Democrats
have a strong voting record in favor of gay marriage. York wrote about the
Democrats that have separated themselves from gay rights. A gallup poll found
that 65 percent of Democrats support. However, that leaves 34 percent who vote
at odds with their party (2012). Claire McCaskill is one of Democrats who is
distancing herself from the issue because of the ideologies of those in her
state of Missouri. She has not put
out a direct statement on her official Senate site. On Votesmart her stance on
same-sex marriage remains “unknown”. Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, Florida's Bill
Nelson and West Virginia's Joe Manchin are other Senators running for
reelection who have generally ignored the topic when asked (York, 2012). They
are torn between staying loyal to their party ideologies or their voter
demographics.
One
of the reasons that McCaskills stance on same-sex marriage was ignored was
likely because of her candidate Akin. Many voters assumed that McCaskill and
Akin took polarizing positions on most issues. Akin was quoted as saying that, "Anybody
who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no
civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has
long survived" in late August (Signorile, 2012). Akin’s strong position on
the matter, painting it out to be the end of civilization, took a lot of
pressure off of McCaskill to take a strong stance on either side. Of the news
stories I have found about Akin’s comment about same-sex marriage, none of them
mention the other candidate’s position on the matter. The stories are too
focused on the controversy surrounding Akin. Once again, McCaskill has been
able to sit back and allow her candidate to dig himself a hole and leave her as
the default winner. In actuality, both
candidates repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
McCaskills
separation from same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues was a strategic
move. Unlike her opponent, she did not let her emotions get the best of her on
the issues. By not speaking out directly she maintained her role as the stable
candidate of the two despite her silence on the issue.
When it comes to foreign policy,
McCaskill is firm in ensuring that no country can exploit America. China’s
trade practices and monetary policies in the recent years have arisen as a concern for the U.S.,
especially considering their trade imbalance and the threat of high growth rates. It comes
as a breath of fresh air to see the topic of debate move from her opponent,
Akin, to her stance on foreign relations. This time her opponent is China’s
currency manipulation. Many American manufacturers and their employees are
happy to see McCaskill’s policy agenda address the trade deficit with China,
which caused the loss of 2.8 million jobs in the last decade (Lambrecht, 2011).
This campaign move has won the support of the Alliance for American
Manufacturing, despite their strong ties to Republican candidates (Donia, L.,
2012). This support could prove helpful for McCaskill campaign, as she is vying
for the votes despite the tough Republican opposition. The Republican Party,
who see a defeat as necessary to recapturing chamber, have already spent $15.2
million on an “anti-McCaskill” activism (Steinhauer, J., 2012). The Democrats
have returned this sentiment with a slew of attack ads and comments about the
offside remarks of her opponent, Todd Akin. He has gotten a break from the
Democrat’s scrutiny as McCaskill’s latest advertisement, named “China”, focuses
on her legislation that is committed to stopping Chinese companies from evading
U.S. trade laws.
McCaskill has been tough on China
since 2011, when she introduced legislation that would penalize foreign
companies and shippers using unfair trading advantages such as evading duties
(Lambrecht, 2011). This is a smart move for McCaskill since job creation is a
top priority for many voters, many of whom believe America is losing jobs to
China. In 2011 she began creating a bill to curb duty evasion from foreign
companies. On her website she states, “When Missouri businesses compete on a
level playing field, they win—and that means more jobs for Missourians,” showing
that she views foreign policy in the same way as most citizens.
Getting tough on China is not only a
tactic to win votes; it is also a matter of funding. Berry, Goldman, Hula & Janda found that trade associations donated around 100 million dollars in
the 2008 Election, second only to corporations. It is large donation that will
gain attention from members of Congress making it difficult for them to ignore
a lobbyist’s requests (p. 249, 2010). The same sort of funding and support from
groups like the Alliance for American Manufacturing means that voting against
China obligatory for their continued backing.
McCaskill’s commitment to stopping
unfair trading practices from foreign traders shows how international relations
can directly influence domestic issues. Formal and fair business is a matter of
pride for Americans. It is also a problem area that necessitates government
support. She states on her website that her foreign policy role targets
constructively dealing with external threats. Her tactic for foreign relations
is ensuring America is a safe and stable environment with “expanded trade
opportunities, safe borders and a healthier population” (2012). Emphasis on
unfair trade practices from the Chinese is a way to justify and explain high
rates of unemployment to undecided voters. Since the U.S. economy and unemployment
are key issues in this election it is a smart move from the Democrats to blame the Chinese in part.
Works Cited
Berry, J., Goldman, J., Hula, K. & Janda, K. (2012). The Challenge of Democracy in American Government in Global Politics. Boston: Wadsworth.
If there’s one way a white male
can raise questions with anyone the slightest bit left of Rick Santorum, it’s
making an uninformed remark about a woman’s body. It’s no surprise that Todd
Akin was under the attack of liberal media after his comment about “legitimate rape”.
(Oh, it may come as no surprise that he has the support of aforementioned
Santorum1) He claims women can block an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, abortions
should not be permitted, even if the pregnancy results from rape. The term
“legitimate rape” is his category for cases of rape that he believes women
fabricate or exaggerate. He supported his claims saying that pregnancy from
rape is “extremely rare” according to the doctors he has spoken to2.
What doctors has been speaking
to? I hope I am not the only person who thinks this contradicts everything I
have learned about sex and contraceptives. To be fair, I tried searching
“pregnancy from rape” and “block* pregnancy” in my university’s online library
catalogues and found no medical journals supporting claims that women can ward
off an unwanted pregnancy.
Democrats and women rights
activists were outraged by his comments, rightfully so. But I cannot help but
think that his opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill, was celebrating a private
and anticipatory victory. It will take a lot of damage control for people to
forget a comment like this. The hope is that she can appropriately use his
blunder to win her support from the voters on wavering between party lines. Another
thing she needs to do is get her name out there in a positive way. Name
recognition is importing to winning a campaign, and most people in Missouri
have heard Akins name at this point. Her main battle is spreading her name to
anyone who heard about his blunder. Thankfully, most voters should know the
name of their current Senator. Even Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, both of whom are
anti-choice, are trying to separate themselves from his comments1. His own
party has urged him to step down3. Akin is still seen as a threat for the
Republicans even though he has since retracted his claims and apologized.
Initially, McCaskill made limited
comments about the “legitimate rape” remark. However, after Akin passed up the
deadline to withdraw from the race, McCaskill released a campaign commercial
attacking Akin. McCaskill has always used a candidate-oriented strategy,
boasting her own family values, environment, mandate and willingness to put her
principles before her party loyalties4. Therefore, the line, “what will he
say next?” stresses to the voters the volatility of electing Akin as Senator.
Video courtesy of Claire McCaskills channel on youtube.com Is this an advertisement for a politician or a warning for the end of Western civilization?
What is a
campaign without some critical slander and a hostile political advertisement?
Naturally, Akin struck back with his own advertisement attacking McCaskill. He
accuses her of “getting rich off of us” by signing the multibillion-dollar
stimulus bill that did not produce jobs. You have got to give him some credit,
he sure knows how to appeal to Missouri’s Republicans. For the voters that
believe Washington needs to cut spending and focus on job creation Akin is the
preferred candidate5. The advertisement is effective in that it adds to the
existing doubts they have in a Democratic senator. Click here to view it5.
Personally, I find it difficult to
take any party funded attack advertisement seriously. It gives uninformed
voters partial and biased information that draws attention away from either
party’s actual mandate. The claims more often than not are exaggerated or
false; regardless, there are Americans out there who let party funded
advertisements influence their decision. That’s the problem with media. It is a
strong authority over our beliefs. The cost of airing a 30 second clip on
television costs a lot of money. That’s one of the reasons why we see a correlation
between money and success in politics. The truth of our reality is, most people
only involve themselves if where there’s money, and where there’s money there
is usually a scandal!
