Another “If” Apology

I read with great interest this morning the entries on Senator Claire McCaskill’s web page. Among the items located there, was the lead with what poses as an apology for the treatment of her constituents who called at her Saint Louis office on Friday last.

I have taken the liberty to quote some extracts from her remarks (in the original font) and followed them with some observations of my own. It is painful to write criticism of one’s own senator but the actions in St. Louis obviously reflect upon her judgement as well as those who were on site.

“I think we learned from Friday and will do better in the future. In return I hope those that are protesting refrain from banging on the windows and doors continuously. Thanks so much.”

What was learned on Friday is that the American people are sick and tired of hack politicians with nothing but their own selfish interests on their agenda. Further. To avoid “banging on windows and doors,” you might suggest that the employees: ANSWER THE DOOR! If this rag-tag bunch of un-organized patriots with their vicious leashed Cocker Spaniel with signs expressing their thoughts are seen as threatening, one suspects they may have touched a nerve.

“My apologies if anyone was offended.”

Senator McCaskill, the use of the word “if” is not compatible within any apology. You know very well that the actions of your staff were reprehensible for public servants causing offense to the aggrieved parties. When one does not clearly understand the nature of their offense the use of “if” implies that no harm may have been done. This equivocation is unseemly and demands a forthright response to those you hurt. Words matter and the use of “if” attacks both your sincerity and intelligence. You said it so don’t expect any apology from me for pointing it out.

“I still regret the way we handled the protest, and hope that all those that want to express themselves feel free to protest peacefully at our office anytime.”

Senator, are you saying the police were derelict in their duties? What arrests were made of your constituents in breech of the peace? Were they cautioned to stop their “rowdy” behavior? We are aware they unlawfully directed the group to use the sidewalk across the street instead of the legal walkway directly in front of your office. The group immediately complied. The use of “protest peacefully” implies that there was behavior that was not peaceful. Perhaps knocking on the door is now considered an “un-peaceful” act.

After the issue of the infamous Cap and Trade bill soon coming before the Senate, I should not be surprised by duplicity. She announced early on that she had reservations about the bill and preliminarily opposed it. I welcomed the news that my senator had the good sense to see the evil inherent in that legislation. Subsequently, she reversed her thoughts on the bill and decided she should follow the lead of the president. I found myself betrayed once again over an issue of vital importance to our nation. She is not at fault; I am. I should, in my dotage, have known better.

My negative perceptions are now reinforced by the debacle at her offices in St. Louis. Courage is not her long suit. Neither is legitimate apology.

What many in government, the press, and the upper reaches of our coastal elites fail to realize is that those of us in middle-America have opinions about our country and the direction it is obviously headed. They see us as provincial, old-fashioned, and ignorant. What they don’t see is hardworking citizens who treasure what we have and wish to preserve our faith, our values and our Constitution.


In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon