Friday, October 20, 2006

The Economist: Jim Talent, The Moderate

The Economist pens an article on the 3 states key to Republican survival this November . . .

Virginia. Tennessee. And Missouri.

The magazine calls Missouri, the bellwether. It calls the race a toss-up that will be determined by turnout. But it also goes on to say that Sen. Jim Talent and Auditor Claire McCaskill really don't have big differences, and that the junior senator is a (gulp!) moderate. (Psst . . . Don't tell the base.)

Below are parts of the piece:

"Its incumbent Republican senator, Jim Talent, is a soft-spoken moderate who works well with Democrats. His Democratic opponent, Claire McCaskill, is also a moderate, with a solid record as the state auditor. Their differences are hardly gaping, but they are exaggerating them to fire up their natural supporters," writes The Economist.

"At a televised “debate” in Springfield on October 16th, the two candidates did not debate each other so much as recite sound bites for entirely different audiences. Mr Talent attacked his opponent as weak on terrorism and possibly a tax-dodger. Ms McCaskill peddled the notion that Big Oil has conspired to reduce petrol prices just before the election to keep its Republican buddies in power. Their target audiences seem to like this sort of thing."

"Ms McCaskill's fans, for example, gathered at the local Teamsters hall where, crammed with crisps, cupcakes and Coke, they watched the debate on a big screen. When Mr Talent refused to say whether he would vote to raise the minimum wage, he was greeted with howls of derision. “I can barely live on the salary I make,” said Ronald Burke, who works in a nearby factory producing whirlpool baths for people richer than himself, “so I don't see how someone can live on $5.15 an hour.” "

"On screen, Mr Talent tried to explain why he opposes human cloning. “I don't want to live in a world where I'm walking down the street in one direction and I see myself coming in the other,” he said. A voice called out: “Me neither!” Everyone laughed at how ghastly it would be to have multiple Jim Talents infesting the planet."

"In the flesh, Mr Talent is amiable but an awkward speaker: on the stump after the debate he had to remind his audience to clap. But he can draw on a reservoir of support from rural and Christian voters, who typically deplore the Democrats' tolerance of abortion and gay marriage. “If we had a real Christian party, I'd go with that,” says Larry Atkins, a minister attending a Talent speech in Waynesville, a small town north-east of Springfield. But failing that, Mr Talent “is a good moral person.”"

2 comments:

Dionne said...

I would beg to differ that either one of these candidates is a moderate. Talent is one of the strongest conservatives we have in the senate on crucial issues. And Claire is about as liberal as you're going to get. She may talk a good game to try and convince people she's a moderate but her positions on most issues are extremely liberal. If she were to win there would be a huge voting difference in the senate.

The Libertarian Guy said...

Would Nancy Pelosi not be the lapdog of John Kerry, if he had won? Would Ted Kennedy not be a lapdog of a Democrat president? How many lapdogs did Clinton and Carter have?

I submit that, if Mrs. Bill Clinton won the big comfy presidential chair, she'd forget her stance of "a right to disagree with ANY administration" and demand nothing but "yes sir" answers from her minions. Bush would be an amateur in comparison, and even his expansion of government would seem tame compared to the Hildabeast's.

I can say stuff like this... I'm neither Rep nor Dem. It's the true definition of "bipartisan".