More on Funk
In the comments to my post about Funkhouser's refusal to go along with Kay Barnes' decision to stick him in an ugly car, several commenters have chosen to ignore the attempted humor and act like this minor flap is full of portent for the next four (or 8!) years. In the funniest hissy fit, one anonymous commenter wrote: "I voted for the man twice and as Roberto de Vicenzo said 'what a stupid I am.'" When I expressed my amusement at his fickle support, he elaborated: "It's not just the car. The car is old news, as far as I'm concerned. It's the special treatment he requested for Ed. It's the fact that he thinks he has a mandate even though he only won by 850 votes. It's the whole inauguration issue, not wanting to use the ballroom. It's the paranoia. It's the salaries he's paying his people."
I'm responding with a front page post because Funk's performance as mayor-elect is a legitimate topic of thoughtful conversation, beyond whether he should ditch the car idea entirely and fire up a Harley . . .
First off, I think my anonymous commenter and people like him are awfully quick to throw up their hands in worry. He's not even in office yet! The car thing is a silly diversion, and it's a silly diversion brought on by Kay Barnes waking up the morning after the election when her candidate lost and deciding to make an autocratic (pun intended) decision messing with Mark. The fault is on Barnes. Same thing with ballroom - Kay wanted it to be her party, and Funk wanted it to be the people's.
Anyone who wants to question Mark's choice of Ed Wolf for Chief of Staff doesn't know Ed Wolf. He is the best man for the job. Period. If you'd rather have the sort of mayor who would fail to do what is best for city government because he is afraid to change an ordinance, I don't understand why you voted twice for Funk.
Finally, as for the mandate - what do you propose? I agree that the margin was slim, but he's the mayor. He's not mayor 51% - he's our mayor 100%. Do you think he should govern as if he didn't really win? Whether he won by one vote or one hundred thousand votes, he's not going to govern effectively if he is afraid to make decisions or is filled with self-doubt. And he's not - in the times I've seen him since the election, he has seemed strong, confident, and purposeful. He's exactly who I knew him to be and exactly what this city needs right now. The margin of the last election is yesterday's news - after four years of better services and a stronger city, I predict his margin for reelection will set records.
Finally, a word about the "paranoia" label. It started with Glorioso, and that fact illustrates its absurdity. It may be impossible to be sufficiently paranoid when Glorioso is involved. He is the Jeff Roe of the backroom democrats - the subclass of the party that prefers to cut deals in smokey rooms and make sure the current elite stays on the inside. He'll manipulate and spin anything to make his side (the side that has made city hall into a hog trough) retain power. Anybody who wants to change things in Kansas City cannot be too paranoid of Steve Glorioso.
See you at the inauguration party!
Labels: election, funkhouser, kansas city
posted by Dan at 4/30/2007 06:20:00 AM
31 Comments:
"autocratic"
Top notch!
::applause, applause, applause::
I'm honored by your post. Of course, you could have responded to my entire post and not just the parts that conveniently suit your point of view.
I don't know Ed very well, I must admit. I know that six months after retiring Ed had the gall to write a report for the chamber decrying the back log in infrastructure projects. He forgot to mention that the back log built up under his watch. He also didn't mention the waste of money on that failed software project that was led by a local company. I think it ended up being $20 million.
I supported Mark in my own way during the election and I doubt that he realizes it. I don't agree with his approach of moving the city forward by bringing back the people that held the city back for so long.
More importantly, I don't think Mark realizes that the people that are showering him with attention are doing for their own benefit and not with his best interest in mind. Mark needs to listen to the people that supported him from the begining and not the johnny come latelies.
I admire the courage Mark had as City auditor and I hope he succeeds.
i-Info was the name of the software that Ed Wolf had built for $20 million under a no-bid contract with Apex Innovations. The city scrapped it shortly after Ed left the city.
I think we need to give the Funk a chance.
I also think we need a little maturity. Like canning the use of words like "cronies", "feeding at the trough", etc. I agree that developers have taken advantage of thngs, but they did because the City, not the developers, allowed it to happen. This city needs developer money and should treat them with respect.
The Funk doesn't have to issue inflammatory rebuttals for perceived threats, especially on inconsequential issues like where the swaering in is going to be.
The Mayor needs to take the high ground, always.
I also think the "paranoia" began a long time ago. Remember when Joe Miller said one of Funk's opponents was behind the break in at Funk HQ? Remember how bristly Miller, Funk and others were and have been about everything under the sun?
I even recall Miller attacking bloggers and people posting on blogs. So please, don't give Glorioso credit for hanging the "paranoid" tag on Miller and Funk. They've earned it all on their own.
Nitwit I think what you said is true.
You know, it's all a balancing act. We need to give Funkhouser the benefit of the doubt, especially since today is his first day in office.
And more importantly, we need to give him the support he needs to be successful. However, supporting him doesn't mean rationalizing and defending everything he or his staff may do or say.
I also couldn't agree more, mainstream. If Funk fails, then KC suffers. He won and I want to give him a chance.
That said, there's no doubt that he and Miller need to lighten up or it's going to be a brutal four years.
Really, nitwit? Do you really remember Joe saying that the break-in was done by an opponent? Because that would be really funny, in that HE NEVER SAID THAT!!! It's simply not true. Your mind is playing tricks on you.
And, oh my, Joe Miller, a fellow blogger whose been at it a long time, got into a quarrel with a commenter? If that disqualified you from public debate, a whole lot of us better turn in our voter cards . . .
I'll defend nitwit here. I do recall Joe saying that, either in the papare or somewhere else.
You can refer to this link on the old buzz blog
http://buzzblog.kcstar.com/?q=node/306
Here's a sentence Buzz blog referenced above:
"Miller's theories about culprits range from a disgruntled campaign staffer to political opponents and even former opponents. But no one has been arrrested."
Not that this particluar issue is of any consequence. But Dan, let's be fair and not too defensive.
And remember, I'm a Funk supporter.
Miller did post on KC Buzz blog about the break in and the possibility that an opponent may have had something to do with it.
All water under the bridge now. City Hall is under new management as of today.
That's exactly right, and exactly what I recalled. As opposed to what nitwit said, Joe Miller never "aid one of Funk's opponents was behind the break in at Funk HQ". It simply didn't happen outside of nitwit's fevered imagination.
He DID say that it was possible that an opponent was behind it, or a former opponent. And, for those who recall what happened at Watergate, that is simply common sense, not paranoia.
So, if you want to accuse Joe Miller of paranoia, you really ought to know the facts, don't you think that's fair?
I agree that it's water under the bridge, but I have little tolerance for people who make stuff up. It's not so much that I'm defensive - Joe's a big boy who doesn't much care about stuff like this - but I hate to see common knowledge created like that. I recalled exactly what Joe said, and it simply wasn't the same thing that Nitwit imagined.
Jesus, Dan, you're a hairsplitter of the highest order, aren't you? So sorry if I overstated Miller's quote by a millimeter. But of course that hardly erases any trace of wacky paranoia from what he said.
Miller's suggestion that opponents might have been behind the break in was laughable when he said it and it was proved even more ridiculous once it turned out to be one of Funk's own volunteers.
How exactly you decide that I "made stuff up," I'm not sure. You're not overstating anything there, are you?
My point is simply that Miller and Funk have been way too bristly over everything for a long time. They both need to lighten up, get thicker skin and stop worrying so much about everyone else having nefarious motives or whatever. This is politics, right? Oh, and Dan, you might want to try that too.
My wager: If Miller doesn't take this advice (as unsolicited as it may be) he won't last more than a year on the job.
Nitwit -
Words mean things. That's a fundamental rule of communication. Also, the truth matters. That's a fundamental rule of living. So, when you made up the "fact" that Joe Miller "said one of Funk's opponents was behind the break in at Funk HQ", I felt compelled to expose the truth. It is not hairsplitting to stick to the truth. And you didn't overstate the truth by a millimeter - you changed it entirely.
Saying someone might be behind something is wildly different from saying they are. So, no, I'm not overstating it. You made stuff up, and I called you on it. And, if you paid attention, the first culprit suggested was exactly who it was - it's not like he was trying to pin this on an opponent. Only a moron, however, would not see it as a possibility that an opponent was behind it.
Your contention that his quotation supports a charge of paranioa is based on a complete refabrication of what he said.
And I'm most certainly not accusing you of having nefarious motives. I think you were being lazy and ignorant - you didn't know what he said, and you were too lazy to look it up. But you were willing to make the charge of paranoia. I have no idea what your motive was, and I really don't care. Maybe you love Joe's writing, and want him to get out of politics and write books. Maybe you are trying to run down the Funk administration because you want to run for Mayor in '11. Maybe a hundred things - I don't know or care. Stick to the truth, and we'll be fine, no matter what your motive might be.
FWIW, sure, I imagine Funk and Joe are still somewhat sensitive to criticisms from people, whether they are truly malicious creeps, or whether they are lazy and ignorant. Maybe they need thicker skin, maybe not.
I won't take your wager, because I don't know how long Joe Miller intends to stay in that role. I know he's a writer by trade, and a good one, so he might want to start his book after getting the Funkhouser administration on track.
Dan, I didn't make something up, you know it, and everyone else on here knows it. You chose to make a mile out of a milimeter, not because I'm "ignorant or lazy," but because you refuse to ever admit a mistake.
You only recognized that Miller had said anything at all about an opponent being involved AFTER two others backed me up on what happened. Only then did you parse my quote and choose to make a federal case over the difference between my saying an opponent did it and his saying it was a possibility. You didn't think it was true at all, and then when you were proven wrong, you reduced your argument to playing semantics.
As to your vitriolic suggestion that "only a moron" would think an opponent wasn't behind it, only a moron would equate the KC mayor's race with the depravity and unethical behavior of the Nixon administration. Even Katheryn Shields, for all her warts, is no Nixon or Haldeman or anything else. To me, and I know I'm not alone, it says something profound about Funkhouser and Miller that they would assume that it was even possible that people like Alvin Brooks or Al Riederer or anyone else who was in that race would break in to his freaking double wide and spray paint grafitti on the walls. Why you can't see that, I don't know.
It's obvious that you hold Joe Miller and Funkhouser in high esteem, and that's well and good. I do think they're both decent people. But Funkhouser is now the mayor and Joe is working for the city. Criticism of them is fair game, and your suggestion that it's only about trying to tear them down is paranoid in itself.
So can you stop being so "lazy and ignorant" as to at least accept this premise: Now that Kay Barnes and Steve Glorioso are out of the 29th floor, it's time for Funkhouser and Miller to succeed or fail on their own? That any criticism of them doesn't mean that I or anyone else wants them to fail, but rather that we want them to do better because we care about our city, and not because we hate Funkhouser? Isn't that possible? Or are you too much of a "moron" to accept that fact?
Nitwit - once again, you miss the point. I have NOT backed away from what I said, because I knew what you were basing your fabrication on. You criticize me for failing to admit a mistake, but you fail to show me one.
Fact: You claimed Miller said opponents were behind the break-in.
Fact: You based a charge of paranoia on that "fact".
Fact: Miller did not say that opponents were behind the break-in.
Fact: You were wrong.
Fact: I was right.
Is that clear enough for you?
You are also mistaken when you claim that I didn't know about what he said until mainstream pointed it out. I lived through all this mess, and I knew exactly what Joe said. That's why I called you out on it - I wanted you to try to find the quotation, and have that sinking feeling of realizing that you had made a stupid mistake. I knew you thought you were right, and I knew you were wrong - that's why I pointed out that your mind was playing tricks on you. It's not semantics - it's about right (me) and wrong (you).
As for the possibility that an opponent was behind the break-in, again, note that it was a secondary suggestion of Joe's, and, again, I will insist it's not paranoid to think of that as a possibility. "Opponents" includes more than declared candidates - nobody was suggesting that Brooks or Riederer donned black sweats and did the deed. But campaigns attract crazy partisans - as proven by what actually happened in this case. It is not in the slightest paranoid to surmise that someone wrapped up in one of the campaigns did it. If you've been involved in campaigns, you know that crazy stuff happens. To ignore that possibility would not be sane.
And, once again, I think you're making stuff up, or playing fast and loose with other people's words. Have I claimed that all criticism of them is trying to tear them down?
You seem quick to jump to the paranoid label, but not so quick to read words carefully. It would save us both some time if you would please read and think before posting. Because you won't see me claiming that Funk and Miller are above criticism, or that criticism of them is necessarily wrong.
Again, FWIW, I'm fine with criticizing Miller or Funk - but when it's based on fabrication, like yours was, I'm going to call you on it. All your attempts to shift the subject and create a straw man (e.g., that I can't accept any criticism of them) don't erase the fact that I was right, you were wrong, and it's time you grew up and admitted that fact.
Dan, you're losing it. You're nitpicking at what I said, spinning wildly about what you said, and engaging in childish insults and namecalling.
For criminy sake Dan, I'm a freaking reader of a local blog, I'm not a reporter or a candidate for office. If you weren't so blinded by your need to defend Funk no matter what, then you might get that my portrayal of what Miller said was in the ballpark. Was I spot on? No. But I hardly "made up" anything like you suggest. And my overreach on his statement in no way undercuts my point that Miller's remark was out of line and suggests a certain paranoia that's been backed up by Miller and Funk's bristly and unprofessional behavior in the campaign and since.
And yet, despite all that, you call me a "moron" and "lazy" and "ignorant"? Get some freaking perspective and then get a grip, Dan. I'm just a freaking reader of your blog.
The mere fact that Miller would publicly suggest that one of Funk's opponents could have been behind the break in was goofy at best. At a minimum it also was absolutely unprofessional and was one of the most embarrassing moments of the campaign in my book.
And my point was simply this, if Miller and Funk don't lighten up and don't stop assuming that everyone is out to get them anytime they disagree or criticize, then it's going to be a brutal four years for Funk, for Miller, and for the voters of Kansas City.
How you can possibly disagree with that, I don't know. But I'm sure you'll find a way.
Nitwit - this will be my last response - have fun with the final word, if you choose to take it.
What, exactly, am I losing when you say I'm "losing it"? My fetish for facts? It is not nitpicking to point out that what you said is false. For the final time, you claimed that Miller "said one of Funk's opponents was behind the break in at Funk HQ", and that was simply untrue.
It's not a minor error, either. It's the incredibly important distiction between making an accusation and mentioning that something is a possibility. You claimed that Joe made an accusation, and he didn't. Then you argued that he was paranoid, because he made an accusation that he didn't make. Now do you see why I came down a little hard on you?
Now you're claiming that the fact he listed that as a secondary possibility is good enough to excuse your claim that he made an accusation. No, really, it isn't. It isn't "in the ballpark" to claim that he said something when he didn't. If he had actually claimed that one of the opponents was behind it, that would be something wildly different from him saying that it was a possibility.
I guess the difference between us on this is that I'm focusing on the truth, and you're happy to be "in the ballpark".
It's funny, too, that I haven't called you a moron, though you seem to think I did. What I did say is that "Only a moron, however, would not see it as a possibility that an opponent was behind it." I would expect you to admit that it was a possibility - how was I to know at that point you don't even acknowledge that obvious point?
As for lazy and ignorant, well, the truth is that you had the quotation wrong, and you didn't look it up before misqoting Miller. That shoe might fit in this instance, don't you think?
You claim that your original point was that Funk and Joe are going to have a brutal four years if they don't lighten up. No, actually, your first point was to claim that Joe was paranoid, based on your mistaken recollection of a quotation you were too, umm, otherwise occupied and ill-informed (trying to avoid calling you lazy and ignorant) to get right. But, really, I don't know whether to agree or disagree with your point. Honestly, I haven't seen them over-react very much, so I don't think they really need to chill, but I'll agree with you that over-reaction (or even reaction at all) to every criticism is a bad idea for a public figure.
As for you thinking that was the most unprofessional moment of the campaign, all I can say is that you weren't paying enough attention. We had much worse moments.
I like crescent rolls.
They taste good.
Dan,
The original discussion dates to the fact that somebody hung the paranoid label on Funkhouser. The label is not just because of the ballroom. Nitwit used the break-in as an example of paranoia. Whether Joe Miller actually accussed an opponent or not is irrelevant. The fact that he thought that an opponent might have done it is a sign of paranoia.
There are other signs of paranoia out there but like I said before, it's all water under the bridge. Funkhouser is Mayor now and whether he likes it or not, everything he does will be under intense scrutiny. Funkhouser had thick skin as City auditor. I'm surprised at the way he has reacted now that he's an elected official. Where did his thick sking go?
No need to call people names or insult people. I like your blog and I read it because it's a good forum. Don't stoop to name calling.
I agree. The name calling was ugly. Maybe you weren't thinking that it was directed personally at your commenter, but it sure came off that way.
One other perspective may be that we have two different personalities here.
I think Funkhouser truly, honestly welcomes criticism (especially constructive, well thought-out criticism) and actually thrives on it. It's central to his mode of operation. And he is painfully aware that people, when they have power, tend to reject criticsm of any sort (e.g. Kay Barnes, especially in her last 4 years). It's my opinion that he'll make criticism a central part of his policy development, while at the same time balancing that criticism with his own policy objectives.
Joe Miller is not a professional PR/Public communications guy, and doesn't have the benefit of years of experience and a mentor. Joe wants the best for his boss, and for Kansas City, and is trying to do the best job he can. I think we can expect a few more gaffs from Joe, but my ecxpectation is that he'll continue to learn and grow in his job, as we all hope to do in our own professional lives.
Thank you, Anonymous. It's nice to see that not everyone on the blogosphere is so blinded with love for all things Funk that they can get a freaking point when someone makes one.
And Dan, take a vacation. You clearly need one.
Maybe I'm confused here, but it looks to me like Dan caught nitwit lying, and it's been nothing but whining since. Dan smacked the nitwit around pretty hard, but he had his facts straight. I get tired of people who don't know shit but think they're "in the ballpark", and that's good enough. Takes some serious guts for nitwit to come here, screw up the facts, and then tell Dan to take a vacation. If I were him, I'd have a two word response that would clearly be aimed at a couple of y'all, and "lazy" or "ignorant" wouldn't be either of the words.
Here's a fact: Miller implied that a political opponent may have been responsible for the break-in. That is paranoia. Plain and simple. Nitwit's statements are irrelevant and do not change the fact that Miller was/is paranoid.
It surprised me that the first action of all council members was to repeal the Red Bridge road thing. Regardless of whether the Red Bridge road thing is right or wrong, transparency would demand at least one public hearing on an issue that the proponents of the project fought so hard to get resolved. If Funkhouser is going to stand behindd transparency, he should have voted no on this ordinance or at least demand that it be assigned to a committee.
Most recent anonymous:
Really, in your heart of hearts, do you sincerely believe that it is "paranoid" to suspect that people who are your opponents could possibly be behind something like a break-in? Because, if you really believe that, you would make a lousy detective.
I agree with you, however, about Nitwit's relevance.
As for Red Bridge, you make an interesting point. I suppose the response would be that, given the attention focused on the issue throughout the campaign, all participants were well-enough briefed on the merits that further study was unnecessary. Regardless, it hardly looks like a backroom deal a la Barnes days. Perhaps it was overly responsive to public opinion, but that's a fault I can live with.
Dan,
I happen to know a few more of the goings on in City Hall to know that the paranoid label is well deserved. I will leave it at that.
You have an incredible double standard with regard to the Red Bridge ordinance. This council will have a honeymoon period but it will be pretty short.
Sure you do, anonymous. Because you're an anonymous commenter on a blog, previously defending someone whose facts were proven wrong, and now making charges without evidence, your credibility ranks somewhere between Jeff Roe and Pinocchio.
Dan, I've bit my tongue a number of times on this thread. I've refused to stoop to your level of namecalling, and I've tried to keep it civil. But the fact of the matter is, Dan, you're an ass, or at least your acting like one.
I simply overstated what Miller had alleged. I didn't lie. And I didn't have any intention of misleading anyone. I simply overstated what Miller said, And I've recognized that. And my overstatement, no matter how much you choose to spin it, doesn't erase the wrongheadedness of a campaign spokesman alleging in the press that political opponents might have been behind the break in.
Further, my overstatement doesn't erase the clear pattern of questionable behavior by Miller and Funk that numerous others on here and elsewhere have recognized. If you don't want to call it paranoia, fine, but you cannot deny that Miller and Funk are overly concerned about malicious motives by others without denying reality itself.
Now, if you want to thump your chest and act like you're the smartest guy in the room, I could care less. But you might also try recognizing that calling your readers names and refusing to even consider that they might have a point (or are at least entitled to disagree with you). And for all your claims that I've been "lazy" and "ignorant," you're the one whose behavior has most illustrated those concepts.
Most recent Anonymous:
You are the wind beneath my wings.
Gee, anonymous. That's rich. Funny thing, I'm not alone in my opinion, and several others on here have backed me up on it: Funk and Miller are paranoid, Miller's statement about the break in exhibited that paranoia, and Dan looked like he had resorted to petty name calling.
I'm done with this blog, and I really don't care what you think about me. I know that my point about Funkhouser and Miller was right, and I know that Dan chose to parse what I said and to split a difference that was truly irrelevent to the issue we were discussing.
The reality is that Funkhouser and Miller have a problem, but they can fix it. If they don't, it's gonna suck to be them. That's it, and there's no mistake there, no matter how hard Dan tries to fuck my shit up, as you put. Of course, you probably will never get it because like Dan, you're still too fixated on ripping on me rather than talking about on the issue.
How sad that Dan will lose a reader who actually tried to contribute something and made an honest mistake. How sad that Dan chose to rip on me, rather than bother to understand that there was no ill will behind my comment. And how sad that Dan would rather hide behind surrogate attacks than directly engage a reader.
Oh, and I'm definitely right about Dan. He is an ass. And so are you.
Goodbye. So long. Adieu.
Sorry to see you go, Nitwit. You've called me an ass twice now, "a hairsplitter of the highest order," claimed that I "refuse to ever admit a mistake" (demonstrably false, plus the claim came in response to YOUR mistake), referred to me as a moron, called me "vitriolic", claimed I was "lazy and ignorant", said I was "losing it", and told me to take a vacation. All while whining that I was being too mean to you.
To quote a commenter, I think you "need to lighten up, get thicker skin and stop worrying so much about everyone else having nefarious motives or whatever."
The real cause of our disagreement is that you never acknowledged that there is a world of difference between Miller making an accusation and Miller floating out a rational possibility. That's what I busted you on, and I can't apologize for calling you on it.
The fact that you have anonymous commenters who agree with you doesn't mean you're right - it merely means you're not alone in thinking they're paranoid. That's fine - but the evidence YOU used to support your claim of paranoia simply did not exist as you claimed it did.
For all I know, they may be paranoid, wearing tin foil hats, doing daily sweeps for bugs, and compiling lists of enemies. I would be surprised, but if someone came forward with solid evidence of that, I would change my opinion.
But if someone expects me to accept that Miller and Funk are paranoid based on a quotation that doesn't exist, they're going to get mocked a little. And if they can't accept that their foolishness doesn't fly here, they can go away sniffling at how hard the fact-based world is . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home