By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 9:32 PM
U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill took a few minutes to talk to PUB DEF before tonight's Willie Nelson concert at the UMB Bank Pavilion in St. Louis County. The country music star has thrown his support behind McCaskill's campaign against Republican Sen. Jim Talent. Labels: Interviews, U.S._Senate_Race
We discussed how effective celebrity support is in a close race like hers, why she thinks Nelson chose to support her campaign, what she thinks about Talent's silence on the issue of raising Missouri's minimum wage (which voters will decide the same day they select a U.S. Senator), and if she is worried about having much less money in the bank than her opponent.
We have requested an interview with Sen. Jim Talent some time in the near future.
4 Comments:
Claire Mc Caskill is such a loser! She will not raise enough money and her campaign is running very weak. Willie Nelson is not going to bring her enough additional votes in the rural areas, because the people that support Willie Nelson don't vote-they get high!
I guess if Cheech and Chong wanted to endorse Claire Mc Caskill she would announce that to the media too.
Claire Mc Caskill is not ready to be a U.S. Senator, and she won't be. This election loss for Claire Mc Caskill will ensure that she does not try to run for any other political office in the future.
Top Democrats are going to support Claire Mc Caskill wholeheartedly and watch her lose. Behind closed doors; these Top Democrats will be glad to see her out of politics, because in reality none of the Top Democrats truly support Claire Mc Caskill. Daily, the Top Democrats are cutting backroom deals with Senator Jim Talent for themselves!
Good luck Claire Mc Caskill, you will need it!
8/23/2006 10:46 AM
Sounds like more farm subsidy.
Great.
How about education spending?
Missouri ranks near last in per capita education spending.
http://muextension.missouri.edu/explore/miscpubs/mp0742.htm
The Federal Government will probably not pick up the slack in education, but when it comes to farming the money pours.
Look at the MO USDA subsidy recipients:
http://www.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=29000&progcode=total&yr=2004
Whether or not these are corporate farms or family owned I cannot say, but I don't think more funding to the family farm will be a good idea.
Why not cut subsidy to the large corporate owned farms and make them spend their own money?
8/23/2006 10:48 AM
To Doug:
American farmers feed the world. Think about that the next time you are bad mouthing supporters of those farmers like Claire McCaskill over dinner with your equally ungrateful family and friends.
8/23/2006 11:02 AM
Farm Boy:
Some would argue that subsidy of farming decreases global prices, thus making it harder for developing countries to compete in the market, since their countries do not have such subsidies. Also, these developing countries often have to import the equipment required to produce said crops. If a failure occurs, or a drastic decrease in prices, then they could be unable to pay for the farming equipment, much less break even.
To say that the US is feeding the world, that might be true.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2006pr/04/exh7.txt
The above Census report shows 5,222 million dollars in food exports. Yet it could be a better policy to get these countries more independent of foreign goods. This would affect domestic farmers, and not all countries could become independent, but some level of independence is required for development. How to balance US farmers with international farmers? It is a big debate.
8/23/2006 12:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home