Yesterday, the Missouri Republican Party attacked Sen. Claire McCaskill for not requesting or supporting a federal earmark that could be used to fight meth problems in Missouri.
As G.O.P. spokesman, Paul Sloca pointed out, Gov. Blunt delivered the anti-meth funding anyway. But Sloca still said: “Missourians certainly deserve an explanation from McCaskill about why she would deny law enforcement of this critical funding."
McCaskill has taken the stand of not requesting any earmarks. The G.O.P. now labels her as a political opportunist. Yesterday, I said I was confused.
Isn't opposing earmarks the conservative position? Maybe it's no longer the Republican position.
Today, Paul Sloca wrote me, questioning why I was confused: "Why are you confused … McCaskill’s self-interest is her political attempt to look like she’s some maverick reformer trying to take on Washington … but instead she is actually preventing money needed to fight methamphetamine out of the hands of law enforcement," Sloca wrote.
McCaskill may just be fighting money that could get to Missouri. But with our current national climate: (a country at war, big spending increases, a rising debt) . . . a conservative must ask him or herself whether McCaskill is right to oppose even a well-intended earmark.
And wouldn't the G.O.P. still be attacking her if she backed out on a campaign promise and proposed new spending anyway . . .?
I'd love to hear what conservatives and Republicans think about McCaskill's stand on "no earmarks." Is she right or wrong?
Food for thought . . .