Thursday, March 15, 2007

Does Anyone Know Who Is??

I received a strange email last night from The user of that address is either a creepy sh*t-disturber, or a member of the Gamble campaign (or both). Has anyone else received email from this account? Does anyone know who's using it? If you don't want to post a comment, feel free to email me at

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone that's definitely not from the Gamble campaign has stolen an e-mail address usually associated with it (although at hotmail)and is passing off their e-mails as Gamble campaign e-mails.

It's similar to the hit piece on Jolie that was sent out by Flaherty but made to look as though it came from Klumb. The point, I think, is to have negative attacks attributed to Gamble that are done in such a way as to only harm Gamble.

I'm told the Gamble campaign knows the person's identity and is considering legal action (as if this person doesn't already have enough pending legal actions).

3/16/2007 9:37 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

I'm not at all certain the email I received did not come from the Gamble campaign. My hunch is that someone from the Gamble campaign went a little too far even for that crowd, and got roped back in, but that is just a hunch.

I AM confident that the email I received did not come from Gottstein's campaign, if that is what you are trying to hint at, anonymous.

3/16/2007 9:54 AM  
Blogger emawkc said...

Is this the email that promises to grow my "city council member" but up to three inches?

3/16/2007 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha, the member joke is funny.

Dan, I'm the same anon as above.

I didn't mean to hint that it came from Beth. I don't think it did either. I think it came from someone doing things on her behalf (I think I know who), but I doubt she's aware of it and doubt she would approve.

3/16/2007 11:20 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

No, anonymous, from its content I am virtually certain that it did not come from the Gottstein campaign, or anyone acting on her behalf. I have a strong hunch it came from the Gamble campaign, though I don't have proof yet.

3/16/2007 1:29 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

"I love the smell of political intrigue in the morning!

Smells like...corruption."

With apologies to Robert Duvall and Francis Ford Coppola.

3/16/2007 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, you are a sorry sap. Please explain why the Gamble campaign would send an email out under a fake email that makes him look bad? The obvious answer...they wouldnt. But that doesnt matter to you. Nor does the fact that the Gottstein campaign has: accused Gamble of hiring Row(this came from Beth's mouth); accused Gamble of being a Republican(Beth emailed the Four Freedom board this herself); or the pathetic swipe at Gamble regarding a TIF at the Ruskin forum.

Drink the koolaid and keep thinking that her campaign is above board. Sad.

3/16/2007 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, this is the original anon. I think we should lighten up on him. I received an e-mail from that address and got a pretty understandable explanation from the Gamble campaign...pretty clear it's not them.

But then again, I don't know what's in the e-mail Dan received. So it's possible the writer was more clever with what he received.

3/17/2007 12:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please explain why the Gamble campaign would send an email out under a fake email that makes him look bad?

Because they would think that we would think that it didn't come from them. But if they knew, that we knew that they knew that we knew it was them, well then that would just be too funny.

3/17/2007 2:26 AM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

I have no clue what's going on here (being from Kansas and uneducated on Mo politics) but reading this blog is a riot. Anonymous commentor clarifies which anonymous commentor he is while asserting that certain campaigns could not possibly be the legitimate author of an email (content unknown) whose identity is also unknown.

3/17/2007 6:10 AM  
Blogger Jim said...

You may need to get out of local politics. I don't want to catch a beat down for hanging out with you in public.

3/17/2007 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan is convinced that emails from an email address close to Doug Gamble's personal address, that is dmamaging to him, isnt coming from anyone associated with the Gottstein campaign. Maybe its from the Dee Williams campaign or Kevin McShane. Kool aid anyone??!!

3/17/2007 9:40 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Travelingal and Jim win the award for insight today.

This exchange is why people don't want to get involved in local politics.

Seriously. I posted a non-insulting, legitimate inquiry designed to get to the bottom of a little political intrigue, concerning an email I got that trashed Gottstein. For those who are jumping to the false conclusion that it makes Gamble look bad - it is remarkably similar to the work already put out by the Gamble campaign that they are not disavowing.

In response to the anonymi that have descended on this blog and taken swipes at Gottstein, I have gently insisted that I disagree, but I haven't been confrontational or nasty. No, it took the Gamble people to start the name-calling and accusations.

I've said this a hundred times, and I will continue to do so - I've heard that Gamble is a good guy. I've heard that from people I like and respect. BUT - let me state clearly that he has some first-class creeps working on his behalf. I still don't believe he has Jeff Roe working for him, but I believe that some involved in his campaign want to be Jeff Roe.

If Gamble gets elected, I hope he does not allow those people anywhere near him in the future.

I bear no illwill at all for Doug Gamble. I look forward to meeting him, whether he wins or not. I think his mini-TIF is a damned good idea. But his supporters are some weird loose cannons . . .

3/17/2007 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Steve said...

Dan, do you know Beth?

I am a very reasonable, moderate voter, and I know people that know her -- and with few exceptions these people do not think her personality and approach is appropriate for city council. I'll leave the criticism on this level.

The people that are "supporting" her know her from non-profit/community boards and/or have benefited from her family money. But these same people, I would bet, didn't vote for her in the primary. The people that are voting for her are those that see her billboards.

Gamble may not be the best choice objectively, but he us the best choice given the alternative. I know many people that would have an "Anybody but Beth" sign in their front yard if they weren't so scared of her.

3/17/2007 4:14 PM  
Blogger Dan said...


Wow. You have some cowardly friends, if they're afraid of Beth. Yes, I know her, but the thought of being afraid of her is laughable. She's an unemployed do-gooder, and anything but intimidating. Your friends really need to toughen up.

Is there something wrong with knowing someone through nonprofit work? I think that's a pretty good way to get to know people. I notice that Gamble has done some volunteer work, too - that makes me like him more (despite his unhinged supporters attacking me).

But, really, this is not a thread about whether Beth or Doug will be the better candidate. Have you received any email from, or know who is using that address?

3/17/2007 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, where do you think the Roe stuff came from? Gamble trying to self destruct his campaign(like the fake email)? Wake up and smell the coffee.

3/17/2007 5:32 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

What does Roe have to do with this?

But, since you asked, I'll answer. I heard that the Gottstein campaign had been told by several sources that Roe was working for Gamble. Did they make it up? I don't think so, but it's possible. They also may have been punked by a shit-disturber, or they could even have been suckered by someone with the Gamble campaign eager to whine about it and play the victim card, as they certainly did, long and loud. I don't know, and, frankly, I don't care much any more. For all I know, Roe really is working for Gamble, or maybe he's really workig for Gottstein. So far, the behavior from the Gamble campaign seems more Roe-vian than Gottstein's, at least from where I'm sitting.

I do know that nobody from the Gottstein campaign has attacked me when I've said nice things about Gamble, but the Gamble people have my friend Jim worrying for his personal safety.

3/17/2007 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Steve said...


I mean this post in the most constructive sense, I'm not trying to start an argument here.

It sounds like you don't really know BG all that well and you've probably just had a few conversations with her.

You should talk with a few more informed people before you make a final judgement on BG.

I don't have it our for Beth, but she is so incredibly unsuited for the job I have to speak up.

(1) Beth's resume doesn't have any dates on it. There's a reason for that - she goes from Board to Board, job to job very frequently, leveraging her family money and contacts. Beth, as far as I can tell, doesn't know how to do anything well, and hasn't stuck with anything for any length of time. Read her resume.

(2) She doesn't have any credible insight or understanding about the city or public policy. Have you seen her abysmal behavior in just about every public forum she has been at? It is common knowledge she had someone else write her answers to the Citizen's Association questionaire. That's bad, but she didn't even understand what was written for her - did you hear or see her terrible CA screening? She simply couldn't answer the questions. it was very obvious.

(3)She simply cannot articulate herself. Did you hear or see her Freedom Inc. screening? The Freedom Board member questioning her actually started yelling at her, telling her if she was going to be a public official she needed to learn to speak up. Her answer was something like "I've hired a voice coach to help me project my voice better". When she said "project" she made a sweeping gesture with her hand under her chin. And this was in front of Freedom, Inc.

(4) You don't know her well, because if you did you would know her vindictiveness is legendary in this town. If you are a perceived BG enemy, she will bad mouth you, frequently, in front of very influential people.

(5) She doesn't handle pressure, stress or criticism well. It was also common speculation that she would blow up/self destruct in the primary.

I apologize if I sound too extreme here, but you should do a little more investigation on Beth Gottstein.

And, again, I'm not a big fan of Gamble, and even less of a fan of his campiagn consultant, Diane Kanders. She's a real piece of work as well.

3/17/2007 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Steve said...

Dan - I didn't receive the itsdrg email. What was said in it? Can you post it on here?


3/17/2007 6:37 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

I've met Gamble's campaign manager and thought she was very nice. She was horrified that Beth was telling people they hired Roe. I haven't met Pat Gray, but his record shows he's not much better than a Democratic version of Jeff Roe. His arena campaign was particularly dishonest and slimy. I put a lot of stock into the company people keep, and on this issue the contrast is night and day.

I met Beth once in the context of representing an organization that wanted to endorse her. She was incredibly dismissive and haughty. If a politician doesn't have the time for you when they are campaigning and asking my vote, then that doesn't bode well for their responsiveness after getting into office.

By contrast, Doug was incredibly approachable, eager to learn about my issues, and an all-around sincere guy.

3/17/2007 6:39 PM  
Anonymous Steve said...

Eric, I'm almost certain that Roe deal was intentionally made-up by the BG campaign.

And I agree with you, Gamble's not perfect, but he's not afraid of hard work and is honestly committed to learning and listening.

Gamble at least has a proven track record of getting something done - going through a learning process and them actually implementing something.

Gottstein has absolutley no experience in getting things done. I'll take a businessman over a socialite at city hall any day of the week.

3/17/2007 6:50 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

This is fucking hilarious.

He said, she said, I'm anonymous.

What a bunch of manipulative bullshit.

I'm so glad I'm not a resident and won't be voting.

You wouldn't like my vote.

3/17/2007 10:51 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Steve - I mean this response in the most constructive sense possible, and I'm not trying to finish an argument here.

To show my good faith, I'm NOT starting out with the "F*** YOU!" your comment almost provoked from me.

You tell me I don't know Gottstein well enough, when you say you "know people who know her"?!?! You say that I "appear" to have only had a few conversations with her. And then YOU tell ME I need to do more investigation?

I've known Beth for years, though I haven't been very close to her, and she has always been well-informed, funny, self-deprecating, and good at listening to others. She has always been intellectually curious, and completely non-arrogant. Her approach in this race is in keeping with what I know of her - ethical, interested, and successfully working with people. It doesn't surprise me that she didn't come on up with a 10 point plan to solve everyone else's problems - she is much more the type of person to seek out other people's advice and form a process to arrive at solutions.

But let me address your concerns numerically, as you laid them out.

1. No dates on the resume. Oh, come on! You certainly know that is too silly a point to respond to, beyond pointing out that most professional resumes these days do not include dates. I'm surprised you're not trying to make a big deal out of the font she used.

2. Actually, no, I haven't seen her performance at the forums. According to those I know and trust, she did poorly at the early ones, but has improved. I also heard that Gamble people have been in the front row of at least one of the forums, intentionally hitting her with multiple, constant camera flashes trying to distract and fluster her. Great people, huh?

3. Holy cow! She's not LOUD?! Well, if that's what you're looking for, you should be voting for Spinal Tap.

4. Once again, you claim I don't know Beth well enough, though don't even claim to have met her. You say that she badmouths people she doesn't like. Welcome to my blog, Kettle! Regardless, her kindness is legendary among people I know. She remembers kids' birthdays, always has an encouraging word, and reached out to me once when I needed some help. I have personal knowledge on this, to pardon me if I'm not at all impressed with your second or third-hand nonsense from your gutless friends you say are afraid of her.

5. She doesn't handle pressure, stress or criticism well, and people thought she would blow up or self destruct in the primary. Hah - how did that work out?? Did she blow the primary? No, she didn't - she WON! So I guess the naysayers were flat-out wrong, weren't they? I'm rarely as impressed by "common speculation" as some people, but I think it is breathtakingly stupid to be passing on common speculation that has already been proven wrong.

Now, that said, I will agree with you that Beth takes criticism hard. You may view that as a sign of weakness, and I suppose it is, but I see it as a sign of humanity, and that's one of the things I love about Beth. Whether she should or not, she cares about what I think, and about what you think. She would be hurt by much of what has been written here - I know that.

That's why it really pisses me off to see people like you and some of the anonymi so flippantly toss around hateful BS. Seriously. I know Beth - I know her to be a good person. I don't know Gamble, but I have heard he's a good guy, too. But my experience shows that Gamble has attracted the unhinged and simply mean crowd to his side. Nobody gets attacked when they say something nice about Gamble, but if you say something nice about Gottstein, you're naive, drinking koolaid, and a sorry sap. And you have some Steve guy, who has apparently never met her, lecturing you that you don't know enough about her.

I'm sorry if this is a little heated, Steve, but you landed squarely on several of my nerves.

3/18/2007 11:06 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Response to the later comments:

No, Steve, I haven't published the email, but it really isn't all that interesting. It was basically a rehash of the "open letter to Beth Gottstein" that the Gamble campaign sent out. This all got started because I thought it was genuine and posted a strong response mocking the Gamble campaign for continuing to whine and play the victim-card about the Roe non-issue. About 5 or 10 minutes after I posted it, I got a call on my cell phone from Diana Kander (Well, she claimed that she was Diana Kander, but I neglected to ask for a DNA sample or more definite proof. Given the world of subterfuge and hidden identities the Gamble campaign lives in, I suppose it might have been Beth Gottstein mimicking Diana Kander . . .), asking me where I got the letter from. When I told her, she claimed it did not come from the Gamble campaign, and I promptly deleted my post. You see, this blog is a hobby, and, while I support Beth Gottstein, I would never intentionally spread falsehoods about her opponent. That's just not the way I roll.

And, Steve, given your reliance on demonstrably false common speculation, I don't think you ought to be giving your "almost certain" opinion about where the Roe rumor got started. As I stated long ago, both sides should drop it. The Gottstein campaign promptly dropped it, but the Gamble supporters continue, to this day, to whine about it. It seems to be their favorite topic, which makes me think your "almost certainty" is no more likely than the equally plausible possibility that the Gamble campaign planted it just so they could have something to whine about - and, wow, have they ever!

3/18/2007 11:29 AM  
Anonymous TRAVELINGAL said...

Now I am starting to get interested in KC, Mo politics. Hmmm let's see, a socialite vs a hotelier (as reported in the press)


3/18/2007 1:01 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

travel - I'm flattered. But trust me when I tell you that my sordid past and misspent youth would not stand up to close scrutiny. I prefer to keep a low profile.

3/18/2007 5:28 PM  
Anonymous Steve said...


I stand by everything I've said, and I'm trying to be polite, really. I have worked with Beth, and I have worked with people that have worked with Beth. Everything that I have said is true.

I think I know the problem. Your support and like for Beth certainly sounds genuine and I'm sure it is. I think you and I have encountered seen two different sides of Beth Gottstein.

A few minor points. Dan. EVERYBODY PUTS DATES ON RESUMES. I've been hiring people for quite some time now, and dates are essential to demonstrate continuity, progessive success and stability. Every resume I've seen from entry level college grads to mid level execs has dates. If they don't have dates it's an instant red flag. Any hiring manager will tell you that. Any hiring manager. Ask any hiring manager what they would think if they received a resume without dates. Let us all know what you find out.

It's interesting that you dismiss that point so readily.

Also, Can you explain to us why Beth did so well on her written CA questinaire, but simply could not answer the same and similar questions coherently? I also expect you will dismiss that point as well.

Oh well. However, I do admire your loyalty.

3/18/2007 7:56 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Steve -

Good job - you dialed down the obnoxiousness, and I'll dial down the heat in my response.

First, you only claimed that you know people who know her, and now you're claiming you worked with her. Is this Mr. Israelite? I doubt it - he wouldn't be one to change his story like that. Suffice it to say, your new-found familiarity with Beth is suspicious, and undercuts whatever credibility you may have had.

Second, I don't think I need to defend my hiring chops to you. I've hired hundreds of people, and reviewed thousands of resumes. You're right, though, that I would ask questions about the lack of dates. But many professionals do not include dates these day, because of age discrimination issues. Regardless, the lack of dates is a side issue on the level of the font, isn't it? If you have a complaint about a job she didn't stay at long enough, voice it. I think she was at the Jewish Heritage Foundation for a good long time, but maybe you know more than I do about some of her positions. That could be a minor, minor issue for some voters - but I think, with term limits, a willingness to do a job and move on is probably a good thing for anyone who's not bound and determined to find fault with her.

I'm glad you find my dismissal of the point interesting. Seems like just a week or so ago Tony was claiming I am one of the most boring blogs in the city.

I've got no real dismissal on the CA issue - I didn't see the forum, so I can't really say how badly she did, and your credibility on all things Beth is a little low, in my gently stated opinion. I agree that she's not the best orator in the world, though - not by a margin. I think she can handle all the oratory necessary for the city council, though. Surely, you'll concede she's way up there with Chuck Eddy and Jim Glover for speaking skills, won't you.

Finally, yes, I suspect we have had different experiences with Beth (depending on what experience you're claiming with her this time around). I have positive things to say about her, but I haven't said a single negative thing about Gamble. I'm not claiming now that I have worked with him, or that people are afraid of him.

In a week and a few days, I'll be able to sleep, knowing that I have supported an ethical friend in an ethical manner, and, whoever wins, I'll not be wishing that I had made up one more story or dreamed up one more bogus charge. I know that some of Gamble's supporters won't sleep as soundly.

3/18/2007 8:37 PM  
Anonymous Steve said...

Dan, forgive my vagueness on how I have worked with Beth in the past. I'm doing it for a very good reason, and everything I have said is true.

The CA screening is a very good example of my perspective on Beth. Below is a link to the video of her CA screening.

I suggest you and all the readers of this blog take the time to watch it in its entirety.

Note two things: First, the resounding compliments on the insights and comprehensiveness to her written answers (the questions are quite good and difficult). Second, note her verbal responses, which do not address the questions in any way, from a substance persepctive. It displays a distinct and obvious lack of basic knowledge and insight of the issues she presumably knew so well when writing the responses. That is the problem I have with Beth's candidacy. She clearly had someone else answer the questionaire, and didn't bother to memorize the responses.

Here's is Yael's quote in the KC Star after her screening:

"Least impressive showing

Citizens Association members raved about the written questionnaire of Beth Gottstein, 4th District at-large candidate. But she was much less impressive in actually answering questions from board members."

You're right, we have had awful orators - when I say articulate I'm referring to the substance of what is said first and foremost.

Now I'll stop the rant and respectfully ask for everyone's consideration of my honest & frank opinion of this candidacy.

3/18/2007 9:09 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Well, Steve, the fact that you claim to have a "very good reason" for changing your story and being dishonest is not nearly as impressive as you would hope.

And if you think that most candidates don't have people help them with questionnaires, you probably still believe in the Easter Bunny.

And the fact that Beth was not very impressive at the CA forum is not news, nor very relevant to what kind of City Councilperson she'll be.

3/18/2007 9:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home