - I can't single one out.
Thomas - A lot I've seen outrages me. I'd say the Springfield Municipal Court scandal would be one of the biggest. $1 million dollars just walked out of the building. The current state auditor had not been there since 2000. I'm concerned about the municipal system because they have a lot of cash there, and it can walk out the door.
Bunker - I'd like to look into electronic voting machines the state is buying. I don't think there has been enough cost-benefit analysis involved. We need to have a paper trail.
Montee - There's a laundry list of outrages. When the state cut Medicaid, we lost federal dollars. When we transferred fee offices to a no-bid system. The MOHELA sale. Regardless if it goes through, you will see an audit out of my office on MOHELA.
Q: If elected, would you pledge not to run for another office while you are serving as state auditor?
Thomas - If I'm in office, I will not run for another state office while I am auditor.
Bunker - I have no intention of seeking another office. I will serve the full length of my term.
Montee - I'm not a career politician. I plan to run again in four years. (She didn't rule out running for another office.)
Baum - (No answer recorded)
Q: How would you better use Missouri's Sunshine Law?
Montee - Most counties are not complying with the Sunshine Law. Most don't even understand it. They don't understand what is required so we need to better educate counties.
Baum - I've already decided when I'm elected, I'll have Susan (Montee) as my assistant.
Thomas -The counties don't understand the Sunshine Law and the auditor can help.
Bunker - I'll make sure the Sunshine Law has been adhered to.
Q: If elected, what is the first thing you would do?
Baum - Celebrate, I guess. I don't know the ins-and-outs of the office yet.
Thomas - I'd set a four year audit plan, make sure we are complying with all statues, look at risk of fraud and abuse and then pick and choose where to spend our time and resources. I'd focus on Medicaid, Education, Conservation and MoDot.
Bunker - I'd ask the staff to tell me what I need to know and focus on what they feel I need to do.
Montee - There are some issues with staffing of the Auditor's office. There are lots of diversity issues within the office. I'd try to hire more minorities on staff, and work to make sure the staff looks more like the state. I'd want to look for more CPAs. That's an area where we are struggling. I'd want to attract more people to the profession and work on retention.
Closing Statements:
Baum - This is the first office I've ever run for. I used to be a Democrat because they are supposed to be for the working man, but found out they were just out to get their votes. Then I looked at the Republican party, but they are not for smaller government at all. Government continues to grow in power and size and power corrupts. We need change, so vote for a Libertarian. If you vote Republican or Democrat, you get the same thing. They both eat out of the same trough. Don't throw away your vote, vote Libertarian.
Montee - This race is more about the party, it is about the person. It doesn't matter what party you are. What matters is working toward a specific goal. It's important that the auditor be an attorney because of the new funding formula for schools still in litigation. Challenges to fiscal notes require the experience of both a CPA and an attorney. What we have to do is make more with less. Keeping our books on a cash basis in Buchanan County is the best way to communicate with citizens.
Bunker - I will serve the full time as auditor. I'm not using this as a stepping stone. I'm not a career politician. I will not accept PAC money. I will eliminate wrong doing and waste immediately.
Thomas - This is a very important election. We can elect someone who will carry on with the politics as usual, or someone who will change things. I'll look into areas that have not have audits in recent past. I will aggressively seek out waste, fraud and abuse. I have a 12-year award winning record as an Auditor in Platte County. I disagree we need to have an attorney. We need someone who won't play politics.
Post-Interview with Thomas (I couldn't find where Montee went after the debate)
Thomas: I'm not surprised my opponent would bring up the $195,000 in Platte County. It's clearly not an issue. There is not any point in trying to point fingers. When you look at Montee's website, on every issue she bring up Claire McCaskill, issues that McCaskill has had in the past. She wants to continue with the current course. I want to change direction. I will not treat anyone different.
When asked about her reaction to the recent photo I.D. court ruling, Thomas replied, "I had not heard about it." She said she is not concerned about the impact.
Republican Sandra Thomas and Democrat Susan Montee went head-to-head in a battle over what should be the role of the state auditor, and how their priorities would be different.
Thomas, the Platte County Auditor, came out in support of a constitutional amendment that would force the auditor to be a certified public accountant. Buchanan County Auditor Montee opposes an amendment that would require the auditor to be a CPA. "I do think you should elect a CPA, but also an attorney," Montee said. Montee, of course, is both. She said being an auditor is more than just accounting for money. "It's about efficiencies, legal procedures and analysis," Montee added.
Montee promised to spend more time in rural counties, providing them with ways to better manage money with scarce resources. Thomas advocated having a more visible presence and "coming in" more often to counties with special circumstances.
Libertarian candidate Charles Baum and Progressive candidate Terry Bunker also participated in the debate, and spent most of their time articulating why the two-big parties can't be independent auditing the state.
Here are other quick takes on questions and answers, paraphrased and edited for space and clarity:
Q: Is there any way to work better with prosecutors when you find abuse?
Montee- Most of the cases aren't criminal. It's more a systematic problem. Some recent audit recommendations have not been followed. It's not a partisan thing, it's about working better with the press and legislators to let people know about the abuse.
Baum - The auditor should have more authority, not less, and be more forceful in shutting down a program with a history of abuse.
Thomas - The auditor needs to do a better job at making the recommendations known to the general public, through the press.
Bunker - The auditor needs to follow-up and make sure recommendations are carried through. Full disclosure is key. I'll make sure to eliminate the fraud as quickly as possible.
Q: Does the auditor have the legal authority to conduct performance audits?
Baum - I don't know if they have the legal authority, but they should.
Thomas - Politics has no place in the auditor's office and a lot of people have come to see performance audits as political audits. They need to benefit the state, not to be used for political purposes.
Bunker - I'd be an independent focused on performance audits. The auditor does not have enough authority. Performance audits are essential.
Montee - I believe the statutory authority exists. If we had a referendum, the taxpayers would come down on the side of performance audits. Much of the performance audits are triggered by press reports and they are an essential part of what we do.
Q: How would you restore professionalism to the office?
Thomas - This current auditor's office is playing politics. This auditor focuses on political gain. I will go into the Governor's office the same way I will go into other offices.
Montee - I don't think independence is a matter of party. This administration is playing a lot of politics. I believe the auditor's office is professional now.
Baum - Both political groups are so big and large it's almost impossible for them to be independent and objective.
Bunker - (Answer not recorded)
Q: Would you accuse any of your opponents as being incompetent?
Montee -Let's look at the facts. In Platte County, we've had an independent auditor attribute the problems to the county auditor. In my case in Buchanan County, the prosecutor and judge even said I had nothing to do with the problem.
Baum -I'd never consider any of my opponents to be incompetent.
Thomas - I believe competency is an issue in the race. In Platte county, there was a discrepancy found, but there was no missing money. As the auditor I did a good job in finding the problem. In Buchanan County, they use a different cash basis method that could lower their bond rating. This does speak to competency.
Bunker - I have no reason to believe anyone is not competent. I have no reason to believe any of my opponents would not be capable of the job.
Q: What's the most egregious use of taxpayer money that you have seen?
Baum - I can't single one out.
Thomas - A lot I've seen outrages me. I'd say the Springfield Municipal Court scandal would be one of the biggest. $1 million dollars just walked out of the building. The current state auditor had not been there since 2000. I'm concerned about the municipal system because they have a lot of cash there, and it can walk out the door.
Bunker - I'd like to look into electronic voting machines the state is buying. I don't think there has been enough cost-benefit analysis involved. We need to have a paper trail.
Montee - There's a laundry list of outrages. When the state cut Medicaid, we lost federal dollars. When we transferred fee offices to a no-bid system. The MOHELA sale. Regardless if it goes through, you will see an audit out of my office on MOHELA.
Q: If elected, would you pledge not to run for another office while you are serving as state auditor?
Thomas - If I'm in office, I will not run for another state office while I am auditor.
Bunker - I have no intention of seeking another office. I will serve the full length of my term.
Montee - I'm not a career politician. I plan to run again in four years. (She didn't rule out running for another office.)
Baum - (No answer recorded)
Q: How would you better use Missouri's Sunshine Law?
Montee - Most counties are not complying with the Sunshine Law. Most don't even understand it. They don't understand what is required so we need to better educate counties.
Baum - I've already decided when I'm elected, I'll have Susan (Montee) as my assistant.
Thomas -The counties don't understand the Sunshine Law and the auditor can help.
Bunker - I'll make sure the Sunshine Law has been adhered to.
Q: If elected, what is the first thing you would do?
Baum - Celebrate, I guess. I don't know the ins-and-outs of the office yet.
Thomas - I'd set a four year audit plan, make sure we are complying with all statues, look at risk of fraud and abuse and then pick and choose where to spend our time and resources. I'd focus on Medicaid, Education, Conservation and MoDot.
Bunker - I'd ask the staff to tell me what I need to know and focus on what they feel I need to do.
Montee - There are some issues with staffing of the Auditor's office. There are lots of diversity issues within the office. I'd try to hire more minorities on staff, and work to make sure the staff looks more like the state. I'd want to look for more CPAs. That's an area where we are struggling. I'd want to attract more people to the profession and work on retention.
Closing Statements:
Baum - This is the first office I've ever run for. I used to be a Democrat because they are supposed to be for the working man, but found out they were just out to get their votes. Then I looked at the Republican party, but they are not for smaller government at all. Government continues to grow in power and size and power corrupts. We need change, so vote for a Libertarian. If you vote Republican or Democrat, you get the same thing. They both eat out of the same trough. Don't throw away your vote, vote Libertarian.
Montee - This race is more about the party, it is about the person. It doesn't matter what party you are. What matters is working toward a specific goal. It's important that the auditor be an attorney because of the new funding formula for schools still in litigation. Challenges to fiscal notes require the experience of both a CPA and an attorney. What we have to do is make more with less. Keeping our books on a cash basis in Buchanan County is the best way to communicate with citizens.
Bunker - I will serve the full time as auditor. I'm not using this as a stepping stone. I'm not a career politician. I will not accept PAC money. I will eliminate wrong doing and waste immediately.
Thomas - This is a very important election. We can elect someone who will carry on with the politics as usual, or someone who will change things. I'll look into areas that have not have audits in recent past. I will aggressively seek out waste, fraud and abuse. I have a 12-year award winning record as an Auditor in Platte County. I disagree we need to have an attorney. We need someone who won't play politics.
Post-Interview with Thomas (I couldn't find where Montee went after the debate)
Thomas: I'm not surprised my opponent would bring up the $195,000 in Platte County. It's clearly not an issue. There is not any point in trying to point fingers. When you look at Montee's website, on every issue she bring up Claire McCaskill, issues that McCaskill has had in the past. She wants to continue with the current course. I want to change direction. I will not treat anyone different.
When asked about her reaction to the recent photo I.D. court ruling, Thomas replied, "I had not heard about it." She said she is not concerned about the impact.
Fmr. Sen. Jean Carnahan on Campaign 2006; Won't Renounce Iraq War Vote
Former Sen. Jean Carnahan was in Springfield this past week for the first time in six months to rally Greene County Democrats.
We spoke with the woman who lost to Sen. Talent in 2002 about the minimum wage, her vote for the Iraq war and whether she thinks some male voters still have problem voting for a woman.
Below are excerpts:
Catanese - What's it like debating Senator Talent? What are his strengths and weaknesses?
Carnahan- Certainly being in the Senate you have an advantage because you know what is going on.
Catanese - Is he a good debater?
Carnahan - I don't know if I'm a good one to judge the debate. The only debate I ever engaged in, in my life were the ones I engaged in in the Senate, but I don't know how I'd rank that.
Catanese - Do you fear that Republicans will once again successfully use moral and values issues against Democratic candidates this year?
Carnahan - Minimum wage is a moral issue. Any time you have a group of people who haven't had a raise in 9 to 10 years and you have the members of Congress who've gotten their raise every year for 9 years, you have CEOs of big oil companies who are getting double the salary they did, making millions of dollars, it is immoral that we do not have a raise in the minimum wage. And we're going to get that in November. I hope people go out and vote for it because it's a moral issue.
Catanese - Why should government have anything to do with setting wages?
Carnahan - Well, at times you have to set limits, a limit under which you will not go. And certainly we don't want people just to pay people, just to pay wages of people that are just immoral to work for. So you have to set a minimum wage that people are willing to work for.
Catanese - If you set a minimum wage, why not use the same philosophy and set a maximum wage? Say, hey, you can only make x-amount a year.
Carnahan - Well, I don't think we have that. We let people make the kind of money they are capable of making, but you shouldn't be able to hire people simply because they are at your mercy.
Catanese - Do you now believe your vote authorizing the war in Iraq was a mistake?
Carnahan - At the time, we were dealing with the best information we had. I voted for the war in Iraq. I was given certain information that made me believe that was the thing to do at the time. I think those who voted for it used that information, believing it was correct information. Now we know it was not. That's why I feel we were led into war under false pretenses. And perhaps there were other ways we could've handled it, but at the time, those of us in the Senate that made that vote, did so based on the information we had.
Catanese - So you wouldn't vote for the war, knowing what you know now?
Carnahan - Well, anytime you make a vote, you do it based on information you had, you make the best judgment you can at the time. You have to evaluate each of these decisions as they come up at the time and make the best decision you can.
Catanese - What's the Democratic party's position on Iraq right now?
Carnahan - Well, I think there's probably some split in the party. I think there's some split across the country. The Iraq war has divided our country and what we need now is real leadership. We need to send people to go after the terrorists, figure out the best way to do that, and realize perhaps the way we're doing it now may not be the best way.
Catanese - Do you think Claire McCaskill has been clear and Democrats have been clear about their position on Iraq, or do they need to me more clear in order for voters to trust them?
Carnahan - Of course, we all need to be clear in what we say. She needs to be clear. He needs to be clear. Everybody running for office needs to be. Keep in mind, Senator Talent voted 94% of the time with the President. We don't need a rubber stamp there.
Catanese - Has she (McCaskill) sought any advice from you?
Carnahan - Not really. I think she's running her campaign very well herself.
Catanese - You think it will be a close race?
Carnahan - Of course, it's Missouri. But I think Claire has the higher moral ground on things like the minimum wage and stem cells.
Catanese - Do you think there's an issue of her (McCaskill) running as a woman?
Carnahan - Of course not, no.
Catanese - Even in this part of the state, a woman Democrat?
Carnahan - No, no.
Catanese - Some people won't hold that against her?
Carnahan - No, that's an issue of the past.
Catanese - You don't think any good old boys out in the Ozarks may have a problem?
Carnahan - I don't feel they do. I really don't. I think that's a false issue.
Catanese - But the polls reveal a strong gender gap.
Carnahan - I think we've really gotten beyond that in most places. Of course some people feel that way. But I think we've moved beyond that.
Catanese - What do you think about the voter I.D. court ruling?
Carnahan - Well, you know it was going to be a voter suppression law, something to prevent the elderly, disabled, minorities from voting because they had to go through a number of hijinks just to get an I.D. And so now this means people will be able to vote. They'll be fully enfranchised, they'll be able to vote regardless if they are registered voters, they'll be able to vote.
Catanese - Do you think it will help Democratic turnout?
Carnahan - Well, potentially, but I don't know if I agree totally with that.
We spoke with the woman who lost to Sen. Talent in 2002 about the minimum wage, her vote for the Iraq war and whether she thinks some male voters still have problem voting for a woman.
Below are excerpts:
Catanese - What's it like debating Senator Talent? What are his strengths and weaknesses?
Carnahan- Certainly being in the Senate you have an advantage because you know what is going on.
Catanese - Is he a good debater?
Carnahan - I don't know if I'm a good one to judge the debate. The only debate I ever engaged in, in my life were the ones I engaged in in the Senate, but I don't know how I'd rank that.
Catanese - Do you fear that Republicans will once again successfully use moral and values issues against Democratic candidates this year?
Carnahan - Minimum wage is a moral issue. Any time you have a group of people who haven't had a raise in 9 to 10 years and you have the members of Congress who've gotten their raise every year for 9 years, you have CEOs of big oil companies who are getting double the salary they did, making millions of dollars, it is immoral that we do not have a raise in the minimum wage. And we're going to get that in November. I hope people go out and vote for it because it's a moral issue.
Catanese - Why should government have anything to do with setting wages?
Carnahan - Well, at times you have to set limits, a limit under which you will not go. And certainly we don't want people just to pay people, just to pay wages of people that are just immoral to work for. So you have to set a minimum wage that people are willing to work for.
Catanese - If you set a minimum wage, why not use the same philosophy and set a maximum wage? Say, hey, you can only make x-amount a year.
Carnahan - Well, I don't think we have that. We let people make the kind of money they are capable of making, but you shouldn't be able to hire people simply because they are at your mercy.
Catanese - Do you now believe your vote authorizing the war in Iraq was a mistake?
Carnahan - At the time, we were dealing with the best information we had. I voted for the war in Iraq. I was given certain information that made me believe that was the thing to do at the time. I think those who voted for it used that information, believing it was correct information. Now we know it was not. That's why I feel we were led into war under false pretenses. And perhaps there were other ways we could've handled it, but at the time, those of us in the Senate that made that vote, did so based on the information we had.
Catanese - So you wouldn't vote for the war, knowing what you know now?
Carnahan - Well, anytime you make a vote, you do it based on information you had, you make the best judgment you can at the time. You have to evaluate each of these decisions as they come up at the time and make the best decision you can.
Catanese - What's the Democratic party's position on Iraq right now?
Carnahan - Well, I think there's probably some split in the party. I think there's some split across the country. The Iraq war has divided our country and what we need now is real leadership. We need to send people to go after the terrorists, figure out the best way to do that, and realize perhaps the way we're doing it now may not be the best way.
Catanese - Do you think Claire McCaskill has been clear and Democrats have been clear about their position on Iraq, or do they need to me more clear in order for voters to trust them?
Carnahan - Of course, we all need to be clear in what we say. She needs to be clear. He needs to be clear. Everybody running for office needs to be. Keep in mind, Senator Talent voted 94% of the time with the President. We don't need a rubber stamp there.
Catanese - Has she (McCaskill) sought any advice from you?
Carnahan - Not really. I think she's running her campaign very well herself.
Catanese - You think it will be a close race?
Carnahan - Of course, it's Missouri. But I think Claire has the higher moral ground on things like the minimum wage and stem cells.
Catanese - Do you think there's an issue of her (McCaskill) running as a woman?
Carnahan - Of course not, no.
Catanese - Even in this part of the state, a woman Democrat?
Carnahan - No, no.
Catanese - Some people won't hold that against her?
Carnahan - No, that's an issue of the past.
Catanese - You don't think any good old boys out in the Ozarks may have a problem?
Carnahan - I don't feel they do. I really don't. I think that's a false issue.
Catanese - But the polls reveal a strong gender gap.
Carnahan - I think we've really gotten beyond that in most places. Of course some people feel that way. But I think we've moved beyond that.
Catanese - What do you think about the voter I.D. court ruling?
Carnahan - Well, you know it was going to be a voter suppression law, something to prevent the elderly, disabled, minorities from voting because they had to go through a number of hijinks just to get an I.D. And so now this means people will be able to vote. They'll be fully enfranchised, they'll be able to vote regardless if they are registered voters, they'll be able to vote.
Catanese - Do you think it will help Democratic turnout?
Carnahan - Well, potentially, but I don't know if I agree totally with that.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
One-on-One with Talent on Terror Tactics
One day after the first U.S. Senate debate, Sen. Jim Talent was back in the Ozarks Saturday with a campaign swing through Springfield and Joplin.
We got to talk with him about a brewing national issue dividing the Republican party.
What rights do captured terrorists have and how should we conduct our interrogations of the enemy?
Here's the Washington Post's take on the issue.
Here's my conversation with Sen. Talent Saturday afternoon:
Catanese - Who do you side with in this debate over interrogation techniques, President Bush or Senator John McCain and Lindsey Graham?
Talent - No, I voted against their (the Senators) bill. I'm going to always err on the side of protecting the American people. In any reasonable close call, I'm going to err on the side of giving interrogators the authority to use the tactics that will get the intelligence that we need. One of my concerns about the bill is I believe it limits them more than is necessary. We have a situation now where a lot of the CIA's foreign interrogators have been more or less shut down because they're concerned about being sued. Some of the agents are buying liability insurance.
Catanese - What are those tactics? Shouldn't the American people have a right to know what we're allowed to do?
Talent - Yeah, and I've suggested in the committee that we give them a list of things they can do. But basically anything short of what we would think of as torture or inhumane treatment, which is basically the infliction of severe physical pain.
Catanese - What about water-boarding?
Talent - Something that inflicts pain over time, severe physical stress or that sort of thing, that's tactics that are not within our traditions to use. But what we're talking about are things like, and I had this in the committee, varying when they get meals, playing loud music to them, the old third-degree shining a light into their face. You know, these are people who cut our heads off. I mean, my concern is the freedom of and security of the American people, not in particular the terrorists.
Catanese - What about stripping them down, shaving their beards? People have said that's offensive to Muslims. Is that acceptable?
Talent - I'm willing to authorize the interrogator to use tactics that some people would consider offensive. Yeah, I'm offended by the idea the American people are threatened.
Catanese - With what happened at Haditha and Abu Grab, do you think we're losing the moral high ground in the world?
Talent - To the terrorists?
Catanese - No, no, no.
Talent - I don't think we're losing the moral high ground to the terrorists, Dave.
Catanese - Not to the terrorists, but to other countries in the world that are supposed to our allies?
Talent - I think this. I think the key issue, the key necessary quality for people in free societies is moral clarity and the ability to make certain basic distinctions, like between the terrorists and free people who live in a democracy. Churchill said one time, "I decline to be neutral between the fire brigade and the fire." And you know whatever our differences between the Europeans, whatever people's disputes with George Bush, I mean we are talking about a transnational army of really evil people who are out to destroy us.
Catanese - So you don't think they have Geneva Convention rights?
Talent - Well, the Supreme Court said they have common Article 3 Geneva Convention rights, but I think we have the right to define what that means to give the leeway that our interrogators need to get the intelligence.
We got to talk with him about a brewing national issue dividing the Republican party.
What rights do captured terrorists have and how should we conduct our interrogations of the enemy?
Here's the Washington Post's take on the issue.
Here's my conversation with Sen. Talent Saturday afternoon:
Catanese - Who do you side with in this debate over interrogation techniques, President Bush or Senator John McCain and Lindsey Graham?
Talent - No, I voted against their (the Senators) bill. I'm going to always err on the side of protecting the American people. In any reasonable close call, I'm going to err on the side of giving interrogators the authority to use the tactics that will get the intelligence that we need. One of my concerns about the bill is I believe it limits them more than is necessary. We have a situation now where a lot of the CIA's foreign interrogators have been more or less shut down because they're concerned about being sued. Some of the agents are buying liability insurance.
Catanese - What are those tactics? Shouldn't the American people have a right to know what we're allowed to do?
Talent - Yeah, and I've suggested in the committee that we give them a list of things they can do. But basically anything short of what we would think of as torture or inhumane treatment, which is basically the infliction of severe physical pain.
Catanese - What about water-boarding?
Talent - Something that inflicts pain over time, severe physical stress or that sort of thing, that's tactics that are not within our traditions to use. But what we're talking about are things like, and I had this in the committee, varying when they get meals, playing loud music to them, the old third-degree shining a light into their face. You know, these are people who cut our heads off. I mean, my concern is the freedom of and security of the American people, not in particular the terrorists.
Catanese - What about stripping them down, shaving their beards? People have said that's offensive to Muslims. Is that acceptable?
Talent - I'm willing to authorize the interrogator to use tactics that some people would consider offensive. Yeah, I'm offended by the idea the American people are threatened.
Catanese - With what happened at Haditha and Abu Grab, do you think we're losing the moral high ground in the world?
Talent - To the terrorists?
Catanese - No, no, no.
Talent - I don't think we're losing the moral high ground to the terrorists, Dave.
Catanese - Not to the terrorists, but to other countries in the world that are supposed to our allies?
Talent - I think this. I think the key issue, the key necessary quality for people in free societies is moral clarity and the ability to make certain basic distinctions, like between the terrorists and free people who live in a democracy. Churchill said one time, "I decline to be neutral between the fire brigade and the fire." And you know whatever our differences between the Europeans, whatever people's disputes with George Bush, I mean we are talking about a transnational army of really evil people who are out to destroy us.
Catanese - So you don't think they have Geneva Convention rights?
Talent - Well, the Supreme Court said they have common Article 3 Geneva Convention rights, but I think we have the right to define what that means to give the leeway that our interrogators need to get the intelligence.
Senate Debate Roundup: ARE WE SAFER?
Are we safer now than we were five years ago as a result of the Bush's administration's policies?
It's a monumental question that history will ultimately judge. But campaigns can't wait for history.
Claire McCaskill pointed to the 9-11 commission recommendations, and noted how many have yet to be implemented. "Sen. Talent said it was because of budget restraints and bureaucratic resistance," McCaskill said, as she moved back to her "priorities" argument.
"Is it more important to give multi-millionaires $25 million dollars in tax breaks or is it more important to spend $800 million dollars on making sure that cargo coming into our country that is likely to come through the Midwest, doesn't have dirty bombs inside of it?," she continued.
"I think it is more important to inspect the cargo. That's a matter of priorities."
Senator Talent answered directly. "Of course we're safer. The government has mobilized in the last 5 years," Missouri's junior Senator said. How so? The Senator, as he did during much of this debate, presented a list.
*Government has implemented 37 of 39 recommendations from the 9-11 commission
*Congress has 70 statutes regarding homeland security
*$13 billion dollars has been implemented to first responders
*U.S. forces have caught or killed 2/3 of Al Qaeda's top operatives
*Broken up at least 15 terror plots, that we knew about
"That's why we haven't been attacked successfully in the last five years," Talent said.
He then talked tough on terror and Iraq, weaving the two issues together.
"We have to find out what terrorists are talking about, we can't release classified information to publish and can't leave Iraq without the mission done, that's quitting. That sends a message to terrorists that we won't see this through, and make the war longer and harder to win," Talent said forcefully.
It's a monumental question that history will ultimately judge. But campaigns can't wait for history.
Claire McCaskill pointed to the 9-11 commission recommendations, and noted how many have yet to be implemented. "Sen. Talent said it was because of budget restraints and bureaucratic resistance," McCaskill said, as she moved back to her "priorities" argument.
"Is it more important to give multi-millionaires $25 million dollars in tax breaks or is it more important to spend $800 million dollars on making sure that cargo coming into our country that is likely to come through the Midwest, doesn't have dirty bombs inside of it?," she continued.
"I think it is more important to inspect the cargo. That's a matter of priorities."
Senator Talent answered directly. "Of course we're safer. The government has mobilized in the last 5 years," Missouri's junior Senator said. How so? The Senator, as he did during much of this debate, presented a list.
*Government has implemented 37 of 39 recommendations from the 9-11 commission
*Congress has 70 statutes regarding homeland security
*$13 billion dollars has been implemented to first responders
*U.S. forces have caught or killed 2/3 of Al Qaeda's top operatives
*Broken up at least 15 terror plots, that we knew about
"That's why we haven't been attacked successfully in the last five years," Talent said.
He then talked tough on terror and Iraq, weaving the two issues together.
"We have to find out what terrorists are talking about, we can't release classified information to publish and can't leave Iraq without the mission done, that's quitting. That sends a message to terrorists that we won't see this through, and make the war longer and harder to win," Talent said forcefully.
Senate Debate Roundup: GOV'T SECRETS/TERROR TECHNIQUES
Missouri's "other" Senator, Kit Bond introduced legislation on August 2nd that would criminalize the disclosure of classified information.
This is what Bond said back in January after the New York Times revealed the potentially illegal use of wiretaps on Americans by the White House:
"Our intelligence personnel were very, very disturbed and disappointed by media revelations of hitherto classified information," Bond said. "Several people said the recent revelations have blown the cover on some very significant sources who are now targeted for assassination."
So the question was posed to the U.S. Senate candidates friday: Do you support Sen. Bond's legislation?
McCaskill said it is important to hold government employees accountable if they leak classified information, but she said "we must be very, very careful." She said the freedom of this nation has a whole lot to do with a free press.
"We need to make sure to never get close to the line of criminalizing the behavior of journalists who are reporting on what they have learned. And that's the fear I have in the frenzy surrounding this legislation," McCaskill said.
Senator Talent announced his support for a bunch of different tactics the Bush administration is using, including:
*capturing and interrogating foreign terrorists
*monitoring international phone calls involving terrorists, regardless if a judge approves
*trying terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
McCaskill never explicitly said it, but seemed leery about Bond's legislation. Talent, on the other hand, talked tough, but never staked out a specific position on Bond's legislation.
Talent did say, "We need to be concerned first about the freedom and security of our own people rather than engaging in technicalities regarding the terrorists."
When it comes to interrogating terrorists, Talent said the United States needs to define the permissible tactics better. In an interview after the debate, Talent said he doesn't support anything involving "severe physical abuse," but said he does approve of tactics like "loud music or getting in the person's face."
Also after the debate, McCaskill said she favored "very tough interrogation techniques," but also the rules that follow the Geneva Conventions.
This is what Bond said back in January after the New York Times revealed the potentially illegal use of wiretaps on Americans by the White House:
"Our intelligence personnel were very, very disturbed and disappointed by media revelations of hitherto classified information," Bond said. "Several people said the recent revelations have blown the cover on some very significant sources who are now targeted for assassination."
So the question was posed to the U.S. Senate candidates friday: Do you support Sen. Bond's legislation?
McCaskill said it is important to hold government employees accountable if they leak classified information, but she said "we must be very, very careful." She said the freedom of this nation has a whole lot to do with a free press.
"We need to make sure to never get close to the line of criminalizing the behavior of journalists who are reporting on what they have learned. And that's the fear I have in the frenzy surrounding this legislation," McCaskill said.
Senator Talent announced his support for a bunch of different tactics the Bush administration is using, including:
*capturing and interrogating foreign terrorists
*monitoring international phone calls involving terrorists, regardless if a judge approves
*trying terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
McCaskill never explicitly said it, but seemed leery about Bond's legislation. Talent, on the other hand, talked tough, but never staked out a specific position on Bond's legislation.
Talent did say, "We need to be concerned first about the freedom and security of our own people rather than engaging in technicalities regarding the terrorists."
When it comes to interrogating terrorists, Talent said the United States needs to define the permissible tactics better. In an interview after the debate, Talent said he doesn't support anything involving "severe physical abuse," but said he does approve of tactics like "loud music or getting in the person's face."
Also after the debate, McCaskill said she favored "very tough interrogation techniques," but also the rules that follow the Geneva Conventions.
Senate Debate Roundup: VETERANS
The debate between Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill on veterans issues, focused on healthcare benefits and the Senator's payday loan legislation currently pending in Congress.
"Sen. Talent will say the budget has increased for veterans affairs," McCaskill said. "The bottom line is that benefits have been cut, promises have been broken."
Talent replied that the VA health budget has increased $20 billion dollars over the last 4 years.
McCaskill went on to point out that 23 different times, Sen. Talent has cast votes, which have caused healthcare premium increases for veterans.
She is currently running an ad that features a veteran who says, "We joined up thinking we were promised these rights, these benefits, and they broke that promise." You can watch the ad by clicking here.
"I don't believe our promises are being kept to veterans," McCaskill said in the debate.
She said it is all about priorities. "Which is more important, tax breaks for multi-millionaires or taking care of our veterans,?" McCaskill asked. "In my estimation, it's taking care of veterans."
Sen. Talent used the opportunity to showcase his payday lending bill that is moving through Congress right now. Talent is moving legislation that would limit interest rates charged to soldiers and their spouses for a loan. Credit counselors have said they've seen some payday lenders charge rates between 500 and 800 percent. Talent wants to limit the rate to 36%.
"I think we're going to get that bill but no thanks to my Democratic opponent, who opposed it," Talent said. "I just couldn't believe it when that happened."
McCaskill said, "I was not opposed to the payday bill, I was not opposed to the military payday bill."
"I said if it's good enough for military, why isn't it good for all of us. Why don't we do it across the board? Why don't we limit interest rates on payday lending to everyone in America instead of just military? I think it is great that Sen. Talent did it for the military. I think we should do it for everyone in America," McCaskill said.
But in a KY3 News story I did back in July, the McCaskill campaign told me she was opposed to Sen. Talent plan to stop predatory lenders who prey on our servicemen and women with high interest payday loans.
In fact, I still have my notes from my conversation with McCaskill spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh from July 22nd, when she told me, "She (McCaskill) does not support this bill."
The script from my story on July 22nd reads, "Claire McCaskill says she opposes Talent's plan because the 36 percent rate is still too high."
In his closing statement, Talent predicted victory on the bill. "We're going to get the predatory lending bill done. I think we'll get it next week," he said.
"Sen. Talent will say the budget has increased for veterans affairs," McCaskill said. "The bottom line is that benefits have been cut, promises have been broken."
Talent replied that the VA health budget has increased $20 billion dollars over the last 4 years.
McCaskill went on to point out that 23 different times, Sen. Talent has cast votes, which have caused healthcare premium increases for veterans.
She is currently running an ad that features a veteran who says, "We joined up thinking we were promised these rights, these benefits, and they broke that promise." You can watch the ad by clicking here.
"I don't believe our promises are being kept to veterans," McCaskill said in the debate.
She said it is all about priorities. "Which is more important, tax breaks for multi-millionaires or taking care of our veterans,?" McCaskill asked. "In my estimation, it's taking care of veterans."
Sen. Talent used the opportunity to showcase his payday lending bill that is moving through Congress right now. Talent is moving legislation that would limit interest rates charged to soldiers and their spouses for a loan. Credit counselors have said they've seen some payday lenders charge rates between 500 and 800 percent. Talent wants to limit the rate to 36%.
"I think we're going to get that bill but no thanks to my Democratic opponent, who opposed it," Talent said. "I just couldn't believe it when that happened."
McCaskill said, "I was not opposed to the payday bill, I was not opposed to the military payday bill."
"I said if it's good enough for military, why isn't it good for all of us. Why don't we do it across the board? Why don't we limit interest rates on payday lending to everyone in America instead of just military? I think it is great that Sen. Talent did it for the military. I think we should do it for everyone in America," McCaskill said.
But in a KY3 News story I did back in July, the McCaskill campaign told me she was opposed to Sen. Talent plan to stop predatory lenders who prey on our servicemen and women with high interest payday loans.
In fact, I still have my notes from my conversation with McCaskill spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh from July 22nd, when she told me, "She (McCaskill) does not support this bill."
The script from my story on July 22nd reads, "Claire McCaskill says she opposes Talent's plan because the 36 percent rate is still too high."
In his closing statement, Talent predicted victory on the bill. "We're going to get the predatory lending bill done. I think we'll get it next week," he said.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Senate Debate Roundup: SOCIAL SECURITY
With Iraq, immigration and energy issues continuing to drive this race, we haven't really heard much about social security or proposals to reform it. But a question at Friday's debate forced the two top U.S. Senate candidates to address a looming fiscal issue the country will be forced to deal with eventually.
Claire McCaskill said she is against the privatization of social security; Sen. Jim Talent seconded that motion. But how they said it was very different.
"Sometimes the best idea is stopping a bad idea," McCaskill said. "Privatizing social security is a bad idea."
"We need to protect it and we need to protect current retirees to make the system work for future retirees and that means we can't do nothing," replied Talent. "I'm strongly opposed to privatization. The people for privatization are the people for doing nothing. If we don't do anything the funds are going to run out and what are people going to be left with, their private savings. That's privatization."
McCaskill said Sen. Talent cosponsored legislation to privatize social security. "A trillion dollars to Wall Street is not the way we should fix the security of Americans as they reach retirement," McCaskill said.
So did you, fired back Talent.
"I've looked at personal accounts as an options, so has my Democratic opponent," Talent said. "She said she looked at that provided that minimum guarantees were met and other guarantees were met."
How to fix it?
McCaskill said the key is fiscal responsibility, doing things like conducting cost-benefit analysis reports on Congressional projects. "The idea that Republicans were going to balance the budget and show fiscal responsibility has become a work of fiction," McCaskill said.
Talent said the key was to use the money funneled into social security FOR social security, first to pay the current retirees and then to save some for the future.
Columnist Bob Novak has written that the President is planning to revive his social security reform proposal after the 2006 midterms, so maybe we should be asking the candidates more about it.
Claire McCaskill said she is against the privatization of social security; Sen. Jim Talent seconded that motion. But how they said it was very different.
"Sometimes the best idea is stopping a bad idea," McCaskill said. "Privatizing social security is a bad idea."
"We need to protect it and we need to protect current retirees to make the system work for future retirees and that means we can't do nothing," replied Talent. "I'm strongly opposed to privatization. The people for privatization are the people for doing nothing. If we don't do anything the funds are going to run out and what are people going to be left with, their private savings. That's privatization."
McCaskill said Sen. Talent cosponsored legislation to privatize social security. "A trillion dollars to Wall Street is not the way we should fix the security of Americans as they reach retirement," McCaskill said.
So did you, fired back Talent.
"I've looked at personal accounts as an options, so has my Democratic opponent," Talent said. "She said she looked at that provided that minimum guarantees were met and other guarantees were met."
How to fix it?
McCaskill said the key is fiscal responsibility, doing things like conducting cost-benefit analysis reports on Congressional projects. "The idea that Republicans were going to balance the budget and show fiscal responsibility has become a work of fiction," McCaskill said.
Talent said the key was to use the money funneled into social security FOR social security, first to pay the current retirees and then to save some for the future.
Columnist Bob Novak has written that the President is planning to revive his social security reform proposal after the 2006 midterms, so maybe we should be asking the candidates more about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)