Todd Akin, depending on the poll, is within 2pts of Claire McCaskill. I’m told there are still some conservatives who don’t know for whom they’ll vote. Frankly, I find that hard to believe for true conservatives. I’d expect that response from those who reflect the views of whomever they are around at that moment. Chameleons may be a better description.
McCaskill is trying to market herself as a moderate. The truth is she’s no where near a moderate. Not with a voting record that supports Obama and Harry Reid 98% of the time.
But, for those of you who are really undecided, let’s sift the facts on Claire’s record. Here’s a list of issues and McCaskill’s stance on them. (From OnTheIssues.org)
- Support embryonic stem cell research but not cloning. (Oct 2006)
- Support a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Oct 2006)
- Continue promising stem-cell research. (May 2006)
- Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
- Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
- Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
- Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
- Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
- Emergency contraception at all military health facilities. (Dec 2009)
You’ll notice that she was against the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. However, that was in 2006 during an interview on Meet The Press with Tim Russert , Oct 8, 2006. Since being elected to the US Senate, however, she has voted FOR every abortion issue and against restricting abortion. There’s a disconnect between what Claire says…or said in this case, and what she actually does—her voting record once in office.
Budget and the Economy:
- Take on sacred cows that gave us $8 trillion debt. (Oct 2006)
- $300 billion in Iraq is a lot of money. (Oct 2006)
- Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
- Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
- Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
- Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
- Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
- Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
- Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure. (Feb 2009)
The disconnect with Claire’s word and her actions continue when it’s the economy. You’ll notice in the bullet points above a difference when George Bush was President and when Claire was elected Missouri’s Senator. In 2006 she was against more spending—especially when it was for the war in Iraq. Once in office she made a 180° turn. In office she voted against paying down the federal debt (2007), voted for more stimulus spending (2009), and voted for legislation on mortgage “abuses” that provided more federal taxpayer money to support underwater mortgages.
In fact if you examine Claire’s voting record, every vote that was the least bit “moderate” was one where the outcome was already decided. In otherwise a safe vote where Claire’s “moderate” vote had no effect on the outcome.
Let’s continue with McCaskill’s record.
- Limit TARP recipients’ executive compensation to $400,000. (May 2010
- Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)
Like all liberals, they refuse to acknowledge how and why corporate executives are paid. Executives are paid for performance. They are given goals by the corporation’s Board of Directors and if those executives meet those goals, they are well paid—with a good salary, bonuses and stock options. It’s not easy to meet those corporate goals. That’s why the tenures of a CEO is short, a handful of years in most cases. Why? Because the first time that CEO fails to meet his goals, he’s out the door.
If you limit his compensation, like McCaskill voted, what is the incentive for that CEO? He knows he won’t stay long as CEO. That’s the nature of business—perform or you’re out. So he’s expected to work and work hard with no incentive?
No, he won’t. He’ll go where he can be paid for what he’s worth. Only the ignorant believes otherwise—or those who refuse to understand the nature of business. Business exists for profit. Without profit, the business will cease to exist. It’s the CEO’s task to insure that profit or get fired.
Let’s look at McCaskill’s stance on energy.
- Energy independence by 2020 via alternative fuels. (May 2006)
- Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
- Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
- Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
- Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
- Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
- Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Again, McCaskill voted for initiatives that hurt the economy unless it was a safe vote. She voted against banning excesses by the EPA (2011), voted for Federal support (and taxes) for Global Warming (2007), voted for Cap ‘n Tax (2008), and supported the so-call Green Initiatives and have been a financial disaster (2008).
Finally, let’s examine McCaskill’s record on Healthcare and Obamacare.
- Opposes annual limit on federal Medicare spending. (Sep 2006)
- Expand Medicare for people, not for drug companies. (May 2006)
- Negotiate for lower Rx prices and re-importation. (May 2006)
- Uncovering Medicaid waste reduces cost of medicine. (Dec 2005)
- Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
- Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
- Voted YES on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
- Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
- Voted YES on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (Feb 2008)
- Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
- Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
- Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
- Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
- Disclose payments from manufacturers to physicians. (Jan 2009)
Once again, McCaskill followed the liberal party line. Her stance before being elected to the Senate in 2006 was decidedly different after being elected. Before, she was in favor of curbing Medicare costs, afterward, it was curbing Medicare benefits.When she voted for Obamacare, she robbed Medicare to $700billion to feed the Obamacare monster. Note, too, that 70% of Missouri voters voted against Obamacare (Prop C). That didn’t deter McCaskill at all. She ignored Missouri’s vote against Obamacare and voted the dem party line.
She voted to allow the Indian Tribes to opt out of Obamacare when you could not. She voted for Medicare cuts and more limitations on Medicare reimbursement for Physicians, Hospitals and Drugs forcing many Physicians and private hospital to refuse any new Medicare patients while driving up the cost of healthcare for individuals. In addition, she voted against Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform plan.
When you examine Claire McCaskill’s record, there is nothing moderate about it. Yes, she did vote on occasion to support some conservative issues like gun control, but if you look at the actual vote in the Senate, those issues already had a clear outcome. McCaskill just hitched a ride to ease her opposition at home in Missouri.
Claire McCaskill is a liberal. Worse, she’s a lying liberal who attempts to mask her true nature. When you enter the voting booth next week. Vote NO against McCaskill and FOR Todd Akin. Akin, considering all his foibles, is still a true conservative—one who won’t sell his vote for expediency or personal gain.