The Game of Lowering Expectations, Tony Style
It seems that signature-gathering is harder work that some people thought. A little rain on the weekend, coupled with forecasts of rain and snow on Super Tuesday, has dampened the prospects of the recall petition. Rumors are circulating of a complete shut-out for a signature-gatherer at the Brookside Market. A hare-brained scheme to gather signatures through the internet fell apart within hours as people realized that notaries cannot verify unseen signatures. "Activists" are quickly finding out that the average citizen wants no part of their awkward and hateful effort.
What's a complainer to do?
Move the goalposts, of course. This morning, after only a few days of pushing this misguided petition, Tony has reached the conclusion that overturning an election by the people isn't easy - "I'm completely willing to acknowledge the fact that a grassroots petition drive is a hard thing to pull off (nullus)". He then goes on to act as though the failure is just part of the process - "Whether it's this recall or the next one that finally puts the issue on the ballot, the fact is that many people (and political groups) have expressed their support of the recall petitioners . . .".
Notice the not-so-subtle changing of the target? It's not about getting 16,950 valid signatures of registered KC voters, anymore. Oh, no. Now it's about "many people" not actually signing, but "expressing their support of the recall petitioners".
Heck, if that's all they're after, I'll express support of the recall petitioners. I'm sure they're nice people, and I admire the fact that they tried to do something more than just post pseudonymous comments on the Prime Buzz or daily attacks on Tony's Kansas City.
Perhaps we should amend the City Charter to allow for a new process for situations like this. When you only want "many people" to "express their support", you should not be required to meet the filing requirements of an actual Petition for Recall. Perhaps you should be able to file a "Petition for Attention", and file it with signatures from unregistered voters and rely on internet "signatures" to inflate your count. Why should we have such high expectations of legality when that's not what people really want, anyhow? Petitions for Recall are for people who want change, not merely attention.
Labels: blogging, kansas city
posted by Dan at 2/05/2008 07:44:00 AM
10 Comments:
You know, Dan, there was the day a post like this would compel me into a rant. But in this case, the petitioners deserve any criticism they get.
I'm embarrassed.
And it hurts all of those following in their path who may have more common sense.
Well put, Mainstream.
It's disappointing that this is the effort that emerged first. But let's not take our eyes off the ball. What's most unfortunate and embarrassing here isn't the recall effort, it's our beloved mayor.
So far, these recallers haven't used any racial slurs, divided the community, or turned their backs on the will of the voters.
And while they did have to refile their recall affidavit, their success rate seems to be at least as high as that of uber-political consultant Gloria Squitiro.
So as long as Dan and anyone else want to toss around insults or mockery, they might want to direct a little bit toward City Hall, just be fair. After all, should a "rag tag" group of citizens really be expected to match the stalwart expertise of those holding this city's highest posts?
Maybe we just need to back off and give them some time to figure things out. After all, they're new to this and they're bound to make some mistakes.
"Petition for Attention"
That's some funny shit.
Mr. Nitwit,
Sorry, the most unfortunate and embarrassing thing here is, in fact, the recall effort.
I haven't seen any evidence that the recallers haven't used any racial slurs. For all I know, they sat around someone's kitchen table cursing "that damn cracker Funkhouser." That would be far more offensive than Squid's stupid (but hardly offensive) gaffe. In fact, I think referring to words as "racial slurs" when the intent isn't there should be punishable by a kick to the scrote.
And is it really that hard to understand that attempting to RECALL a legitimately elected political figure is EXACTLY "turning their backs on the will of the voters." I mean, come on!
You make this too easy. I guess it isn't just a clever nickname?
Dan - Why do you call them activists? The lazy sacks of horse shit didn't even try to gather signatures today because they didn't want to confuse the issues. WTF? Do they really think that the only people who will support them are so freaking stupid that they can't handle signing a petition without breaking their concentration on remembering who they are supposed to vote for in the primary? (Well, maybe they're right . . .)
They aren't activists, they are inactivists.
Anonymous (or is it Anonymouse?):
There's evidence of Gloria's offensive language, none of the other folks. But hey, way to accuse someone of hating "crackers" just because they might live in "the black part of town." And the only people saying the "intent wasn't there" are the person accused of the slur and her husband. But thanks for playing.
As for turning their backs on the will of the people, the petitioners are just trying to let the voters decide if they want to change their minds. They're not overturning an election or ignoring anything. Instead, they're letting the exact same body of voters cast another vote. That's called democracy. You do understand the concept of voting, right?
As for my nickname, at least I've got one, Anonymouse. Are you too lazy to come up with one?
And believe me, I'm not defending the petitioners here. They've been embarrassing, but if the "rag tag" excuse is good enough for the Mayor, then why should anyone (you or Dan or the naybobs at the Star) expect any more from a group of citizens. Kind of a double standard, don't ya think?
Were you born a loser or is this something you had to work at?
There is evidence of language. Whether it is offensive or not, well, that's for the reader to decide. If you think Squid--and I'm hardly on her side, one might note--was intentionally trying to fling racial epithets at the City Hall staffer in question, then you're delusional beyond hope.
Was it a stupid thing to say? Surely. Was it racist? Not likely.
And the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We don't know what the petitioners say in private. Maybe they are anti-white racists and maybe they're not, but they list their #1 reason for the recall as being that Funk didn't want to renew Cauthen's contract. Certainly if we can call Funk a racist for not wanting to renew Cauthen's contract, we can call petitioners racists for wanting to recall Funk for that reason? Certainly we wouldn't want to appear to have double standards.
And a recall is, in fact, precisely the same as overturning an election.
Anyway, I'm not calling them out for being disorganized. I just think they're horribly misguided and possibly racists, burned that Brooks didn't get the job.
As far as your nickname, congratulations. What does that prove? You're just as anonymous with an anonymous nickname as you are with the nickname anonymous. Who cares?
Watching the Presidential Primary returns on CNN really puts this petty local shit into perspective.
Supposedly barefoot co-mayors, possibly racist ex-Parks Board members, sloppy book-keeping in a mayoral election, a pitifully small 7% Hispanic/Latino population trying to pretend that they actually matter...nothing but petty, whiney, small town politics.
Small, powerless, people with delusions of mediocrity.
Like everything associated with Tony....failure!
Post a Comment
<< Home