Chapter the Twelfth: In Which Claire McCaskill Shows Yet Again That She Just Doesn't Get It

Claire McCaskill came down with an acute case of candor the other day in in speaking to some Jackson County Dems. She now recognizes that she overlooked the importance of rural voters in her 2004 race for Governor. Perhaps our esteemed State Auditor is a loyal reader of this blog and noted my recent blog on her attempts to court rural voters and her poor performance in many rural counties. Perhaps not.

Regardless, Freesoiler cannot help but be amused at the fact that, even in what she means to be a moment of humility, McCaskill still exposes her ignorance and prejudice about rural voters. McCaskill admits that she was wrong to assume that rural voters don't care about "...College education tuition, health care, being able to afford a tank of gasoline. They care as much as we do" (Emphasis mine). The "we" McCaskill speaks of refers to the enlightened, megalopolitan denizens of St. Louis and Kansas City. However, McCaskill is encouraged by her belief that rural Missourians "fundamentally understand this is not going right, that something is terribly wrong in the direction this country is going in." However, beliefs like this are a double-edged sword. If Jim Talent wins in November on the strength on the rural vote, it then must follow that rural Missourians are not as enlightened as Claire McCaskill has come to believe, because they clearly did not recognize that terrible direction the country is going in. Statements like this remind me of people who cry foul at election results and say that a "fair" election will result in a victory for X candidate, so any other result is therefore not fair. Consider this, Ms. McCaskill: Maybe, win or lose, rural voters make their voting decisions using different criteria than you. It doesn't make what you and your urban supporters care about more or less important, but different people care about different issues.

That segues nicely to my next point. Ms. McCaskill goes on to complain about Governor Blunt's comment during the October 2004 debate, "I wouldn't talk about values either if I had hers." If I never hear the word values again, it'll be too soon. That said, Claire's defense is that she does indeed have values. That's wonderful. I'm sure you love your children and your husband and swerve to avoid dogs in the street. Those are fine values that we can all share. But the electorate is able to recognize that you can fail to completely share their values without being a bad person. Matt Blunt wasn't saying that you're a bad person because you have different values than he does, he was merely pointing out the political reality that your values are not shared by most Missourians. Until the Democratic party changes its positions on abortion, support for the traditional family, and many other issues, the average Missouri voter will continue to recognize that it does not share their values, and vote accordingly. Claire McCaskill's implications that elections that turn on the "values" issues are somehow invalid or unimportant shows a disdain not only for voters, but for the democratic ideal that people can decide for themselves what on what issues to base their vote.