Spotted today on a vehicle in west central Missouri:

Just asking.

Tonight in Ferguson, Missouri, via Twitter:

Eli Rosenberg ‏@EliKMBC

“We’re dealing with 4,000 animals in there, & you want to give me attitude?” The deputy yelled, mad I was taking a pic #Ferguson #MikeBrown 8:43 PM – 13 Aug 2014

Eli Rosenberg

@EliKMBC

Reporter at KMBC 9 News….

Previously:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): showing up is more than half the battle (March 17, 2014)

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): press Q and A – March 17, 2014 (March 18, 2014)

“… most of the people who have, show the most vitriol about Obamacare are people who are not even interacting with it. Um, they’ve just probably watching a lot of Fox. And, um, so, I think as time goes on, um, it, it, we may discover that trying to, to just have one policy change as your only political talking point may be overplaying your hand…”

Over the course of this week Senator Claire McCaskill (D) has held six open town halls (and several other events) across the state. The fifth town hall was held early this afternoon in Kansas City on the campus of UMKC. After most of the town halls Senator McCaskill made herself available for questions from the media in attendance.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) speaking to the media after her town hall on the campus of UMKC in Kansas City – March 19, 2014.

The transcript of the press availability after the Kansas City town hall:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ….Happy to answer any questions anybody has….

[….]

Question: …I didn’t understand the, the gambit, uh, of bringing the money back from the international corporations. How’s that gonna work?

Senator McCaskill: How it would work is, you’d have fifty billion dollars worth of bonds and they would, over a period of time, be up for sale. And the people who would be eligible to buy these bonds would be corporations who would agree to bring the same amount of money back in money from overseas that they are buying of bonds. In other words, they’ve used the money overseas to buy the bonds. But, whether or not they’ve got the bonds would depend on what rate of tax they were willing to pay. So let’s say you had a block of five billion dollars, um, you might have ten corporations bid on buying five billion dollars worth of bonds which will allow them to bring that five billion back into the United States. They would all bid against each other without knowing what everybody else was bidding, what tax they were willing to pay. And whoever was willing to pay the highest tax on that money coming back would be the one that could buy the bonds.

Question: Ah, okay.

Senator McCaskill So, it’s kind of an elegant way to have discreet funds for infrastructure without hitting the treasury or hitting the taxpayers and not giving corporations a free pass on bringing the money back without any taxation.

Question: Yeah. Well, plus, they could sell their, uh, their civic duty, uh, you know [crosstalk] and [inaudible]…

Senator McCaskill: There you go, there you go, there you go….

….Question: Senator, my understanding is that you met with some of your colleagues , I think it was an earlier town hall meeting, uh, this week where the, the issue of marijuana and, and Colorado came up and law of unintended consequences. Um, you still feel that should be a state issue as far as Missouri is concerned or are you kind of wait and see?

Senator McCaskill: Oh, I think it should be a state issue. I mean, this is gonna be an issue if the, if other states, um, follow Colorado’s lead, uh, that will not surprise me. But it would shock me if there was a federal decision on this issue without a lot more states weighing in. So I look, I think there’ll be a lot of initiatives on this around the country and we’ll see how people vote. But, meanwhile I think Colorado’s under a microscope as everyone’s looking to see how it’s working there, if it is actually living up to the positives that were, uh, promoted when it was, um, passed versus the negatives that, um, people warned about.

Question: [inaudible] mentioned in the audience about using, uh, cannabis for treatment of PTSD. Uh, should we, uh, should more be done in the area of medical marijuana in Missouri and, really, nationwide?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I think we look to the medical community to advocate for that. Um, and I, I’ll circle back, I had never heard, we have an awful lot of experts on PTSD right now, um, and it, it is a diagnosis we understand now and we are administering care to tens of thousands of people. And frankly, I think that almost every sexual assault victim, uh, suffers from PTSD and it’s gone undiagnosed for decades. So, I’ve never seen them advocate that as something they really believe could make a huge difference in PTSD. Um, so, I’ll, I’ll follow up on that and see if they agree that that would be something that would be medicinally helpful.

Question: One of your colleagues told me a few days ago that you, you have sort of amped things up a little bit on your looking into war profiteering with private contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan. Could you, could you kind of bring us up to speed on that?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I continue, um, to look at contracting. It’s gotten to the point that I beginning asking agencies on, when I’m having hearings on contracting, if they hired a contractor to help them prepare for the hearing. And believe it or not, we have found that agencies have become so contractor dependent that they hire contractors for a hearing on contractors. Uh, so, what I’m trying to do, and we’ve made some progress, what I’m trying to do is make sure. I’m not against private contractors. We have some great ones in the federal government that are providing good services at good value, and good products at good value. But every contract needs to have the kind of cost benefit analysis so that we’re sure we’re saving money. Um, they haven’t done that in many, many instances. In fact, going back and trying to reconstruct the figures it appears that many instances we’re having contractors do work that we could do more cheaply with federal employees. So, and then, how is the contract scoped and then, is the contract managed? And if someone doesn’t perform well, the recent hearing I had was that when we have bad actors we’ve been miserable at keeping track of them. And, invariably, because one agency doesn’t know that they did very badl at another agency, they hire ’em again. So we’ve got to get a system, a data system, that is interoperable so federal agencies can track bad performing contractors so we’re not wasting our money on ’em again.

Question: is it more widespread in military applications, or do you find this kind of waste and abuse pretty much [crosstalk] wholesale.

Senator McCaskill:  It’s, it’s, you know, I started out and probably spent eighty percent of my time on this on contracting and contingencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I will tell you it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Um, there is huge problems with it at Homeland Security, uh, Department of Energy, we’ve done another, number of hearings about contractors. We just did one, uh, this week, uh, two weeks ago on Hanford, uh, nuclear waste, uh, we’re trying to vitrify, turn into glass, nuclear waste at Hanford, Washington. This is where we did all the, uh, uh, the plutonium enrichment for the bombs in, in World War Two. And, you talk about a contract out of control, um, in, the problem is we’ve got some retaliation going on with whistle blowers. And so, it’s a never ending job, no matter which agency, to try to. I’m not gonna, it’s kind of like being State Auditor in this, and frankly, prosecutor, you’re never gonna run out, I’m never gonna run out of work, uh, doing contract oversight.

Question: Senator, uh, as you’ve done these town halls across the state have you noted, noticed any, uh, differences in the types of questions you’re getting or in the, sort of, preponderance of questions [crosstalk] in various subjects?

Senator McCaskill: You know, I, I gotta tell you I, um, there’s clearly a lack of tea party presence in my town halls this time. Um, and typically my town halls are overflowing with, with tea party, uh, members that want to talk about the evils of the federal government and that the federal government is the enemy.  Really haven’t had that much, we have, we’ve had a sprinkling of Obamacare questions. But most of the people who have talked about Obamacare, and this woman today is an exception, ’cause clearly she’s trying to interact with Obamacare, most of the people who have, show the most vitriol about Obamacare are people who are not even interacting with it. Um, they’ve just probably watching a lot of Fox. And, um, so, I think as time goes on, um, it, it, we may discover that trying to, to just have one policy change as your only political talking point may be overplaying your hand.

Staffer: We’ve got time for one last question, guys.

Question: On, on this, uh, town hall meeting in terms of, uh, what, what number is this and kind of what’s the overall theme in questions that people are coming up with?

Senator McCaskill: You know, this, um, this is the fifth one I’ve done in a few days. I’ve got another one this afternoon, so I’ll be doing six of ’em this week.  Um, and it’s all over the board. We’ve had, um, you know, like today, this was very typical. We had everything from public education, to, uh, alternative programs for offenders, to immigration, to health care, uh, marijuana. Marijuana does keep coming up. Now, I could make a joke about why marijuana keeps coming up, but I won’t.

Question: What is the State of Missouri doing to, doing to help students afford college?

Senator McCaskill: Well, um, the State of Missouri, um, is going to finally increase some funding for higher education this year and it primarily is a state function. But we have raised the amount of the Pell Grant at the federal level. We did that a couple years ago. So I’m really pleased that we were able to do that. We’ve been able to hold on to that. Um, and we just, in fact, appropriated the Pell Grant money just a few months ago when we did the appropriations bill. So, we, we took a, and we did that without adding to the deficit by taking the middleman out of the student loan process, who was making money with no risk. And now the money is going directly to students and that money we took and put into more money for Pell Grants.

Staffer: We gotta wrap, guys. Thanks.

Senator McCaskill : Sorry, guys.

[….]

Previously: Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): showing up is more than half the battle (March 17, 2014)

“…Most of the people that have that kind of coverage, if they’ll shop on the exchange they’re gonna get better insurance for less money. So I think the problem’s gonna take care of itself, ’cause I don’t think very many smart people are gonna want to hold on to a policy that doesn’t give them very good benefits for a higher premium than they can buy on the exchange. So, it, it is, but we’ve now extended, people can keep it now for two years, which is much longer than the average length of time that anybody keeps those kinds of policies…”

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a press availability after yesterday’s town hall in Columbia.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a press availability after her town hall in Columbia – March 17, 2014.

The transcript of the press availability:

Question: ….I have a question concerning the possible increase of the minimum wage in Missouri. Uh, what is your reaction to it, to this? And some people say it might cut off jobs in Missouri and people wanting to move jobs in other states. What is your reaction on this project?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, I think that’s one of the reasons that a national minimum wage is important, um, because it keeps the kind of border wars that we’ve seen pop up around Missouri, uh, from time to time, especially with our friends in Kansas. Uh, if the minimum wage had just kept up with inflation it would be higher than the proposed level of minimum wage that the President is advocating. So, I believe that if you raise the floor then it raises everyone. And one of the things we’re all focused on is how can we shore up the middle class, how can we, um, reverse a trend where we are separating the haves and the have nots more and more every year. So, I support the increase in minimum wage and even though people say, well, it’s all kids, only twenty percent of the people who receive minimum wage are teenagers. Um, more than half of them are women. And more than a fourth of them are supporting children. So, it, this isn’t just, um, for, you know, sixteen seventeen year olds that are working a part time job. It is, um, a lifeline for many, many American families.

Question: And for the particular, uh, increasing wage in Missouri for ten dollars, uh, per hour? What is your reaction to this on the state level?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I’m, Jefferson City, we have a, a minimum wage that increases with inflation that was voted on by the people of Missouri. So, but it began, um, much later than the national minimum wage so it, too, has not kept up with inflation based on what the federal minimum wage was.

[….]

But the minimum wage is being proposed would be a national minimum wage, it would affect every state….

….Question: You mentioned, uh, the sexual assault thing on the military level and now you mentioned college campuses. What kind of, um, policy would you guys be enable to enact on college campuses?

Senator McCaskill: Well, right now what we’re trying to do is gather information. Um, how under reported is it, uh, what services are available, um, do people on campus know where they can go, uh, where is a safe harbor they can go and, and get help? Um, are there people available that are counseling victims from the moment they report, uh, as to what would happen if they came forward and giving them good information so they are not frightened of coming out of the shadows? In my experience the main difference between a case that is successful in terms of putting a rapist in prison and one that isn’t is how much support and information the victim got at the critical moment that they first informed someone of it. So, it is really looking to see how aggressively our college campuses stressing that with resources and personnel to help, uh, young men and women in that situation.

Question: What do you know about Missouri? It seems like if there’s a rape on campus and it’s reported everybody knows about it. Is there a big problem about them not being reported, do you think, or? [crosstalk] Really?

Senator McCaskill: Yes. [crosstalk] Yes, I think there’s a huge problem of them not being reported. I think it is, um, endemic across this country. I think, um, young women in college that find themselves in a situation where they’ve been sexually assaulted have a very difficult decision and they’re at an age it’s very difficult to figure out the right way forward. Um, and I think that sometimes it’s, they immediately begin blaming themselves, well, I shouldn’t have been at that party, or I shouldn’t have had that much to drink, or maybe somehow it’s my fault. Well, all of those things are crazy. Um, it doesn’t matter how much you drink, you’re not, you do not deserve to be assaulted. Um, and so it is really kind of getting that information out and making sure that, that everybody understands the consequences of committing that crime.

[crosstalk]

Question: You’re here to talk about jobs and the economy, but you got a wide range of questions. What would you say about the Columbia group that you, uh, uh, responded to today?

Senator McCaskill: I love Columbia. Um, and, and you always get a group of questions in Columbia. I, you, you can get questions from the very far right and you get questions from some of the more liberal, uh, Missourians in Columbia. So, this, this day was no different than most town halls in Columbia, everything from why aren’t we legalizing marijuana to can’t we get rid of the federal government.

Question: What’s the point of giving the basket, uh…what’s the point of that?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, when I began doing these town halls there were people, um, that were saying in social media and other places, oh, well, every town hall is a fix, you know, they go out there and they’ve got their talking points and, you know, they only answer the questions of people that they’ve planted in the audience. So, I want to make sure that people who bother to come to our town halls know there’s no fix. And I figure the best way to do that is to let somebody in the audience self identify as someone who can’t stand me [laugh] and let them be the one that pull the questions out. And that way nobody thinks that we’re trying to pull one over on anybody.

Question: Senator, the, uh, special election in the Florida thirteenth, uh, some are saying that’s an indictment of Obama, the Affordable Care Act and, uh, that Democrats should run from it this election cycle. Should they embrace it or should they look elsewhere?

Senator McCaskill: Well, it’s interesting. We didn’t get one question on it today, maybe briefly mentioned in one. Um, and frankly we really didn’t get any questions on it in Hannibal. Um, jobs are going up, our stock market is [inaudible] amazing, uh, we got a great private job growth, so the sky is not falling. The way I heard it is the minute Obamacare was in it was gonna be the end of America as we know it. Uh, I think millions of people are getting insurance that couldn’t get it before. I get letters every day from Missourians, small businesses, saying, we could never afford to cover our employees before and we now have insurance coverage. As time goes on and people figure out that it’s not what they’ve been told I think it will get, um, less and less powerful as a political tool. And I think the election in Florida was more about the two candidates who were running and whether or not they were accepted or rejected by those voters and turnout and all kinds of things. You can’t make one broad sweep that, okay, that’s it. Uh, if Obamacare was going to be a defining issue for elections I wouldn’t be standing here.

Question: One more question on that. Um, twenty-thirteen Politifact called the statement, if you like your insurance you can keep it, the lie of the year. That’s a statement you made as well. Do you consider that a lie and do you think you should apologize like the President did?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I believe, I’m happy to apologize for anything that I said that was a misstatement. That’s, I, I’m not afraid to say I’ve, I’m, I’m not perfect and I’ve made mistakes. And there’s problems with this bill. But I know when I first ran for office the number one issue came, people came up to me was, I can’t stay on the farm ’cause we can’t get insurance. And we didn’t do a one size fits all public plan, we have different choices that people can make of private insurance companies. Uh, it was an idea that was put forward by the Heritage Foundation. It was their idea. It was why Mitt Romney used this approach in Massachusetts and it’s working. So, we have now said if you want to keep these policies, and frankly that market churns so much it’s very unusual for someone to keep one of those policies longer than a year anyway, because it is the, it is the minimal, minimal type of coverage that get because they can’t get anything else or don’t want anything else. Most of the people that have that kind of coverage, if they’ll shop on the exchange they’re gonna get better insurance for less money. So I think the problem’s gonna take care of itself, ’cause I don’t think very many smart people are gonna want to hold on to a policy that doesn’t give them very good benefits for a higher premium than they can buy on the exchange. So, it, it is, but we’ve now extended, people can keep it now for two years, which is much longer than the average length of time that anybody keeps those kinds of policies.

Question: [inaudible] of Medicaid at the end. Um, there’s a proposal in the [Missouri] House right now and Governor Nixon’s sort of signing on to it that would require, uh, enact a work requirement for Medicaid. Um, it would require a federal waiver. Do you think Sebelius and the, uh, Human Services would be willing to give that to Missouri?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I don’t want to stop the discussion. Uh, I, I’m just relieved there are some Republicans that don’t want to give away our tax dollars to New York and California. That’s reassuring to me. So, I, I’m glad the conversation’s occurring, I think there have been several Republicans who have stepped up and said, including my former colleague senator Bond, and a group that has done everything in their power to make sure I’m not elected every time, and that’s the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, um, and all the hospitals. I mean, these are not crazy liberals that are saying don’t give our money away to another state. These are respected Republicans. And I’m glad this is occurring, I hope we find a way forward that can get enough votes to pass so we don’t pass up that money, uh, that we need very badly in Missouri. And, uh, but, a, a, the, I mean, a pilot program, um, has been proposed various places. Uh, I think that CMS and Kathleen Sebelius and, and, and her agency wants to work with states to try to make this happen. As you know Arkansas did something much different, other states did different things, so I’d rather keep the conversation open rather than just putting it down right now.

Question: Do they have enough flexibility, I mean, to enact some sort of waiver for a work requirement, do you think?

Senator McCaskill: It would depend on what it looked like, I think. Um, but let’s, let’s keep our fingers crossed that debate continues rather than us just saying, Obamacare is the end all evil of all time and I refuse to let go of it as a political weapon for this election, so therefore I can’t even, if we could just rename it the I hate Obamacare Medicaid expansion maybe we could get it passed.

Question: What are some of the problems you said your colleagues in Colorado are seeing since the legalization of marijuana?

Senator McCaskill: Well, there’s been a, um, uh, a tourist traffic for getting high. Um, and, um, I’m not sure that they anticipated that. And I think there has been some negative consequences in terms of some of those issues. I think the regulation has been more difficult than they thought it would be. But, I’m, I’m, in fact I’m due to sit down with both of them and, um, talk about, I, you know, I think that there is some buyer’s remorse by some folks in Colorado.

Question: You’ve made the statement several times now that we’re giving Missouri tax dollars away to New York. Isn’t it true that Missouri brings in more federal, from the federal government than we pay?

Senator McCaskill: You know, we’re trying to do right now, that, that calculation? I believe this decision will change us from a state that gets more than we pay to a state that gets less than we pay.

Question: But we, right now, we get more than we pay, right?

Senator McCaskill: On highway funds.

Question: Overall.

Senator McCaskill: Well, it, it, it, if we continue to pass this up, especially with our revenue being so low? Um, we have one of the lowest revenues in, in the country. We’re very dependent on federal money. So, it will be an issue, um, the numbers, the problem with that calculation is most of it’s very old. Uh, the calculation that we’re getting more, I can’t tell you we are right now, ’cause they don’t have the numbers for right now.  They have it for two year [crosstalk]…

Question:  [crosstalk] John, John Stewart says we do.

Senator McCaskill: …two years ago. Well, there, there you go. I should know better, sourcing John Stewart. [laugh] Um. [crosstalk]

Staffer: Time for one more question about.

Senator McCaskill: But, it, it depends , uh, the number that I give, a dollar forty for every dollar in the highway trust fund, that number is about two and a half years old. So, we’re trying to get recent numbers because I, I think that this could be the tipping point that will put us over in the category that we are paying more than we’re getting back.

Question: I have a very quick question. Are you going to have somebody to run against Vicky Hartzler this year?

Senator McCaskill: You know what, I’m here as a senator, not as a political candidate, so I will not be able to answer that question in this environment. I’m in the city hall and that’s a purely political question that probably should be answered outside the city hall. Thank you.

[….]

Question: Senator, have you observed any positive changes in, uh, filibuster in the Senate in the sense in the changes in the rules?

Senator McCaskill: Yes and no. Um, we, it now, they’re making it very difficult for us procedurally, they’re not, they’re not yielding back any time. So it takes a long time, um, but we are, and frankly, most of them we’ve gotten through we’ve gotten through by more than sixty votes. There has not been that many nominees that were passed by less than sixty votes., which goes to show you this has all been about delay and not about qualifications. There have been a few that have been voted down and, and there have been a few that did not get sixty. But the vast majority of ’em are getting more than sixty.

Question: But, have you seen progress in at least moving things forward?

Senator McCaskill: Yeah, well, one thing about it is we don’t have to take a whole week for five nominees, we can do it in two days instead, which is very frustrating when they pass by eighty-two to two. You know, why, why can’t we just gin ’em up  and vote on ’em and get on to other things that we need to be doing? It’s frustrating.

Staffer:  We’ve got to wrap guys, sorry.

Senator McCaskill: Sorry, got another stop. Thank you, guys.

Voices: Thank you.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D).

This morning in Warrensburg General (Retired) Richard B. Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the Ike Skelton Lecture on the campus of the University of Central Missouri. He spoke at length, then answered submitted questions from the audience (read from the podium by Brigadier General Thomas Bussiere), and then took questions directly from the audience.

Earlier in the morning General Myers took questions from the media in a short press conference.

At one point a submitted question (and the general’s answer) touched on new media:

General (Retired) Richard B. Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking

at the Ike Skelton lecture on the campus of the University of Central Missouri on January 22, 2014.

[….]

Question:  ….in your time as Chairman the media has become more invasive and rabid in coverage . Now with the advent of social media has become even more so and many stories are being created and developed by non-professionals. What challenges, uh, do you see this creates in the public sector for both leadership and how would you advise future leadership to handle this?

Gen. (Ret.) Richard B. Myers: Well, I think future leadership, and I think the Air Force here does pretty well. The Navy does very well. Uh, the Army here, the Army does not do very well in this area. But this is the whole notion of communications. And, uh, I met your public affairs officer earlier. We were briefed on the little press conference we had.

Uh, I think those that are in charge of our public affairs or communications, uh, need to have a seat at the table, uh, for everything that goes on to include, uh, uh, planning for combat. They’ve got to be right there. And then they’ve got to participate when you’re in the middle of, uh, co, conflict or a, uh, bad event. Uh, they need to be there as well. Early on, not when the reporters are at the gates saying, we want to come in and talk to you. Uh, but well before that, all part of that planning. I think that’s the way, you know, you accommodate to the world we’re in today where the, where the news whips around very fast.

Let me give you an example. So you sit in the Pentagon, you hear the news, and it says, uh, Al Jazeera’s reporting that the U.S. troops, this is hypothetical, U.S. troops, uh, bombed a mosque [inaudible], fired into a mosque. So I call Tommy Franks, say, Tommy, they’re saying that you guys bombed a mosque, what the heck’s that about? He says, I’ll find out and get back to you. And, uh, what Al Jazeera would show you is, uh, you know, U.S. fire going into the mosque. That’s all they would show you. And Tommy comes back and says, yeah, they had a big weapons cache in there and we were taking heavy fire from the mosque and, uh, we had to retaliate, he said. Okay, it sounds fair. Where are the pictures of that fire coming from the mosque? Where are the pictures of the, the weapons cache? Uh, well, they’d get that to you maybe in a, in a month. Well that, that great news story was live for maybe twenty, twenty-four hours. [inaudible] Maybe, maybe couple hour, uh, days. But, it’s no longer around. So I think being more agile in how we address, uh, those kinds of situations, making everybody in the unit know that they can be this strategic corporal that by their actions can draw international attention. I think that’s the way you address that.

You can’t, you can’t address all those that are on the blogosphere with varying credentials. I mean, it’s like swatting flies. And you don’t have time to swat flies. So, let, let the flies buzz around.  Concentrate on those sorts of issues, uh, pick out those in media that you trust. And you can develop trusting relationships with media as well. And, and develop those so when something really goes wrong you have somebody you can turn to that’s, you have a relationship with that’ll at least give you a fair hearing.

[….]

General (Retired) Richard B. Myers.

Credentials. Those worked out so well for Judith Miller.

In the absence of fear, a bill introduced today:

SB 269 Modifies the use of the Capitol complex grounds by non-public entities

Sponsor: Nieves

LR Number: 1328S.01I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 2/6/2013 – S First Read–SB 269-Nieves

[….]

Current Bill Summary

SB 269 – This act provides that no parking space upon the capitol grounds shall be specifically designated or set aside for any person that is not an official or employee of the state, however an appropriate number of spaces may be designated for handicapped parking.

No person or entity that is not an official or employee of the state shall be allowed an office or reserved space in the State Capitol building, except for reserved space within the Senate and House chambers and galleries, and any non-public person or entity maintaining an office or space shall remove its office or space from the State Capitol building on or before August 28, 2013.

This act is identical to SB 694 (2012) and SB 341 (2011).

[….]

Why, if this bill passes and is signed into law the Capitol press corps (whatever is left of it) will have to vacate their luxurious office suites in the building. Oh, and it would make it a little more difficult for the media to document the atrocities during the session. That would explain why a right wingnut republican is sponsoring the bill.

Previously:

SB 694: See where sucking up to them gets you? (January 24, 2012)

Today, at the White House:

At 5:22 in the video:

President Obama: ….All right, with that, I’m going to take a couple of questions.  Ben.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. It’s a very busy time. If I may, I’d like to ask you about two other, uh, quickly, two other important issues in the news. Republican candidates have, um, taken aim at your approach to foreign policy, particularly the Middle East and Israel, and accused you, uh, of appeasement. I wanted to get your reaction to that. And also, I’m wondering if you personally intervened in any way in halting the sale of the morning after, uh, pill to those under seventeen, and whether you think, uh, politics trumps science in this case.

President Obama: Uh, ask Osama bin Laden and the twenty-two out of thirty top al Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field, uh, whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that….

And, compare, from his predecessor (March 13, 2002):

Question: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.

dubya: Yeah.

Question: Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people, you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?

dubya: Um, hm.

Question: Final part [crosstalk]…

dubya: Yeah.

Question: …deep in your heart don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive you won’t really eliminate the threat of [crosstalk]…

dubya: Well, deep in my heart I know the man’s on the run, if he’s alive at all. And, uh, I, I, uh, you know, who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. Uh, we hadn’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person, uh, is, um, really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Uh, terror’s bigger than one person. And, uh, he, he’s just, he, he’s, he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. Um, his network is, uh, his, his host government has been destroyed. Um, he’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and, um, um, met his match. Uh, he is, uh, you know, as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who’s willing to commit youngsters to their death and he himself tries to hide, if in fact he’s hiding at all. So, I, I don’t know where he is. Nor, you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, really, to be honest with you. I, I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong….

Who was appeasing when? No matter how hard they try not to, the republicans can’t help but point that out.

Game, set, match, election.

Today there was a big rally at Kiener plaza in support of the OccupySTL demonstration. The estimates I’ve read give the attendance at around 500* people. Union members and progressives of every stripe showed up. The Occupy folks have persisted, gained adherents and allies, and now nobody can ignore them. However, today’s response to the movement from various local media and our Missouri senators seems to offer a Rashomon moment, telling us more about the those characterizing the protest than about OccupySTL itself.

Senator Roy Blunt allowed as to how free speech and demonstrations are all just fine and dandy, but added that he didn’t “know that this is the best way to channel that energy in getting the economy going again.” Since Blunt is presumably touting the new GOP jobs plan – the one where they propose to keep on keeping on with the old GOP jobs plan, where we cut taxes for Wall Streeters and millionaires and let banks run wild and regulation free – this comes as no surprise.

Claire McCaskill, as might be expected, was more sympathetic to the message, but why does she try to draw a parallel between Eric Cantor, who called the Occupy folks a “mob,” and Nancy Pelosi, who, as I remember, was reasonably controlled on the topic of the Tea Party, even though some rampaging Partiers actually spat on a Democratic congressmen? That act alone might have merited an accusation of at least incipient mobbiness, but last year Pelosi even managed to claim that she shared ” some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C.” Hardly an unbalanced and intolerant response. Is McCaskill just trying to take advantage of four years of GOP anti-Pelosi demogoguery to buy a little outstate good will?

As for the media at the rally, it strikes me that the variations in the way they reported on the police presence is fairly telling all by itself. For example, the rally described by the St. Louis Beacon sounds like a rousing, good-time-had-by all kind of event. They note that:

St. Louis police, many on bicycles, lined Friday’s march route, but no incidents were reported. Vans equipped to house any rowdy protesters lined a couple side streets, but went unused.

Contrast that with the KSDK (St. Louis channel 5) coverage which, after noting that the protest caused “big headaches for downtown drivers,” ended their piece with a note about police preparations:

St. Louis Metro Police are working a special detail for this event, and they’ve come prepared with their paddy wagons, and their plastic handcuffs.

So far, no arrests have been made.

Notice the slight difference in tone? The fnger-wagging is much more pronounced in this piece from KMOV ((ST. Louis channel 4):

There’s a heavy police presence downtown; streets are closed and there are at least 50 officers with nightsticks and zip-tie handcuffs.

Police say they’re frustrated that the officers have been pulled off the streets away from fighting crime to tame the protest.

The reporter adds that the “Occupy protests have been maligned for lacking focus and even for protesters being dirty and smelly from camping out.” Can any one say dirty hippies? After reading the KMOV coverage, folks who look at the photos made available at the St. Louis Business Journal,  STLtoday, KMOX and FiredUP! might be surprised at the diverse, relatively clean-cut and good-natured looking crowd that turned out to support the message of the Occupy movement.

* Attendance numbers revised.

Addenda to the note above:  St. Louis Beacon gives a 1000 person count – other sources say 500. I changed the number from 1000 to the lowest number because I remember how ridiculous, not to mention scurrilous, Tea Party efforts to inflate their rally attendance numbers seemed to me. Whether the number was really 500 or 1000, OccupySTL, pulled out plenty of good, motivated and respectful people – and for every person present, there were plenty like me who were there in spirit.

Two different short posts on Talking Points Memo caught my eye today. The first reports on a tweet from Claire McCaskill wherein she expresses her understandable disgust with the Koran burning pastor in Florida and the media frenzy he has created:

No tv today. I’m so sick and tired of looking at the nut job in Florida.

No kidding, Claire. You’ve got that right.

The second post, though, gives one some food for thought:

Pastor Terry Jones and Rush Limbaugh were high school classmates: Central High School Class of 1969, Cape Girardeau, MO.

They both do have a certain Missouri tenor to their remarks – as in Missouri Tea Party. Shouldn’t McCaskill be used to that by now seeing as how she has so much sympathy with the Tea Party and all?

McCaskill’s disgust with the carnival surrounding the “nutjob” is understandable, but, as Glenn Greenwald observes today about the media response to Jones, perhaps just a little too selective? Has she been as willing to speak out against the media efforts to keep the right-wing’s manufactured Park51 controversy going? After all, this Park 51 “controversy” is arguably more damaging to our efforts in the Middle East than the actions of some looney-tunes evangelical with a tiny congregation. It has, after all, engaged the energies of almost the entire conservative leadership – most of whom have made highly incendiary public statements.  

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a town hall in Concordia, Missouri on August 10, 2010.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

The second part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: My biggest question is, um,  I’m a businessman [inaudible]. My question is, [inaudible] in the thinking process, why was [inaudible]?  It does create a [inaudible]. [inaudible] It quadrupled in [inaudible]. [inaudible]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, actually, I think that they will go across state lines, the exchange in Missouri, because you’re allowed to sell insurance across state lines in a cooperative basis. The decision was made to not have the place that people can go to pool risk, which they can’t go to now, uh, is all gonna be private insurance companies. And the states are gonna administer that. And the states have every right, if they would like to go together with other states. And I’ve talked to the man who runs the insurance department in Missouri – it’s his intention to try to go together with a number of states so we can make the pool even bigger. And so there will be that…

…But here’s the thing about going across state lines, interestingly enough. Some of the very people who have talked to me about going across state lines also say to me, what about state’s rights? Now what you do, when you say from Washington that insurance companies don’t have to pay any attention to state law, that they can just sell anywhere in the country, what you’re basically doing is saying that states have no right to regulate what goes on in their state. Which means that the rules they set for insurance companies in New York or in Florida or in Texas could be the rules that a Missourian would have to live by, depending on where [inaudible] coming from. So we’ve always tried to respect the right of states to regulate their marketplaces within their borders. It is a radical concept that we would wipe that out. And the very people who are waving the Constitution saying, Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, I’m a Tenther, are the same ones that say to me sometimes, what about selling across state lines. And I get dizzy. I mean, you can’t have it both ways. We can’t wipe out all the state regulations and also respect state rights. So that’s why I think the way we did it, by having these decisions made at the state level so the state can decide if they want to go in with other states that maybe have similar regulations or rules, you know like in Missouri a woman who has a baby, you can’t kick her out of a hospital in less than twenty-four hours. In other states they don’t have that rule. Well, the Missouri legislature went down there, elected by all of you, and they voted. I think it’s twenty-four, isn’t it? I think it’s twenty-four hours in the laws you guys passed, isn’t it? Yeah. And, you know, so do we want to say to Jeff City you can’t say to insurance companies that women get to stay in the hospital for twenty-four hours when they have a baby? That’s the problem. [inaudible crosstalk] No, no, these are all gonna be private insurance companies. What this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like, uh, the best example I can give you is like Expedia. You know how you can go on Expedia and you can buy a airline ticket here or from Delta or from Northwestern or any of those? That’s what this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like a marketplace. There are gonna be a number of different kinds of policies and a number of different companies that are gonna offer polices. The idea is that it’s one central location where you can get a lot of people to go buy insurance, you get bigger risk pools. And the fact that everything is gonna be in the pool, the idea is it’ll bring down costs for everyone. And we will, you will no longer be paying for your competitor across the road who decides he doesn’t want to offer insurance. And somebody on his workforce breaks their arm, and they go down to the hospital and get their arm fixed and freeload off all of us, ’cause we pay for it with our higher insurance rates. That’s the idea behind this, as unpopular as it is, that’s the concept. Um, and that’s why we didn’t do a public option. It is not gonna be run from Washington. It’s gonna be run at the state leve and hopefully they will combine across state lines to make it more affordable for your company to continue to offer insurance.

[….]

Question: Immigration is one of my pet peeves. It seems to me that, uh, [inaudible] Do you agree with Obama and Hillary Clinton [inaudible] the Arizona law. In my opinion, it’s a [inaudible] Congress sitting on their hands [inaudible] They’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing. [inaudible] My, my question is, do you agree with [inaudible] Obama [inaudible}?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I agree with some things, I disagree with others. Uh, let me start with the best news. The best news is that, uh, the day before we left Washington last week we were able, I voted for a whole lot a Republican amendments to step up border enforcement, against most of the people in my party. I was able to get border security passed the day before we left Washington, six hundred million dollars. And the whipped cream and the cherry on top of this is the way we’re paying for it. Um, they way we’re paying for it – there are some foreign companies that have come to our country and more than fifty percent of their workforce is H1B visas. In other words, they’re bringing foreigners here with their companies to be the employees. So the idea was that if you have more than, if you’re a foreign company and you have more than fifty percent of your employees that are H1B visas, any other visas you get are gonna be very, very expensive. And the Wall Street Journal, the day after we passed it, this is the best, this Indian company that it will affect, it’s a, it’s a, basically a call center kind of operation, very, very large Indian company, it would affect them. And they were quoted in the Wall Street Journal, saying, this means we’ll have to hire more Americans. Yahoo!  I like that. That’s a-okay with me. That’s a great way to pay for the bill as far as I’m concerned.

This will [inaudible] six hundred million dollars in a very focused way along the border, um, for task forces. As a former prosecutor I know that, you know, you don’t just put the same amount of help everywhere along the border. It’s a very long border. It will be unmanned drones, aerial vehicles for real time aerial photography that we can see, real time, various places across the border without a lot of manpower. It’s gonna help. The good news also is immigration is down. Deportations are up. The percentage of the deportations being people who have committed crimes is up sixty percent. And audits against businesses that hire illegal immigrants are at a record high. So, we’re moving the right direction. More people are getting deported, more of them are bad guys, less people are coming across the border, and more businesses are being audited. Rather than just photo-op workplace raids, that’s wha
t we used to do, we’d do a workplace raid and the people that were there that day that were illegal, there’d be cameras rolling and everyone gets this mistaken impression that the employer was being held accountable and they never were. Employers didn’t even get a rap on the knuckle. Now we’re going more aggressively after the magnet that’s pulling them across.

I get the frustration in Arizona. Do I think that every border state can start doing federal immigration policy? I don’t think our Constitution allows for that. Now maybe we need to change the Constitution in that regard. I’m not here to debate that today. I completely understand the frustration of the Arizona people. But I think the way to get at that is do what we need to do to secure the border and begin to enforce the laws we have. I voted against comprehensive immigration, I voted against amnesty, I’m not gonna go there until this country demonstrates to the people who occupy it legally that we can enforce the law. So, that, that’s where I am on immigration. So that means I come down yes some places and no other places.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] I’m interested in protecting the environment. How do you think clean energy can be made economically beneficial and promoted as so? Mos, most of the publicity has been to scare us about the cost to individuals of regulation. We’re behind many countries in this area.

I appreciate your sentiment. I will tell you that my hesitancy in this regard is because Missouri is a coal dependent state and this is a tough economy. The last thing I’m going to be a part of at this point is larger costs to working people in Missouri, small businesses and manufacturing, for a cost on carbon that we don’t yet have the technology or the alternative energy developed that make it a cost effective alternative. Now, there are allowances in the bill for coal dependent states, but I thought they were allowances in the bill that were paying off people that we shouldn’t be paying off. You know, I’m not big on let’s pay off this state to get these votes, let’s pay off that state to these votes, so that’s why I was not happy with the House bill in that regard. Um, we’re doing some things to incentivize alternative energy. And yes, I do think we need to lead the world, but on the other hand it’s the same atmosphere. And if China and India are putting up coal fired plants every ten minutes, I, I want us to lead but I don’t want us to be [inaudible]. I don’t want us to be in a situation where all of a sudden manufacturing is really fleeing our shores, going for cheap dirty energy in India and China because our rules are so serious and stringent and their rules aren’t. We’ve got to bring our competitors along. Not just Europe, who’s done this, but our competitors, which for manufacturing is, is more South America, India, China and to some extent Japan.

Voice: Do you think that the, quote, mainstream media is downplaying the dangers?

Senator McCaskill: Is the mainstream media, I’m breaking my rule here ’cause I’m not supposed to go out of order, mainstream media is, are they downplaying the dangers? I don’t know what the mainstream media is anymore. Here’s one of my com…[crosstalk] [voice: “The three networks.”] Well, the three networks I think probably cover it pretty accurately on the evening news, but here’s the, the problem we’ve got with all the media right now. We now have news outlets that you go to get affirmation, not information. My friends on the left they all go watch MSNBC and you know what they feel? Righteously vindicated. We’re right, we’re right, listen to Rachel, listen to Keith. People on the right? They go to Fox and they say, the listen to Sean Hannity and they, and they go, you know what? We’re right, we’re right. And meanwhile what I had as a kid? [voice: “You think they’re equal.”] I think both, I think in different ways they’re very alike. Both of them are playing to a segment of ideological opinion in this country as opposed to [inaudible] really trying to present both sides. And when I was little I had to watch the evening news on network. And that was pretty straightforward. [voice: “Huh.”] That was pretty straightforward. I mean, you know, whether it was NBC, Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and then we’d talk about the news at the dinner table. And it was pretty objective. I’m not sure that all of our news sources now are as objective as they used to be when I was a kid. [inaudible crosstalk] Yeah [laugh].

[….]

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.