I faxed in my request for an absentee ballot today. By the look of things, there should be a close race this November. But who to choose? I haven’t done much in the way of serious research about the two candidates for Senate, but I’m already getting that familiar feeling of dissatisfaction with both front running candidates - thanks in large part to their debate on Meet the Press yesterday.

I found it extremely annoying that the debate started with the Foley “scandal.” As most people discovered late last night or this morning, there is no shortage of events that are more important. So a pervy senator sent inappropriate messages to a page. Come on! It’s not like he raped the kid! Was it inappropriate? Sure! And Foley was right to resign - just like any business person who engages in sexual misconduct should. Is a 16 year-old boy smart enough to stay away from a creepy old man? Absolutely. I was no dummy at 16, and I’m sure someone sharp enough to get a page position wasn’t either. The fact that this thing has been played up as some major political event (when we should be discussing real problems on the eve of an election) is sickening. Both Senate candidates lose points with me for wasting time on the topic. They argue over if the results of the “investigation” should come out before the election. I hope they don’t, simply because this issue should be at the bottom of the priority list. McCaskill says the Speaker should resign. I think we have enough to deal with at the moment without vacating Senate leadership positions because Hastert didn’t install NetNanny on Senators’ computers. The responsible party lost his job and destroyed his reputation. End of story. Let’s move on to issues of actual importance.

McCaskill lost points with me on the Iraq debate for the same reason as most Democrats. She acts like the reason Republican leadership doesn’t want to set a withdrawal timeline is because they want our military to be in Iraq forever. I have no doubt that everyone involved wants to resolve the conflict and withdraw. I also have little doubt that announcing a timeline would only encourage the people lobbing bombs at our troops to hunker down and wait for them to leave - then start another violent pursuit of their goals when our troops are conveniently not present to stop them. If McCaskill (and the Democrats) want to change our military methods, then start giving some examples of what you would do differently. Simply stating a deadline to send our troops elsewhere does nothing to help resolve the conflict.

I also take issue with McCaskill saying Talent doesn’t consider 300 billion dollars a lot of money because he describes it as “1 percent of the GDP.” I felt like it was an unwarranted political stab that takes advantage of the fact that most people don’t have any idea how much of money is “a lot of money” when we’re talking about the national budget. If you consider the sum money spent to fund a full-scale war, then no, it’s not “a lot” of money (although I do think increased taxes to help finance the war would not be out of line, though I’m no economist). If McCaskill believes what she is saying, then I’m not sure I want her representing me. If she is saying it simply to play politics, then I’m happy she’s demonstrating rational thought but worried that she’ll say whatever she thinks will get her elected. Speaking of which, she was quoted as saying “George Bush let people die on rooftops because they were poor and because they were black,” and she stands by what she said because she “was acknowledging what Americans believed at the time.” Wow. Just… wow. I think I would be more comfortable with her had she explained her statement by saying she wasn’t used to the Louisiana heat and it had made her delirious. To blame the shortcomings of an entire system on the President by accusing him of being a racist is just reckless and irresponsible. Like I said before, either she believes this or she’s willing to say things like this for the sake of politics. Either way, it still counts against her in my book.

One thing on which I do agree with Ms. McCaskill is her view on abortion. Talent takes the expected Republican position, but McCaskill took what I believe to be the more realistic approach: “I certainly believe that abortion should remain safe, legal and rare in the early term, but why don’t we concentrate on prevention? Why don’t we all—none of us want abortion, none of us support abortion. Let’s come together and work on preventing abortions in this country.” Finally! Someone who wants to address an issue based on resolving the root of the problem rather than legislate behavior! Unfortunately, she goes on to imply that the high cost of healthcare drives up abortion numbers, which leads right into her support of universal health care - something I cannot support for a country of obese smokers wielding Big Gulps. It’s a shame really. She knows what the problem is but completely drops the ball when it comes to a solution. As for Talent, he goes hard-right on this one which (I think) avoids a real solution altogether. Murder has been essentially forbidden by law since the birth of our nation - that hasn’t stopped it from happening.

Another topic of the debate was stem cell research. My own view on this is pretty clear. I’m fine with the federal government not giving funding to the research. It seems to me that the medical industry has plenty of cash to fund its own research. I do have a problem with a blanket ban on “human cloning.” In my mind, there is a very real difference between cloning a person a la Dolly the sheep and growing a dish of stem cells. The legislation should reflect this difference. On this debate, I have to side with McCaskill, though I wish she would acknowledge that controlling certain kinds of cloning (the stuff that’s still in the realm of science fiction) may be prudent in the future. This is admittedly a difficult topic to legislate given the fact that what’s being regulated has yet to become reality. I do award bonus points, however, to Talent for mentioning the work being done throughout the country right now that is investigating methods of producing stem cells without violating anyone’s “moral code.” Should such research bear fruit, it will hopefully become a method to bypass the conflict and allow the scientific progress to continue with everyone’s support.

Lastly, the two candidates were asked about the legacy of Presidents Clinton and Bush, as well as the upcoming presidential election hopefuls. When asked if she would like to see Hillary Clinton become president McCaskill replied, “I think any Democratic nominee is going to be better than this president.” News flash Ms. McCaskill, President Bush can’t run again in ‘08. Show a little independent thought and get off the “not Bush” bandwagon.

So, as you can see, I’m torn between the two candidates in the Missouri Senate race next month. I’d say I’ve got the same problem as most Americans: I see two candidates who primarily are sticking to party politics rather than reason and compromise. But, as the old saying goes, “you can tell how smart someone is by how much they agree with you.” It might just be that there are a lot of Missourians who think I’m an idiot. I just hope they’re willing to explain to me why I’m an idiot rather than beat me over the head with a Democratic or Republican lever.