Monday, November 07, 2016

Jason Kander: Why I am running to be Missouri's next Senator

(From the Jason Kander campaign)

It’s Election Day Eve, and while there’s a lot to do, I wanted to take a minute to remind you why I am running to be Missouri’s next Senator.

I’m running because I love my state and country. I volunteered to defend it. My family and I have skin in the game.

I’m running because I want to bridge the gulf between our differences and make Washington work again.

It often feels as though the only thing people can agree on is that Washington is broken. And to be honest, this cynicism isn’t surprising. Middle-class families in Missouri and around the country are working hard but feel like they just can't get ahead.

While they struggle to pay off student loans, find a good-paying job, and achieve economic security, most lawmakers in Washington aren’t listening. Instead they’re listening to special interests and playing political games.

This isn’t the political system our country deserves. Together, we can show this generation and future ones how much a functional democracy can accomplish.


Anonymous said...

I don't understand why 70% of this area votes Republican. There is a certain amount of truth to Romney's statement in 2012 when he said 47% of the public is own some type of public assistance. If so, why does around 30% of these people in this area vote Republican? The Republcans want to remove most public assistance, so do these people not realize they are voting against their interests? Is it ignorance or fear of government oversight? I cannot reconcile this fact, but I do know Kander to have more courage and honor than Blunt. Blunt's entire family is gaming the system by lobbying against the 47%.

Anonymous said...

9:30 PM: That's in part a fallacy of the Economic Man model of human beings, that our only interests are economic. This has demonstrably not been true throughout history with many peoples, and there's no reason to believe modern day Americans would be any different.

You're also ignoring aspirational issues, how many of those "47%" want to be "on some type of public assistance"? Politic who make credible claims to generally improve the economy (and have enough experience with this sort of thing in the last century to have good opinions on what works, and what doesn't) will appeal to those who aspire to get off the public dole if given a chance.

Plus the statement "The Republcans want to remove most public assistance" is demonstrably false, which anyone who's been awake since, say, the George W. Bush administration, knows if they look at the history instead of repeating talking points that got old and rancid decades ago.

As for Kander vs. Blunt, gun control alone is sufficient to make a determination of their true character, it's a reliable touchstone on a someone's attitude towards liberty and much else, never trust a politician who doesn't think we can be trusted owning guns. That Blunt and his family are personally corrupt in a sense is a minor detail compared to that, although I'll admit running as a frank gun grabber in a Missouri statewide race does demonstrate sometime from Kander. Could be courage, could be $$$ from billionaire Bloomberg, although that doesn't seem to be the case with him (unless Bloomberg has started to make *sub rosa* donations), could be he's just stupid.

A lot of us on the right would like to send Roy Blunt back to spend more time with his family, but can't vote for someone so viciously anti-gun, especially in an election where the Republicans are having a hard time keeping the Senate due to simple numbers.

Anonymous said...

@ 3:07am

You say economic interests do not drive voters on assistance is almost laughable, People needing financial assistance are seldom voting altruistically. The GOP's war on assistance to the needy is demonstrated by history... just look at GOP initiatives to shorten the time allowed for assistance. Drug testing widows, single mothers, or other GOP hurdles thrown at these people, improve the needy's abilitities to break the chains of poverty? So the statement, "The Republicans want to remove most public assistance", is demonstrably true. You failed to cite any examples of the GOP's efforts to assist these people, because there are none. I expect you to vote Koster for Governor, if you base your vote on the NRA's gun control issues, as he is endorsed by them. Nobody, Koster, Kander, Clinton, or Obama have made any threat to gun control, save not allowing people on the "no fly" list from purchasing firearms. Let's hear your evidence. A lie that Democrats want to take people's firearms, does not make it true. Tell me how Trump, Blunt or Billy Long have offered to assist people needing help to break the chains of poverty. I expect to be waiting some time before you can cite examples.

Anonymous said...

@ 3:07am

When you don't have money, economic means is driving the bus. Money is the motivation for the majority of Americans or people all over the world. Money is necessary to survive in society, it doesn't take a back seat to other ideals. It's hard to be aspirational when you can't afford to eat. What a society does to aid elderly, infirmed, widows of veterans, and single mothers is a reflection of decency.

The GOP has DEMONSTRABLY sought to reduce food stamps and welfare, sought to reduce limits on time allowed to receive these benefits, and even wanted drug testing for these infirmed, widows, and single mothers. Privatize Sovial Security is another rallying cry. This is fact proven by actions of Republucan lawmakers.

You cite gun control as a driving factor in voting, does that mean you are voting for Democrat Koster over Republican Greitens, as the NRA has endorsed Koster? Another false claim by Republicans is that Obama was going to take their guns. Sales of firearms skyrocketed, you couldn't even buy ammunition at a normal price. Did Obama take the firearms? Of course not, Kander was a soldier for goodness sake, do you really think he would attempt such? Another preposterous idea perpetrated by the GOP and the NRA. The only restrictions on gun purchases Democrats have suggested was to deny purchases to those on the "No Fly List".

Anonymous said...

Woah, I definitely touched a nerve there. Anyway:

You cite gun control as a driving factor in voting, does that mean you are voting for Democrat Koster over Republican Greitens, as the NRA has endorsed Koster?

I actually don't trust the NRA that much, but as a matter of fact I did vote for Koster, a Missouri Democrat who is pro-gun is preferable to a Republican weasel with no moral courage.

As for your about gun control, I'll just note they are so ludicrious that you can't conceive of how intolerable it would be to allow the government to use a secret list to prevent people from owning guns.