Say No to Claire in 2012 The 2008 Democratic convention in Denver generated $266 million in regional economic benefit and brought in 50000 people according to Denver officials. Even though bringing the Democrat National Convention to St. Louis would be an economic boom to the region Senator Claire McCaskill lobbied against bringing the convention here, because it would hurt her reelection effort. It is one thing to sit silently by and hope the Convention does not come to St. Louis, because of the perceived threat that it may hurt your campaign, but it is reprehensible as a sitting Senator to actively lobby against the Convention, which brings an economic benefit to the region. Of course, Claire denies that she lobbied against bringing the DNC Convention to St. Louis.
Nevertheless Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times contradicts McCaskill’s denial and reported the following: “Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.” Who are we to believe? Should we believe Claire McCaskill or a New York Times reporter? A tough call, however, if we look into Claire’s past we may give the benefit of the doubt to the reporter. While investigating abuses at nursing homes, Claire McCaskill met a rich owner of one, dropped that investigation and eventually married him.
Claire is out for Claire. She will do and say anything to stay in power. She will take both sides of an issue for political expediency, like she did with Obamacare. She voted for it when they needed the sixty votes, then voted against it when only a simple majority was needed for passage.
As an elected official, you are supposed to be a representative for your constituents and do what is in the best interests of the people. Lobbying against a convention that would benefit the region economically is not in the best interests of the people. The citizens of Missouri do not need someone like Claire McCaskill, who puts her self interests ahead of the people to be their representative in the United States Senate, anymore. People of Missouri wake up and FIRE Claire McCaskill in 2012.
I agree, we need a more progressive democratic nominee. Claire is much like Blanch Lincoln she's playing to far to the right to appease birther types who wouldn't vote for her no matter her platform.
It is amazing that this woman can repeatedly look into the camera and bold-face lie. She is scary. She no more believes what she is saying than the man in the moon. Just look at her record and her friends. It is so obvious she is really working it for her re-election. I believe the New York Times reporter this time.
Say No to Claire in 2012
ReplyDeleteThe 2008 Democratic convention in Denver generated $266 million in regional economic benefit and brought in 50000 people according to Denver officials. Even though bringing the Democrat National Convention to St. Louis would be an economic boom to the region Senator Claire McCaskill lobbied against bringing the convention here, because it would hurt her reelection effort. It is one thing to sit silently by and hope the Convention does not come to St. Louis, because of the perceived threat that it may hurt your campaign, but it is reprehensible as a sitting Senator to actively lobby against the Convention, which brings an economic benefit to the region. Of course, Claire denies that she lobbied against bringing the DNC Convention to St. Louis.
Nevertheless Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times contradicts McCaskill’s denial and reported the following: “Ms. McCaskill, one of the president’s closest friends in the Senate, took her concerns directly to the White House, according to party leaders familiar with the selection process. She argued that her re-election could be complicated if the convention was held in St. Louis, because the Democratic gathering will almost certainly attract protesters and compete for fund-raising.”
Who are we to believe? Should we believe Claire McCaskill or a New York Times reporter? A tough call, however, if we look into Claire’s past we may give the benefit of the doubt to the reporter. While investigating abuses at nursing homes, Claire McCaskill met a rich owner of one, dropped that investigation and eventually married him.
Claire is out for Claire. She will do and say anything to stay in power. She will take both sides of an issue for political expediency, like she did with Obamacare. She voted for it when they needed the sixty votes, then voted against it when only a simple majority was needed for passage.
As an elected official, you are supposed to be a representative for your constituents and do what is in the best interests of the people. Lobbying against a convention that would benefit the region economically is not in the best interests of the people. The citizens of Missouri do not need someone like Claire McCaskill, who puts her self interests ahead of the people to be their representative in the United States Senate, anymore. People of Missouri wake up and FIRE Claire McCaskill in 2012.
I agree, we need a more progressive democratic nominee. Claire is much like Blanch Lincoln she's playing to far to the right to appease birther types who wouldn't vote for her no matter her platform.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing that this woman can repeatedly look into the camera and bold-face lie. She is scary. She no more believes what she is saying than the man in the moon. Just look at her record and her friends. It is so obvious she is really working it for her re-election. I believe the New York Times reporter this time.
ReplyDelete