Chris Hayes just said Claire McCaskill called the DNC lawsuit "silly distraction"

[triron]

Last edited Sat Apr 21, 2018, 01:14 AM - Edit history (1)

What planet does she live on? No spine from some dems I guess.
Makes me boil.

I changed to title line to correct a misquote but it's synonymous.

[Sherman A1]

1. What did the Senator say?

Is there a quote or is it just something he might have heard or thinks he heard?

[elleng]

5. Thanks, good question.

She's not a frivolous person, so would be good to hear the whole story. IMO she has the most difficult campaign, to hold her seat, and has been in the same situation regularly.

[emulatorloo]

8. There was a quotation. Tom Perez says it doesn't matter. They are filing this lawsuit to protect

our Democracy from Russian interference and the do nothing attitude of the Trump admin. And sending a message that it will not be tolerated in 2018. They (the DNC) support McCaskill's campaign and will continue to do so because she is a great Democratic senator who is the the right choice for the people of her state..

[elleng]

14. Good, glad he said it doesn't matter,

and '(the DNC) support McCaskill's campaign and will continue to do so because she is a great Democratic senator who is the the right choice for the people of her state.'

Didn't hear it, about to tune in.

[emulatorloo]

20. I am hoping Rachel covers the lawsuit more in depth. This was just a short segment.

The lawsuit is interesting. I got about half-way through it this afternoon. I think it has a decent chance of success.

Chris pointed out Trump and other Republicans are criticizing it as a "partisan statement" Perez said Nixon and his defenders said something similar about the suit the DNC filed over the Watergate break-in. Yet that suit had traction and was settled in the DNC's favor.

[Cha]

27. Note: the 1972 DNC lawsuit against the Nixon campaign was successful; Nixon's folks paid $750K --on

Link to tweet

[elleng]

31. Yes, she's INTO it,

as is Beschloss (historian.)

[Demsrule86]

24. She is in a red state. I give her a pass on this no matter what she said.

[Wounded Bear]

2. I don't worry too much about what McCaskill says...

she's in a state with a ton of Trumlodytes.

[kimbutgar]

32. That seat is history for her

That is a seat that should be written off. She has a major target on her. A friend who lives there said almost every other commercial is anti mccaskill, worst than the anti Hillary ones.

[Demsrule86]

33. I hope not because that means we don't have a shot at the Senate.

[kimbutgar]

37. I know sadly.

[Demsrule86]

68. Well, she has pulled it out before, and the governor is a big asshole so we can hope.

[xmas74]

44. I live here

And though the commercials are bad Claire is one of the few who has had fifty (!) town halls, all open for free to the public in every part of the state. That does make a difference.

2)Hawley is caught up in the Greitens scandals. Today's indictment is seen as too little, too late. The longer Greitens is still in office, the worse it is for Hawley.

3) Ballot initiatives. There is one ready to go on the ballot as we speak and another projected to make the ballot.
Back history:a few years ago Missouri had a Right to Work initiative on the ballot and it lost in a landslide. January 2017 and the new supermajority in Jeff City brings it to the floor, passes it and has Greitens sign it. People are upset and it didn't go in Greitens favor. The ballot initiative to put Right to Work up to vote in the polls is back and Labor is doing a great job getting the word out. The hope is it goes on the November ballot and not August. Labor swarming the polls in November is good for Claire.

The second initiative is to expand the legality medical marijuana. I've spoken with one of the chairs and they believe they have the signatures for the Nov ballot. (They didn't make the November 2016 ballot by five signatures. Yes, FIVE signatures.) Right now it is technically legal but only on extreme cases where there is no other treatment, usually approved for children with extreme seizure disorders. This would be a total expansion, including the encouragement of Missouri farmers to cultivate, licensing of dispensaries, and allotting all earned tax revenues to go directly to veterans groups. Anyway, medical will bring voters out who otherwise never show.

I've worked voter registration booths and have registered people recently just because of those two initiatives. From there they've picked up information about our candidates.


Sorry for the long response. I'm involved in this and it annoys me when people dismiss the Dems outright in Missouri. There is so much at play here that no one really knows nationally. Most of the state doesn't know it quite yet since the hard sell on the initiatives won't begin until we have a ballot date.

[RandomAccess]

50. Excellent info -- thanks

Very encouraging.

[xmas74]

53. No problem.

Most outside of the state have no idea.

[SWBTATTReg]

85. Very nice writeup!! ...

I live in MO too and am eagerly awaiting the next cycle of elections (Nov 2018) to continue her Senate tour. She's been nothing but helpful in her legislative attempts for the people of MO. You can't fault her for this.

She's been a shining star in MO amidst all of the idiotic MO repug nonsense (e.g. right to work despite overwhelming opposition to it) and other MO initiatives that were passed by MO voters (animal rights passed, the repugs overrode too).

Josh H. is trying to make a name for himself via going after the MO governor (all repugs). It's obvious that even though he just got into office, that he's already looking beyond to higher office. Won't work, since if most people are like me, Josh H. just got into office and then is already using this office to push his efforts for the next office/position in government. He just got in there. All of his work has been clearly political in nature.

Let them fight it out (repugs against repugs). This is free pro-Claire advertisements to us here in MO when you see all of the disarray in MO among the MO repugs.

[Sherman A1]

63. Precisely

I have been to one of her staff listening sessions, which is another thing I do not see from the GOP . You don’t really get many answers at the one I attended, but the staffer takes the questions and comments back to the office for them to have a feel for what is of concern to the public.

I wish she was much more progressive, but we live in the world in which we live and half a loaf is better than not having anything to eat. If Claire dismissed the lawsuit, so be it. I really question the logic of filing one at this point myself as it does have the look of sour grapes.

[xmas74]

69. Exactly.

Not only does it look like it but it also distracts from what is happening here in Missouri. Reporters will ask McCaskill, Lacy, Cleaver, Kander, etc questions about the lawsuit instead of focusing on our horrible governor. If there are any distractions whatsoever they'll focus on them

For Missouri democrats it's a distraction.

[loyalsister]

65. She has to walk a fine line

Democratic candidates for the General Assembly are in a position to pick up seats in rural areas for the first time in 16 yrs. We are in a fortunate position of having a party that has recruited strong candidates and has been reaching out to rural voters.
Since that position is strengthened by this governor's astonishing degree of political corruption and mistreatment of women, I welcome Mccaskill's effort.

It seems like even republicans are lining up to show the country how to deal with criminals in the executive branch. Lessons for post midterms and 2020?

This should not be misinterpreted as trying to please Trump voters. They don't necessarily have to vote for Democrats to deprive their party members of needed votes. They are more likely to dig in if they are shamed for their votes.
Republicans have a governor who just got caught stealing from veterans. Their Senate candidate theoretically benefitted from that theft when the gov donated to his campaign. I don't care if they vote for Democrats. I just want them to not vote for the GOP. The more coverage this gets the more likely republican voters are going to abandon ship.

[xmas74]

71. And that's it.

People don't realize the fine line Democrats are forced to walk in Missouri to be elected.

Every time the lawsuit is mentioned she needs to dismissing and redirect to Greitens. If she addresses even one thing about that lawsuit it will be twisted and used against her.

[EffieBlack]

75. So, Democrats across the country are supposed to pull their punches and water down

their actions to soothe the sensibilities of conservative Missourians?

[xmas74]

81. You wanna keep a seat?

McCaskill votes nearly 90% with the party. If you lose this seat you have your choice of Hawley who worked on the Hobby Lobby case, Monetti who loves to talk about how exciting it was to bomb people when he was a pilot (I actually know him-we live in the same town and run into each other at events), or Courtland Sykes, who demands his wimmen folk have a made from scratch dinner on the table for him promptly at six every night.

Not everything goes over well everywhere.

[EffieBlack]

83. Yes, I do

But I don’t believe it is necessary to trash the Democrats - especially on something like this - and in this way that lends support to the GOP’s attacks on other Democrats who also have seats to win - in order to do so. She can distance herself from the suit without giving our opponents additional talking points.

[xmas74]

84. I think you're OK with us losing that seat.

You have no idea and you don't care about how the game works here. She was smart to get one comment in and redirect. It'll never let up otherwise and she will be misquoted. Hell, she was misquoted here and everyone flew off the handle.

If she loses you and many others will get to say "I told you so". It's a time honored game here on DU and one of the biggest reasons why I became a sporadic poster.

I'm heading out now. I'm working a voter registration booth today, then talking to someone from Renee Hoagenson's campaign (she's running against Vicky Hartzler but no one on DU has mentioned it), then getting together with a few members of Moms Demand Action to plan our next meeting. More boots on the ground, less internet chat is what will win this election.

[EffieBlack]

86. You have no idea what I'm "ok" with

But go do your voter registration and on-the-ground campaigning. Good luck.

[RayOfHope]

91. YES to all of this. I live here too. And Hawley's closeness to Greitens is a big problem for him n/t

[blake2012]

59. Shes a fighter. And Missouri GOP not looking good these days

[RayOfHope]

90. I live here and I wouldn't count her out. She's got a chance

And Greitens antics sure aren't helping the repubs any.

[hlthe2b]

3. In two words, Missouri voters. She's got an uphill race

Not justifying but I know how many trump-loving a'holes there are and how many $$ are being levied against her.

[triron]

4. Yes I know about Missouri voters.

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. If she is worried about her "voters" then keep your fucking mouth shut

Don't be saying negative things about your party. The repugs do enough of it by themselves.

[triron]

7. Who are you referring to?

I agree with you if it is McCaskill.

[Ferrets are Cool]

41. Yes, you are correct.

[xmas74]

10. She needs to get out ahead of this.

If Hawley wasn't already dealing with another indictment against Greitens he would be everywhere. As it is, other Republicans are already speaking out about it here.

The sheer amount of money being brought into this race is staggering. Her best bet is to make a comment then turn it back to how Hawley takes money from Greitens. Every. Single. Time.

[Demsrule86]

18. +1000

[EffieBlack]

30. I agree - just don't say anything

Or if she has to say something, she should be politically and media savvy enough to say something that does no harm.

This is the same Senator who blasted Hillary Clinton for criticizing Trump supporters.

[xmas74]

45. She did not say it was frivolous.

She called it a distraction. The interviewer mentioned it in the same breath as the Greitens indictments, trying to get a reaction. She said it was a silly distraction.

[EffieBlack]

56. Just as bad

Not helpful, Claire

[xmas74]

57. From what I understand she was referring to the interviewer

As trying to make silly distractions instead of focusing on how our governor has been indicted twice and is rumored to have more charges. The questioning was a distraction from focusing on what's happening in Missouri.

My governor has been indicted twice this year. He has been accused of tampering, of illegally using his charity list, of blackmail, of rape, of threats of distributing revenge porn, threats of physical assault against someone in his own party-and that's just a start. Instead of that the interviewer pushed it aside and wanted to focus on what some were already attacking in this state-the lawsuit. She said it was a silly distraction and from what I've read tried to get him back to other matters, namely everything the GOP is doing wrong in Missouri.

If that's how it happened she's right - it was a silly distraction to get her to focus her thoughts elsewhere instead of attacking Greitens and Hawley. Right now she needs to let the DNC work on the lawsuit while she keeps everyone's attention on how Hawley and Greitens are connected.

[EffieBlack]

58. It seems that she was referring to the suit itself, not a question or the coverage

A McCaskill spokesperson told St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Chuck Raasch that the Missouri senator considers the lawsuit a distraction.

Link to tweet

?s=19

http://freebeacon.com/politics/mccaskill-calls-dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-silly-distraction/

[xmas74]

60. It's a right wing rag

Look at the articles on the site. All place blame on Democrats and praise Trump. Just check out the editor's page for proof.

http://freebeacon.com/editors-blog/

[EffieBlack]

62. It cites to a tweet from a St. Louis-Dispatch reporter who says that this came from McCaskill's

spokeswoman. And neither McCaskill nor her spokeswoman objected.

The Dispatch is not a right-wing rag, so I think it's pretty reliable that's what she said.

Link to tweet

[xmas74]

72. And she needs to redirect every single time.

For Missouri Democrats this is a distraction. It distracts from the message they need to get out in the election season. Focusing on this takes away from focusing on Greitens and how Hawley was practically his BFF.
Lawsuits can take years. Election happens in November. Though it's exciting for us it absolutely is a distraction for them and it could work in the GOP's favor. It takes the focus away from a disgusting subhuman who took a woman down into his basement, taped her down, took half nude photos of her blindfolded and without consent, threatened to publish said photos all over the internet if she ever mentioned his name and then shoved his erect penis in her face while she sobbed on the floor.

Every time McCaskill or Lacy or Cleaver is asked about this lawsuit it redirects the focus from what the GOP has chosen to represent their party statewide. And that is a distraction.

[EffieBlack]

74. Im sorry, but thats bullshit

Answering a question isn’t a distraction. She’s not a new senator or a political neophyte. She’s been a senator for years and on politics for longer than that. If she gets distracted by a question about the national party and something like this is enough to damage her campaign, she’s not a very effective campaigner or a very good senator for her constituents.

[xmas74]

78. Really?

I live here. I was at an event last night. The local Republicans have already turned this lawsuit into a joke, trying to make it sound as though all Democrats love frivolous lawsuits. A fee have even turned this into how "maybe the charges against Greitens should be dismissed" because they claim it's all a conspiracy from the Democratic party.

If you don't live here you have no idea how it's played. Outside of KC, St Louis and Columbia the rest of the state is full of crazy. Info Wars bumper stickers, hats and t shirts are popular in my town. Go for a coffee and you hear this kind of talk. She needs to stay away from that lawsuit.

[EffieBlack]

82. And you think her joining in the criticism of the lawsuit is likely to stave off the criticism?

Or that people would have decided not to vote for her because of the lawsuit, but now that she’s criticizing it, they’ve changed their minds back and will vote for her anyway?

No, I don’t live in Missouri so you’re right, i’m not close to the day-to-day dynamics of her race. But I do live in another part of the country where it’s not helpful to Democrats to have other Democrats helping Republicans spread negative messages about us and, while we understand the need of Red State Dems to walk a fine line, we would prefer that they ”first, do no harm”

[bdamomma]

9. I thought I heard

Chris say it was the tRump regime that called it frivolous.

[elleng]

16. Sounds likely to me.

[emulatorloo]

23. Yes Trump folks did as well. Perez rolled his eyes over that and grinned, had a great response.

Which I described in my post above.

[JI7]

11. Planet Red State who is up for reelection

[oberliner]

12. "silly distraction" is what she said

[Demsrule86]

15. Right and she is running for re-election in a red state... A big who cares.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good. We need her.

[elleng]

17. Yes, we certainly need her!

[oberliner]

21. Agreed

On all points.

[Demsrule86]

34. I hope we can save this seat...we have a number of red state Senators up for election.

[triron]

25. synonymous

[Demsrule86]

13. She is in trouble and we need her to win re-election if we are to have any shot at the Senate...

Lower the blood boiling...she is a conservadem in an area Trump won.

[GulfCoast66]

61. She is not a conserv-anything if you look at her voting

Just because she does not sound like Warren, Franken or Sanders does not make her conservative.

Not being a Democratic Socialist or even a Social Democrat(how I identify) does not make one at all conservative.

Saying things like conservadem is too close to an attack.

Stop it.

[Demsrule86]

67. I agree. She is a great Democrat, but she has to talk the conservadem talk at election time.

[Cha]

19. Still "frivolous" it is NOT. I don't care

what red state Dem Senator feels the need to say about it.

It's the fucking opposite of "frivolous".

[xmas74]

22. I looked it up. It wasn't "frivolous".

She called it a distraction and said it would take time away from day to day work.

[Cha]

26. Not a "distraction" either but thanks

for the correction.

Many people are capable of Multi-tasking.

[xmas74]

43. The rest was that it was brought up

In the same breath by the interviewer as all the Greitens/Hawley scandals. She talked about it being a "silly distraction" because right now we have things in Missouri that are not good, to say the least. So when mentioning indictments (Yep, more than one) and this lawsuit in the same breath-well, it was an easy way to distract from other subjects at hand. It was a way to distraction the conversation from what our rotten governor and his cohorts have done with what some see as a ploy by those "silly Democrats".

At least that's how I took it. GOP lawmakers in Missouri are already trying to use it to distract us from asking why something isn't already being done about Greitens.

[malaise]

28. Hope she's watching Rachel's history lesson

on the DNC lawsuit back in the middle of the Nixon break-in.

Go Dems!!!

[Bradshaw3]

29. Meh

When she wins she will vote to make Schumer the next majority leader of the senate. That's all that matters.

[Demsrule86]

35. That is it...warm Democrat bodies are needed. We have to win in red states as we can't hold a

majority in the Senate any other way.

[Bradshaw3]

88. Yes and I don't know why some don't get that

on a politics forum. We also need Heitkamp and Tester and Manchin to all win and then flip the others. It can be done.

[Demsrule86]

94. If we lose the conservadems...the GOP are going to tamper with Medicare and Medicaid...all

the entitlement programs.

[TheDebbieDee]

36. This is what I don't like about my Senator, Claire McCaskill...

Or any red-state Dem for that matter. They bend over backward to act as though they're NOT liberal wing-bats and suck up to conservatives who will NEVER vote for them.

And they rock their Dem base to sleep by not loudly supporting ANYTHING that's important to working-class families, like raising the minimum wage, increasing public school funding, single-payer healthcare or taxpayer-funded college education, ALL of which are investments in the health, well-being and future of America...

[xmas74]

46. She said it

When it was mentioned in the same breath as Greitens and lawsuits.

[Stallion]

38. Polls Suggest She's got a Good Shot of Winning in a Red State

there's no way the Democratic Party backs off that race

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/mo/missouri_senate_hawley_vs_mccaskill-6280.html

[ConnorMarc]

39. She's fighting for her life in her district

Let her win first.

[EffieBlack]

76. She doesnt need to actively undermine fellow Democrats to win

If she doesn’t want to look too liberal to her conservative voters, don’t praise or come out in support of the lawsuit. But DON’T give the GOP talking points and ammunition to use against the Dems who are fighting Trump.

[ConnorMarc]

89. If she follows your advice, and loses...

Is that worth it?

[EffieBlack]

92. if she undermines other Democrats and still loses, is it worth it?

And, as I said, if a longtime senator's only chance of winning her state is to go out of her way to trash her fellow Democrats for taking action against a criminal president, then she has bigger problems than a lawsuit filed a thousand miles away.

And frankly, I'm more than a little tired of being told that we're supposed to hold our tongues, pull our punches and not call out - or say or do anything that might possibly offend - Trump supporters, while certain Democrats go out of their way to insult fellow Dems, our former president, and African-American voters but we're not supposed to say a word and WE get threatened with being given the blame if they don't win.

I want Claire McCaskill to win as much as and maybe even more than you do. But if she loses in November, it won't be because the Democrats filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump in April and it certainly won't be because anyone on an anonymous online discussion board objected to her criticizing the Democrats for doing it.

[Bleacher Creature]

40. I truly don't care.

The most important thing is her vote in the Senate, and she's locked in a tough race. If saying something that sounds dumb to me (and this does) helps keep her in the Senate as a vote to undo the Trump agenda and possibly convict him out of office, I'm 100% OK with it.

[onecaliberal]

42. What? Is this for real

[xmas74]

47. Nope. Nt

[BannonsLiver]

48. Planet Missouri

Which without St. Louis and parts of KC is Oklahoma.

She’s trying to be Mavericky in a tough race for a seat we need. People best get their fainting couches out because it’s a long way to November.

[xmas74]

49. She never said it

She said it was a silly distraction when it was mentioned alongside all the GOP stuff here with Greitens. It was said in a way to try to make Claire and all Dems seem like they were wasting time and as a way to gloss over Greitens and possibly Hawley's crimes in the interview.

[BannonsLiver]

51. Maybe the OP should edit or delete then

But It doesn’t matter. There have been several McCaskill “vapors” threads already this year about other things she said.

This will be a recurring theme here I suspect in the coming months. McCaskill in a tough race says something that might raise hackles here on DU from those who are either unwilling or incapable of understanding the dynamics at play in her race, followed by breathless, misleading posts like the above OP about “what Claire said now...”

[xmas74]

54. Exactly.

I used to be a regular with the old DU. Now I am a sporadic poster and part of it is because of these threads.

DU has become a whole lot of "he said, she said" and when called on it the posters tend to double down. I do not have time for it. I have campaigns to volunteer to work.

[Lil Missy]

52. meh. She's entitled to her own opinion.

[EffieBlack]

77. She didnt think that about Hillary, whom she criticized for being honest about her own campaign

[Lil Missy]

87. That again, is her opinion.

[Hoyt]

55. I too suspect it will amount to nothing. Hope Im wrong.

[Vinca]

64. She's not the only one saying that. This is the problem with Democrats.

We might get somewhere if we stuck together on something every so often. This was an unexpected ballsy move and I have to give Tom Perez kudos for it. Claire and the others should take a lesson from the Watergate era.

[jberryhill]

66. Whatever she may have said has no bearing on anything

As if the court is going to give a shit one way or the other about what someone on he TV machine says.

[xmas74]

73. She called it a distraction

Because it's being used in this state to distract and redirect discussions about the governor and his cronies.

She needs to stay on message. That message should be how horrible the state has become since the GOP supermajority, we have a governor with multiple indictments and we've become a punchline for late night TV. She then needs to bring up how the GOP never does town halls while she just finished fifty and what she learned at them.

For her campaign it is a distraction.

[EffieBlack]

79. Then stay on message. Dont comment on it.

But now she’s not only off message, she’s started a whole ‘nother conversation.

As she said about Hillary when she criticized some Trump supporters “Not helpful, Claire!”

[mcar]

70. Jackie Spiers also dissed it on PBS last night

I don't get the strategy.

[spanone]

80. McCaskill calling the DNC lawsuit a 'silly distraction' is a silly distraction

[samplegirl]

93. Ive never ever liked

her.