Funmurphys: the Blog

Talent vs. Carnahan

Jim and Jean had a couple of debates this week - Jean wouldn't agree to any more, and its obvious why. She wouldn't even be an hors d'oeuvre for Russert. But that isn't a reason to not vote for her - she's really no worse than George W. Bush, and in some ways better. I'm sure she's a very nice person, I wouldn’t hesitate to let her watch my kids, and I have no doubts that she was a fine wife, mother, and teacher. But her only qualification was that she was married to a hack politician (that would be Mel Carnahan), and the only reason she's currently a senator is that her husband had the terrible misfortune to die too close to the election to have his name removed from the ballot, and the only reason to vote for her now is that she is a plain label, vanilla Democrat. She hews the party line in toto, and doesn't depart a hairsbreadth from it.

She hasn't a clue about Social Security - how it works or what it's problems are. But she does know the party doesn't want it changed in the slightest, except by another bi-partisan commission like those that have fixed it in the past. Of course she leaves out the part about how those commissions did it by cutting benefits and raising taxes (she's for not raising taxes and cutting benefits personally, but if the commission recommended it, well …), and how the one back in the eighties hit upon the novel idea of collecting more taxes for Social Security than needed, allowing the excess money to be spent as general revenue. But she doesn't want another hand picked commission to recommend privatization, like the last two bi-partisan commissions did, even the one hand picked by Clinton. Putting that surplus tax money in the hands of people as part of Social Security weakens it you see, while continuing to spend it on building another four lane highway in West Virginia, that strengthens Social Security. All she knows about Social Security is that the word "privatization" scares the old people, so the important thing is to be against that, make sure you associate that with your opponent, and pass the buck on how to fix Social Security's upcoming deficit.

In the first debate, Talent questioned her vote against the Department of Homeland Security (she supports one, just with union protection, unlike what the President wants). I don't recall much reaction at the time, but her campaign manager must have decided afterwards that it would be a good angle to complain that Talent had impugned her patriotism. (When a poll claimed her support among Missouri Men had dipped, she immediately had a skeet shooting photo-op and boasted of her firearms prowess to prove her manhood; poor Talent could only talk about how much he liked fishing). So now she's running ads calling Talent "despicable", wrapping herself in the flag - and I mean that literally, her add shows a rippling flag on the left half of the screen while she sits at her senatorial desk on the right and gazes with firm conviction into the distance towards the flag - and wagging her finger (kind of like another better known politician, although without the lip biting) at Talent at the next debate she's so mad now.

I plan on voting for Talent, even though I don't like the way he said "Missour-rah" and "gubmit" during the debate (got to keep that outstate base happy), or the way he runs from the word privatization with respect to social security, or the way he's claiming he'll be able to help education as a Senator . In a close election, he's pandering and playing it safe. Well, he is a politician, and if I wanted some nice old lady, I'd vote for Carnahan, who BTW isn't exactly going for a profile in courage herself, more like the same profile in focus group tested sound bite and attack ad. Instead, I'll plump for somebody who can think for himself, shares my values (and, I admit it, biases), and might make a difference beyond who controls the Senate - yeah, that's important too, but at least I'm getting two birds with my one vote.