Kathleen Sebelius Botches National Debut

Edwards Out - Go Hillary!

John Edwards was my favorite presidential candidate. With his emphasis on equality of opportunity and his focus on the working man, he represented what I wanted to see in our next President. The fact that such a smart and strong candidate did not dominate the Democratic field demonstrates what a great selection of candidates is running.

His withdrawal from the race is disappointing, but understandable. I'm glad he gave it a try, and didn't get involved in a nasty, vituperative effort. He's a great man, and I wish him and his family, especially his wife, the very best.

It's tempting to take some time off and look at the other candidates with a fresh eye, but there's no time for that. We have a primary coming up, and it represents Missouri's one opportunity to speak on who our party should select.

I'm on board with Hillary. She has the organization, the experience, and the toughness to win the big one. She is prepared and ready. We've seen her sliced and diced and accused of everything from murder to communism, and she's still thriving.

I offer these points as reasons, not as peruasion. If you've bought into the hope and excitement that Obama brings, I don't expect - nor particularly want - to change your mind in a paragraph.

May the better candidate win, and may both campaigns remember that the most important goal is to have a Democrat in the White House to clean up W's mess.

The Pitch Ripped Off My Cauthen Resume Story?

David Martin published an account of the fabrications Wayne Cauthen loaded up his Austin resume with in yesterday's Pitch. According to blogger tradition, I should now respond with a dose of righteous indignation and self-important bluster about how they're ripping off my work and completely dependent on citizen-journalists like me for everything they do.

But I don't take myself quite as seriously as some bloggers.

While I've been a critic of David Martin's penchant for publishing guess work and sloppy personal attacks instead of trying his hand at real journalism, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that he ripped off my story idea. The fact that Cauthen told Austin that he had corrected a structurally imbalanced budget and then submitted a structurally imbalanced budget a couple months later was the sort of thing that would attract the attention of any thoughtful, alert person (I'm too kind to speculate as to why the Star didn't catch it).

And, even if he had read it first here (which I doubt he did), he went back and did a far better job than I did. He noticed a whole lot more creative writing on Cauthen's resume. He caught the numerical flim-flammery that Cauthen made up about reserve funds and the Downtown redevelopment. In short, I picked a piece of low-hanging fruit on Cauthen's resume and David Martin shook the tree. Good work.

Koster Misses an Opportunity to "Show Me"

Chris Koster needs to convince Missouri Democrats that he is really a Democrat if he is going to stand a chance in the Democratic primary for Missouri Attorney General. Many of us have adopted a "Show Me" policy, and are waiting to see what he can do over the next several months to atone for his years of vigorously opposing Democrats in our state capital.

One such opportunity came to him in the chance to support the Jackson County Democratic Committee. That Committee is hosting a fundraiser on February 7 to support increased activity in 2008. The theme is Make Missouri Blue Together! - what a perfect opportunity to prove that he's really one of us, really working to make Missouri a Democratic state.

He passed up the opportunity. Here's the list of supporters of making Missouri blue, and Chris Koster is not on it.

Jeff Harris, the likely Democratic nominee for the Attorney General position, appears prominently on the list of donors, even though nobody can doubt his Democratic credentials. (Margaret Donnelly is not on the list, but her absence is understandable, since she is running as the St. Louis candidate, and concentrating her campaign entirely within the I-270 loop.)

I know that Chris Koster has far smarter (and better paid) political advisers than me. He's even paid Jeff Roe for his advice, so he's had access to the full range of political input.

But it seems to me that if I were a candidate trying to prove that I am a real Democrat, and I have a real interest in Jackson County, I would have seized the opportunity to invest some of right wing Rex Sinquefield's money in this event.

Money Talks - Do We Want Our Judges Listening?

Among all the talk surrounding right-wing attempts to alter our Missouri Plan for judicial selection, one fixed truth remains: Every single proposal being bandied about by the opponents of the Missouri Plan increases the influence of money and partisanship. Everyone one of them. No exceptions.

Fortunately, we can look at other states and see what happens when we increase the role of money in the process. In yesterday's New York Times there is a disturbing article about the tendency of judges to vote in favor of those who gave them money. Rather than relying on anecdotes and rumors, the article reports on a statistical study that found, among other anomalies,

Larger contributions had larger effects, the study found. Justice Catherine D. Kimball was 30 percent more likely to vote for a defendant with each additional $1,000 donation. The effect was even more pronounced for Justice Weimer, who was 300 percent more likely to do so.

When opponents of the Missouri Plan come talking about ways to increase the role of money and partisanship in our judicial system, keep this study in mind. Think about whether you think that our bench would be better if we had more money and partisanship involved. Think about whether, right now, you trust the wisdom of our Missouri Supreme Court more than the wisdom of our Missouri General Assembly.

Thank You, Claire McCaskill

I've not been hesitant to criticize our junior Senator when she's voted as a Republican would. But I'm not going to bring up the past - Senator McCaskill stood up and acted like a Democrat yesterday. When the Republicans counted on her to buckle and give the telecoms immunity for their violation of citizens' privacy, she did the right thing.

Thank you, Senator McCaskill.

Welcome back to the Democratic Party.

Responses to Comments

I try to keep an eye on the comments on this blog, and, where appropriate, respond to them. The comments often help clarify points, or they raise other interesting issues. On occasion, though, it appears that some commenters lose perspective on their right to demand attention.

Please don't draw conclusions when I fail to respond to comments. I only get paid to monitor this blog 0 hours a day, 0 days a week, and that means that sometimes I don't even read your comment until it fits into my schedule. Sometimes, when I do read your comment, it doesn't interest me. I'm sure a lot of my posts don't interest you, so don't take that as an insult. Also, I've decided that some people really want to get personal and nasty, and I'm trying to be a little wiser in not always taking that bait.

Atrios found a post about comments that I thought had a lot of wisdom in it:

I cannot make anyone stop responding to pointless or nuisance comments. You have to want to restrain yourself, because you understand that the only way to get rid of them is to fail to give them the attention they want. A "troll" is not just someone whose comments you disagree with, or even just a nasty or badly-worded comment. A troll is someone who does not, under any possible set of circumstances, care what you think about him or his comments. He merely wants attention. Negative attention will do. The more you disagree with him, the more he is able to tell himself that he is persecuted and victimized or the only voice of reason or one of the elite few who has the God's-eye view of the world or whatever his current delusion is. If he isn't merely a narcissist who thrives on feeling attacked, he's just some putz who enjoys irritating other people. Therefore, you "feed" the troll by paying any attention to him at all. It does not matter what you say in response. Any response to a troll just encourages the troll.

Besides classic trolls, we have a few resident long-winded bores who believe that the rest of us have never been exposed to some trite, shallow, bombastic rant they just heard on the radio or read in Reader's Digest or saw in a vision, and feel compelled to share with the rest of us. These people lack any possible sense of context or audience; they are incapable of noticing that the bulk of our commenting community has been exposed to the world for a while now and is not interested in any comment that starts "there is one simple answer to this the rest of you aren't getting." It does you no good to respond to this type either; they'll just re-write the same comment again, at the same length, saying the same thing, until you "get it." They are bores with no self-awareness. The cool thing about the internet is that you can just scroll down to the next comment without being "rude." So take advantage of the medium.

Like a lot of blogs, this one frequently has its most interesting and enlightening material buried in the comments. Commenters like Travelingal, Les, XO and others have made this blog far better than my solo effort could ever be. I appreciate the time and effort people put into comments. But all commenters are definitely not created equal . . .

Did Wayne Cauthen Lie on his Resume?

A lot of us were hoping that Wayne Cauthen would get the job in Austin. It would have been a positive end for him, it would have given the city an opportunity to hire someone more in line with the new council's priorities, and it would have allowed the Nine Councilpersons off the hook for the silly petulant tantrum they threw when they tried to stick us with Cauthen for 3 more years.

Alas, it didn't happen. And I think I may have found out why.

Take a look at the resume Wayne Cauthen submitted in his quest for the Austin job. Pay attention to his very first bullet point: Corrected the city’s previously structurally imbalanced budget.

What?!?!

Friends, that's what we call a whopper.

Contrast Wayne Cauthen's recent resume with his recent memorandum submitting the budget to the Mayor, with the subject line City Manager’s Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09. Pay particular attention to the section entitled "The City’s Structural Budget Problem":

Kansas City, like a lot of major center cities in the country, has a structural budget problem. A structural budget problem occurs when costs of current and future expenses exceed current and future revenue streams. There are four criteria for a city budget to be structurally balanced and they are as follows:

1. Current ongoing revenues equal or exceed current or ongoing expenditures;
2. Planned or future revenues equal or exceed planned or future revenues;
3. Reserves are at an adequate level; and
4. Infrastructure maintenance is at an adequate level.

This budget that is presented for your consideration meets none of the above criteria. While significant progress is being made on the funding of infrastructure maintenance, and we have made progress on our reserves, the proposed budget uses a significant amount of one-time resources to balance the budget for next year; the projected deficits in the out years continue to grow and our reserves remain below desired levels.

This City has wrestled with its structural budget problems for decades. Previous budgets made great strides in dealing with the expenditure side of the equation through workforce attrition efforts such as consolidation of services; span of control reviews; middle management staffing reductions; and an early retirement program that significantly reduced overall staffing levels. In addition, the City has better aligned annual salary increases closer to annual revenue growth. Even with these significant changes, the structural budget problem persists. When revenue growth is strong, as it was anticipated just one year ago, the underlying structural budget problem is mitigated, but when there is uncertainty as to the strength in the local economy and new expenditure commitments are made, such as the City’s commitment to increased maintenance spending, the City’s structural problems re-emerge.

For a guy who claimed on his resume to have corrected our structurally imbalanced budget, he doesn't seem to have a problem submitting a structurally imbalanced budget. He even includes a segment on page 14 entitled "Staff Initiatives to Address the Structural Imbalance."

Lying on resumes is serious stuff. It's not only a major lapse in fundamental integrity - it shows a willingness to engage in fraud to accomplish personal goals.

Can anyone explain to me how the Wayne Cauthen's claim on his Austin resume was not a lie? If not, can anyone explain to me why he should not be told to clean his desk out and escorted to his car on Monday morning?

Airick Leonard West is IN!

Months ago, I wrote about my admiration for Airick Leonard West, the community activist behind Viable Third and other initiatives to change the face of Kansas City and improve the prospects of its poor.

Recently, I learned that he is running for the School Board of the KCMSD. He's running for an at-large seat, so all who live in the District will have the opportunity to cast a vote for him.

It takes courage - or perhaps foolhardiness - to jump into the School Board. He'll face a well-funded opponent, and, if he succeeds, he'll be part of a fractious Board in the midst of seeking yet another Superintendent. It's a tough, thankless job - and one that Airick Leonard West wants to take on for Kansas City.

I won't try to summarize all his views or paraphrase his positions. Go browse around his website and read what he has to say.

If you're like most Kansas Citians, you find it difficult to understand why the District has faced so much turmoil - you just know it's a mess, and probably always will be. Well, Airick isn't convinced it has to be that way. Wouldn't it be wonderful if he were right?

I'm thinking of hosting a blogger/community meet-up to introduce Airick to those who don't know him and allow everyone to rough him up with difficult questions. Even if you don't have children, even if you live outside the district, even if the school district gives you hives, the success of the KCMSD is vital to the success of Kansas City and its suburbs. Would you be interested in coming out and meeting Airick?

Matt Blunt, Zen Master

Everyone's buzzing about Matt Blunt's decision to step away from the Governor's mansion at the end of his term. Clever insiders are speculating about replacements for the top of the Republican ticket, odd sycophants are continuing to express loyalty, and our next Governor is graciously focusing on the future.

Me? I'm just left wondering about his reason for quitting - he said he had accomplished all he set out to do.

Wow. So Matt Blunt woke up yesterday morning, took a look around the state of Missouri, and said, "Yup, this is it. This is pretty much the ideal political world. Can't get much better than this . . ."?

Really? This is it? This is what he had in mind?

There's something very Zen about this. He denied 100,000 kids health insurance, but he hadn't denied all of them health insurance. He made college out of reach for thousands and thousands of Missourians, but some are still able to afford it. He never even got around to making it impossible for the poor and elderly to vote. And yet, somehow, Matt Blunt has found inner peace.

Inner fulfillment is a rare and precious thing. Our governor has found it, by deciding that Missouri has the proper balance of wealth and stark poverty, of health and desperate illness, of enfranchisement and disenfranchisement. I'm left behind, marveling at his achievement, and wondering how Governor Nixon will rid the Governor's mansion of the scent from incense and patchouli.

I have not yet achieved Matt Blunt's level of Zen awareness. I still want things to get better.

Semler Resigns

Frances Semler has resigned from the Parks Board.

So, I assume that the complaining will stop.

(I crack myself up sometimes . . .)

Blogger Appreciation: Blue Girl, Red State

Blue Girl is a woman on a mission. She is out to change the world through blogging - relentlessly creating thoughtful, well-researched, fact-based posts on big topics. Her front page today is typical of her work - it ranges from Russian pipelines to a fantastic expose' on Sam Graves and Andy Blunt getting caught trying to sneak a seat on the ethanol gravy train. Posted at 12:34 this morning, the Graves/Blunt piece is a classic example of what Blue Girl brings to the table - thorough research, clear-eyed and honest appreciation for one honest member of the opposing party, and the perspective to place the controversy in the broader context of an upcoming Congressional election. It's easy to picture her burning the midnight oil working on completing this important story before she could sleep.

There are a lot of good blogs out there, but no local political blog impresses me more regularly with deep analysis. Nobody throws up posts with multiple and wide-ranging links like she does. Nobody jumps into the middle of national issues like she does. Nobody else seems as determined to make a difference.

Her determination and take-no-prisoners attitude comes across in her profile:

I'm an over-educated, pissed-off redhead with a broadband connection and a credit card; fiercely dedicated to the Constitution; here to remind y'all that America is founded on four boxes: 1.) The Soapbox. 2.) The Ballot Box. 3.) The Jury Box. 4.) The Ammo Box. They should be used in that order. This is my soapbox.

You kind of get the idea that we should be happy she's spending her time on the first box, don't you?

There's a reasonably good chance that Blue Girl is going to be doing her work from a Blue State by the end of the year. Sam Graves is a weak candidate getting weaker by the moment. Nixon is likely to take the Governor's mansion. Dr. Sam Page is likely to be Lieutenant Governor. Jeff Harris will be Attorney General. A host of smart and aggressive candidates are challenging Republicans like never before in Missouri House and Senate races.

I won't feel sorry for Blue Girl if her name becomes outdated. She'll be bearing a good measure of the blame.

Can I Get a Little Help?

My knowledge of sheriffs comes entirely from reggae and Westerns. I know we have one here in Jackson County, but I've never seen him outdraw someone on Main Street, or string up any rustlers over yonder by the corral. In short, I reckon our current sheriff is a complete failure, but he's not running for reelection, so I see no need to pull a Bob Marley on the lowdown varmint.

More seriously, the Missouri Ethics Commission shows 5 active candidates for the job, and I have no idea who's the best candidate, or even what makes a candidate best for the position.

Please share with me who I should be supporting and why.

Can Funkhouser Save Us From Ourselves?

Another day, another "controversy". Another conversation with a well-connected political friend who claims she has heard "nobody" speak in favor of Mark, while all the "political crowd" is knocking him. Another blogger in high dudgeon because of something the mayor said that a smooth, antiseptic mayor would never have uttered. It all gets kind of exhausting sometimes, and there's a temptation to simply be done with with and join the Greek chorus of naysayers attacking our Mayor over trivialities and faux pas.

But I can't.

Something fundamental and important lies at the heart of why I continue to support our Mayor, even while disagreeing with him and criticizing him on various points. There's more to the picture than the latest gaffe, or the next one, and I sincerely believe that it's a minor battle in an epic war between those who believe in democracy and those who think we should be ruled by an elite class of politicos. The war on a national basis is going badly, with the "villagers" protecting DC as "their town", but I hope that, out here in the hinterlands, we might be able to keep a place for real citizens.

Funkhouser ran as a non-politician wanting to get the city working for regular folks. Remember that? If you don't, take a few moments and go look at the campaign website. It's a text-heavy, not-particularly-pretty website with a whole lot of focus on Mark's primary goal - getting the city to work for all Kansas Citians. I remember working on the campaign - it was a shockingly fun and amateur operation. We knew we weren't going to "out-smooth" the other operations, and we didn't particularly care to. The folksy, what-you-see-is-what-you-get persona projected waas genuine, not some Madison Avenue creation.

And the people responded. Out of a flock of primary candidates, they chose Funkhouser and Alvin Brooks to advance to the general election, by a huge margin. The next closest candidate drew just more than half the votes that Mark did. In the general election, Mark pulled out a squeaker of a victory in what was fundamentally a clean and respectful race. Brooks ran a fine and traditional campaign, with the bulk of the political establishment solidly behind him, and Funk ran a quirky and creative campaign, with orange as its color and a dog as his most popular endorsement.

When the election was over, I truly believe that the political establishment thought it had been out-Madison Avenued. Surely this folksiness had to be an act - a persona - a focus-group-analyzed, digitally-manipulated, carefully-calibrated sleight of hand pulled off by a political genius.

Because in their world, that's how it works - that's how it must work, or their entire world-view is threatened. Politics is image. Politics is shiny showmanship. Authenticity is the gold ring of slickness; if you can fake authenticity, you've got it all.

But they didn't realize that Mark didn't fake his authenticity. When he said he wanted to get the city to focus on basic services for regular Kansas Citians, they thought that he meant that his crowd of insiders would get a share of the pie that had been reserved for the TIF pigs, and they had better get in line. I was amused to see Jerry Riffel show up at the Flea Market toward the end of Mark's watch party on primary night. I was even more amused to see the crowds of dignitaries show up at the Beaumont Club on the night of the general election. "Meet the new boss, we hope he's same as the old boss."

But Mark has utterly failed to meet their expectations. He lacks the glittery, cocktail persona of Mayor Barnes. He put a bunch of barbarians on the Parks Board, a board that had previously belonged to the cream of the elite, where they worked to find things to name after each other. He has spoken bluntly, and allowed his wife (why won't that woman be seen and not heard?) to speak bluntly as well.

So the attacks have been relentless. One blogger has published attack pieces on Funkhouser and his family every day for months. At gatherings of political types, the mutually-reinforcing scoffing and disapproval has replaced the weather for banal small talk. A core of 5 or 6 commenters on the Prime Buzz turn any news into fodder for Funkhouser attacks.

All this is rolling toward the overwhelming question - can an authentic person serve in politics any more?

Because that, to me, is what it all boils down to.

Take, for example, the latest kerfluffle. Mayor Funkhouser, at a public forum, pondered whether it would help with minority recruitment to allow people with youthful felony convictions to pass hurdles and join the force. He was crystal clear that it was not a proposal he was making, but a thought for the audience to chew over (he knew he'd "get run out of town as a terrible person" for making such a proposal, despite the statistical fact that minorities have a much higher rate of felony convictions than non-minorities.)

So, how is the world reacting to this honest attempt at provoking creativity and fresh ideas to help minority recruitment? How is the "chattering class" responding to Mark's unwillingness to settle for under-representation of minorities on our police force?

They are horrified! The commenters on the Prime Buzz are aghast that Mark acknowledged the statistical facts concerning "those people". Coming a few days late to the party, the KC Blue Blog pitches a full-fledged hissy fit, opining "It's sad that we have this man as Mayor. It is insulting to all people who want to be involved in the political process."

They have a point. Mayor Barnes would never, ever, in a million years, have bothered to voice a thought about minority recruitment for the police force, unless that thought had been signed off on by a team of PR experts as well as the group of "race insiders" who have sat by quietly while minority recruitment remained stagnant. The political chattering class would never dare to speak on a topic touching on race without making certain every possible nuance to the statement passed the PC test. Humorously enough, even Mark showed awareness of the likelihood that a furor would label him as a "terrible person" for talking about the thought.

So, it boils down to whether we want Madison Avenue or the Mayor having an honest conversation at a church in the 18th and Vine Historic Jazz District. It boils down to whether we want a cagey political beast who knows precisely what questions to avoid and what issues to ignore, or whether we want a regular person to work hard to change things.

A little less than a year ago, the voters of Kansas City chose a regular person to work hard. The people who opposed that regular person didn't go away - they are still there demanding Madison Avenue. If they can't get Madison Avenue from Mark, they'll do everything they can to undermine him and make him so toxic that nobody will dare ally themselves with him and accomplish his goals. What kind of an idiot would a minority leader have to be to face the chattering mob and help Mark tackle some of these issues?

Fortunately, there are many such idiots. They are regular people, who care about our city and accept that Mark is working on their behalf. They accept that he's not perfect and he's not always polished, but he's a good man who appointed a Hispanic man to lead the Parks Board, who is willing to talk about racial issues, and who would rather take the heat for firing Cauthen than put up with his unwillingness to change his focus from serving developers to serving regular citizens.

Not surprisingly, the ordinary people who were at the forum where Mark made the "gaffe" that has the chattering class so upset weren't as aghast as they "should have" been. In fact, they appreciated the Mayor talking with them, and gave him a warm reception. They even called the SCLC leaders "fools" and applauded Gloria Squitiro. They understood the honesty and courage Mark displayed when he responded to a question about whether he is prejudiced by saying "I don't think so" instead of the dishonest but more Madison Avenue "absolutely not". In short, they accepted his authenticity and responded favorably to it.

But the chattering class doesn't accept that authenticity. When Mark behaves like a real person, they go crazy. They insist that he needs a "savvy political insider" to be his consultant, and tell him what he can and cannot say. They insist that he needs to be just as polished and just as smooth and just as antiseptic as a national candidate. They insist that his Christmas letter must be written by a committee of serious people in suits.

Are they right? Can Mark govern effectively even if his family Christmas letter is a little coarse? Is that really an issue that could matter? Can the thousand paper cuts inflicted by a furious group of insiders really bring down a Mayor who has set out to make this city work for regular folks? Will the voters who voted for a regular person be persuaded that they really wanted a slick, smooth-talking politician instead? Is the average Kansas Citian more concerned about one seat on the Parks Board than better basic services in our city?

What frightens me is that, if the chattering classes have their way, we could have neither. Ed Ford managed to foment and channel anger at Mark's handling of Cauthen's termination into a foolish attempt at sticking regular Kansas Citians with 3 more years of a bad City Manager. Will other City Councilpeople see that the political insiders don't support Mark, and fail to support him in his efforts to help our city? Will those who attack Mark for failing to be their Madison Avenue ideal prevent him from achieving his real world goals?

Can Mark Funkhouser save us from ourselves?

Second Thoughts on Humor in the Senate?

A Missouri Republican Senator has introduced a bill to make the Jayhawk the official state game bird for Missouri.

Yeah, that made me smirk for just a moment.

And then it made me shake my head. Unfortunately, those of us who are not Missouri Republicans are cursed with these things called "second thoughts", and they take the humor out of many such things that seem okay on first impression. Here are just a few of those kinds of thoughts that apparently never flickered across Senator Clemens' mind.

- Humor about shooting rivals really isn't all that funny, particularly in light of the bloody history of the Missouri/Kansas border wars.

- You've just blown your party's opportunity to argue that anything whatsoever the opposition introduces is a waste of time and Senatorial resources.

- After your party has decimated MOHELA and damaged the ability of average Missourians to pursue education at Mizzou or elsewhere, it's ironic to see you rallying around Mizzou sports instead of Mizzou academics.

- Proposing that Missourians be able to hunt fictional birds reminds many of us that your party has a penchant for trying to stir up trouble based on chimeras, such as gay weddings and activist judges.

- Will Cheney be invited on the first hunt? Will Senator Clemens go hunting with him?

- I'm a Mizzou fan, but, let's face it, Saturday's basketball game against KU is not necessarily going to be a Mizzou win. When #71 is suiting up against #1, a humble and hopeful determination is a better tool than a loud mouth.

Senator Clemens, I appreciate your attempt at expressing pride in our state's flagship University, and I can understand why republicans would rather talk about other things than the 100,000 kids they deprived of health care, but I don't think humor is really your strength, either. Maybe you should have thought twice about your bill . . .

Bad Timing

Two days after I state my intention to treat others with more dignity on this blog, Tony's Kansas City puts up a post calling me "Dirtbag Dan", provoking his commenters to describe me in even harsher terms.

My newly-adopted "dignity" prevents me from calling him names in return, and, as a sad result, the internet community is deprived of the spectacle of two bloggers and their commenters exchanging insults.

(As Tony astutely points out, "What happens here is that by exchanging links Dan and I are trading traffic and growing readership for local blogs overall." Yup, we both really are that cynical and manipulative that we've both been known to choose a topic or tone partially to generate a little extra traffic. So, if you're one of the ones who would have been sucked into reading a vituperative exchange of insults between Tony and me - you know you would have! - take a second instead and click on one of the blogger links on the left side of this page that you've never read before. Ultimately, that's better for everyone, you included.)

Milne's Birthday

Today is A.A. Milne's birthday (1882), the creator of Winnie the Pooh and the Hundred Acre Wood. How do you measure the influence of someone like Milne? Here are a few of my favorite quotations from him . . ,

“If the person you are talking to doesn't appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear.”

“You can't stay in your corner of the Forest waiting for others to come to you. You have to go to them sometimes.”

“If ever there is tomorrow when we're not together.. there is something you must always remember. you are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think. but the most important thing is, even if we're apart.. I'll always be with you.”

Piglet sidled up to Pooh from behind. "Pooh," he whispered.
"Yes, Piglet?"
"Nothing," said Piglet, taking Pooh's paw, "I just wanted to be sure of you."”

“"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.
"No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."”

“"Well," said Pooh, "what I like best -- " and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.”

372,039 Problems with Anonymous "Insiders"

To live up to a title like that, this post would need to rattle on for for a few pages, at least. But I wanted to point out that a few weeks ago, an anonymous commenter assured us that Jeff Harris was out of money, and would not last until the primary. Without even bothering to call the Harris campaign and check on his finances, I offered to place a bet on that proposition. Naturally, the anonymous commenter refused to back the factual allegation with any proof, or even a few bucks.

Tuesday, the campaign reports came out, showing that Harris has $372,039.11 in cash on hand. I wish I were "out of money" like that! While it's true that Koster has him beat in cash on hand, we have to remember that Koster took a ton of money from right wing interest groups, and that money is likely to cost him votes. Koster's also borrowed half of the difference between them, so the gap isn't quite as large as it appears. As for Donnelly, her lead over Harris is composed entirely of debt.

My point is not to downplay the importance of the money in this race - money is clearly crucial in a statewide race, and I strongly encourage all Missourians who want a Democratic Attorney General with experience to head over to Jeff Harris' site immediately and make a donation.

My point is that when anonymous commenters start providing "facts" without sources, set your BS filter to "high". We were lied to by someone supporting Koster.

New Feature on Pitch's Plog?

A few months ago, I profiled the corporate news blogs in town, and had words of praise for the Pitch's Plog, tempered by the observation that it doesn't deliver a lot of posts. Over the past couple days, though, the Plog has featured "Daily Briefs", amalgamating news and witty commentary. It's a welcome step in the right direction - it's been almost exactly a year since we've had a local blog with credibility focused on gathering news from a variety of sources . . .

Campaign Reports: Kander Cruising

Back when Coffman had a disappointing October report, her supporters assured us that it was only because she hadn't gotten around to launching her campaign until after the quarter started. It sounded like a kind of lame excuse at the time, since she had a nice kick-off party co-hosted by a fellow lobbyist in that quarter, but I'm a generous guy and always willing to cut someone some slack.

Yesterday, the new quarterly reports were filed, and Coffman is reporting a surprisingly modest $10,015.00, which is actually a reduction from her shortened first quarter. By way of comparison, Jason Kander added another $14,235.50 to the $81,430.00 he had already raised. The result of all this is that Coffman now has $13,174.51 cash on hand, while Kander has $44,991.07, more than three times Coffman's amount.

Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. For Jason Kander, it's a sign of strength and support.

80,000 Reasons to Use a Pro

I know how to change my oil. I could figure out the basics of plumbing. I've done some decent carpentry work in the past. I've never done it, but I bet I could figure out how to roof my house.

Despite all these talents, I rely on experts to do all those things for me. Because they do it time after time, and are up-to-speed on any new techniques or materials, they are simply better choices. While I could do the job, they probably will do it better, and certainly more efficiently.

This morning, the Star is reporting that the Funkhouser campaign finance reports have an $80,000 discrepancy in them. Funkhouser assures us that an explanation is coming, but it's not here yet. The campaign treasurer has been Funkhouser's wife since Evert Asjes (an experienced campaign person) resigned a few months ago.

Now, I don't for a moment believe that anything sinister is going on here. I am 100% confident that there is a reasonable explanation, and that all the money will be properly accounted for.

But this is why it's smart to rely on a professional rather than doing everything yourself. A professional would have caught the discrepancy before the report was filed, and either corrected it or had a cogent explanation ready.

The next time my car needs an oil change, I'll bring it to a professional. That's one less thing for me to worry about.

John Edwards in Missouri

A couple of the other Democratic Presidential campaigns have tried to gin up some excitement by opening offices in Missouri. Oh, boy, we got phone banked - thank you.

John Edwards is the only one of the front-runners with an actual visit planned to the Show-Me State. Here's the info, for those of you who can make it:

A special event with Senator John Edwards

When: Saturday, January 19, 2008, 9:15 a.m.

Where: Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity (CDC) Union Hall
1401 Hampton Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63139
And, if you plan to attend, please take a moment to RSVP here.

Koster Up Close and Personal, and a Lesson Learned

Chris Koster spoke to the CCP yesterday evening, and there was no way I was going to miss it. A rising star Republican speaking to a room full of opinionated progressive democrats months after purporting to switch parties.

Setting aside my partison Harris hat, I have to admit he did a good job. He comes across as hyper-coached - I suspect that if he dropped a word from his canned speech, he would need to go back and start from the beginning. It was, as one would expect from Mr. Koster, a very polished, even slick, presentation.

Naturally, I had a quibbles with it. First off, it was really a speech for a prosecutor's race. He gravely but with obvious relish intoned about the horrible cases he prosecuted - the spouse killers, the child rapists, and, yes, of course, John Robinson, the man who is still alive because Koster got tricked into a bad deal. He even bragged about how he got Robinson to confess to the crimes, and how he was there when they found bodies in steel drums, but he never got around to explaining why Robinson, a confessed, grisly murderer, was spared the death penalty in Missouri.

Chris' tagline was "if experience matters," which I found to be an odd choice for the candidate with the second best experience for the job. Jeff Harris has, literally, five times the experience that Chris does in the AG's office, but Koster knows that the average voter confused the role of the AG with the county prosecutor, so his stories of 12 yeaar-old rape victims and CSI-Harrisonville searches for murder weapons are good enough to fool most people. Even in the comparatively well-informed CCP crowd, I heard the woman behind me lapping it up like titillating honey, while I was rolling my eyes.

I was surprised that the crowd did not follow up with questions when Koster said that he supports "common sense restrictions on Roe v. Wade," as the CCP has a reputation for being more liberal than that.

In short, listening to Koster, I was impressed with his style, but not as much by his substance. He's running as a Democrat while distancing himself from some of the most widely held Democratic beliefs. He's running as a tough prosecutor while handing out a flier packed with murderers who avoided the death penalty under his tenure. Worse yet, he's running for Attorney General on the ground that he could be a good county prosecutor.

But he's good looking and smooth, and could pull it all off if people don't pay enough attention.

After his talk, I chatted a little bit and began walking down a corridor to the elevators. As I was about to escape, I heard Chris shout "Dan!", and motion me back. He guided me into an empty conference room.

It's funny how in the course of a few paces back to a conference room, you can call back to mind every immature statement, every over-stated criticism, and every political cheap-shot you've written about someone. As I walked back down the hall toward Chris "legislative roundheels, incompetent, pretty-boy" Koster "the Imposter", I had a few seconds of sincere regret for being such an ass. I disagree with him on several points, and I am confident that Jeff Harris will be a better Attorney General, but Chris waa walking down that hall on the high road, and I was walking it on the low road.

Fortunately, rather than wanting to kick my ass (I suspect he could take me), Chris just wanted to pass on a few comments to me and assure me that his conversion to the Democrat party is sincere. Indeed, I had to admit that we are a big tent party, and the distinction between a liberal Republican and a conservative Democrat is a fine one.

Let me be crystal clear - Jeff Harris is the best candidate for Missouri Attorney General. Jeff has the substance that Koster lacks - he has the experience with the AG's office and the experience of working as a Democrat supporting Democratic causes. But Koster put on a good show last night, and I hope that I hold to my present intention of treating him and others with a bit more dignity.

There's a Kind of Hush . . .

Yesterday broke a string of 76 consecutive days of posting on this blog. With primary season heating up, with the Missouri legislature back in session, with the Star featuring Funk on the front page, with a lazy Sunday stretching out in front of me, nothing grabbed me to write about.

What Kind of People Want to Change the Missouri Plan?

Blog CCP has an incredible and horrifying post about Representative Jim Lembke, the lead opponent of the Missouri Plan. If anyone in Missouri was tempted to believe that the Republican attacks on the Missouri Plan were motivated by anything other than a rabid desire to inject partisan politics into the courthouse.

Representative Lembke has a Republican buddy whose son getting an ugly divorce in Laclede County, and he wants to bully the judge. He's tried to get the judge impeached. He's written to her, even though he has no more official role in the case than you or I do, demanding that she remove herself from his friend's case. He's gone so far beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior that even his Republican cohort from Laclede County has called Lembke out on it, raising questions about Lembke's ethics and pointing out that "I feel its not our responsibility to look over a judge's shoulder every two or three minutes and make a claim they're using their bench for oppression."

Let's be crystal clear about what Lembke is trying to do here. He's trying to use political influence to help a buddy in court. He wants to make sure that his political friend gets what he wants. He wants politically connected people to get special favors. He wants the Judicial Branch to run on backroom connections just the way the legislature does. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Ironically, Judge Hutson is not even covered by the Missouri Plan. Judge Hutson was elected by the voters, as a Democrat in a county that went for Bush by a 2:1 margin in 2004. She's clearly a great judge and a fine person - she even has a Republican representative backing her up.

Lembke wants the judiciary to work the way the legislature does - dominated by money, partisanship and political influence. Do you?

Telecom Immunity - McCaskill Fooled Again

Remember when Claire "WWJTD?" McCaskill rushed along with the Senate Republicans to approve an extension for the NSA's spying? Remember how her excuse was that it was sooooo important that the NSA continue its spying on the bad guys that we had to do something, anything, quick, even if it meant allowing the NSA to spy on ordinary Americans?

Flash forward to the recent debate on retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that traded their customers' privacy for government contracts. McCaskill joined with those who threatened to vote Republican again (WWJTD?), forcing a real Democrat (Chris Dodd, God bless him) to threaten a fillibuster. The simplistic argument in favor of telecom immunity is that the companies should not be exposed to harm for patriotically going along with government requests.

Yesterday, we saw just how badly McCaskill had been fooled.

The Feds care so little about the service that they don't even pay their bills, an those "patriotic telecom companies" have been treating our over-protective spy agencies like credit-risky teenagers - dropping their services when they start falling behind on payments.

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation "was halted due to untimely payment," the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal and intelligence investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.

It's gut check time for McCaskill. There's a lot riding on this retroactive telecom immunity issue, and, so far, she's on the wrong side of it. Did she spend all that time and all that money just so she could go to Washington and behave like Jim Talent? Did she really ask all of us who supported her campaign financially and with our volunteer hours to elect a stealth Republican?

Worse yet, did we support a fool? Or were we the fools?

Protect Our Courts From More Partisanship and Political Consultants

Normally, I'm cynical about online petitions. In this case, though, the people working to head off efforts to increase the influence of money and partisanship on our judicial selection need to demonstrate that they can reach and motivate a significant number of Missouri voters. Many of the political consultants in Jefferson City believe that this complex issue is over the heads of average voters, and that they can get away with injecting more partisanship into our judicial selection.

Now is the time to shape the understanding of those who want to undermine the Missouri Plan. Now is the time to let them know that a significant bloc of us are watching. Now is the time to let them know that their political football is a hot potato.

Please go here and sign the online petition. It's a rare opportunity to define the terms of an important debate and head off pointless fights. There are a lot of members of the General Assembly who are on the fence on this issue, and if they see that 1500 Missourians are watching, they'll back away from it now, before it really gets started.

Why Stop with Judges?

One of the main tactics of those seeking to undermine the Missouri Plan is to accuse its defenders of being anti-Democratic. After all, they argue, why shouldn't average voters play a larger role in choosing members of our bench? Why should judges be chosen by commissions instead of through the ordinary elective process, where political consultants and party politics can influence the result?

The argument makes a lot of sense. Despite the fact that we have a state legislature which performs at a level far beneath reasonable expectations (darn, I wanted to come up with a snappier description, but words fail me this morning!), and a Governor less popular than foie gras at a PETA meeting, we are expected to have confidence in our voters' ability to choose officers of the court wisely. After all, the folks down at the local diner are just as qualified to measure legal ability and judicial temperament as an experienced, non-partisan commission, right? Right?

Those of us defending the Missouri Plan argue that we want special skills and attributes in our judges, and that those qualifications are best considered in the current structure. Our opponents want to substitute partisan politics for that process.

My question is, why stop with the judges? If more partisanship is a good thing, why should we not apply similar standards to ALL important state offices? If they really think we've been so wonderfully successful in choosing a great General Assembly and Governor, let's expand the process even further.

One of the most vocal opponents of the Missouri Plan, and most ardent proponents of more partisan influence in the process, is Professor Bill Eckhardt. A quick check in the Missouri "Blue Book" reveals that he has been appointed to be a Professor for our fair state, for which he is paid a reasonable sum of money. I sincerely like Professor Eckhardt, and think he's a good professor, but do you remember ever voting for him? Why should we entrust the important job of teaching our law students to someone chosen by an elite panel of law professors? Not only are there no elections held for law professors, there aren't even any commissions including lay people! Really! Can you believe that an opponent of the Missouri Plan would participate in such a non-Democratic scheme??

But I don't mean to pick on Professor Eckhardt. Truth is, the non-Democratic scheme used to choose him worked tremendously well, and the State of Missouri has chosen and retained a fine man and a great professor without public elections or partisan politics.

But if the position of the Missouri Plan opponents is that we NEED partisan politics to choose our judges, I think they ought to expand their scope.

Let's choose a professor of neurosurgery based on how well she shakes hands at Lincoln Days. Please, don't squeeze too hard!

Let's choose Mizzou's coaches at the polls.

How about the Senate Chaplain? What could be a more important role than setting our Senate right with God? How can we allow a system that chooses such an important role without public input? I think we ought to have a full primary system among the various denominations in the state, with a final run-off election among the top 4 vote-getters. What a wonderful and dignified process that could be for our state, and what a way of showing how committed we are to democracy, to have an election among the religions!

Those of us who support the Missouri Plan realize that different positions require different levels of political involvement. Choosing our judges is a process where partisan politics ought to be kept to a minimum, and judicial independence is an important goal. Every single proposal being bandied about by the opponents of the Missouri Plan increases the influence of money and partisanship. Do we really want that? If we do, then I'm running for Coach of Mizzou basketball - he gets the best seat in the house . . .

Disagreeing with the Mayor

Funk has announced his support of the current smoking policy, which is that smoking is legal in bars and restaurants until 80% of surrounding areas enact a smoking ban. He explains:

I intend to follow through on the promise I made during the campaign for mayor, and that is to honor the current ordinance, which represents a compromise that was reached after a very long and sometimes contentious period of public debate. [. . .]

I believe that it would be disrespectful to the process if we were to back away from the ordinance now. And I believe it would be dishonest and disingenuous if I were to break my campaign promise.

Well, I disagree with his position. The prior council's action was a backroom response to bar-owner bullying, and I expect Funk to rise above that kind of politics. Reading between the lines, it sounds like he shook hands with Nigro on this point during the election, and given the narrowness of his victory, it's possible it was a necessary handshake in order to put himself in position to become mayor and achieve his other reforms. If so, it was probably a smart move.

Fortunately, Mark's just one vote on the Council, and the signers of the petition have done the work to force the issue onto the ballot despite his opposition. I believe that the majority of the council will shepherd the issue through the process, led by Beth Gottstein, who has taken a leadership role in this issue. I trust the process.

I disagree with the Funk on this issue. It doesn't mean that he's a bad mayor, it doesn't mean that I want to recall him, it doesn't mean that the sky is falling. It certainly doesn't mean that I wish Brooks/Glorioso had won. It doesn't mean that I am going to turn this blog into a receptacle for a daily ani-Mayor rant.

It merely means that two people who care deeply about our city disagree on a point. The next time I see him, I'll politely express my disagreement. That's the way adults handle disagreements.

Time to Kill the Death Penalty?

I believe that the reasons to revoke the death penalty have reached a critical mass, and that it is time for the citizens of Missouri to demand of their legislators that we end the Death Penalty.

The reasons for such action are multitude. Any one of these reasons ought to suffice to put an end to the practice - and I have trouble imagining that any voter can refute these reasons or argue that they do not justify change. I'm listing them in no particular order, and I welcome commenters' input as to additional reasons, or questions as to the validity of the reasons listed.

1. The Death Penalty is a luxury we should not pay for. Millions upon millions of dollars are taken from other taxpayer priorities to support the death penalty. Money that could have been spent on schools, or on medical insurance, or even on police. In Kansas, an audit revealed that death penalty cases were costing the state $1.26 million - more than 70% more than life incarceration. A million here, a million there, and you're talking about a lot of money invested in killing people.

2. Innocent people are getting the death penalty. Since 1973, 126 people have been released from death row. In other words, they went through the complete trial process and were awaiting death before they were pardoned upon new evidence or their conviction was overturned. Fact is, mistakes get made. Jurors get inflamed. Prosecutors outgun defense lawyers. Crime victims' families make more sympathetic witnesses than death penalty defendants. All of this means that innocent people get put onto death row. Think about that - think about your tax dollars, and your moral authority, putting an innocent person to death. Doesn't that horrify you?

3. Evidence for and against the deterrent effect of the Death Penalty is unreliable. If we want to go down this path, I can find studies that "prove" that the death penalty does not deter crime, and death penalty proponents (what an odd passion!) can find studies that "prove" it does. I've looked at both with an open mind, and neither side makes an airtight case. My gut tells me that Life Without Possibility of Parole, together with proper warden techniques, ought to prevent repeat offenders, and that not a whole lot of first time murderers bother to read up on the current status of death penalty jurisprudence before committing their crimes. While I acknowledge I may be mistaken in my gut feeling, the fact remains that deterrence is highly questionable, and an awfully slender justification for employing the state's power to deprive someone of their life.

4. The Death Penalty is immoral. Well, there goes my fair and even-handed approach to the issue, but it needs to be stated. Most churches oppose the Death Penalty. Jesus intervened to prevent the Death Penalty. People killing people, as a general rule, is a pretty bad thing. The Death Penalty takes my tax dollars and uses it to inject poison into people's bloodstreams in my name. I want it to stop.

5. The Death Penalty is Cruel. It's tough to work up a whole lot of sympathy for someone found guilty of capital murder, but President Bush continues to assure us that the United States does not condone torture. Fact is, the way it is currently administered, the death penalty is often a form of torture. Even death penalty proponents should acknowledge that torture is wrong, and the death penalty should be applied humanely.

6. The Death Penalty executes people. Reading through this compilation of last words from death row reinforces the fact that these are real people, with hopes, dreams, loved ones and, often, regrets. It bothers me that we feel so free about extinguishing those lives.

Food Extremism

Thursday was a special day for eating. Lunch was spent with classic working man's food - Mexican tacos packed with organ meats. Dinner was at one of the best restaurants in the Kansas City region. The meals were both outstanding, though wildly different.

Lunch was at El Taco Nazo, on Kansas Avenue in KCK. While I enjoyed my huaraches (sandal-shaped fried masa topped with pork leg and with adobado - marinated pork), and Ali enjoyed her gordito and taco, Sam had the most memorable meal with 5 soft tacos. He had the adobado and pork leg, too, but he also had one with fried pork stomach, one with beef tongue, and one with head meat. He allowed his squeamish father to try a little of each, and they were, well, interesting. I'm not an organ meat connoisseur, but I enjoyed them. Not as much as I enjoy typical beef, chicken and pork, but I'm glad I tried something new. The restaurant also deserves credit for an excellent guacamole and an outstanding salsa with a smoky note sounded by roasted tomatoes. I look forward to returning.

Dinner was a venture way up north to Smithville, where we visited the Justus Drugstore. It's a long way literally and figuratively from $1.50 tacos in KCK to an appetizer of foie gras terrine with vanilla maple pecan, fig, ginger pear port syrup, and fresh pear served on cinnamon brioche french toast, but it's a journey I'm happy to make.

Everything at Justus Drugstore was wonderful. The service was attentive but non-intrusive, over a 2 hour plus leisurely meal. The wine list was a great selection, and many available by the half glass, allowing my promiscuous palate to have its way.

Allow me to just list a few of the items we tasted, as described on the menu.

Brandade - smoked walleye, potato, extra virgin olive oil, herbs and crostini. We all loved this appetizer. It was kind of like crab dip to the power of ten.

Freshwater Striper Bass - spinach foam, chestnut mushroom risotto, swiss chard. Delicate, but full of flavor.

Roast Half Chicken - maple ginger, caramelized fennel mashed potatoes, bok choy. I'm glad Ali got this instead of me, because I would not have shown her restraint. I'd have picked that bad boy up and gnawed it to the bone. It was that good.

Pork Two Ways - grilled berkshire pork ribeye, braised pork shoulder, blueberry ginger gastrique, soft polenta, lemon shallot green beans. The pork shoulder was delectable and the ribeye was the best pork I have ever had. Both had been brined by angels.

American Kobe Flat Iron Steak - caramelized shallot maytag blue cheese sauce, potato cauliflower gratin, braised brussel sprouts. I love good steaks, but I don't think it's possible for a restaurant steak to really blow me away. What did blow me away, though, were the sides. The brussel sprouts were astounding, and the cauliflower potato gratin was tasty without being overpowering.

Cap all that off with a little sorbet and ice cream, and you have a meal worth a forty minute ride to the great white north.

I Have a Feeling We've Been Here Before

In the interests of efficiency and clarity, I want to use the occasion of a Christmas letter to provide a written guide for Funkhouser over-reaction. Since it's quite clear that the people who prefer the status quo will continue to leverage every single opportunity to undermine those working for change, it will be to everyone's benefit if we all understand our roles. So here's the script - we all know our parts.

1. The Mayor or his wife does something unpolitic. While I remain a huge fan of the Mayor and am excited about the good things going on substantively, it would be dishonest to deny that most of the controversies arise from behavior of the Mayor's office that would never had occurred if we had a smooth, mainstream, poll-reading, establishment Mayor. The voters elected someone who ran an advertisement based on a dog's endorsement because they were ready for some fresh perspectives, but the political consultant class was aghast. The voters elected someone who ran his campaign out of a doublewide, but the political insiders are accustomed to slick varnish. So, when the Mayor's wife writes a letter that no member of the Junior League would ever write and no issue of the Independent would ever publish, the over-sensitive hot-house flowers who populate the political insider class begin to hyperventilate. Those people have not, will not, and cannot accept that a political outsider won a major election in "their" town, even though the voters seem pretty happy with their decision.

2. The blogs go into a tizzy. Tony's KC is one of the top 5 or 10 local blogs in terms of readership. It's just a joke blog, but most of us read it regularly, and Tony has posted something negative about the Mayor almost every single day since the election - often, more than one negative post per day. Again, it's just a joke blog, with a flair for racist and misogynistic humor, so most people don't take it too seriously, but it only takes a few nutcases to get overwrought by that brand of humor to go out and stuff the comment sections of more serious blogs with insanity.

3. Someone calls for a recall. This is the sympbolic "beginning of the end" for any Funkhouser controversy. Truly informed Kansas Citians know that people calling for recall are are stating boldly and clearly that they do not know what they are talking about, but they want attention nonethless. On the "controversy" about the Christmas letter, for example, people were hitting the recall button within hours of the "story" breaking.

4. After the "recall whistle" gets blown, most serious people realize they've been acting foolish, and begin catching their breath. Not all of them, of course, but the smart ones begin to look around and ask themselves questions like, "Why did I allow myself to get so excited about a Christmas letter?"

5. Meanwhile, our Mayor continues working on his priorities. Fortunately, Funkhouser continues to work for the good of all our city, being smart with the money and making the city work for regular folks, just like the majority of us elected him to do.

(A word for some of my commenters: Please read the above carefully before jumping to your conclusions. If you do so, you will probably notice that there isn't a defense of the Christmas letter itself in there. Personally, I would neither have written it nor sent it, but that's a matter of personal taste. Personally, I worked for Mark's election more for his desire to run an effective city without bankrupting it for TIF lawyers, not because I was under some mistaken impression that he was a smooth politician.)

Online Poll for Page

I know, I know, that online polls are worth the paper they're not even written on, but please consider taking a moment to go here and cast your vote for Dr. Sam Page at the St. Louis Business Journal.

Dr. Page represents a new breed of Lieutenant Governor for Missouri. Rather than using the position simply as a parking place for some dependable partisan twit who isn't qualified for one of the more visible statewide positions (for example, our current LG), the Dems are running someone who really cares about the issues that the LG handles, and who is also freakishly well-qualified for the position. If you care about good, effective government in Missouri, no race presents a more obvious choice than Dr. Sam Page's campaign for Lieutenant Governor.

While I normally don't participate in online polls, I appreciate the St. Louis Business Journal for giving me an opportunity to vote more than once for Dr. Sam Page.

Sick of Iowa

Let me just get this off my chest - I hate Iowa's role in selecting presidents. They have the stupidest system (caucuses) with a population incapable of forming a thought deeper than "ethanol good", and yet we give them the first crack at deciding which candidates are serious and which aren't. I have never seen any justification for this idiocy other than tradition, and, let's face it, tradition has not served progressives all that well.

I say this before I know any results - if I were an Iowa resident, I would start off with Dodd, and, after the Dodd camp fails to get anywhere, I would shift over to Edwards. In case you're wondering, yes, I will happily campaign for whichever Democrat wins at the convention. For the first time since I have been watching politics, each candidate on the Democratic ticket is better and more electable than each candidate on the Republican ticket.

This isn't sour grapes speaking - I will be happy with whatever results come from our frigid sister to the North. I would rather draw names from a hat, though, that watch our Presidential candidates prostrate themselves before the Altar of Undeserving Iowa.

What Can Koster Do in 2008?

One of the commenters on a previous thread sought to assure Democrats like me that Koster would prove his Democratic bona fides during the Senate session in 2008. The comment provoked me to wonder, just what in the heck can Koster do in one Senate session to atone for his past and to assuage the concerns of those of us who think of him as a self-absorbed pretty face with zero integrity and no principle above self-promotion?

It's a nice thought - I would love to be able to accept Chris at face value, and I'd love to see him accomplish some miracle in the Senate that would convince me and others that his conversion to the Democrat side of the aisle is something more than an unfortunate misunderstanding of the strength of Republican Attorney General opposition. I would relish the thought that Chris was running toward Democratic values instead of away from Catherine Hanaway.

Unfortunately, I just don't think he can do it. I really don't see how a rising star Republican can, over the course of a few months as one of 34 senators, convince the party faithful that he is really one of us. It's not a slight against Koster - I don't think that Harris or Donnelly, after their years of advocacy for the Democrats, could convince Republicans that they were really Republicans, either. While hope spring eternal and true Democrats can (and do) believe in redemption, we're in the Show-Me State.

If Chris toes the Democratic Party line for the next session, most of us will think "so what?", and chalk it up to political expediency. If Chris votes with his old friends on the Republican side, most of us will see it as evidence that his conversion is as shallow as his principles. Furthermore, there's not much that a single Senator can accomplish, anyhow. Senatorial politics is a team sport, and Chris isn't going to be quarterback of either team.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, and Koster will work some kind of magic that will convince loyal Democrats that he is one of us. I'll be watching, but I will frankly admit I'm cynical about Chris' depth and his chances. Show us, Chris Koster.

Blogging My Way Into Jail?

Look who George W. Bush is holding hands with! (What, no video of them skipping and blowing dandelions at each other?) Yes, that's Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah interdigitating with our "macho" President. I wonder if Bush's hand-pal whispered into his ear about his plans to arrest a blogger and beat him until he answers their questions?

I've got no real problem with Bush holding hands and skipping with fellow rich pampered undeserving spawn of unearned wealth. Really. It's kind of cute. But I do have a problem with the President of the United States holding hands with a torturing monarchist with ties to bin Laden. That's not cute at all.