Capitol Calling

4. McCaskill and Talent go to political war

BACKGROUND: Most politicos know Claire McCaskill as a fixture on national talk shows and as a world-class Twitter user. But back in 2006, she was just one of many politicians trying to break into the World's Foremost Deliberative Body.

McCaskill decided to forgo another term as a state auditor and instead challenge Sen. Jim Talent's bid for a second term. Talent was smart, politically wonkish and had a pretty long tenure in Missouri politics. And after a close loss for the Missouri governorship in 2000, he managed to beat Sen. Jean Carnahan in a surprisingly good mid-term election for the Republican Party.

Thus, McCaskill's venture in national poli
tics was not without risk. Talent didn't have any discernible scandal or flaw that made him easily beatable. He didn't have an abrasive personality like Conrad Burns or create a "Macaca" moment like George Allen. But he was weakened when the public became disenchanted with the Republican Party. And it didn't help that McCaskill was a fairly energetic campaigner who wasn't afraid to aim for votes in Republican strongholds outstate.

In the end, McCaskill was victorious. And her win helped the Democrats take over the U.S. Senate - a feat that was not expected by many pundits at the beginning of the election cycle. It was the start of what would be a full collapse of the Republican Party in Congress.

WHY IT MADE THE LIST: I think my blog post from 2006 said it best:

This choice is about as surprising as the outcome of the 25th District state House race. But the clash of the two well-honed, statewide personalities was about as exciting as any contest in recent memory. Staying close up until the final moments, the contest ended with McCaskill emerging triumphant and Talent being ousted from the Senate.

Although Virginia Sen. George Allen’s spectacular fall ultimately gave the U.S. Senate to the Democratic Party, McCaskill victory was a crucial piece in the party’s jaunt to take back Congress. Now that the campaign is over, the state — and the country — will be watching to see what the 110th Congress accomplishes.

Even today, the Senate race between McCaskill and Talent still sticks out. It featured two candidates that were relatively evenly-matched in terms of experience and campaign savvy. The race eventually resulted in McCaskill becoming a rather high-profile national political figure, thanks in part to her decision to endorse Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if Talent made a political comeback. Few of the state's Republicans have the experience of running three statewide campaigns. And even though he lost two of them, they weren't exactly by landslide margins. Who knows? Maybe a 2012 re-match could end up differently. Stranger things have happened.

FUN FACT: When McCaskill was declared the winner, I watched her victory speech with Rep. Steve Hobbs and future House Speaker Ron Richard at the Holiday Inn Executive Center in Columbia. Needless to say, the atmosphere in the room was not exactly cheerful.

 

#3...

12. Obama comes to Rolla

BACKGROUND: Although then-Sen. Barack Obama's visit to Columbia was a huge spectacle, I enjoyed watching the future president speak in a less hospitable outpost.

The Illinois senator decided to go on a "rural swing" through the Show Me State, which in some cases emulated Sen. Claire McCaskill's focus on outstate Missouri throughout her 2006 U.S. Senate campaign. After stopping in Springfield, Obama came to Rolla, arguably the most popular city in Phelps County.

The subtext of the visit was pretty clear. Obama had barely won the Missouri Democratic primary by capturing big margins in some of the state's urban areas. But he did pretty darn terrible elsewhere, allowing then-Sen. Hillary Clinton to nearly swipe the state away. In the end, Obama won a plurality of votes, even though the two candidates evenly split delegates.

Obama spoke for a pretty long time in Rolla. In addition to making a somewhat controversial statement about how he "wouldn't look like presidents" on currency, he spent most of the event taking questions from the overflow crowd. He talked about the economy, foreign affairs and issues involving veterans. When he was through, he made a stop in Union and called it a day.

WHY IT MADE THE LIST: I put this on the list for the same reason I included the Kirksville debates. I thoroughly enjoy
visiting different parts of the Show Me State. And this trip gave me a chance to scope out Rolla, a Republican-leaning area that's the homebase of the Carnahan family. Plus, it was interesting to see Obama speak in an area that was probably out of his political reach.

 

FUN FACT: One other great thing about going to Obama's Rolla event was meeting Leslie Spencer. The Democratic activist was standing outside the event with a "Rednecks for Obama" banner.

I'm not sure if Obama succeeded in attracting the "redneck" vote in Missouri. But I'm guessing that some in that self-professed group in North Carolina, Indiana and Virgina helped put Obama over the top. 

#11...

KY3: McCaskill opines on Medicaid expansion provision

KY3 political reporter David Catanese asked Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, about the provision in federal health care legislation that would expand Medicaid to either 133 percent or 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

It's a far more expansive answer than the one the first-term senator gave in Jefferson City a couple months ago. You can check it out by clicking here.

House plan would push up Medicaid eligbility

One of the most important aspects of the pending federal health care bill for Missouri could be how Congress expands Medicaid. Multiple versions of the federal legislation would push the minimum eligibility rates far beyond the Show Me State's current levels, a move that could force the state to expend resources when the provision goes into effect.

One Senate version of the health care bill would push the minimum eligibility rate to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The feds would pick up most of the cost. But the House unveiled a new version of its health care bill today that would make the minimum rate 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

Details are still filtering in about how much the expansion would cost the state. Scott Rowson, a spokesman at the Missouri Department of Social Services, said the agency does not have a cost estimate on the House proposal yet. He said that the move would add roughly 291,000 people to the state's Medicaid program.

It should be noted that the final cost of the provision to the state probably won't be known until a final bill is passed and signed into law. Even if the House passed a bill that, say, made states pay for 40 percent of the expansion, that could be taken out when the House and Senate bills are combined later on in the process.

At least one member of Missouri's congressional delegation is speaking out against the expansion provision. Paul Sloca, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth, sent the following e-mailed statement:

“At a time when states all across the country are being forced to make difficult decisions to balance their budgets, the powers that be in Washington have deemed it necessary to pass the mother of all unfunded mandates unto the states. This is wrong.  The federal government should not be forcing states to expand services they simply cannot afford.”

Sloca also wrote that according to a Democratic summary produced by the Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor committees, the expansion would be paid for by the feds for the first couple of years. After that, states would have to pick up 9 percent of the expansion.

By the way, this is what Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, said about the issue earlier in the year. She indicated that expanding Medicaid to 133 percent of the federal poverty level would make it harder for the bill to stay "deficit neutral:"

McCaskill makes statement on Obama award

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, put out the following statement on President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize award:

“Today is an interesting moment for America to reflect on how the world view of our country has changed because of this president. I think we need to realize that a part, maybe a key part, of our national security is that while countries around the world see our leadership as someone who is strong, confident, and not going to be pushed around, they also recognized Obama meant what he said in his inaugural address:  ‘we will extend our hand, if you will unclench your fist.’ I think the rest of the world has breathed a sigh of relief that America has a leader that is not going to lead with a 2” x 4” but rather with the strength and confidence of diplomacy.

We had to go it alone in Iraq for so long, but since he took office President Obama has spent a lot of time building the involvement of NATO and instructing Secretary Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen to make sure that NATO is as involved in Afghanistan as we are. That’s a huge change from the mentality of ‘we don’t need anybody else, we can go it alone.’ I try very hard not to look back, but clearly there has been a change in leadership and a change in attitude. President Obama is not going to lose grip for a moment. No one is going to push us around. No one is going to be an aggressor to the United States of America. Our strength rests on our principles, the example we set for the world, and our alliances along with the excellence and strength of our military, rather than exclusively the latter.”

Other sitting presidents who won the Nobel Peace Prize include President Theodore Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson.

McCaskill questions missile defense move

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, released a statement today questioning President Barack Obama's decision to scrap plans for a missile defense apparatus in Eastern Europe.

Here it is:

“I am concerned about the Administration’s abrupt decision today to cancel the long-planned missile defense deployment to two important allies, the Czech Republic and Poland. In July, the Senate unanimously adopted the Lieberman-Sessions amendment that stated that the U.S. missile defense system in Europe should be capable of protecting the United States and Europe. I urge the Administration to explain to the American people and our European allies why this decision is in the best interest of our collective security against the Iranian threat – right now we have been given too little information to be sure that this is the best path forward.”  

Obama announced today that he was formally pulling out of the plan, which had been a major priority for former President George W. Bush. The plan, however, sparked anger in Russia.

Reaction abounds to Obama's speech

President Barack Obama addressed both chambers of Congress tonight on the issue of health care.

The speech comes after a summer when tempers flared over what to do with the nation's health care infrastructure. Obama and most Democrats want to great a government-run insurance program that would provide health coverage to potentially millions of people. Plans circulating in Washington also would bar insurance companies from refusing coverage to those with "preexisting conditions" and penalize those who don't purchase insurance.

Both of Missouri's senators reacted after Obama made his speech. Here's a statement from U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri:

“After hosting town halls throughout Missouri, I think the President did a good job correcting all the misinformation that has been spread. Now with the stakes made clear, it’s time to work on reasonable health insurance reform that will bring down the cost of health care, improve the way care is provided, and do it in a way that doesn’t saddle our grandchildren with our debt. He did a great job of explaining that the price of doing nothing is much too steep and those who are blocking health care reform are engaged in very risky behavior.”

Here's a statement from Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri:

“Over August those who were listening heard some straight talk from the American people. The American people want health care reform that lowers costs, increases access and improves care, not a government takeover of health care that will increase costs, force millions of Americans off their current health care plan, raise taxes, increase the deficit and put medical decisions in the hands of a government bureaucrat. In short, they do not want government to over-reach, over-manage, over-spend.  You can repaint an outhouse but it won't change the smell. Americans want more than a new speech, they want a new plan. If Democrats in Washington are truly interested in working in a bipartisan way they should scrap their unaffordable plan, start over, and begin with common-sense solutions that both parties support. Solutions such as lowering costs for small businesses by allowing them to pool together to provide quality health care like large companies and unions; Expanding community health centers; Getting rid of junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care; Preventing insurance companies from denying health care coverage when someone gets sick or because of a preexisting condition; Expanding wellness and prevention programs; and enrolling low-income Americans in the health care programs they are already eligible for."

“Now is the time to listen to the American people, not push through a partisan government takeover of health care.  I hope the President and Democrats act on this message.”

KBIA Commentary: Doctor, Doctor

My KBIA Commentary this week is on debate over the so-called "public option." That's the common term used for a proposal that would establish a government-run program to provide potentially millions of people with health insurance.

Take a listen:

Bearden discusses health care agenda

I'm a bit late on this one, but I wanted to post it as Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, holds a town hall in Springfield.

I caught up with Carl Bearden of Americans for Prosperity on Friday in Jefferson City. The group has become more prominent as of late for opposing Democratic health care proposals circulating around Congress.

I asked Bearden - a former state legislator who left the General Assembly in 2007 to become a lobbyist - about his group's new bus, as well as controversies springing up a town hall meetings.

Take a look:

McCaskill opines on public option's impact on medical professionals

During her question and answer session, I asked Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, whether there would be enough medical professionals to handle potentially millions of people who take advantage of the so-called "public option."

Here's the first-term lawmaker's response: