ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Claire McCaskill

Election

GOP Senate Candidate Defends Tea Party Activist Who Made ‘Kill’ Claire McCaskill Comment

Missouri Senate Candidate Sarah Steelman

Republican Senate candidate Sarah Steelman defended today a Tea Party activist’s call to “kill the Claire Bear” — a reference to Sen. Claire McCaskill (R-MO), whom Steelman is running against. Steelman has been under fire this week from Democrats for not denouncing the remark, which came at a Tea Party rally last week that Steelman attended.

“There was nothing violent about what he said…no one perceived it as a threat,” Steeleman told KZRG in Joplin. No one, that is, except for the FBI, which reportedly interviewed the activist who made the comment, Scott Boston, and the Capitol Police, which assigned McCaskill extra protection. Boston later said he did not intend the comment to be a threat.

Steelman, did say that the “kill” comment was a poor choice of words and “a bad joke,” but dismissed the controversy and defended Boston:

STEELMAN: Are we just we just going to abandon all common sense in this country and anytime anybody says anything, the government is just going to come down and send FBI agents to knock on your door? Are we going to have thought and speech police? [...]

This is part of the problem in Washington…and people jump on somebody like Scott Boston, an individual, and they can put the whole force of the federal government on this guy.

The liberal research organization American Bridge recorded the interview:

Steeleman was at the rally with her son, who applauded Boston’s comment. Steelman’s Republican primary opponent John Brunner issued a strong rebuke of Boston’s comment, saying, “This type of rhetoric is unconscionable and I reject this kind of politics.” “Comments like these have no place in this U.S. Senate campaign, or any other campaign in this country, because they don’t represent American values,” the Republican said.

Election

VIDEO: GOP Candidate’s Son Applauds ‘Kill’ Claire McCaskill Line

Sam Steelman

Yesterday, we noted that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is getting beefed up security after a Tea Party activist said “we have to kill the Claire Bear” last week at a Tea Party rally in which Sarah Steelman, McCaskill’s GOP challenger, was present.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the comment was met with “mild applause” from the audience, including, according to a video provided to ThinkProgress by the liberal research group American Bridge, Steelman’s son, Sam. Sam Steelman also serves as his mother’s “deputy [campaign] manager” and acts as a “campaign spokesman.”

In the tracking video, Sam, chatting with his mother, can be clearly seen applauding after activist Scott Boston says, “We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen.” Watch it:

The Missouri Democratic Party hit Steelman for not immediately denouncing Boston’s comments, and the video suggests she heard it. Later, Steelman told the Huffington Post, “I may disagree with the words Mr. Boston chose in his statement, but I understand his frustration and I emphatically support his right to express his views.”

Update

Fellow GOP Senate candidate John Brunner, who will face off against Steelman in the August Republican primary, strongly condemned Boston’s comments: “This type of rhetoric is unconscionable and I reject this kind of politics,” Brunner said in a statement. “Comments like these have no place in this U.S. Senate campaign, or any other campaign in this country, because they don’t represent American values.”

Election

Sen. Claire McCaskill Getting Beefed Up Security After Tea Party Activist Declares ‘We Have To Kill The Claire Bear’

Sen. Clarie McCaskill (D-MO)

Police are assigning extra security to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) after a Tea Party activist declared at a rally last week, “We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen.” The rally was hosted by the group Tea Party Express, which is endorsing McCaskill challenger Sarah Steelman (R), who was in attendance at the rally.

Scott Boston, a St. Louis Tea Party activist, said, “She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.” “We have to kill the Claire Bear,” he added.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that local police are performing more patrols around the senator’s house at the request of the Capitol Police, and that she now has extra security at public events.

Steelman has not made a public comment condemning Boston’s comments, despite being present at the event supporting her, and neither have McCaskill’s other GOP challengers, Rep. Tod Akin (R-MO) or John Brunner. Boston later said he did not intend the comment to be a threat.

In a statement provided to ThinkProgress, Missouri Democratic Party spokesperson Caitlin Legacki, said, “The kind of language in this threat is totally unacceptable and needs to be immediately renounced by Todd Akin, John Brunner and Sarah Steelman.”

“What makes America different from the rest of the world is that we settle our political disagreements without threats of violence. Akin, Brunner and Steelman need to make it crystal clear to their supporters that this kind of language will not be tolerated in any venue under any circumstances. If they refuse to do so, these three candidates are sending a clear message that they endorse the kind of inflammatory language that could lead to violence, or something worse,” Legacki said.

Update

Huffington Post gets a comment from McCaskill’s opponent, Sarah Steelman: “I may disagree with the words Mr. Boston chose in his statement, but I understand his frustration and I emphatically support his right to express his views”

NEWS FLASH

Republican Congressman Calls Female Senator A ‘Gal’ | Rep. Todd Akin (R) is one of three Republicans vying for the chance to run against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in the fall. At a GOP candidate forum yesterday, the congressman referred to the senator as “this gal,” a title that some might consider demeaning for a sitting U.S. senator. Missouri News Horizons reports:

“Everybody always says, ‘if you don’t elect me, we can’t beat the Democrats.’ I’m not as pessimistic as John [Brunner, another Republican candidate], I think any of the three of us could beat this gal,” Akin said.

Climate Progress

McCaskill Defends Vote To Hurt Sick Kids By Saying The League Of Women Voters Are ‘Bad Guys’

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), after a recent vote to protect coal polluters at the expense of children’s health, is now attacking the League of Women Voters. The 91-year-old good-government organization is running television spots that hold McCaskill and Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) accountable for voting to block enforcement of Clean Air Act rules that limit greenhouse pollution, threatening the hundreds of thousands of children with asthma in their states. Watch the McCaskill ad:

Brown attacked the League of Women Voters for partisan “demagoguery.” Now McCaskill is also on the attack, accusing the league of being “bad guys,” a “tacky” front group “hiding donors behind the cloak of their good name”:

McCaskill also took aim at the League of Women Voters, who she said is “fronting for somebody who ran the ad.” “At a minimum, I think the League of Women Voters should not hide behind Citizens United and should be transparent about who’s paying for the ad,” McCaskill said. “I think that’s really tacky for an organization who’s prided itself on transparency and good government, for them to become part of the bad guys who are hiding donors behind the cloak of their good name.”

“These are our ads,” League of Women Voters President Elisabeth MacNamara told Politico. “This is about the issue of public health and the public knows who is speaking. We’ve stood behind and fought for the Clean Air Act for 40 years. At issue is Sen. McCaskill’s vote, which has endangered the public health.”

Economy

Sens. Corker And McCaskill Release Lazy, Unrealistic Plan To Reduce Government Spending

Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Bob Corker (R-TN)

Today, Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Bob Corker (R-TN) released what they have breathtakingly billed as a plan “to force Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years.” “Cutting trillions of dollars from the federal budget in the coming years won’t be easy or painless; it will require backbone and discipline,” Corker said in a press release. “This is a bold step,” added McCaskill.

The plan, however, proves that McCaskill and Corker are nothing more than deficit peacocks: willing to score political points by assuring everyone how very serious they are about addressing the deficit, but not actually doing any of the work that serious budgeting requires.

All the Corker-McCaskill plan entails is a cap on overall government spending at 20.6 percent of GDP. But how will we get from the current 24 percent of GDP down below the cap? McCaskill and Corker don’t lay out any ideas! Perhaps that’s because actually adhering to the cap would require massive cuts in Social Security and Medicare or else draconian gutting of the rest of the budget, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted.

In fact, McCaskill and Corker’s cap would actually hold federal spending below the level at which it was under President Reagan, even though there are now tens of millions more seniors reliant on Social Security and Medicare than there were in the 1980′s. As CAP Senior Fellow Matt Miller wrote, “as a matter of math, if you run the government at a smaller level than did Ronald Reagan while accommodating this massive increase in the number of seniors on our health and pension programs, you have to decimate the rest of the budget.”

Even if Corker and McCaskill had some sort of plan in place for getting spending down to 20.6 percent, basing future budget needs on past historical averages is simply a lazy and silly way to budget, as CAP’s Michael Linden explained:

It’s simply wrong to try and budget for the future by looking backwards and trying to shoehorn future needs into whatever the past levels have been. Instead, we should be trying to determine broadly how much public investment will be required as we move deeper into the 21st century, and then how do we pay for those investments in the most efficient way possible…Certainly everyone agrees that times and circumstances have changed, and that the federal government should, presumably, change with them.

McCaskill clearly thinks highly of this proposal, saying today that “if this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my senate seat, but it’s a price I’m willing to pay. It’s a price I’m willing to pay for my country and, more importantly, it’s a price I’m willing to pay for my grandchildren.” But it isn’t nearly the solution that she claims it is.

Update

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ James Horney adds:

It is striking that when she unveiled the proposal, Senator McCaskill criticized as “ridiculous” the recent House Republican Study Committee plan to cut nondefense discretionary funding over ten years by about $2.5 trillion.

I fully agree that the RSC proposal — which would slash overall funding for the part of the budget that includes K-12 education, the FBI, cancer research, health care for wounded veterans, and many other programs by 42 percent below today’s level, adjusted just for inflation — makes no sense. But by the same standard, it is hard to conclude that the McCaskill-Corker proposal, which would mandate about $4.5 trillion in spending reductions over ten years in all programs — discretionary programs plus entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare — is any more responsible.

Climate Progress

Smoggy Senators Protest EPA Plan To Save Thousands Of Children’s Lives

In a startling act of fealty to polluter interests, several senators are fighting scientifically guided smog limits that would save thousands of lives a year. Under the guidance of administrator Lisa Jackson, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working to clean up one of George W. Bush’s most blatant acts of ignoring science and disregarding the law, when he personally overruled the unanimous recommendations of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee for an ozone limit no higher than 70 ppb, setting instead an arbitrary and capricious standard of 75 ppb. Jackson intends to instead follow the law by setting a 60-70 ppb standard. However, a group of Democratic and Republican senators led by retiring Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) are trying to preserve Bush’s toxic legacy on behalf of the coal and oil industries in their states, complaining to Jackson that her plan “will have a significant negative impact on our states’ workers and families”:

We believe that changing the rules at this time will have a significant negative impact on our states’ workers and families and will compound the hardship that many are now facing in these difficult economic times.

The pro-smog letter was also signed by Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Kit Bond (R-MO) and David Vitter (R-LA).

Remarkably, the senators do not seem cognizant of Bush’s well-reported act of malfeasance, complaining that “the Agency has not presented new data or evidence to justify its course of action”:

Instead, outside of the regular five-year review process, EPA is choosing to interpret the same basic body of information that existed in 2008 and reach a different conclusion. . .

Given the absence of new or different scientific data, EPA should maintain the current ozone standards, which EPA finalized only two years ago and concluded were adequately protective of public health and welfare with an adequate of safety [sic].

Actually the conclusion EPA staff and scientists drew in 2008, based on the scientific evidence that “ozone has a direct impact on rates of heart and respiratory disease and resulting premature deaths,” was that a standard no higher than 70 ppb was needed. The agency calculated that a standard of 65 ppb “would avoid 3,000 to 9,200 deaths annually,” two to three times more than a 75 ppb standard. The difference is that George W. Bush is no longer the decider.

The senators also claim that the previous smog standards harmed the economy:

We note that many states are only recently coming into attainment with the 1997, 0.084 ppm ozone standard. Attaining that standard required costly mandates on businesses, which greatly restricted the ability of local communities to grow their economies. . .

While we believe we can and should continue to improve our environment, we have become increasingly concerned that the Agency’s environmental policies are being advanced to the detriment of the people they are intended to protect. That is, these policies are impacting our standard of living by drastically increasing energy costs and decreasing the ability of our states to create jobs, foster entrepreneurship, and give manufacturers the ability to compete in the global marketplace.

The claim that attainment with the 1997 standard “greatly restricted the ability of local communities to grow their economies” is without evidence. In fact, the only noticeable effect of the 1997 standards on the economy was to dramatically cut the regulated pollution, making millions of children healthier, even as the economy steadily grew, as this EPA chart shows:

GDP vs emissions

Finally, the senators claim — again without evidence — that “non-attainment” penalties under the Clean Air Act “undermine the economic viability of communities within our states.” In fact, “there is no clear evidence that non-attainment designations or progress in addressing air quality prevent areas from growing,” EPA officials informed the Wonk Room. Areas such as Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and many others have been non-attainment for years and have had very strong growth rates. The EPA tells the Wonk Room:

We see no significant differences in the trend of employment, wages and number of establishments between attainment and non-attainment areas.

There is clear evidence, however, that this effort to ensure that more children have asthma attacks comes on behalf of coal and oil corporations in the senators’ states. Peabody Energy, the “world’s leading coal company,” is based in Missouri and has mines in Indiana, and is a top campaign contributor to McCaskill, Bond, Lugar and Bayh. Murray Energy, the “largest privately owned coal company in America,” is based in Voinovich‘s state. Landrieu and Vitter have collected a combined $1.5 million from the pollution industry, whose refineries and power plants keep killing children and keep sending these senators back to Washington.

Politics

Republicans Block Senate Committee Hearings, Including On National Security Matters, For Second Day In A Row

ThinkProgress yesterday reported that all of Tuesday’s Senate committee and subcommittee hearings had to stop after 2:00 p.m. because of Republican objections. There is a little-noticed Senate rule that says committees need permission to meet anytime after two hours after the Senate convenes. Without permission, even a committee already in session has to stop meeting. No committee meetings are allowed to occur after 2:00 p.m.

The Senate generally waives this rule by unanimous consent at the start of business each day. But to protest health care legislation, Republicans have refused to give their consent this week, bringing committee work in the Senate to a virtual standstill. Today, the Senate convened at 9:00 a.m., meaning that hearings after 11:00 a.m. were blocked. One hearing canceled today was a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee session on “Contracts for Afghan National Police Training.” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), chair of the subcommittee, went on the Senate floor and called out the GOP tactics:

McCASKILL: Mr. President, I’m just confused about why the hearing that we had scheduled this afternoon cannot go forward. The subject matter of this hearing is oversight of the contract that is engaged in police training in Afghanistan in the Contracting Oversight subcommittee. This is a hearing that is getting to the heart of the matter that we have a real problem with the mission part in Afghanistan on police training because of problems with these contracts, problems with oversight of the State Department.

We have now canceled the hearing because we can’t have it. The witness from the State Department has been canceled. The witness from the Defense Department has been canceled. The inspectors general that were coming to testify about a GAO report that just came out last week — that was damning in its criticism of the oversight of these contracts. … I don’t get it.

Also on the Senate floor, Carl Levin (D-MI) asked permission for the already-scheduled Senated Armed Services Committee to go forward — a request supported by ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Levin pointed out that a couple of the commanders had traveled long distances to attend today’s hearing, from as far away as Japan. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), speaking on behalf of Republicans, objected and blocked the request:

BURR: As a member of the committee — and I side myself with the chair and the ranking member — that I have no personal objection to continuing. There is objection on our side of the aisle. Therefore, I would have to object.

Watch the clips:

The Senate Judiciary Committee also had to cancel its hearing considering President Obama’s judicial nominations, which included Goodwin Liu for the Ninth Circuit. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) put out a statement today blasting Republicans for their petty partisanship:

Senate Republicans’ tactics of obstruction and delay know no limit. They have objected to reasonable timetables to consider President Obama’s qualified judicial nominees, and now they are objecting to allowing the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings in connection with these nominations. Senate Republicans continue their ill-advised protest of meaningful health reform legislation by exploiting parliamentary tactics and Senate Rules, to the detriment of the American people and, in today’s instance, at the expense of American justice. I urge them to reconsider and allow this hearing to proceed as scheduled.

In response to the GOP maneuvers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) spokesman Jim Manley replied, “So let me get this straight: in retaliation for our efforts to have an up-or-down vote to improve health care reform, Republicans are blocking an Armed Services committee hearing to discuss critical national security issues among other committee meetings?”

Democratic sources on the Hill told ThinkProgress that they expect Republicans to continue this tactic all week. Republicans used this tactic as recently as June 2008, attempting to shut down at least two Judiciary Committee hearings on torture and how Supreme Court decisions had restricted protections of American workers and consumers.

Here is a full list of hearings the Senate was supposed to hold today. ThinkProgress learned that of those committees, Commerce and Agriculture were able to finish their hearings. Veterans and Environment and Public Works had to stop their hearings, and Small Business was postponed.

Update

Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-HI), whose hearing was stopped abruptly at 11:00 a.m., replied, “The Senate should be a place for debate, but I cannot imagine how shutting down a hearing on helping homeless veterans has any part of the debate on the health insurance reform. I am deeply disappointed that my colleagues chose to hinder our common work to help end veteran homelessness.”


Update

,McCaskill addressed the issue again on the Senate floor this afternoon, shortly after 2:15, saying, “I don’t get what the purpose of saying ‘no’ is. I don’t get what we accomplish. We’re sent here to work. We’re paid by the people of this country to work.” Watch it:


[u

Economy

Deficit Peacocks McCaskill And Sessions Revive Spending Freeze Amendment That’s Already Failed Twice

deficitpeacocksToday, the Senate plans to consider a bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA reauthorization had been bogged down by a hold, courtesy of Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), but Corker announced yesterday that he would release the hold and allow the bill to move forward.

Unfortunately, Corker’s shenanigans aren’t the only ones affecting the FAA bill. An amendment has also been proposed by Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that would implement a cap on discretionary spending for the next three years, leaving discretionary spending (which accounts for about one-third of the budget) at the fiscal 2010 level through 2013.

McCaskill and Sessions say the measure is intended to reduce the deficit, and call it “substantially similar” to the spending freeze that Obama proposed in his FY2010 budget.

This isn’t the first time that these two have put forth this amendment. It failed once in January, receiving 56 votes, and once more in February, with 59 votes (amendments require 60 votes for adoption). So the measure is one additional yea vote away from passing this time.

While McCaskill and Sessions at least include discretionary defense spending in their freeze (while exempting spending on the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan), the notion that a blanket freeze is a good way to reduce deficits is severely misguided. For one thing, it locks in funding without any debate as to whether current levels are appropriate, and it will limit the ability of the Congress to respond to changing demands (such as the dramatic increase in demand for Pell Grants that followed the economic downturn). As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has pointed out, this makes it hard “to do much of anything for the middle class that’s important” going forward.

A freeze removes any sense of prioritization from the budget (building effective programs while eliminating ineffective or duplicative ones), and simply whacks away a chunk of funding across the board. As CAP Senior Fellow Scott Lilly has pointed out, programs that are under the radar, but vital to the nation’s functioning, will likely end up on the short end of a freeze. He points to meat inspection and air traffic control, both of which will have to expand in the coming years, as the sort of programs that are taken for granted and will come under the knife.

Because it relies on the FY2010 budget resolution, the McCaskill/Sessions plan is essentially the institutionalization of Obama’s much-ballyhooed three-year spending freeze. It doesn’t address the real problems in the federal budget — which mostly have to do with health care — but it lets lawmakers feel like they’re proactively addressing deficits; it is the very definition of deficit peacockery.

Update

This afternoon, I spoke with Jim Horney, the Director of Federal Fiscal Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and according to some preliminary estimates that he’s made, McCaskill and Sessions’ charge that their cap is similar to Obama’s isn’t true. In fact, their amendment would mandate discretionary spending cuts, beyond what the President proposed, of $66 billion in 2012 and $21.8 billion in 2013.

Politics

Will Conservative Democrats Follow Graham’s Lead On Climate Policy?

Extensive coverage has been devoted to the fact that Lindsey Graham’s split on global warming and other issues highlights a rift in the Republican Party. While that’s true, another more important development has not been pursued: Graham’s departure from right-wing orthodoxy highlights the potential for conservative Democrats to follow in his footsteps.

Many conservative Democrats have questioned President Obama’s clean energy agenda. Now, a Republican is breaking with his party to talk sense. In a press conference yesterday with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Graham rebuked senators unwilling to address carbon pollution. Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution”:

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Watch it:

Graham sounded more like Van Jones — the author of “The Green Collar Economy” who was branded by Glenn Beck as a “communist” — than many of his Democratic colleagues:

Max Baucus (D-MT): Montana, with our resource-based agriculture and tourism economies, cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change. But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation.

Evan Bayh (D-IN): Jobs should be our top priority and we shouldn’t do anything that detracts from that.

Robert Byrd (D-WV): I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries, or our resource-based economy in West Virginia.

Byron Dorgan (D-ND): I just don’t think climate change is going to be on the floor this year. Trying to restart our economic engine and trying to get this country back to work — to me that is the most important issue.

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): I am opposed to the House passed cap-and-trade legislation, which in my view, picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in Arkansas.

Claire McCaskill (D-MO): I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri.

Ben Nelson (D-NE): I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home are going to be disadvantaged.

Jim Webb (D-VA): We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.

Do these Democrats agree with Lindsey Graham that our planet “is in peril“? Do they agree with Graham that “limiting carbon pollution is good for business”? Will conservative Democrats follow Sen. Graham’s embrace of the “new green economy” — and shouldn’t they be asked if they will?

Older

Switch to Mobile