Fighting for the Center

It'd be the most boring U.S. Senate race in history, if they weren't running neck-and-neck. Both candidates want to claim the middle ground. Both anchor themselves in faith, family and honorable public service. Claire McCaskill was taught to say, "Trick or treat and vote for JFK" when she was 7. Jim Talent remembers his father wheeling the portable TV into the dining room so the family could watch the Republican Convention during dinner. You have to cut deep to see what divides these two.

Jim Talent

Political pundits say gentleman Jim Talent is so clean, he squeaks. Missouri’s freshman senator also has all the winning Missouri values: keeping God in the Pledge, protecting Old Glory from flame, confining marriage to a man and a woman.

All that squeakiness makes the devil come out of a secular, humanist journalist. You want to ask him whether he’s ever been across the river to Pop’s, or whether he even knows what a Sauget-nightclub lap dance is—at least, before he starts writing federal legislation to put a stop to it.

You know this line of questioning will get you nowhere. Talent is a guy whom Evangelical websites praise for sharing “the Good News of Jesus Christ in the political arena.” He is convincingly clean, and you’ve got to be content when he tells you that his idea of a big night out is seeing Superman Returns with his wife, Brenda, and then eating steak at Annie Gunn’s.

You get downright ecstatic when he finally reveals this tidbit: “Another thing I like to do is to relax at my brother’s place, Chuck’s Bar & Grill in the Colonnade Center in Des Peres.”

What’s that? A bar and grill? Is that the Velvet Underground you’re hearing in the background?

Not likely. Talent’s never taken a walk on the wild side, and these days there’s not even time for him to kick back at Chuck’s Bar & Grill. With the November 7 election coming up fast, the Missouri senator, who took the seat away from Democrat Jean Carnahan in a 2002 special election, can’t ease up. He’s in a tough campaign against a scrappy challenger, Claire McCaskill, who is determined to return the Senate post to Democrats. And McCaskill isn’t a godless liberal: She wants a reference to the Divine in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Normally the betting money favors incumbents: Studies show that incumbents in Congress have an 85 percent or better chance of being sent back to office, a greater return rate than members of the old Soviet Politburo enjoyed. But this is not a normal election year.

Pollsters have identified several factors dragging on Talent’s candidacy, including “Iraq fatigue.” Three years and counting after President George W. Bush declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq, the bloodshed continues, and Talent has stood firmly with Bush on Iraq at every corner turned, from lightning invasion through endless occupation. “We are involved in a struggle, really, for our existence—an existential struggle,” he says. “We are struggling with people who are out to get us.”

Talent’s other concerns lie closer to home. For a decade or more, Democrats have been outflanked in U.S. elections by wedge ballot issues—God, the Pledge, gay marriage—that whipped up the squeaky Republican base. This year, the issues on the Missouri ballot—raising the minimum wage and protecting stem-cell research—are thought more likely to bring out Democrats.

The Unflappable Senator

When I ask Talent about the ballot issues, he is more worried about being with his teenage son when he takes his driving test than about the pundits’ predictions. “It’s hard to say how these issues will play in the turnout for the election,” Talent says calmly. “I am a believer that all politics is local, and the voters understand that it comes down to a choice between two people.”

Talent points to his record on promoting small business and easing health care costs for them, backing the renewable-fuels bill and a bill to crack down on methamphetamine use, and developing a good prescription-drug plan. He’s terribly interested in transportation infrastructure: “We have got to rebuild, and we have about 10 years to do it before the baby boomers start retiring. It’s not flashy, but it’s very, very important.”

He has stumbled in only one of his 11 election campaigns—the 2000 race for governor, which was won by Democrat Bob Holden. (Ironically, McCaskill ousted Holden in the Democratic primary for governor four years later, only to be beaten by upstart Matt Blunt in the finale.)

Talent comes across as cool and collected, and only one issue has challenged that poise. Earlier this year, he tried to move toward the center on the question of embryonic stem-cell research and got thrown into a tailspin. Citing the possibility that, in the future, scientists could replicate embryonic stem cells without cloning them, he withdrew his support for a ban of all human cloning sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas. The response from a key Talent ally, Missouri Right to Life, was loud and uncompromising. “We are very disappointed,” scolded the group’s president, Pam Fichter. “He is looking for compromise, but there is no compromise on cultivating human life and harvesting it as a cash crop.”

Talent was accused of harboring political motives when he withdrew his support for the cloning ban—and then, when he swiftly found his way back to opposing embryonic stem-cell research, he was accused of political maneuvering all over again. He insists that all along he has been motivated by personal conviction: “I am very much against human cloning.”

A Pillar But Not a Rubber Stamp

In a year when faltering support for the Bush administration’s Iraq policy has sent some Republicans scurrying for cover, Talent has stood with the president, refusing to question his executive power.

“We have to strike the right balance, so the president has the power and ability to protect the citizens of the U.S.,” Talent says. “The criticism the president is getting shows a failure to understand the urgency of the threats that we are facing. The way we are going to beat the terrorists is to get intelligence quickly and to act on it quickly. This is the way the Israelis beat the second Intifada. We will not do well if we bring in a court on everything we do.”

Talent bristles at charges that he has acted as a rubber stamp for Bush policies, though. He was unequivocal in his opposition to the president’s approval of a deal that would have put a United Arab Emirates–based company in charge of managing U.S. seaports. On the other hand, he’s resolute in his support for the president’s prescription-drug benefit plan for older Americans: “It is absolutely wrong to say that the benefit is a windfall for the prescription-drug companies. That’s like saying Medicare is a windfall for doctors. Who are we going to buy prescription drugs from other than drug companies?

“When he agrees with me, I support the president,” says Talent. “When I don’t agree with him, I don’t support him. I have my own agenda—and if Democrats agree with it, I will work with them.

“Infrastructure is an area where I’m disappointed with the administration,” Talent continues. “I favored $50 billion in bonds for U.S. infrastructure improvements for highways, bridges, land, water and air transportation. He threatened to veto that, and what we got was $15 billion.”

On the issue of illegal immigration at the Mexican border, Talent says he not only parts ways with the president but also offers a clear alternative to the views of his opponent. He says McCaskill has proved a moving target on immigration and suggests that she took a hard line against companies’ employing illegal immigrants only after those companies snubbed her requests for campaign contributions.

“I want strong border enforcement. I want to build a wall,” says Talent. “The only way we are going to stop people from illegally crossing over the border is with fencing. McCaskill is saying that I am against employer sanctions because I have taken money from different agricultural interests. Well, she has solicited money from these same interests.”

The big question mark is how deep the policy differences go—and which issues might affect a tight senate race between Gentleman Jim and a relentless adversary from his own back yard snapping at his heels.

His first impression of McCaskill, back when they served together in the Missouri House of Representatives, was of a “tough, able politician”; he says if they were stuck together in an elevator, they’d probably enjoy chatting about their kids.

But, Talent adds firmly, “There really is a difference between the left-of-center and the right-of-center approaches to government. In my coalition, we tend to think that what’s important about our society is what people build together—families, small businesses, local schools, churches and synagogues. Happiness and prosperity depend more on those things; government’s role is important but it’s secondary. It’s a role of empowerment.”

Claire McCaskill

For a movie buff, it’s hard to look at the smartly dressed, confident Claire McCaskill and not think of Tracy Flick in the film Election.

Reese Witherspoon plays Flick, a straight-A, over­achieving go-getter determined to be president of Carver High School’s student body. McCaskill’s friends say she probably knew she wanted to be a top-tier political player back in grade school.

Now she is running for the U.S. Senate against another driven, over-achieving, wonky politico, one who picked up his own share of kudos as a youngster destined for public life. Is it just coincidence that McCaskill has invaded Jim Talent’s boyhood turf? Or is it strategy, learned in the Tracy Flick days?

Kirkwood and Des Peres used to be exclusive Talent territory. He was raised in Des Peres—a suburb that, with apologies to Florissant, calls itself the “City of Flowers”—and graduated from nearby Kirkwood High School in 1973.

McCaskill and her husband, Joseph Shepard, live with their blended family in a large new home just a few blocks from Talent’s old school. McCaskill says she’s grown fond of haunts that, undoubtedly, were familiar to young Jim Talent. “I really like down­town Kirkwood,” she says. “I love the Kirkwood Farmers’ Market, where I can go with my daughter and get everything for a big, home-cooked meal.”

She’s adopted Talent’s old stomping grounds, and now she wants his Senate seat. She is asking Missouri voters to compare her record as a prosecutor in the Kansas City area and as state auditor in Jefferson City with Talent’s record in Washington.

Like Talent, McCaskill is used to winning—but, like Talent, she also has sampled the bitter fruit of defeat. Talent lost to Democrat Bob Holden in the 2000 race for Missouri governor; four years later, McCaskill lost to Blunt in the same race.

So even though summer opinion polls showed McCaskill slightly ahead of Talent in the Senate race, she’s dropped the farmers’-market visits for nonstop campaigning, and she’s bracing for some tough weeks of television ads.

“I’m running against an incumbent senator,” she says. “People can’t appreciate what an uphill challenge that is. Special interests back incumbents. Talent is racking up so much money, it is incredible to watch—and it pays for a barrage of 30-second ads that have to be countered and answered.” The Center for Responsive Politics reported that, on June 30, McCaskill had less than $2.8 million in cash on hand; Talent had more than $6.9 million. She had $42,750 in business contributions; Talent had more than $4 million.

“That you have to spend so much of your time begging complete strangers for checks with commas in them is ridiculous,” says McCaskill, who’d love to see a constitutional amendment and free airtime change the campaign process. “Eventually there will be enough scandals that it will happen. This system breeds scandals.”

Thus far, hers have been tame. When someone posted “an inappropriate joke about Dick Cheney’s inability to shoot straight” on a forum on her website, she could have kicked herself: “We hadn’t figured out we needed to be reading those things twice a day—but, instead of calling us, [Talent’s campaign staffers] called the Capitol police. That incident was definitely not in the same category as them making allegations that my husband is trying to hide nefarious business dealings from the world when all he wants is a modicum of privacy as a businessman.”

A Third Way?

I arrive at McCaskill’s Overland Plaza campaign headquarters a bit early, and I’m mistakenly seated in the “war room”—but before there’s a chance to jot down all the secret strategy and numbers on the chalkboard, an aide enters with an eraser and the candidate.

“I have faith in our democracy,” McCaskill begins. “When one party has complete control, people start to get concerned—especially in Missouri, because Missourians don’t like to see anyone having too much power over them.”

McCaskill thinks most Missourians are fed up with the Republican-controlled Congress’ using its clout to influence symbolic issues like flag-burning rather than dealing with more substantive issues.

“I think Sen. Talent has spent too much time in Washington, because no one has been burning our country’s flag in Missouri,” she says. “I love my flag, and I believe that God belongs in the Pledge—but I am tired of all of the false patriotism.”

McCaskill’s deference to God and the flag smacks of jingoism to some urban liberals, and they are even more miffed by her cautious positions on guns and Iraq. The lament of a noted state Democrat: “McCaskill sounds like a Republican. It’s not just about winning. She has to stand for something.”

There’s that Tracy Flick syndrome: the suspicion that the candidate will do whatever it takes to win. Yet it’s that competitiveness that’s making McCaskill’s run at Talent one of this year’s most-watched races nationally: She got significant ink in the New Yorker. She’s played Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Part of the media fascination lies in McCaskill’s “Third Way Democrat” approach, which means pragmatism over ideology—and talking to folks in Skidmore, Nixa and Carl Junction. “I learned a lot from the 2004 campaign,” she says. “I’d never lost a race before. When you win, you’re brilliant. When you lose, you’re questioning and soul-searching.

“In the last election, we focused on the two major urban areas. I was told by political advisors that if you win big in St. Louis County, you win Missouri, but we’ve reached a point where that’s not true anymore.

“Now, there are some big interests in the rural areas lined up against me, such as the Farm Bureau,” she concedes. “These interests look out for large corporate farming. I am fighting for the small independent farmer; I am fighting against the economic and environmental breaks given to the large corporate farms.”

Years ago, when McCaskill met Talent in the state House of Representatives, her first impression was: “Smart. Affable. Very easy to talk to—and more strategic than he appeared on the surface.” Today she understands why people find them similar: “We both chose public service because we enjoy it and think it’s important work. Both of us are people of faith, both of us are very family oriented and we both love our country. We just happen to take very different views. I am focused on how to make it easier for people at the bottom of the ladder to grab the next rung up. Jim is more interested in making sure that government doesn’t get in the way of the people at the top of the ladder so their businesses can succeed and spread economic wealth down the ladder. He’s more of a trickle-down guy, and I’m more about grabbing the next rung up.”

Hot Potato: Iraq War

Many Democrats in 2006 races have remained cautious about Iraq. They fear the “cut-and-run” label, so readily brandished by their opponents and by White House strategists. Republican gurus are betting that “strong and wrong” will trump “meek and weak” in 2006. Past division among Democrats on the war has played into GOP charges of confusion and weakness.

“Democrats may look divided, but only because they are actually looking for solutions on Iraq,” says McCaskill. “The Republicans look united because they are compelled to rally around a president whose policies have failed in Iraq.”

In a national-security address earlier this year, McCaskill argued that troops should be redeployed in the region over the next two years while Iraqis take up responsibility for their own security and find the right formula for self-governance.

“Sen. Joe Biden may have a solution,” she says: “Iraq may be salvaged by dividing it into three areas of influence to end the civil war so we can leave with some stability in place. The bottom line for me is supporting the troops. We have the most powerful military in the world, and the administration refuses to outfit them. We have Cher going on TV to raise money to fix their helmets to stop the brain injuries. We have a soldier from our state writing his buddy in Monett, asking him to go down to a local tool-and-die shop to make protective gear to send back to Iraq.”

McCaskill says that, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, Talent “should be screaming about the lack of proper equipment for the troops”—and about war profiteering.

“As an auditor, I am amazed when it is reported that Halliburton has overcharged the American public on this or that by $250 million—and nothing happens,” says McCaskill. “We need a Truman Commission to look into profiteering and how the taxpayer is being taken.”

Immigration Fight

McCaskill and Talent have spent a lot of time sparring over the immigration issue and our porous border with Mexico. Talent wants to build a wall; McCaskill takes a different tack.

“In all of 2004, we had three federal prosecutions against employers who were hiring illegal people,” she says. “Of course we need to toughen up the border—but if the magnet of jobs is still there, we’ll solve nothing. We have to stop the magnet of employers who are hiring people who are not American citizens.”

Again, urban liberals in St. Louis are not exactly gaga over McCaskill’s focus on issues such as immigration and fiscal responsibility. They would like to hear more about reproductive rights. They would like more “red meat” on Bush’s failures in Iraq.

McCaskill makes no apologies for steering a course down the middle. She says that is why she will get the nod from independents and even garner some moderate Republicans’ votes.

“I think it’s not just the social issues but the fiscal issues that will bring them our way,” she says. “They have just watched the size of our government explode in the last few years, along with the spending. As state auditor, I have been vigilant about abuse in spending the public’s money. I am not a tax-and-spend Democrat. I am a centrist."