Thursday, November 01, 2007

Why Koster Needs to Take Tainted Money from Rich Republicans

At first I thought maybe Chris Koster had made a foolish mistake by taking $100,000 from a right wing Republican millionaire - and it certainly damaged his attempts to try to portray himself as a Democrat. But he's going to need every nickel he can scrape together if he wants to try to overcome clever gigs like this one: Koster the Imposter.

That, and the next Missouri Attorney General, Jeff Harris, picked up a huge labor endorsement today. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees got on board with Jeff Harris - and I bet that Koster the Imposter is wishing he were back on the Republican side of the ticket.

Labels: , ,

22 Comments:

Anonymous Mark said...

Ha! I love the glowing red eyes of the sheep on the Koster the Imposter website!

At any rate, if you're Koster you're hating yourself for switching parties. He thought the Dem primary would be easier, but he was wrong. Democratic primary voters simply won't vote for a Republican. Simple as that.

Furthermore, Democratic primary voters realize that if Donnelly is nominated, she won't be the next AG. That leaves one candidate: Jeff Harris.

11/02/2007 12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Koster is going to have real problems. Democratic primary voters aren't stupid. They will be reminded of his votes. He's smoother than butter, but sometime being that slick also hurts. Can anyone tell us who the real Chris Koster is?

11/02/2007 1:41 PM  
Anonymous JT said...

I think Donnelly is the best candidate for the general. As we know, Chris Koster is exactly like Mike Gibbons and I dont Jeff Harris will provide much of a contrast to Gibbons either. Donnelly is the strongest candidate because of her experience and maturity and she can beat Gibbons in St. Louis. I dont think Harris can.

11/02/2007 3:45 PM  
Anonymous the nitwit said...

JT, you're just uninformed if you don't think Jeff Harris "will provide much of a contrast to Gibbons." Harris is a fighter who isn't afraid to speak out and would give Democrats a much stronger voice as a candidate for AG.

Koster, we all know is a phony we can't trust, so enough said there. Donnelly has been a good state rep., and I respect her.

Your analysis is also way off, because any Democrat will beat Gibbons in St. Louis in a landslide. The real test is how well each candidate will do in out-state, and that's where Harris is by far the better candidate. He's from Columbia, not St. Louis, which gives him a tremendous leg up statewide.

Democrats don't have to win rural Missouri, but Dan's comparison to Geri Rothman Seurat with Donnelly was spot on. If you want to guarantee a candidate who will only get us 30% in out-state, then vote for Donnelly. If you want a Democrat who will keep the AGs office in Democratic hands, then vote for Harris.

11/03/2007 8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love how Donnely and Harris supporters are so self interested that their number one priority is to tarnish one of the greatest political gifts this state has ever seen.

The Chair of the Republican Majority Caucus had the courage to say, you know what, I was wrong, I have made mistakes and I want to fight for a different cause. But instead of embracing this courage and using it state wide to take back the majority, so we can genuinely push a progressive agenda, Harris and Donnely are afraid of Kosters natural abilities, so they do the one and only thing they can, attack, attack, attack.

Koster was one of the top Republican talents and he has decided to play for the Democrats. This should be a celebration! The charges of opportunism are baseless, the guy was ranked 4th in the Senate and with Gibbons moving on he could have been Pro-tem of the Senate. Instead he will spend an entire session ranked 34th, yeah that sounds like opportunism to me.

As far as Koster making a mistake by switching parties, a reporter asked him at one of his AG announcements if he would do it all over again the same way. His answer was, "no, I would have done it sooner."

What are Donnely and Harris going to run on once the Chris Koster is an evil Republican well has run dry?

11/03/2007 9:04 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

Koster was one of the top Republican talents and he has decided to play for the Democrats.

There's the rub. He's put on a D label, but not given any indication that he's playing a team sport. His "D" is more like a sponsorship badge than a team uniform.

But instead of embracing this courage and using it state wide to take back the majority

Hmm... a "majority" of what? A majority of votes in favor of a D for AG? We haven't had any difficulty doing that. You can't be referring to a majority in the Senate, because of course Koster has no interest in continuing on that path. Which brings me to this...

The charges of opportunism are baseless, the guy was ranked 4th in the Senate and with Gibbons moving on he could have been Pro-tem of the Senate.

Is this the part where we're supposed to forget that everyone knew that Koster was running for AG even before he switched parties? That he had no intention of or desire to stay in the Senate? And now back around to this...

The Chair of the Republican Majority Caucus had the courage to say, you know what, I was wrong, I have made mistakes and I want to fight for a different cause.

The mistake Koster made was thinking over ten years ago that a Danforth Republican had a future in the Missouri Republican party. Now, having noted that his first choice party is over-run by mean-spirited crazies, he has decided to switch to the other party. I'm unaware of his positions on anything actually changing. He's just offering to be our ruthless whore rather than their ruthless whore. Except ruthless whores are easier to direct and manage in the legislature than they are in the independent fiefdom of the AG's office. So, really, he's offering us a sucker's bet. He's fighting for the same old cause - more power for Koster - and asking us to help. It's not particularly courageous or noble. It's actually quite insulting.

11/03/2007 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But why oh why did Koster take all those bad votes. It isn't one bad vote. He voted wrong on nearly everything. He voted for previosu question motions. In fact he initiated a few of them. Isn't it reasonable for us and for him to run for reelection to the Senate and prove himself and then run for something else. Or is what we fought for the last three years meaningless. I can't support Koster even against Gibbons.

11/03/2007 10:25 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

I haven't gone back and looked at IP addresses, but I'm 95% sure that the Anonymous 9:04 was Koster himself. My evidence is the description he used to describe himself: "one of the greatest political gifts this state has ever seen". That is exactly how Chris Koster sees himself, and it is something that nobody who has met the slick, untrustworthy, amoral, self-centered weasel would ever think to say.

11/03/2007 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, please give context to what drives your conclusions about Koster. Explain this obsessive behavior.

Did Chris pick on you as a kid? Or ignore you at a fundraiser? Was he somehow short with you during a passing conversation? Please explain all times you two have kicked it and he exhibited all the amoral untrustworthiness you attribute.

Otherwise you are speculating and making baseless accusations about a member of the Missouri Senate. Rather you agree with his decision to run for higher office or support him in that effort, why not show him a little respect?

11/03/2007 2:19 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Obsessive behavior? Writing about someone who has flipped parties and is trying to gain one of the most important statewide offices? Should I treat this office as a casual matter, not worthy of comment? Would you prefer that I limit myself to local politics?

My personal meetings with Chris are not important - they go back more than 15 years, and, while they certainly left me with a less-than-positive impression of the ambitious young man, they are not why I view him as amoral and untrustworthy today.

The justification for my views of him now are set forth pretty well on this blog, if you go back and see what I've written about him. Long before he foolishly decided that he stood a better shot at fulfilling his ambitions as a Democrat, I described him as a "legislative roundheels".

There's nothing speculative about looking at Chris' record. He has worked against Democrats for years. He worked against Jolie Justus. He joined in almost every mean-spirited, anti-working-man Republican agenda item. How could any responsible, informed democrat support someone who has shown absolutely no core of values - who has taken every easy way, and only became a democrat when the mood of the state and the apparent challenge of the primary seemed to favor that decision.

There's nothing baseless about my accusations, and I'm giving him all the respect he has earned. He hasn't earned the right to consider himself "one of the greatest political gifts this state has ever seen".

11/03/2007 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The gift was his switch, not his personality, which is exactly why you don't get it.

Fortunately there are others in the party who do get it and lets hope they put the gift to work for Democrats statewide.

He has bad votes because he was a REPUBLICAN. What votes did you expect him to have? He was on the other side! He has remorsefully repented and you will not give him a chance to prove it. Do not forget we have an entire session for him to make amends. Sophia wants him to run for the Senate, well guess what, he has 5 months left, if he can't prove himself in 5 months then you will never accept his reformation 4 years from now.

Plus, you saying never mind about your personal experience with the man, what else is there other than hearsay and rumors which you seem to be pretty good at spreading.

11/03/2007 2:56 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

What, exactly, is hearsay about his record? What, exactly, is rumor about the way he flip-flopped parties?

If his behavior in the future is going to include things like taking almost a $100,000 from a rightwing republican millionaire, through ruthlessly exploiting a loophole in the law, he's not exactly helping us believe in this supposed "reformation", is he?

Please, please, please, keep referring to Chris at "the gift". That is such a devastatingly perfect self-description of that self-promoting slickster! It rivals "Koster the Imposter", "Chris the Gift"!

11/03/2007 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, perhaps if you spent more time attacking Kinder, Blunt, Gibbons ect... and less of your energy on Coffman and Koster, your influential blog might actually help out the Democratic party instead of being a divisive force within it.

11/03/2007 3:16 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Sorry, "Chris the Gift", first things first.

11/03/2007 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know whats funny? Your attacks against Koster are strikingly similar to the attacks I've heard against Kander... slick, opportunist, ends justify the means, ect.

Yet, you demand to know why people could possibly say these things about Jason because they don't know him and if they would just have him over for a block party everyone would see what a great guy he is and how he is in this for the right reasons. Maybe he truly is, I don't know him, but the Coffman folks certainly don't think so, they charge self-interest with all the vigor that you accuse Koster.

Why is it ok to have to get the facts when it comes to one of your guys, but you say your personal experience with a politician has no bearing on the truth of your assertions.

Koster was a Republican, he voted the party line, yes, he voted with Matt Blunt, he WAS a Republican. He is no longer a Republican. Sorry, but voting conservative neither makes you amoral or untrustworthy, if you think so, we might as well conceed the rural areas of the state.

So why the charge? What do you know that the rest of us don't? Could it be the same thing the Coffman camps knows about the Kanders?

Give me some proof of your claims that extend outside of Koster's legislative record when he was a Republican.

11/03/2007 5:33 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Taking and keeping the rightwing loophole money.

11/04/2007 6:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chis Koster was a Republican. The key word in that sentence is "was." It is unfortunate that in Dan's self-righteous, perfect world, people cannot evolve.

I am voting for Koster. He is a leader, and I want him to lead this Democratic party.

11/04/2007 8:16 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wow, anonymous - you want this freshly minted Democrat to lead the entire party? Incredible.

Which part of this "evolution" you describe is being sponsored by right-wing Republican multi-millionaire Rex?

11/04/2007 8:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan,

I don't know about leading the party, but I do we think we should give the guy a chance for reform, he only switched 2 months ago, yet you have cast judgement on his past record.

Do you think we should pull every other candidates MEC reports and go donor by donor and find out their personal politics?

Nixon has over 293 pages, I wonder the kind of issues I could drag up from those donors?

This is a witch hunt by the Harris and Donnely campaigns because they have nothing else positive to run on.

Koster is not talking about Harris or Donnely, but he is talking about why he is the best guy for the job.

Thomas

11/04/2007 10:00 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

Just to be clear... if I was in charge of planning Koster's future, it would probably involve selling insurance, not running for office.

As a general rule, I don't value politicians who are only good at sucking up to established power. And, as far as I can tell, that's all he's good at.

11/04/2007 8:34 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Thomas -

This is no ordinary donor - this is a guy who has perpetrated a shell game that exploits a loophole in the law, and Koster is supporting this dodge of the law by accepting almost $100,000 from the whole amoral scheme. In a time where Koster ought to be building bridges of trust with Democrats, he is engaging in shell games with Republican cronies. And then people dare to question why I doubt his sincerity!

11/04/2007 9:10 PM  
Blogger thomas the train said...

Dan,

If a loophole is amoral then hell is full of tax attorneys and corporate accountants.

A loophole is the result of either a poorly written law or a law that has yet to be fixed. It is not an abuse of the law, it is not an infraction of the law and taking advantage of the opportunity is not amoral activity, if you think so, perhaps you are not a true capitalist.

Should the loophole be closed and the law fixed? I don't know, I'm not a lawmaker, I help elect others who study the issue and make decisions on my behalf. Those very people are the ones who created the loophole in the first place.

So ultimately you are blaming Koster for the systems failure. Not only blaming him, but slandering a sitting Missouri Senator’s reputation by calling him amoral and untrustworthy.

I'm going to offer a friendly suggestion. You are a talented guy. I read your blog because you are a good writer and you've got guts. I tip my cap to you on many occasions. I can even appreciate your loyalty and spirit in cheering your favored candidates. But instead of continuing with the pseudo-Roe tactics within the Democrat party, try running positive information on your candidates, instead of a “Coffman stumbles out of the Gates” post, why not a “This is a good reason to support Jason Kander…” post. Let go of the “Koster is an Evil Republican” or “Margret Donnely did not Wow Me” articles and tell us “Why Jeff Harris Deserves the Job”

In summation, stop acting like a Republican yourself and try running a positive campaign based on the issues and substance of the debate.

Thomas

11/04/2007 10:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home