Saturday, September 15, 2007

Sorry for the Delay in posting

All the action is in the comments . . .

Labels: ,


Anonymous Porchpundit said...

Dan thanks for taking the time for responding to my long post with a long post. We still do not agree and I may chime back in here after I mull things over.

For one thing, I really do not see how one can confuse NOT receiving $30,000 in one lump sum from a single contributor who shares genetic material with the candidate, with "having trouble raising money." I will be waiting to the end of the month how I mean Amy did but the Kander people are starting to sound a lot like the Klumb people. I will also look to see whether Jason returned all the money he needs to return consistent with state law.

Dan, I appreciate that you provide the venue for discussion.

That said, I still do not trust the Kanders any more than I would reach into a burlap sack of wolverines to retrieve a lost dime. Are you sure that Diana does not cavort with Satan and lesser demons?

Until next time, all the best Dan.

9/15/2007 9:44 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Thanks for illustrating how to launch a personal attack, PP. I've done a lousy job of it, but I get all the credit.

9/15/2007 10:45 PM  
Anonymous Porchpundit said...

Dan you are the one who attacked Cheryl Dillard, and that is what brought into this thread. It seems to me that the Kanders did some "opposition research" into Cheryl when people thought she might run for the 44th, and when she didn't they had to find a way to use the attacks they had readied for her. You either helped them do that or you were used by them -- par for the course. You should not have attacked Cheryl, Dan. Cheryl has a lot of friends because she is a good person and a good Democrat. You still owe her an apology here and in person.

9/16/2007 10:20 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

No, PP, I did not personally attack Cheryl, and I don't owe her an apology. The best I could offer is one of those "I'm sorry if you were offended" forms of bogus apology, and I see no reason for that.

PP, you are the one who turned this into a personal attack. You were the one who brought her name into it. I was the one who played nice and avoided using her name. I'm the one who said "Cheryl Dillard is a perfectly decent person, with a great history of supporting progressive candidates and causes."

I'm the nice one. You and Try are the ones getting nasty. Read your first comment in this thread for a taste of it. I defy you to find a personal attack by me in about Coffman or her supporters.

You won't find any because I like them plenty as people. They just stumbled at the starting gate.

Now you're making up a conspiracy. Here's the "opposition research" behind my post: Cheryl told me who she worked for at a political event several months ago, when I met her. She was the one who launched this horrid attack on herself, that she is a lobbyist for Coventry.

It's true that she didn't describe Coventry the way I did, but nobody can dispute the accuracy of my description.

9/17/2007 6:13 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Dan, you indicated that PP brought Cheryl into the discussion, and that you did not.

Who was the lobbyist you were referring to in your post?

9/17/2007 8:13 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Mainstream -

A lobbyist for Coventry. That's who.

9/17/2007 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Porchpundit said...

And who was the "lobbyist" for Coventry who you were referring to who was listed on the invitation. Hmmm let's see, Dale Youngs? No. Well let's see, there is only one other name listed --- OMG it is is that fiend CHERYL DILLARD, destroyer of American Healthcare!

Let's not even get into how much damage employers have done Dan. Otherwise, we might just have to look at people who worked for law firms who pander to management over workers. (Cringe Jason Cringe) Or maybe we should look at lawyers who represent the Clarion's wish to hire Scab workers instead of members of the KC Building Trades Unions. (Cringe Diana Cringe) Or shoot we might just blame bloggers for the actions of their employers -- should we start with the Crusades, the Inquisition or various acts against children?

Which approach would be fair Dan?

Leave Cheryl alone. You started this and it has gone way too far thanks to your inability to admit a mistake -- like Funkhouser.

Just apologize to Cheryl. That is all I ask for.

9/17/2007 10:36 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Not gonna happen, PP. I owe the lobbyist no apology, and I won't make a bogus apology just to get you off my back. Let's look at the facts.

Did Amy choose to have a lobbyist from one of the worst health insurance companies host her campaign kick-off? Yes.

Was that a stumble at the starting gate? Yes.

Did I keep that lobbyist's name out of it? Yes.

Did you drag her name into it? Yes.

Did Jason choose me to launch his campaign? No.

Did I describe the lobbyist as "destroyer of American Healthcare"? No.

Look, PP, you screwed up. Accept that fact, and move on. You personalized this matter. I hope the lobbyist forgives you, but that's between you and her.

I pointed out that it was a stumble at the starting gate for a lobbyist to have a fellow lobbyist (for Coventry) host her campaign kick-off. Now, seriously, do you disagree?

You can't disagree. Because I'm absolutely correct. And your whining about it and attempts to make me the bad guy (for Amy's mistake) are failing miserably.

9/17/2007 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So how do we know that Amy is pro-choice? Or that she "panders" to workers instead of management? All we know so far is that supporters of Jason's campaign have pointed out that she has no website and is having her kick off event at a lobbyist's house. Amy's supporters on the other hand have tried to question jason's loyalty to choice, unions, and every other democratic ideal. Too bad for them he has outlined his views on all these issues on his website.

So instead of attacking the other side, why don't you use some free air time to advocate for your candidate? Does she have any new ideas? Why should she be elected? Why does she even want to be elected?

Believe it or not some voters like to know such things.

9/17/2007 11:13 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...


What rankles me now is not so much that you try to associate Amy with Cheryl; and then Cheryl with the company Cheryl works for; and then link Cheryl to the misdeeds of that Company, Coventry.

The objective in this long line of association? Associate Amy to the misdeeds of Coventry.

That's not what I'm mad about now. That's bad, but what's worse is that you expect everyone to beleive that wasn't what you wanted to do.

What's next? We'll see Funk walking around in his birthday suit, and Dan will be telling us "my, don't you like his new suit?"

9/18/2007 8:03 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Mainstream -

Has anyone ever told you you're cute when you're mad? Probably not, huh?

Once again, you're blaming me for Amy's mistake. I didn't associate her with Coventry - she did. All I did was point it out.

I don't deny that the reason I mentioned it was because it represented a stumble at the starting gate. It clearly was, and I labeled it as such.

Now, some ridiculous commenters have claimed that I therefore accused Amy of denying treatment to cancer patients, or some such nonsense.

It's really creepy that you're sitting at your computer thinking about Funkhouser in the nude . . .

9/18/2007 8:15 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

No Dan, what you did was associate Amy with the misdeeds of a large healthcare company.

That's different, and you know it, and I'm not going to let you get away with it, fully-clothed or otherwise.

To repeat - your unsolicited post was a scare tactic and attempt to smear Amy with the misdeeds of Coventry.

And the testament to your demagoguery is this:

You contend you didn't name or intend to name Cheryl Dillard. You content that you did not intend to bring her into the discussion.

Well, when you provide non-indentifying information that can only describe only one person, you are effectively (and intentionally) naming that person.

If I refer to the President of the United States, who am I refering to?

If I refer to the chief lobbyist of Exxon, who am I referring to?

If I refer to the attorney representing OJ Simpson, who an I referring to?

It's way too transparent a move and tactic Dan.

I hope your tactics will, at some point, move beyond manipulative legal obfuscations.

I have confidence that you can change your ways Dan - I'm a believer that all humans can redeem themselves.

9/18/2007 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mainstream -

When will you announce your candidacy? I think you will find eager supporters.

9/18/2007 8:47 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Mainstream -

95% of the readers of this blog did not know the name of the lobbyist until YOU provided it. That's no legal obfuscation - that's the truth. Maybe YOU knew it, and were offended on her behalf, but that's no excuse. You screwed up. Admit it and move on. And maybe you can redeem yourself.

Now, as for not letting me get away with associating Amy with the misdeeds of an insurance company, you need to start paying attention. Amy did that, not me. She chose, out of all the people in the world, the lobbyist for Coventry to kick off her campaign. I did not make her do that. She didn't even ask my advice.

Now you're back to accusing me of scare tactics. What, exactly, do you mean by that? Do you think my little blog is going to SCARE Amy into withdrawing from the race? I have no such delusions about my influence, nor do I think so little of her determination.

All I hoped to accomplish with my post (and I think I did accomplish it), was to make readers wonder whether she's the candidate they want to vote for (and donors wonder if their money might not be wasted on an ineffective campaign).

She's been spending two months on her campaign, and she doesn't even have a website up. How effective is that? Plus, she's a lobbyist whose campaign is being launched by a lobbyist. Those of us who follow politics realize that lobbyists are not highly thought of by the voting populace. Doesn't that fact show some questionable judgment?

We tend to think of the 44th district as a safe one, but it might not be all that safe if the republicans nominate a good candidate, and Jeff Roe can portray the dem as a lobbyist cavorting with lobbyists. Now is the time to think about those things - not after the election.

Is that a scare tactic? I don't think so, but perhaps it is. It certainly scares me to hand the republicans an opportunity like that.

By the way, you never did answer my question: do you disagree that it was a stumble at the starting gate for a lobbyist to have a fellow lobbyist (for Coventry) host her campaign kick-off?

9/18/2007 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mainstream says "your unsolicited post was a scare tactic". Aren't all Dan's posts unsolicited? Is somebody paying him for this blog? If so, who and how much?

9/18/2007 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mainstream comments and then, by incredible coincidence, an anonymous commenter praises his hypothetical candidacy within 60 seconds of Mainstream's post.

Is that how your campaign will work, as well, Mainstream? Are you planning to endorse yourself?

9/18/2007 10:12 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Anon at 10:12 - that was not me, or anybody I know.

I recall the Reiderer campaign for their way-too-obvious planting of gushing comments during the mayoral primary. It's an unethical tactic and from a pragmatic perspective no one buys those comments anyways.

Having said all that, thank you very much, Anon at 8:47, I appreciate very much your support!

Note to Dan - to answer your question, I probably would not have made that initial choice. However, having made that choice says absolutely nothing about the integrity and character of Amy or Cheryl, regardless of your hyperbole!!!

I'm reminded of Jeff Roe, when he associated an opponent with the porn industry, because of their association with a publishing house who did that sort of thing.

Shame on you, Dan.

I can make claims of impropriety against any large corporation. That's like shooting ducks in a pond. However, my personal preference is to stick with the issues unless there is a direct association with illegal or unethical activity.

9/18/2007 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe I've lost something in the back and forth about whether Dan insulted Cheryl Dillard (a well-respected progressive Dem) in his original post (sounded to me like he did). Seems to me that a more immediate and significant question than what everyone's websites look like a year away from the primary is whether Jason is going to join other Dem candidates in returning the more than $30K in donations he's received from his rich uncle and others that are in excess of the limits?

Leading Dem candidates have said they are going to do the right thing and not try to make some half-hearted attempt to claim a hardship? What's Jason going to do?

9/18/2007 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, it's still interesting that not a single one of Amy's views or significant experiences have been offered as a reason to vote FOR her in this entire conversation. On either post.

As the anon above asked, is she anti-choice? How do we know? Is she for or against stem cells? That's a pretty big deal around here isn't it?

All the gossip I'm hearing here about Kander paints a pretty dark picture, but I must say that his website does have a pretty bold and detailed statement of liberal policy positions. At least I know that I agree with him.

Those of you defending Coffman, what does this woman stand for? Who is she? Why should I vote FOR her? Do any of you know her, or do you just hate Diane and Jason?

9/18/2007 1:28 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Thanks Anon at 12:27.

Dan's purposeful distractionary tactics worked on me - for just a little bit.

I think that's a very good question. Mr. Nixon is returning his, regardless of what the courts say, because he knows where most normal people are at, and he's familiar with the court of public opinion.

Even more unconscionable than Dan's attack on Amy and Cheryl is the ability of Jason to fund his campaign primarily through one special interest.

Will Jason give the money back? we all know that the reality of politics is that you need money to be successful, and lots of it.


9/18/2007 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So no reason to vote FOR Amy then?

9/18/2007 2:24 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Working my way up the list of comments . . .

Anon 2:24 - There is no reason for anyone to vote for Amy unless you are one of the select insiders and lobbyists she has deemed worthy of speaking to in her first two months of candidacy. They'll tell you what they want you to hear when they want you to hear it. That's the way insider politics works.

Mainstream - I understand that you would prefer to change the subject to Jason's contributions, since you are ashamed of your personalization of the issue. You are hilariously mistaken about the number of Jason's donors - go look online, and you'll see there are probably a couple hundred. Why are you lying so much already?

Anon 1:28 - I would love to answer your questions about what Amy stands for, but I'm not "inside" enough to be told.

Anon 12:27 - Though you, like Mainstream, seem awfully eager to change the subject, I think you raise a fair and legitimate question. I'll ask Jason the next time I speak with him.

Mainstream - You have guts to come here and lie about me, and then blame me for something Jeff Roe did, and then say shame on me. Despite the temptation to give you the two word response you have so richly earned, I choose to spank you logically. First off, where did I question Amy's or Cheryl's character or integrity? The answer is "nowhere", and, if you read the threads, you'll see I've complimented both of them. So back off with the fabrications. Secondly, I had nothing to do with Jeff Roe, and never have, so don't try to tie me to him. Thirdly, you apparently agree with me that it was a stumble at the starting gate to associate herself with the Coventry lobbyist for her campaign kick-off, to your obfuscation by trying to act like Coventry is just another big company is just so much nonsense. I won't presume to tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself, though, since your lies, misbehavior and wild accusations throughout all your comments suggest you don't feel shame. Instead, I'll just look forward to your campaign kickoff.

Anonymous 10:12 - Good catch. Smells like a sock puppet to me.

Anonymous 10:04 - No, I am not getting paid and nobody solicits my posts. Just another example of Mainstream's loose talk.

9/18/2007 6:29 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Dan, Jason has one $30K+ donor, his uncle in NY. That's who I was referring to. He needs to hand back the money, end of discussion.

Now, Dan, you ask me how you called into question Amy or Cheryl's character?

Acting outraged, Dan, doesn't address the problem. I'll simply requote YOU:

"After at least two months of preparation for her campaign kick-off, she's kicking it off with a fundraiser sponsored by . . . a lobbyist for a health insurance company famous for denying coverage to dying cancer patients. Hmmm."

DAN!!!!! You said this, and you're trying to tell me you're not trying to associate Amy with dying cancer patients?

For all of those reading at home that aren't quite sure, read the quote again. How can anybody in their right mind conclude anything OTHER than the fact you were trying to impune Amy's character, motives, and those of Cheryl who is implicated in the story you linked to in that quote.

Don't lecture me Dan on lying. I don't lie - if I fabricate anything I'll look you straight in the eye and tell you I exaggerated to make my point.

And another thing, I'm not running for anything. I responded in my usual hotheaded sarcastic manner announcing my 44th candidacy just to be humorous, as I sometimes try to be on your blog.

People took me seriously and I just decided to go with it, kind of.

Do you think, with my track record of outlandish and insightful and brilliant comments on your blog, that I could ever, ever run for office successfully?

We'll never know. At least for now.

9/18/2007 9:47 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Mainstream - bummer. You had me going there. Your candidacy would have brought even more joy to my life. Good one.

As for the claim that I attacked anyone's character or integrity, you prove too much. Amy is the one who chose to associate herself with Coventry, isn't she? Did we just witness some kind of suicide of integrity? No, of course not. She still has her character and integrity. She also still has poor political judgment and a crappy website.

As for your honesty, Mainstream, we've seen how close you stay to the truth.

9/18/2007 10:07 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

No, Dan, Amy didn't choose to associate herself with Coventry.

She chose to associate herself with Cheryl Dillard.

Do you understad the difference? I think you do but you're unwilling to admit it.

You know Dan, your righteousness is up there with Taggert and Ralph Reed. Taggert was homophobic, Ralph Reed was anti-gambling. And look at their actions, as opposed to their rhetoric.

When I chose to befriend my neighbor, who is a lawyer with a large firm in town, my first question was not what firm he works for, or what type of clients his firm represents. He became a friend because we could connect on many different levels on many subjects. And he was an honest, nice guy.

He could hold a fundraiser for me any day of the week, and I could be criticised for some of his clients I'm sure.

A cildhood friend of my wife works with BP. Who would have thought? A nice person from a small town, with two small kids, working for an oil company, a company who rapes the environment and ultimately funds terrorists and bribes thousands of elected officials to get billions of dollars in tax breaks.

Do you think she's a bad person Dan?

And don't even try to accuse me of being dishonest in declaring my candidacy for the 44th. Who in their right mind would believe an anon blogger, with a history of extreme statements, would ever out themselves to run for office?

If I was me, which I am, and I was serious about running, I would just run and not associate myself with my online character.


But then again, Dan, you still think Funk is doing a good job as mayor. It all fits together now.

9/18/2007 10:50 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Oh, and Dan, you can be sure there will be one issue front and center in this campaign - campaign reform, tactical and financial.

The Kanders are fond of robo calls, printed hit pieces and donors without contribution limits.

You, on the other hand, are fond of blog hit pieces. Tell me the difference between you and Ed Martin at the Pitch?

Dan, I know I'm being perhaps a little too critical of you, and for that I apologize. But I think your enthusiasm gets the best of you sometimes. I know you have a good heart, but there's no reason to try and throw a cross-body block so early in the game.

You'll ultimately get a red card, and I'm throwing down a yellow card right now.

9/18/2007 11:12 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

Dan & mainstream,

I think you're both being too hard on and over-reading each other.

9/19/2007 12:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Sophia - He started it!


Mainstream - I hear what you're saying, but there is a difference between working for a law firm with multiple clients or working for an oil company, and being a lobbyist for Coventry. I suspect you understand that, but are too dug into your position to acknowledge it.

More importantly, it's a matter of political judgment. Roe trashed Settle as a pornographer with far less basis than Coffman has tied herself to Coventry. Like it or not, if you are running for office, you need to think about political symbolism, and how it can be twisted. Heck, you just tied me to homophobes and gamblers, simply because I am correct! Why would a candidate hand Jeff Roe such an obvious gift as to tie herself to Coventry? That's the stumble, and I was right to point it out. The fact that we're still discussing this stumble, more than a week after I posted about it, suggests it touches a major nerve.

As for your continued baseless bashing of Kander, whatever. I haven't received any robocalls or hit pieces from him yet, snd, and I'm pretty certain all candidates like major donors.

Finally, you compare me to Ed Martin of the Pitch. I don't know an Ed Martin at the Pitch, but, if there is one, I suspect the major difference between us would be that I am a blogger and he is paid to be a journalist. There's a huge difference.

9/19/2007 6:23 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...


I'm going to stop.


I suspect that if you and I do have two things in common, it's the desire for good, common sense government and the need to have the last word.

9/19/2007 8:16 AM  
Blogger Dan said...


9/19/2007 8:44 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...


9/19/2007 8:59 AM  
Anonymous joseph werkmeister said...

Are those of you that are posting during business hours counting those as billable hours toward your clients? Those of that are posting novels during non-business hours, do you have nothing better to do? Maybe you should knock on some doors for your respective candidates.

9/19/2007 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just want too take time too thank the posters for doing what you do and make this community great im a long time reader and first time poster so i just wanted to say thanks.

1/18/2010 11:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home