Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[jillian]

McCaskill Claims Narrow Win in Missouri

By SUSAN SAULNY
Published: November 8, 2006
ST. LOUIS, Nov. 8 — After a contentious race that stubbornly remained too close to call until early this morning, Claire McCaskill, the Democratic challenger to Republican Senator Jim Talent, claimed a narrow victory here, pushing the Democrats one seat closer to control of the Senate.

“The great state of Missouri has spoken!” Ms. McCaskill said to a roaring crowd just before 1 a.m. “Tonight we have heard the great voice of Missourians, and they have said we want change.”

Shortly after, Mr. Talent conceded the race, and Ms. McCaskill’s supporters grew even more boisterous.

“It’s been a long time since our party really had something to celebrate,” Ms. McCaskill told the crowd. “So have a good time. You deserve it.”

The defeat crushed supporters at what would have been a victory party for Mr. Talent, bringing a dramatic late-night close to one of the most negative and contentious statewide races in recent Missouri history. Ms. McCaskill’s victory had immediate national impact, as it brought the Democrats within two seats of shifting the balance of power in the Senate.

Preliminary results from rural precincts showed Mr. Talent with a sizable lead over Ms. McCaskill. But the first groans were emitted in the Talent camp at a Hilton Hotel in suburban Frontenac around 11 p.m., when a campaign official announced that largely Democratic urban centers of Kansas City and St. Louis had not yet reported their votes, which portended bad things for the Republicans.

After his concession, Mr. Talent tried to comfort his supporters. “It was not for lack of support and vigor from you,” he said. “You did a very good job, but the headwind was very stiff this year.”

The first victorious roars were let loose at Ms. McCaskill’s gathering at the Renaissance Grand Hotel in downtown St. Louis at 11:45 p.m., when a large chunk of the city’s ballots finally registered and brought both candidates to 48 percent of the votes.

“It’s turning!” said Tony Wyche, a consultant to the McCaskill campaign staff, monitoring county-by-county results on his laptop. “Turing the right way.”

Chants of “Claire, Claire, Claire!” began shortly thereafter, and the ballroom reverberated with a thunderous roar when Ms. McCaskill took the lead around midnight.

The race here captivated not only Missouri voters but election-watchers, party officials and commentators nationwide because it was one of six in the country where Democrats saw the possibility of picking up a Republican seat to win control of the Senate. The contest had been a statistical dead heat since Labor Day.

Many other races were close, but they tended to lean in favor of a particular party as election day grew near. Not so here. At times over the last weeks, Mr. Talent had been in the lead and showing strong momentum only to lose ground, seemingly overnight, to Ms. McCaskill, who would then do the same.

Still, since Labor Day, neither candidate was ever ahead by more than three percentage points in any credible poll. Early on, it was unclear what impact a statewide ballot measure on stem cell research would have on the race. A defining issue of the campaign at first, it faded a bit from the spotlight in the fall only to resurface when the actor Michael J. Fox threw his support behind Ms. McCaskill, who favors the research, in a commercial that showed the toll Parkinson’s disease had taken on him.

The stem cell initiative appeared to be winning, with 51 percent support after 94 percent of precincts reported results.

If passed, the ballot measure would guarantee that any stem cell research that is legal under federal law could be performed in Missouri. Mr. Talent came out against the measure at the strong urging of Christian conservatives, but only after he tried to avoid taking a position at all.

Some political analysts say his half-hearted rejection of the measure helped Ms. McCaskill. Independent and undecided voters make up a tiny sliver of the state’s electorate, and they were largely the focus of Mr. Talent’s and Ms. McCaskill’s campaigns, as each crossed over into the other’s traditional base to find an advantage, however small, with upbeat appeals and personal attacks.

Mr. Talent, known for his conservative views and close association to the Bush administration, courted black voters in St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. McCaskill, who narrowly lost a race for governor in 2004 because of weak support in rural areas, traveled in an recreational vehicle through small towns, reminding voters that she was “a daughter of rural Missouri,” born in Rolla, Mo., and raised, for part of her childhood, near her family’s feed mill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08missouri.html?

 

[sitarro]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08missouri.html?

Great state?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08missouri.html?

“The great state of Missouri has spoken!” Ms. McCaskill said to a roaring crowd just before 1 a.m. “Tonight we have heard the great voice of Missourians, and they have said we want change.”

Strange that a hair over 50% means that the State of Missouri has spoken. ANd that "the people" wanted change. I guess the 49.999% who voted against her no longer count.


As for stem cell research, I still havent received an answer from any libs as to why, if it is indeed so promising, they need govt funding, because private companies and individuals should be investing in it heavily.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh poppycock re issues I don't like. The only real issue as far as law and religion go is abortion and you wouldn't be so naive/disingenuous to say that anti-abortion is not driven by Chrisitians? Outsida that the only other contentious issues seems to be things like the ten commandments on the courthouse door. C'mon Dillo, point out other "issues I don't like" where I have given it a religious label. And Gunny is right and you'd be hardpressed to find someone to argue the point. Most of those laws are just common sense anyway...

Do you know "where" our liberties/rights eminate from, according to the FF and the Declaration of Independence? So much for no religous influence on our laws.

As for common sense, so what, just because a law is common sense doesnt make it any less Christian if it is indeed a Christian value.

Adultery isnt common sense.

Also, do you realize it was a Christian movement, based on Christian theology, that got slavery (which was initiated by the Muslims) made illegal?

Did you know that the bankruptcy and forgivness of debts, which greatly influences peoples private economic situations, is a Judeo/Christian value?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I do wish you folk who insist on opining about our Constitution would actually have read and understood it. The Constitution, and all its amendments, are binding on the States. States are not, by virtue of the supremacy clause, allowed to give fewer rights than those provided by the Feds, though they can give greater rights, and many states do.

You're about 1,000% wrong about the State sponsored religion thing. The Staes are not premitted to abbrogate the First or any other amendment.

There has never been a state sponsored church under our Constitutional system. Please feel free to live somewhere where such a system exists if that is more to your liking than the U.S.

As for the central government vs. state government issue... there's a reason the Articles of Confederation were supplanted by the Constitution.

Well, well, well, I havent heard a peep from you about the Constitution, seperation of Church and State and the like, since you now know you were wrong and that the States did have established official State sanctioned Chruches.