McCaskill's crisp with facts in debate win over Akin
Yael T. AbouhalkahFirst things first:
Claire McCaskill came better prepared with facts about her voting record, opponent Todd Akin’s voting record, and just about everything else in Thursday night’s U.S. Senate debate.
So she “won” the debate.
She stayed on message, looked like a moderate on several matters (Keystone Pipeline, for example) and didn’t say anything that would make her look like she’s taking re-election for granted.
But here’s a point worth making:
The debate was cordial, civil, a bit boring and a bit wonkish.
Akin and McCaskill deserve great credit for making that possible.
So the debate was good for democracy. The candidates didn’t interrupt each other. They stuck to the time given them. They asked politely for time to respond.
As for the debate:
Fiscal cliff was McCaskill’s sweet spot: She said she was willing to look at lower taxes - but needs revenue, too. Stop the extremism is a good answer.
McCaskill had a devastating recitation of the stimulus spending Akin supported.
McCaskill said she would love to have a Supreme Court judge not from Harvard, Yale. Good Show-Me answer.
On Iran, Akin doesn’t answer directly what to do about it, McCaskill says correctly that sanctions are working.
Phil Bertels
7 months agoYeal
McCaskill and her husband are grifters that have ripped off the tax payers their entire time together. The star doesn’t care because she is a Liberal Democrat.
Ethics doesn’t matter to the star. Probably won’t even report on the latest evidence of how crooked she and her husband are! If this was a republican or conservative we would have a 3 page “investigative report”! How pathetic!
Johnathon Busby
7 months agoFacts, debate performance, qualification, or education will not be the criteria used to determine the outcome of the Akin race. He’s shown he has little grasp of facts, little ability to perform (in a debate or otherwise), and he’s not qualified or educated enough to hold a GED (based on his answers to simple biology questions).
It comes down to one very simple question; how many people in Mo are willing to sell their souls to spite anyone/anything who had anything to do with Obama. How many people in Mo resent Obama’s effort to insure the uninsured so very much they will deliberately elect a man like Akin, who treats rape victims with as much suspicion as their rapist. One party promised to do everything to make Obama a one term president, and they’ve been willing to harm everyone and everything around them to make it happen. Not just the president, but anyone who dared to (gasp) support their president.
Steven Fetter
66223
7 months agoIt is interesting that the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the press concerning the role of money buying a campaign is non existent in this race.
I haven’t heard campaign spending as an issue in the presidential race come up lately either. Possible because Obama, (the previous champion of public finance of campaigns) has raised and spent far more in this race. As he did in his previous run against McCain.
However, there has been much ink devoted to the role of money in the Kansas races.
What is the difference??
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agoair claire: porkulus=yes, 0’care=yes, deficit spending=yes, Supreme Court nominees=yes, MO values=NO
Pretty simple choice for the people of MO to make IMO…..
Steve Alleman
Kansas City
7 months ago“I haven’t heard campaign spending as an issue in the presidential race come up lately either.”
1) I hear campaign spending discussed as an issue all the time. Maybe inside the rightwing bubble they’re not discussing it, but in the real world it’s happening. You’re just missing it.