Far be it from the Source to take issue with David Goldstein’s “beat sweetener” story on Claire McCaskill opposing earmarks.
However, we cannot let this one go. The Star got rolled big time by Claire’s press operation.
Yesterday, Claire gave a major speech on the Senate floor. She railed against Republicans, she kind of railed against Democrats, she pounder her fist and shook her finger at the hypocrisy of Republicans complaining about spending, but accepting earmarks. She left us no doubt that she opposes earmarks and is all but a caped crusader against them.
Except that, she’s not.
On the SAME DAY as her speech, Claire voted to keep 13 earmarks in the bill for a company that was raided and clearly is under investigation by the FBI.
Roll Call reports it thusly:
“The amendment would have eliminated 13 provisions connected to the PMA Group lobbying firm, which was raided by the FBI in November as part of an investigation of potentially improper campaign contributions.
The vote on the PMA amendment was closer than expected, with a number of Democrats waiting until the waning moments to cast their votes. The two Colorado Democrats split their votes on the amendment, with Sen. Michael Bennet — who faces re-election in two years — voting for it, and Sen. Mark Udall, who has a full six-year term, voting against it.
Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) voted for Coburn’s PMA amendment. At the end of the vote, McCaskill voted with Democratic leadership and against Coburn, though she had spoken out against earmarks earlier in the day.
Prior to the vote, Coburn warned his colleagues that, “Anyone who votes against my amendment on PMA — they’re going to have a lot of ’splaining to do.”
The Amendment passed 52-43 to keep the projects in the bill. When Claire McCaskill had an opportunity to actually do something about earmarks- she simply voted the party line.
She’s betting that no media outlet has the guts to call her out on her blatant hypocrisy. The sad part is that she just might be right.
Comments