Saturday, February 23, 2008

Koster Votes Republican Again

Chris Koster voted with his Republican friends to repeal limitations on campaign donations. Koster, who has spent his entire political career as a Republican working against Democrats until claiming to switch sides and running for the Attorney General position, has sought to have his cake and eat it, too. He claims to be a Democrat, but participated in Republican Rex Sinquefield's elaborate ruse to siphon money through dozens of sham PACs to Koster's campaign - a ruse which paid off when Koster refused to vote with Democrats on a recent school voucher committee decision.

Koster looked me in the eye and claimed to be sincere in his conversion to being a Democrat. This week, on two important issues, he refused to stand and deliver.

A leopard cannot change its spots.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous the nitwit said...

Watch out Dan. Koster's anonymous commenters will be on here soon telling you that Chris Koster is a prosecutor. That's pretty much all they (or is it Chris himself?) have to say about him.

What being a prosecutor has to do with ducking a vote on vouchers and gutting campaign contributions is beyond me. But then again, why anyone would believe Koster is a Democrat is beyond me too.

I'm convinced that Koster really isn't a Democrat or a Republican. He's a member of the Koster Party, whose sole platform is whatever is best for Chris Koster. Oh, and did you know he's a prosecutor?

2/24/2008 7:54 AM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

I agree with nitwit; Koster is looking out for Koster, and only Koster.


Referring to Koster..."who has spent his entire political career as a Republican working against Democrats"

Is that the current mission of a politician; To spend their entire political career working against the other party? If someone declares them self to be a Democrat, does that just mean that they are against Republicans?

If that is the standard, you better let your fellow Democrats in the Missouri Senate know. Democrats -Callahan, Green, Kennedy, and McKenna all voted in favor of SB 1038; a Bill that I am 100% against.

Being a Democrat or Republican used to mean that you supported some fundamental beliefs. Now it must mean that you are a party drone. Why even have votes? If you're a Democrat, you must vote against anything considered to be Republican; at least if you want to be considered to be a "good Democrat" - How sad.

It is evident that a (D) or an (R) behind your name is more important than the character of the person preceding that identifier. Is being a Republican really as simple as being anti-Democrat, and vice-versa?

2/24/2008 9:15 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Whistleblower -

No, an R or a D does not necessarily mean that one is working constantly against the other side, and it certainly should not mean that. In Koster's case, it might be a bit of an overstatement to claim that he has worked his entire career against Democrats. In fact, after he got hired by a trial lawyer, he voted against tort reform, so I have to give him that one. Koster has distinguished himself with some of his anti-Democratic shenanigans, such as participating in the calling of the previous question to shut down Senator Justus, and punishing the entire city of Kansas City by robbing us of $15 million for UMKC.

As for Callahan - he's proof that a D by your name doesn't mean a darned thing.

2/24/2008 9:21 AM  
Blogger whistleblower said...


Thanks for clearing that up.

It is the duty of every elected representative to represent their constituents. As the internet has presented them with a new opportunity to receive input from constituents, why don't many of our representatives use it? It would make much more sense to have your constituents influence your vote than a bunch of lobbyist. Then again, I think I just may have answered my own question.- Most would rather be influenced by lobbyist.

2/24/2008 10:09 AM  
Anonymous travel said...

What's wrong with vouchers? Maybe poor people could use them to go to the same private schools that their richer peers go to.

2/24/2008 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Travel, the operative term in your question is "could." As long as the private schools can pick and choose, they can also segregate by religion, race, gender or other distriquishing features. Public education is about equality, so public educations funds should never be used to foster inequality.

Why the hell does Koster care about the Jackson County Sheriff's race so much so that he gave Bullard 500 Bucks and Endorsed him in writing?

2/24/2008 1:29 PM  
Anonymous travel said...

Anon: You may want public education to be about equality, but the fact is, education is not equal and never has been - maybe never will be. If you live in a district that passes bond issues to build quality schools along with things like computer technology, etc. you're gonna get more quality than those who don't.

2/24/2008 5:17 PM  
Anonymous the nitwit said...

Travel, even if you're all hot for vouchers, Koster still let you down. He didn't vote for them either. Instead, he ducked the vote to avoid letting Democratic voters know where he stands and to keep from voting against his top donor. He ducked. Plain and simple.

2/24/2008 6:33 PM  
Anonymous Carnahan Democrat said...

Koster endorsed Ashcroft. What does that say about Bullard?

2/27/2008 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Koster was a prosecutor.

2/28/2008 11:45 PM  
Anonymous Timy Tim said...

Yeah, Koster was a prosecutor who pretended that he didn't plea bargain.

Which was crap of course if you knew the right lawyers.

Know what I mean?

3/13/2008 7:02 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home