In a not so suprising move, the St. Louis Post - Disptach endorsed Claire McCaskill for United States Sentor. Here is the suprise, they provided no substance as to why outside of talking points provided by the McCaskill team.

In their endorsement they say this (emphasis added by me):

“Ms. McCaskill, a pro-choice Catholic, is a populist Democrat who supports the death penalty and who thinks the race in outstate Missouri should be “less about the NRA and more about access to health care.” She criticizes the decision to invade Iraq and wants to establish “benchmarks” for U.S. troop withdrawal. She favors toughened security of U.S. borders and cracking down on employers who hire undocumented aliens. She favors increasing the federal minimum wage and changing the tax code to favor the middle class. She promises to take auditors from her office in Jefferson City to Washington to pore over Government Accountablity Office reports on government waste.

Ambitious, blunt-spoken and confrontational her entire career, she says anyone who thinks Missouri should be a “blue-state echo chamber” misreads the state.

The policy differences between the two candidates have been sharply revealed in a series of debates. The basic decency of both individuals has been shamefully distorted by their media campaigns. The choice, however, is clear.

For her independence, her attitude and her grasp of the real problems faced by today’s Missouri and today’s America, Claire McCaskill should be Missouri’s next United States senator.”

What a crock. Who died and made the Post-Dispatch god to determine the “real problems” Missourians are facing and what could be done about them in Washington? In fact by their own admission Talent, unlike Claire’s committment to obstruct, has worked with Democrats to get things done in Washington.

However, I want to take a closer examination of the unchallenged talking points used by the Post-Dispatch to justify their endorsement.

There is a strong pattern of sock puppetry in the piece starting with “gun control” versus health care debate. The Post-Disptach states that Claire sees health care as a more important issue that guns for rural voters. That may be true, but how do we know? The issue was never examined by any media outlet during the entire campaign. Yet it is a very important value among many Missourians, let alone “rural” voters.

Does she believe in registering per box of ammunition? Does she believe in limiting the number of fire arms a person can have? Does she support limiting the number of rounds someone can own? Where does she stand in defining what an “assault weapon” is? Will Claire support making the “assualt weapons ban” permanent? What kind of waiting period do you support? Do you support limitations of semi-automatic weapons? Do you support the right to carry?

These are just a few examples of a few questions which should be asked, but were not in what I believe is an effort to supress issues which benefit Republicans and hurt Democrats. Instead, the media stokes emotion behind the Democratic talking points with no examination of what the person proposes.

The post Dispatch is sorely incorrect to believe that healthcare matters more than the basic right of the individual to own a gun and defend theirselves. The absence of this and the emminent domain issue in discussion shows how out of touch with “rural” voters and in co-hoots with the McCaskill campaign the Post-Dispatch is. It does not stop there, though.

Next in line is their bit about Iraq. Claire is all over the place on this one. She tries to say that she will listen to the generals, but then says she will force a time line for us to pull out. The Post-Dispatch takes her current line about “establishing benchmarks” to try and do away with the cut and run label which she has so well deserved (either that or they are lying on her behalf).

Again, does the media examine this? No. The only one to date I have seen challenge Claire on the issue was Tim Russert. When he did, her ignorace of the situation showed. She is simply repeating talking points handed to her by Chuck Schumer with no real understanding about the situation or the impact of a pull out.

This is vital because Missourians need to understand the consequences of what she is proposing. Beyond the fact that we will be handing Osama the very victory he is wanting and emboldening the terrorist like we did during the Clinton administration, there is the unknown factor of logistics. Many countries in the region might not want us there. If we are supposed to be “redeploying” to other places in the middle east, what constitutes us going back in? If things are so bad there now, shouldnt be we engaging the enemy?

Again, where is the Post-Dispatch in asking these questions? They are absent at asking the important questions to determine if Claire’s rehetoric is exactly that, or if it is real and might actually accomplish somthing, like Talent has in office.

Case in point is health care and medicaid which Claire likes to push. Answer me this question. Why has the media not truly looked into what Claire is proposing to solve the problem with medicaid? Could it be because she isnt proposing anything and just takes unchallenged pot shots at the system? Couldnt be! Just like her misrepresenting what Talent is actually trying to do to solve the health care problem by allowing small businesses to band together to offer health insurance. Does the Post-Dispatch or media examine this? No. Instead they simply parrot her accusations - many of which are without foundation.

Then there is illegal immigration. How can we determine if this is true or not if no one is asking her any hard questions. No one asked her about the senate bill’s provisions which gave illegal immigrants certain rights and freebees which normal law abiding citizens would not recieve - like only having to pay back taxes for three of five years. Yet she claims she does not want amnesty.

Finally, I wanted to address the whole minimum wage issue. The Post Dispatch claims that Claire wants to raise the minimum wage and make the tax code “more fair” to the middle class. News flash, the middle class isnt carrying the burden of the tax load. More importantly, though, as Senator Talent pointed out - small businesses will take the brunt of the minimum wage increases. Without any relief for us small business owners it will hurt us and might cause many small and family business owners to go out of business. Again, no questions were asked of these issues.

In the end, the endorsement was nothing but a big wet kiss to McCaskill. Like many other media outlets, including most of mine here in Southwest Missouri, no one has dared to challenge her on issues. No one wants to engage her to explain what are the impacts of what she is saying. Instead, we get a swallowing and regurgitation of Democratic talking points.

Many statewide pundits laughed about the “media filter” Matt Blunt spoke of early in the year. I have proven it here, and in the debate analysis of the debate between Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill at KY3. I guess we should be happy that Talent is not down by ten points at this point.

The Post Dispatch is wrong to say that McCaskill has a “grasp” about “real problems.” She does not. What she does do well is recite national talking points and make clear that she stands by to become an obstructionist if she were to be elected. By definition, Claire would not be independent by any stretch of the imagination. She would be nothing more than another Democratic hack elevated by the talking heads in Washington.

Is that what Missourians want? Are those important values? No. My only hope is that the curse continues with the Post-Dispatch. Whomever they endorse usually loses. Lets keep our fingers crossed.

Posted by Paul Seale on Sunday, October 22nd, 2006 at 11:58 pm. Filed under Media, Missouri Politics, National Politics.