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.