The Lowdown on Healthcare, Part 1

Healthcare is too important an issue to justifiably fit into one 400-word post. In Part 1, we're going to examine exactly what the candidates said, how they framed it, and where the claims come from. In part 2, we're going to speak directly on the forces which influence the position of each candidate and their rhetorical strategies.

What Akin Said:

Akin had two things to say about healthcare at the Sep. 21 Press Association debate. First he claimed that Obamacare cuts $700 billion from Medicare.

Second, he targeted the IPAB board (Independent Payment Advisory Board) as an entity which decides whether or not people get care.

To finish it off, he took the party line "Government is bad. It's taking choices away from consumers, setting prices and rationing out care!" His entire response was framed around this idea that the government is a giant, fearsome entity out to take care and freedom away from citizens (presumably the elderly).

Claire's Response:

On page 5

Claire countered that Obamacare "doesn't cut one dime from Medicare benefits." The $700 billion number comes from a document originating in the Congressional Budget office.

This document estimates federal spending will increase by $741 billion if Obamacare is repealed.

So not only is the characterization of a "cut" inaccurate, Claire is actually the one voting to reduce Federal spending.

Where's the money go?

Akin and Claire both reference the valid concern this information appeals to; if all this money is being taken away from medicare then how will the seniors get care?

Page 365 of "Obamacare"

Akin deceptively fearmongers with his IPAB response. Seniors can't lose their treatment under Obamacare because it's written into the law.

So how exactly is spending reduced? Claire's response was the pilot program at St. Johns Hospital.

In essence: smarter spending, bloat reduction.

While we know Akin is against Medicare, no amount of Claire's consistently truthful attack ads could compare to the damage that would occur if Missourians understood exactly what Claire's response was all about.

"What I didn't hear in Congressman Akin's answer was his plan. His plan is to privatize medicare, he wants to give seniors a voucher and once you spend your voucher, you're on your own."

In Part 2, we'll cover exactly why this is so significant.

We're the Show-Me state. Verify for yourself, the medicare portion starts at 27:00.

Killer Debate Strategy

McCaskill's Campaign Strategy 

First and foremost we're here to analyze how the candidates say what they do, and what that means.

Here's what Claire's trying to do.

For 40 years she's always run on the Democratic ticket.

If you're trying to appear more conservative, sound more conservative.

Claire's campaign strategy revolves around moving to the right. Her strength rests in her preparation and her logic -- she pulled out verbatim quotes, voting statistics and even bill wording.

Yet she came across sounding slightly outraged and somewhat flustered with Akin. Granted, that is an accurate representation of the rest of the Republican Party, but seeming like a flustered Democrat is detrimental to her goal of showing how she's a relatable quasi-republican to Missourians here and now.

What better way to sound conservative than to emulate Akin... and do it better?

Akin's Bag of Tricks

What Claire can and should do is adapt Akin's emotional-appeal based speaking style. Every time an issue came up, he used a generalized anecdote or framed his message as a values-based statement.

Listen for yourself. This is how he opened the answer to his question on student loans:

He used half a minute to say, "I recognize your concerns, see your plight and acknowledge there's a problem." While he wouldn't do anything but exacerbate the problem, this is an effective way to open up his answer.

Claire can do it better

She's put in the town halls to know what communities actually need. So rather than talking to an anonymous student conveniently $100k in debt, she knows a community near Washington needs a bridge.

Then she can use Akin's other trick: reframing the issue at hand into a values-based statement. She can reframe the message upon values she shares with the conservative base of Missouri.

"I grew up in a small town. I know that sometimes, communities have needs. And if a community needs a bridge, they should get a bridge."

Suddenly, instead of just saying a community near Washington needs a bridge, she's telling all the communities she'll fill their needs and demonstrating she knows what they are.

The killer blow

Here's where this idea turns sexy: let Akin define America and then show how he doesn't fit into it.

Claire is obviously intelligent, prepared, and truly wants the best for people in Missouri. She has substance. If she takes away Akin's emotional resonance, he has no crutches left.

The Tumble in Columbia

This morning, our candidate Claire McCaskill, Republican Todd Akin, and the Libertarian Jonathan Dine debated for the first time. Facing a panel sponsored by the Missouri Press Association, McCaskill and Akin distinguished themselves exactly like they meant: her the pragmatic moderate and him the principled and true conservative. In an hour, how did Claire pull this image off?

On every issue, during every exchange, McCaskill wanted to make one thing very clear: she is the middle-of-the-road candidate while Akin is too extreme for mainstream Missouri. The distinction is not far off. In his opening statement, Akin gave Missouri a sober ultimatum: "Your choice in this election is either more freedom…or more Washington," a perplexing black-and-white offer from a man who's spent the past 11 years in the city that "crushes freedom." The problem, according to Claire, is not what Akin says (like his legitimate rape comments), the problem "is what he believes."

Rather than engaging in such stark ideological clashes, McCaskill stuck to practicality. When the discussion turned to the abuses of military contractors in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, she evoked the tough-nosed Harry Truman, saying he "would have used language that was not polite” with companies that took advantage of the American people.

"#$&# youuu!"

To be the moderate, though, Claire didn't make herself the Democrat, she made Akin the extreme conservative. She is "proud of her moderate record," which includes supporting a cap on federal spending, cutting taxes, and promoting American jobs. That could be the platform of a moderate Republican candidate who, thanks to her "Republican" opponent, she actually can be for Missouri voters. Instead of just the incumbent, McCaskill is now the comfortable alternative. 

For Claire, Akin represents an elite and unsustainable America. She represents a more democratic and caring nation. She accused him of wanting to privatize social security, raise the retirement age, and declare Medicare unconstitutional. Though in support of limits on federal overreach, she didn't become too rigid. "This is the land of opportunity" where "personal freedom is very important," but we still can't snub the helping hand of the feds. "I don't want to shut that door" on those who don't have all the opportunities others do. The language is realistic, and the message is moderate. 

In upcoming posts, we will explore her specific solutions and discussions of the United States Postal Service, healthcare, foreign policy, and the federal deficit, issues that will further illuminate exactly how she's becoming the Truman-esque moderate. 

Welcome!

Greetings readers,

Welcome to Claire on the Air, our election season project that aspires to provide critical analysis and counsel on the most salient element of the 2012 Missouri Senate race: rhetoric. We'll bring you biweekly posts until the elections are over in November.

From Todd Akin’s infamous comment to Claire McCaskill’s biting ads, this campaign has supplied pundits and armchair politicos alike with an overwhelming amount of material. Consider the importance of how the way candidates phrase and frame certain messages reveal the kinds of policies they'll support. Akin's "legitimate rape" comment was one such message.

And we love this video response:

How do you know it's legit?

We believe Claire McCaskill is the best candidate to represent the interests of Missouri in the US senate. Rhetoric is a word that gets thrown around a lot so let's clear the air: by 'rhetoric' we mean the focus is on the written and spoken messages of McCaskill's campaign.

If the obesity epidemic is any indication, Americans aren't taking care of their bodies. We're not taking care of our democratic body either. It's malnourished by lack of civic participation, and the news amounts to falsely-satiating sweets -- it can only go so far. Democracy doesn't take place on TV, nor can the intricacy of campaign messages or widespread issues be relegated to four minute news spots.

Even cartoons make fun of it.

Here's where that leaves us. Chris is skeptical of the benefit of political attack ads and advertising in general where Connor believes all persuasive attempts are an intrinsic part of democracy. This means we'll provide you with a contextualized, accurate and deep analysis of where the campaign's at, where we think it should go, and whether not this is good for all of us.

Is a campaign message that lies a bad thing when voter turnout doubles? Let's get people talking and help nourish the body that sustains us. Make sure democracy doesn't starve and post a comment.

We’re excited for the next two months! Welcome!

Todd Akin vs. The Student

It’s Todd Akin vs. The People. More specifically, it’s Todd Akin vs. The Student.

At least that’s been the message from the McCaskill campaign for the past few weeks. Instead of taking the cheap shot and nailing her opponent for his infamous comments on “legitimate rape,” McCaskill has shifted the debate to campus, calling out Akin for his opposition to federal education assistance and casting the federal loan debate in the light of middle-class rhetoric.

“The only guaranteed ticket to the middle class is a college education. I am not aware that there is another guaranteed ticket.”

By referencing the middle class apocalypse dominating the political environment, McCaskill created a sense of urgency with three implications:

Not for you.

1.    There are a lot of people being left out, and few have access to that golden ticket. If you are not part of those privileged few, the “wealthy kids and a few athletes that are really talented…and maybe a few academic rock stars,” then you're out of luck. But if you want that access and opportunity for prosperity, then there's only one recognizable hero...

2.   The federal government is the only entity capable of equitably funding a large swath of the state’s student population. To swear by the benefits of the feds at a time when most Americans wouldn’t touch Washington with a ten-foot stick is risky, but McCaskill overcomes the connotations with confidence:

“I am not aware of people who think that the federal government should quit backing student loans and completely get out of the business of helping kids get to college.” 

By claiming ignorance of opposition to the issue, McCaskill assumes the support for her position, a risky but admirable technique. More importantly, she rules out any sources of reasonable opposition, including…

     3. Todd Akin is the enemy of students, preferring rigid ideology over the concerns of students, at least according to an effectively caustic McCaskill attack ad.

The image of an aloof Akin in the closing seconds reinforces his helplessness, McCaskill’s competence, and the general imbalance of the election. It’s clear that McCaskill owns the issue and Akin just “makes Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum look like hippies.”