Sunday, December 02, 2007

Well-Played, Mayor's Office


I was surprised to see that Hearne Christopher scored the interview with everybody's favorite target for talk, Gloria Squitiro. Surely, given the incessant chatter among city hall gossips about the First Lady, the interview should have gone to one of the more serious people at the Star . . .

Upon reflection, though, it seems absolutely perfect that those who choose to focus on the sideshows of negativity while ignoring the strengths and accomplishments of the Funkhouser administration are now chattering about a freaking gossip columnist. It's a not-so-subtle clue that those who salivate at the thought of slamming Squitiro are simple-minded, frivolous gossips.

For an administration that gets accused (by those same people) of a lack of sophistication, I think we just saw a masterwork of putting the issue onto the proper agenda.

Bravo!

Labels: , ,

66 Comments:

Anonymous Judge Judy III said...

I am a very liberal democrat. I gave money to the Funkhouser campaign and I had a Funkhouser sign in my yard.

Like the vast majority of Democrats, I don't like the Minutemen and I don't think it is appropriate in this day and age to call black employees "mammy".

I wrote a letter to the mayor and told him my disappointment. I guess now in Gloria's eyes I am nothing more than a "mosquito". So much for the idea that a mayor would actually listen to and respect the regular citizens.

12/02/2007 11:29 AM  
Blogger twominutehate said...

JJ III - how do you know it happened? To my knowledge, only Tony's Kansas City and the Call have "alleged" that it happened. TKC has NO credibility. The Call is the only "newspaper" reporting it, and quite frankly calling them a newspaper is a stretch. I like Eric Wesson and think he is a good voice for the city, but where's the beef on this? It sounds like an attack against the Mayor.

12/02/2007 11:58 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

JJIII -

I agree with you in not liking tbe Minutemen. I don't like the Republicans, the NRA, or the DAR. But I can't imagine whining about a member of a group I don't like getting a spot on a parks board. Yawn.

As for the Mammy thing, yeah, if true, it's a bad thing to have done, if true. But even, if true, it happened, if true, I'm confident that it, if true, is no worse than the malicious slander and libel committed by a member of the former mayor's staff.

12/02/2007 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Judge Judy III said...

But I can't imagine whining about a member of a group I don't like getting a spot on a parks board

So complaining to the mayor about one of his decisions is now "whining" and deserves a "yawn". I guess the mayor is the "decider" and doesn't have to listen to criticism from "mosquitos".

if true, is no worse than the malicious slander and libel committed by a member of the former mayor's staff.

So that makes it ok? I thought that Funk said he would be BETTER than the former mayor? Now the bar is just "no worse" than the former mayor.

12/02/2007 12:49 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

JJ -

Yeah, whining about a Parks Board pick like it's worth talking about 6 months later is simply stupid. That's all there is to it. Grow up and get over it. I criticized it when it happened, but it's truly absurd to care that much or that long about a tiny little parks board appointment.

As for the comparison to Glorioso, you're right - I do expect better from this administration, and, if true, I'll be disappointed, if true. But I also won't want to act like inappropriate conduct, if true, by a member of his staff, if true, is a defining issue for Funk's administration. Let the process handle the complaint.

12/02/2007 12:56 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

I agree that if you're going to let Squirito do an interview, it belongs in a gossip column. But I'm not giving "masterwork" credit for passing Politics 101. As a general rule, you don't want a First Lady making "news."

It's true there are some noisy folks who "salivate" at the thought of slamming Squirito, but there's also people like me, who upon reading her write "On a more personal note" brace for the political/literary equivalent of passing a car wreck. She may be a nice lady, but she doesn't have a lick of political sense, she wasn't hired or elected to do anything, and her indifference to the offense/discomfort she causes makes her ill-suited to be playing such a prominent role in her husband's administration.

It is entirely possible to want to see Funk succeed and also to want Squirito to back off. The community is not divided between people who think Funk's a rock star and those who visciously attack his wife as a way of scoring points against Funk.

12/02/2007 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Judge Judy III said...

like it's worth talking about 6 months later is simply stupid

I would say its worth it. Like it or not, that decision helped to loose the city millions in convention revenue.

We can argue about La Raza all we want (and have good, valid, reasonable points on both sides, was it blackmail, was it a boycott, etc..), but the fact is that decision DID have a large financial consequence for KC both now AND in the future.

Somehow I doubt if Bush had appointed a Minuteman to the Dept of the Interior (the national equivalent of the parks board), you would be as forgiving or be as harsh on his critics.

But I also won't want to act like inappropriate conduct, if true, by a member of his staff, if true, is a defining issue for Funk's administration

This is not just staff. This is his TOP adviser/wife. That is like saying we can't judge the Bush administration by the actions of Karl Rove.

Funk picked his staff, the buck should stop with him.

12/02/2007 1:13 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

No, JJ, you're mistaken. The convention can and will be replaced - the economic impact is de minimus.

Regarding the alleged allegations (remember, we still don't even have a credible source that the allegations have even been made), if true, they will be handled in due course, if true.

12/02/2007 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, your're pathetic. You should listen to yourself once in a while. "I doubt she called anyone Mammy but if she did, no big deal...Im sure the previous amdin did worse things."

12/02/2007 2:27 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

And, JJ - don't you wish that one appointment to a board were worthy of 6 months of coverage on the Bush administration? Isn't it truly wonderful that we live in a city so well governed that we are still talking about a parks board member 6 months after the fact? It demonstrates just how weak the criticisms of Funkhouser are that we're still talking about such a distant and minor matter.

12/02/2007 2:30 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous -

Where, exactly, did I claim that the alleged allegations, if true, are no big deal, if true?

12/02/2007 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But even, if true, it happened, if true, I'm confident that it, if true, is no worse than the malicious slander and libel committed by a member of the former mayor's staff."

Integrity is holding everyone to the same standard.

12/02/2007 2:36 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous, I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you pointing out the duplicity of those who are making a big deal out of alleged allegations but ignored actual liability for slander by Glorioso?

12/02/2007 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Judge Judy III said...

He is point out that you said calling black employees "mammy" is no worse than what former staff did. That is what you wrote if true, is no worse than the malicious slander . Making it sound like you don't think it is a big deal.

But I am guessing that is not what you meant. Let go back to my Karl Rove analogy. What do you think Democrats would say if Karl Rove was calling White House employees "mammy"?

12/02/2007 3:02 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Hmm - if true, is it worse to call a person "mammy", if true, in a misguided joke, or to make up a story about a woman having an abortion and broadcasting it on the air? Personally, I think they're both bad, and the alleged allegation of "mammy" is certainly no worse than the other.

These are difficult issues if you think about them - you might give that a try.

As for the Karl Rove analogy, yes, it would be bad for Karl Rove to refer to anyone as mammy. It's ironic that we now have as much credible evidence that he did it (your comment) as we do that Gloria did it.

12/02/2007 3:14 PM  
Anonymous Judge Judy III said...

At least Karl Rove denied all the charges against him. I haven't heard Gloria denying she called her employees "mammy."

As far as what former staffers said, that is part of the reason Kay's man lost the race. People were tired of the old mayor and wanted a change.

At least when we criticized Mayor Barnes, she didn't call us "mosquitoes".

12/02/2007 3:27 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

JJ - To my knowledge, Rove has not denied calling anyone "mammy".

Also, Ms. Squitiro employs nobody.

You're awfully shaky on the facts, aren't you?

12/02/2007 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Judge Judy III said...

Ok, Dan can you give us a list of good things Funk has done? Maybe he has a great list of accomplishments that nobody talks about. Outside of appointing Minutemen, loosing conventions and his wife allegedly using racist comments, I don't know what he has done.

To be honest, I would like to hear something good that he has done so I can redeem myself for voting for him.

12/02/2007 4:57 PM  
Anonymous arewethereyet said...

Dan,
will you really and truly consider appropriate action regarding the EEOC complaint that entails wage issues, racist remarks and inappropriate sexual innuendo in the Mayor's office? Will you take a firm stand as a member of the Mayor's advisory committee? Will you take your insider's position to speak up for the everyday people in Kansas City? I hope you are an honest individual. I hope that you will have the political fortitude to stand strong with your convictions. I hope.
Considering that the individual who is seeking legal redress has her own excellent "in-house" counsel I believe her EEOC complaint will be found to be true. She has used the decades-long experience of a tireless worker on civil rights issues to guide her. A gentle man whom I would trust in his area of expertise. She thought long and hard, sought advice from others.
I had been a Funkhouser supporter for nearly 15 years. I am stunned by his current actions. To regain my support he will need to get serious about the job.

12/02/2007 5:30 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

I'll be back on here as soon as I get my kids get off my case.

In the meantime-

Dan,

You say in your post that "people who are slamming Squitiro are simple-minded, frivolous gossips."

And did I read you correctly, you refer to the Christopher column as "a masterwork of putting the issue onto the proper agenda."? Did you read part 2?

The Shoe-less Wonder is acting as Chief of Staff. She makes appointments to important commissions. Her role on the 29th floor, as the primary gatekeeper every day to the mayor, and acting Chief of Staff is anything but frivolous.

Here role in city hall isn't frivolous, and that means criticsim of her certainly isn't frivolous.

Just like the Funkhouser administration, Dan your defense of Gloria I keep thinking cannot get more absurd. But it does.

12/02/2007 6:01 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

I saw an interview with Funkhouser the other day where he basically said that as a self-avowed bean counter, he doesn't know anything about politics and that his wife handles all of the political issues.

Here is her bio, taken right off the mayor's blog in her own words:

"I graduated from Belmont University in 1982 with a BS in Psychology.

I've held many jobs in the past: I was a door-to-door cosmetic salesgirl (at the age of ten), a waitress many times over, a cashier at K-Mark, answered the hotline in a battered women's shelter, worked with Autistic children and was a book-keeper for a chain of McDonald's.

I am currently a mother, wife, natural childbirth instructor and a doula."

Here are her "interests" taken from the same source:

"Children, natural medicine, natural birth, organic food, healthy but delicious cooking, exercise, clothes, spirituality, reading, writing, building tiny houses, estate sales, shabby chic antiques, beautiful old printed tablecloths, surrounding myself with beauty, dancing, blues music, the Grateful Dead, gardens, traveling, going to our cabin in the country, sitting on the porch with family and friends, annoying my family and friends with practical jokes, dreaming big dreams, helping Funk be the best Mayor in the country, being a great mom, making a difference . . ."

This, is his Karl Rove.

This is the person he relys on to make political and public relations decisions.

Is it any wonder that so many rookie mistakes are made?

She really has no place anywhere near City Hall.

I don't know the woman, and I don't begrudge a man for wanting listen to his wife and take her advice. But she has absolutely NO credentials that would qualify her to be giving him GOOD advice in political matters.

Funkhouser was an Auditor. That job (when done correctly...as he has done it) deals entirely in facts and very little in politics.

The office of Mayor deals almost exclusively in politics and only occasionaly brushes against the world of facts.

Funkhouser can be a good Mayor. Not a great one. A good one. But only if he gently and lovingly sends his wife back home and appoints someone to the 29th floor who can give him some really good, sound advice based on actual political experience.

The political ineptness is embarassing.

12/02/2007 8:31 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Mainstream:

You can't have frivolous criticism of something that isn't frivolous? Do you really think that?

And you call me absurd????

12/02/2007 8:41 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

XO - good points and I agree. I would add that the Shoe-Less Wonder, regardless of her background, could just simply apply some common sense. Job 1 of the first spouse is to do no harm....I also think there is a very strange dynamic between those two that I have alluded to in earlier comments.

Dan,

*rolls his eyes* here we go with the overly-legalistic approach again.

The point you were trying to make, one that you've also made before, is that criticism of the Shoe-less Wonder should be confined to gossip because those who criticize her are ignoring substantive city issues and criticism of her is just a way of getting in a cheap shot a the mayor.

The Shoe-less One, I would argue, is a substantive city issue.

That was my point there.

I just think Dan that you should save your energy for highlighting the good things Funk is doing, instead of highlighting the Shoe-less One - she's a big negative.

12/02/2007 8:58 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

XO -

No, Gloria is not his Karl Rove. Never has been, never will be, and wouldn't want to be. And the fact that some people think that is a role he would fill in his office shows just how far off base his dozen or so constant critics are about what Kansas Citians voted for.

Mark has received some fine political advice, and some bad political advice. Sometimes, he's ignored good political advice because it conflicts with what he's trying to accomplish. While I've disagreed with his decisions on occasion, I admire his sense of purpose and sense of who he is. Certainly, Gloria is an important part of his decision process, but I know for a fact that he has gone against her wishes sometimes as well.

Mainstream - you roll your eyes at me when I point out that you're simply wrong that it is possible to have frivolous criticism of something that isn't frivolous. I understand how frustrating it is when someone penetrates your false logic and shows just how absurd it is, but don't get pissy with me about it. You're the one that chose to make that point - I'm merely the one who showed how wrong you are. Don't blame me.

Frivolous criticism, by the way, would include your reference to Ms. Squitiro as "the Shoeless one".

Judge Judy - your suggestion of a post about the accomplishments and successes of the Funkhouser administration is probably a good one. Of course, it will ignite a firestorm of naysayers like Mainstream and the anonymice who will deny that it is good that we have a TIF policy or claim that we should have implemented the Chastain plan, but good people like yourself probably deserve a bit of an accounting like you won't find on other sites.

I'll try to put together such a post in the next week or so.

12/02/2007 9:30 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Dan, have you ever heard me, over these last months, advocate for any kind of a nutball policy or nutbag approach?

I think not. I may say ridiciluous things but we all do from time to time.

Including you.

Dan, I'm not taking an unreasonable stand when I say that the Shoe-less Wonder hurts her husband's prospects to be a successful mayor.

Do you want to look all of us commenters and fellow bloggers right in the eye and say "not only only do I want Gloria to keep on doing what's she's doing, I want her to do even more of it".

What I think you're doing Dan (at least what I hope you're doing) is taking an adversarial stand in defense of Gloria -- because while you don't like what she's doing to his reputation -- you think that bringing Gloria down will put at risk Funk's ability to acomplish what you hope he will over he next 3 years.

How many commenters and bloggers, and how many people do you talk with outside of the campaign say "Go Gloria!!!" when they really know what's going on?

Quite frankly, I'm trying to bring some sanity into this conversation and put together some rationale for your defense of Gloria.

12/02/2007 9:44 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

Dan - "No, Gloria is not his Karl Rove. Never has been, never will be, and wouldn't want to be. And the fact that some people think that is a role he would fill in his office shows just how far off base his dozen or so constant critics are about what Kansas Citians voted for."

He blatantly said in the interview that he relys upon his wife's judgement on all things political because that is not his area of expertise.

I'm not a critic of Funkhouser. I think he is a breath of fresh air. But I also think he is getting and taking some really, REALLY bad political, PR advice. All signs point to his wife. If it is someone else leading him down the path of self-destruction, they should man-up and take the heat off the Mayor's wife.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some really stupid, boneheaded, rookie political mistakes are being made on a pretty consistent basis.

12/02/2007 9:47 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

mainstream - I think that when you refer to Gloria as the "Shoe-less Wonder" you align yourself with the TKC, rumor-mongering, inflamatory rhetoric of "uncited sources" and "hear-say journalism" that is increasingly losing all credibility.

Do you work at City Hall?

Have you seen, with your own eyes, Gloria's bare feet?

Why not post a picture? A lot of people are claiming it. I'm sure they all have cell phones. I've not seen one single picture of Gloria Squitiro walking through City Hall in bare feet.

If this is such a common occurence and so many people claim to have witnessed it, why have we not seen one, crappy, blurry, marginally credible, cell phone camera picture of Gloria Squitiro slapping her bare feet against the cold, marble floors of City Hall?

Are you people so lame and afraid that you can't capture one, single, credible image that would back up your bogus claims?

Put up or shut up, bitches!

12/02/2007 10:01 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

XO - To answer your question directly, I borrowed the term from another commenter and kept using it. But to your point, I have seen her bare feet in an office. (seriously).

I'm a guy though, so unless she has the Earnest Borgnine of bare feet I wouldn't have noticed a thing, so I think she's got at least average feet and I didn't notice any concentric curling of the long toenails that is common with Wiccan Priestesses and Midwiphers.

So my conclusion is - average feet.

And when she's not wearing shoes, she's Shoe-less.

And I don't have a problem with her not wearing shoes in my presence. I have a BIG problem with how she is running the Mayor's office....

12/02/2007 10:16 PM  
Anonymous Shamansky said...

I had hoped that Dan would use the weekend to write about some rare porter or bitter available in smug carryouts.

Instead he decides to throw out a post in defense of the Shoe-less, Mammy-calling, Butt-Pinching, Bigot-Comforting, Car-whoring, car allowance collecting - and improper inquiry about "night time activity" asking Scourge of Kansas City.

In short, Dan used the time to glorify Gloria Squitiro, the unifying force in Kansas City politics: With the exception of a few stray neutrons, everyone hates her existence in City Hall.

Let's not pretend that this stuff just comes from Tony's Kansas City, because I witnessed a conversation between Congressman Cleaver, Jim Glover and some campaign guy at the Congressman's in district office opening where most of the allegations were discussed and Gloria was the focus of ridicule. There was a group of people watching and no one looked uncomfortable. They nodded their head in agreement.

The Rev's office opening is not the only place where Gloria gets grief. In every political gathering I have attended since early June, I have heard comments about Gloria's improper behavior -- and not citing Tony's Kansas City. Anyone who chooses to ignore that tendency is lying to themselves.

Judge Judy and Sophia, I have been reading your posts and I am assuming you are learned members of the Bar. I know there are probably rules or cannons against asking this question of an Officer of the Court, but does Gloria's activity in City Hall management and/or policy making violate one or another law?

I talked to someone who worked in the Prosecutors Office last year who said that Funkhouser was warned by then Prosecutor Sanders that Gloria could not go to work for City Hall. I think this is the issue that Mainstream is getting at in a round about way.

It is my understanding that this statutory restriction was not limited to a paid position. If she ACTED as an agent of the city, then she was violating state law, which I assume means laws against nepotism.

I think it is time to discuss this section of the law. I will raise the issue here out of respect for the Blog.

Let's hear some opinions from you lawyers.

12/02/2007 10:20 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

So you agree that it is a frivolous criticism, but you join the swarm of mosquitoes in making it.

Think about that for a few minutes, Mainstream. Think about how that fits with what part of your nature, your character, who you want to be, what change you want to make in this world, what kind of people you want your children to grow up into . . .

12/02/2007 10:21 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I heard a well-respected political insider on Wednesday night complain that Mark was reading a book on an airplane recently. Group think among the insiders is nothing new, and nothing important.

If you're looking to Jim Glover for your political insight (remember his mayoral race?), you might be barking up the wrong tree.

12/02/2007 10:29 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

* sigh *

I'm still waiting for any proof, of anything, from anybody.

Who is willing to be Daniel Ellsberg? Certainly not TKC or mainstream or paintman.

Where are The Pentagon Papers of the Funkhouser Administration?

A lot of anonymous and pseudononymous people are eager to claim inside knowledge and priveledged communication.

Where is the proof?
No pictures? No video? No photocpies? No leaked documents? No wiretaps?

What a bunch of fucking pussies!

All I see are a bunch of James Bond wannabes who look a whole lot more like Mr. Bean.

Post proof that you are who you say you are.

Post actual, objective, verifiable evidence that what you say is true.

Or shut the fuck up.

12/02/2007 11:04 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

"mainstream said...
XO - To answer your question directly, I borrowed the term from another commenter and kept using it. But to your point, I have seen her bare feet in an office. (seriously)."

Which office? An official City Hall ofiice? Or her doula office?

And you didn't get a picture to back up your claims?

And you can't post any information that would lend any credibility to the claim that you have that sort of access to the highest levels of City Hall?

What a bunch of speculative BS!

Where is your proof?!

12/02/2007 11:15 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

shamansky - "the Shoe-less [do you have pictures? video?], Mammy-calling [were you there? did you capture the conversation? can you post a clip?], Butt-Pinching {was it your butt? do you have proof?}, Bigot-Comforting [what the fuck are you talking about?], Car-whoring {what?!?], car allowance collecting [again...proof?] - and improper inquiry about "night time activity" [what the hell are you talking about? show some balls. give us some proof and establish your credibbility] asking Scourge of Kansas City."

Unwarranted, unsubstantiated, unverifiable, malicious bullshit.

Put up, or shut up.

Post your credentials and your evidence.

12/02/2007 11:22 PM  
Blogger thepaintman said...

Most of the people complaining about Funkhouser are the ones who voted for Alvin Brooks.
Apparently their still angry and can't get ovr it.

12/02/2007 11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This could be really funny!

When Gloria walks down the hall the amateur paparazzi all break out their cell phones to try and get a picture of the elusive feet.

I can see the flashes going off now. LOL

Then the pictures hit the web.

Just feet! Who vouches for the authenticity?

12/03/2007 5:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I voted for Funkhouser. I am a long-time city employee, and thought he'd be good. I was wrong. I know for a fact that Gloria did call 2 staff members "mammy." I see Gloria and she looks like hell when she comes to "work." I know that she and her husband drive separate cars to work each and every day which shows no concern for the environment. I know this is not acceptable leadership for a good, progressive city.

12/03/2007 5:50 AM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

"I know for a fact that Gloria did call 2 staff members "mammy." I see Gloria and she looks like hell when she comes to "work." I know that she and her husband drive separate cars to work each and every day which shows no concern for the environment. I know this is not acceptable leadership for a good, progressive city."

More anonymous claims with no proof.

Means absolutely nothing.

12/03/2007 6:11 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

While I agree that the mammy thing, if true, is serious problem, if true, it cracks me up that anonymous sees fit to ALSO criticize Gloria's looks (want to place a bet on what anonymous looks like?) and on her failure to car pool (want to guess what percentage of anonymous commenters in KC car pool?). Exactly the sort of person that Hearne Christopher's column is written for.

Again, well-played, Mayor's office.

12/03/2007 6:16 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

XO and Dan, what's next on the agenda: Holocaust or Moon landing denial?

Or here is a headline for you Dan: Darwin and Mendel -- Liars!

February 11, 2008 will be the fifth anniversary of Ron Ziegler's death, just in case you wanted to plan a memorial post for a fellow traveler.

12/03/2007 6:42 AM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

porch - the holocaust and the moon landing aren't in question.

Know why?

Because there is PROOF that they occured.

There are documents, photographs, witnesses, survivors, participants, artifacts.

That's a bit more substantial than a blog rumor.

12/03/2007 6:49 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

PP -

Where have I denied it happened? How would I know?

Along those same lines, how would you know?

12/03/2007 6:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would anyone want to hold public office today?

Give 'em time and someone will figure out how to criticize their morning dumps.

Dan, the constant "if true" is really annoying. Barring the release of the secret videotape, the allegations will always be "if true". Even if Gloria admitted to it, she may have been coerced.

I doubt you would be so wordy if the same allegations were made against a Republican. Prejudicial remarks based on race, religion, sex, or even political party, only serve to express ignorance.

If the people want Mark to do his job, give him a chance to do it. Stop criticizing everything the guy, or his wife, does. He should be judged on the sum of his actions during his term, rather than each one individually.

Again, this whole thing makes me wonder why anyone would want to run for public office. Holding public office is like a soldier going to war in Iraq; your chances of winning aren’t very good, all you can try to do is come out alive. In the end, even if you consider your term a victory, someone will disagree.

12/03/2007 7:36 AM  
Anonymous Midtown Observer said...

Dan -

You used a term above that sums up most of the political insiders right now - group think. It's what leads people to think that a loser (and I mean that in the literal sense, not as a more general damning description) like Jim Glover can be thought to be insightful about what is going on in the Mayor's office. I heard the person you mentioned criticize Funkhouser for reading a book on an airplane. I understand why you didn't point out how ridiculous he was being - you were trying to be a classier person than the Funk critic (and succeeding). By the way, it must have been tempting to drop his name, considering his involvement elsewhere - it was classy of you to avoid that temptation.

Funk has definitely had some stumbles, and the gossips have seized upon them like they are capital crimes. He'll have more, and the gossips will act like the sky is falling.

But the stumbles aren't what matters. If, near the end of the first term, we have increased satisfaction with city services, he wins. In a landslide. And the political insiders who want to talk about shoes or a parks board appointment or even whether Gloria car pools to work will see just how cut off from reality they really are.

Remember, Dan, the insiders "knew" that Funkhouser didn't stand a chance in the primary.

Now the insiders are talking about a Hearne Christopher column. Pathetic. I voted for Brooks last time, but, if Funk delivers on his promise of increased citizen satisfaction with city services, I'll be on board next time around.

12/03/2007 9:15 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

XO, I don't know about the mammy statement, but it certainly is in-character for the Shoe-less One.

Proof? I think, XO, you would agree we don't need proof to conclude it's way past time for Gloria to go. You've so much as said that yourself.

Here are some facts:

The Shoe-Less Scourge has:

- referred to the east side as the "black part of town";
- specifically requested police protection for Funk ONLY when he has been in the black and tan sections of town;
- selected Frances Semler to be appointed to the Parks Board
- very publicly counciled her husband to "take the free car"
-arrives at the 29th floor office every day and sits right outside of her husband's office
- because of her claustrophia, has to be escorted up and down the elevator to the 29th floor in a elevator with no other people in it, with a single escort, I do beleive
- has been lately greeting people in the morning saying "did ya get any last night?" - city employees have been talking about this
- functions as the main gatekeeper to Funk
- has a very clear record of redicilous statements in her weekly newsletters. I could devote a whole post on the inappropriate things she has said...
- she selected and actively manages the Mayor's staff

I could go on but I'm sure I'm boring everybody here. I think you get my point, XO -- with or without proof of mammygate I think you would agree her behavior and presence on the 29th floor is generally unacceptable.

It's way past time for the Shoe-less Wonder to go.

12/03/2007 9:30 AM  
Anonymous SSideDem said...

Mainstream:
You mean there IS no black part of town? Gloria was just being honest. You need to get out more Mainstream. Where do you think all those ladies you meet on Independence Avenue live, Brookside?

Funkhouser is doing the right thing and the liberals are squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. Tell the NAACP to go somewhere else.

12/03/2007 10:43 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

keep up the comments, SSidedem. This commenting thing you're doing is working out quite well for you.

12/03/2007 11:07 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

Until I read ssidedem's comments before noon, I forget that a select number of South Side bars open very early in the morning.

12/03/2007 11:15 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

Funkhouser is doing the right thing and the liberals are squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance.

Eww. That's taking the discussion to a whole new level. Now, make sure to bring us a picture proving Funk doesn't use lube.

12/03/2007 11:23 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

And now this:

The new treasurer for Funkhouser for Kansas City campaign is Gloria Squitiro — the mayor's wife.

The Missouri Ethic Commission's Web site contains the information. The former treasurer, Evert Asjes, resigned last month because he said he was concerned that he had not been notified of payments the campaign made to Squitiro.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/8624

This is a no brainer. It's like they're being willfully stupid to make a point about politics not mattering.

12/03/2007 11:29 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

So now she controls the money and anyone who wants to see the mayor has to get past his campaign treasurer. If that is not a framework for racketeering -- well, it IS a framework for racketeering.

And yes, if she knew what she was doing was called racketeering or not I think she would do it.

Dan, I think the Shoe-less Scourge and her Prince Consort are just trying to keep the traffic up on your blog. There can be no other rational explanation for this stuff.

I really do feel sorry for you because of your compulsion to defend them. I am not being sarcastic. I mean it. This is getting very sad.

12/03/2007 11:54 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

"Racketeering" seems a bit strong. I didn't even think about it in terms of influence peddling, merely in terms of her competence to play the role and how bad it looks to have her take it on given the reason the former treasurer resigned.

12/03/2007 12:10 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

All I have to say is....

"WELL PLAYED MAYOR'S OFFICE!!!"

Let's look at this equation.

(1) Campaign treasurer resigns because candidate spouse/campaign manager/Shoe-less Wonder spends money without telling Treasurer, on things that are ethically on the borderline. The Shoe-less Wonder wants to splurge campaign funds on a $700 cell phone courtesy of the campaign, even when there's no campaign. Looks really really bad, but since when has the Shoe-less Scourge cared what other people think?

(2) No one, and I repeat no one wants the job as Funk's Treasurer as long as the Shoe-less One is around and doing her own thing, without regard to and flaunting ethics rules. In her mind, the Treasurer is just there to right the checks she orders them to write. She's in charge.

(3) Candidate spouse/campaign manager/Shoe-less Wonder becomes Treasurer because no one credible wants the ugly job of working with her; and, she doesn't care about ethics because she's the one who decides what's right and what's wrong.

How many ethics/managerial conventions is she breaking?

OH! Wait a minute, Dan is about to remind us that she's breaking something alright - NEW GROUND!

This is one of the many things we're just going to have to get used-to, because it's a new day at city hall.

Thanks, Dan, your defense is enlightening.

"Well Played!!!" I think we can all agree.

goneabsolutelybonkers.nuts

12/03/2007 2:06 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Porchie got it right, along with alot of other folks.

They (The Shoe-less Scourge and her Consort, as PorchPundit puts it) have utter contempt for all of us. And porchie drew such a nice picture - if you want to get an appointment with Funkhouser, you have to go through his campaign treasurer.

Oh! And his campaign manager.

Oh! And his chief of staff.

Oh! And his wife.

This is absoultely surreal.

12/03/2007 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mainstream:

Great point!!!!

Now, just show us where Dan said anything remotely like what you claim he said! Hurry up!

Because otherwise it looks like you are trying to somehow say that Dan's admiration of having the interview show up on HC's column means something totally different.

Mainstream, here's a little advice for you. Dan made you look stupid for claiming that it was impossible to be frivolous about non-frivolous topics. You were logically wrong, and Dan showed you up. And then you admitted you were repeating frivolous criticism, and never responded to Dan's calling you on that.

Do you really want to try to argue that saying that a media placement was well-played is the same thing as saying that Gloria should be treasurer? I don't see the connection. Is this just another one of your logical lapses?

12/03/2007 2:17 PM  
Anonymous At Least Funk Can Spell said...

When you copy and paste your comments in multiple blogs, Mainstream, you ought to proofread them. Otherwise, you make yourself look absoultely stupid.

12/03/2007 2:23 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

I often don't proof read what I type, and I type with three fingers. I comment when I have a moment and people aren't in my office. I apologize for my horrific typos.

And the the anon commenters immediately above -

WHO GIVES A RATS ABOUT A STUPID ARGUMENT ON RHETORIC??

My point remains: the Shoe-less Wonder is an embarrassment and needs to go.

And it's an even larger embarassment to defend such a small-minded, mean-spirited woman as she.

That's my point.

Oh, and btw Dan's argument on the frivolous was indeed correct - i was wrong on that.

But I'm right about the Shoe-less One, which is what matters on this thread.

12/03/2007 2:30 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Note to "at Least Funk can spell" -

you, your friend above and Dan keep on gigging me on arguments of rhetoric.

And.....

I'll keep on talking commmon sense. Someone has too.

Woot!

12/03/2007 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Grow Up, Mainstream said...

Who cares about an argument about rhetoric? I do.

Why do you think it's ok to throw around illogical arguments and claim that Dan has argued something he didn't? What makes you think that's fair or right?

I don't see where Dan has weighed in on the Treasurer issue. I'll be interested to see what he has to say. But I'm sure as shit not interested in Mainstream making shit up just to amuse his three fingers.

12/03/2007 2:37 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Truce!!!

Dan is known and earned the rep as defender of all thing Gloria and Funk. I will be interested on Dan's view of the treasurer issue, but what I am more interested in the story that is unfolding, and understanding this most recent event in the context of a pattern of behavior throughout this year.

That's my approach, leaving out all of the incendiary language that I've been using.

1,000 apologies.

Tell you what, I'll agree to go here:

If Dan and the other Funk defenders agree to go here:

:o)

12/03/2007 2:52 PM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

Based on the Prime Buzz article, it does appear that Funkhouser is making some serious mistakes. Appointing his wife as interim treasurer given the allegations from the the one who just resigned is just asking for condemnation. How can he not realize that? I don't pretend to know if all the claims against her are true or not, but anyone with any sense should realize the best thing he could do would be to remove her (and in so doing himself) from the line of fire. Instead, he seems to dig the hole deeper.

Just an observation from an outsider.

12/03/2007 4:47 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

Regardless of what some no doubt think, I am not a "Funk defender". I don't even live in KC so for the most part, I could care less.

I am simply a defender of facts over fiction and truth over gossip, slander and innuendo.

That's why I refuse to drink the kool aid when it comes to "mammygate", "did ya get any last night", the pitter-patter of bare feet at City Hall, etc.

In the case of the campaign treasurer situation, we are dealing with facts...and they ain't pretty!

See, this is the stuff that scares me. It's almost like they analyzed the situation, determined the correct course of action to fix the problem, and then did exactly the opposite!

I agree with the critics on this one.

PROBLEM: The campaign treasurer resigns because of concerns about how the Mayor's wife (and de facto Chief of Staff...although she is technically a "volunteer" and not held accountable by the same standards as other high ranking city employees) was using the funds.

SOLUTION: Replace the campaign treasurer with the Mayor's wife! Put the very source of the problem in charge of fixing the problem! AND controlling access to the only person who has more power (at least on paper) than she does.

W? T? F?!?

How stupid do you have to be to not see that this is a really, REALLY, boneheaded move?

12/03/2007 5:33 PM  
Anonymous Porchpundit said...

Mark cannot remove Gloria. Gloria has to remove Gloria.

She lost the support of Yael late today -- See Prime Buzz.

12/03/2007 6:49 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

That's a good perspective on it XO, and I would add it's a culmination of a series of bad moves.

We have another conundrum here: as you indicated she is functioning as his de facto chief of staff but without the acountability.

That's a problem because if we hold her accountable for what she is acually doing day-in and day-out, we have very serious issues of nepotism.


Article VII, Section 6 of the Missouri Constitution states the following:

"Any public officer or employee in this state who by virtue of his office or employment names or appoints to public office or employment any relative within the fourth degree, by consanguinity or affinity, shall thereby forfeit his office or employment."

The Shoe-less One in fact holds power and decision-making authority (prioritizing work assignments, hiring and firing, job evaluation, etc) over paid city employees.

This means she is functioning as a de facto city eployee, and subject to the nepotism prohibitions in the State Constitution and City Charter. I say the state conistution because I have not been able to locate it in the city charter just yet.

If you agree with the concept of the prohibition of nepotism, and you agree that you-know-who is playing the role she is, then you have to agree we have a very serious case of nepotism.

There are precedents for this. She does not have to be paid, it's what she does (and where she does it)-- not her formal title, that you have to pay attention to.

12/03/2007 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want XO to blow up again...that is always great way to get your point made

12/03/2007 7:25 PM  
Anonymous arewethereyet said...

When this issue came up after the election and prior to the inauguration, Funk said that squitiro would be a volunteer. He was queried as to her status regarding legal issues, etc. Funk then proposed paying her a token sum of one dollar. Thus she would then have the protection needed to make hard decisions and have legal council from our law department. Pretty dodgy way of doing business.

12/03/2007 7:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home