Monday, February 11, 2008

Meeting John Bullard, Candidate for Jackson County Sheriff

A while back, I posted "Can I Get a Little Help?", seeking input on what the Jackson County Sheriff does and which candidate would be best. 3 weeks later, having read up on the candidates and meeting one of them, I'm on board with John Bullard.

I met John for lunch on Friday, along with my friend Kanga. John reminds me of Andy Sipowicz cleaned up and with more hair. John is the model "good cop" - polite, modest, smart, informed and pleasant. Even with assurances that I wouldn't write about his response, he had nothing bad to say about his opponents, preferring, instead, to talk about what he would do in office. (Darn him!)

John Bullard is well-prepared to move the Jackson County Sheriff's Department forward. He alone has the credentials among real law enforcement professionals to build cooperation among the many law enforcement agencies in Jackson County. (Some of the other candidates puff up their resumes by listing "weekend warrior" reserve service, but John is the genuine article.) He has ambitious plans to seek Homeland Security money for upgrades to equipment and communications. He plans to open satellite offices to increase accessibility (Do you know where the Sheriff's office is? Could you get yourself out to Lake Jacomo by bus?) and visibility.

It's been fun but kind of frightening to learn about the Sheriff's Department and the candidates who seek to run it. We are blessed with a few good candidates, but one of them stands out because of his professionalism, experience, and vision. That candidate is John Bullard, and I'm looking forward to voting for him in the primary and again in the general election.

Labels: , ,

121 Comments:

Anonymous Victor Komarovsky said...

Is he married? If so, does his wife wear shoes? Does she want a gun and a badge of her own? Does she denigrate minorities, invite neo-fascist groups to town and/or is she likely to imprison people at will? Has she ever mentioned a fascination with the Court of Star Chamber or the NKVD?

Dan, this is no reflection on Officer Bullard who may be a fine man; however, based on your past endorsements we need to know these things ahead of time. Once bitten. Twice shy.

2/11/2008 8:29 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

You are an odd person, Vic. Stop believing everything Tony and your voices tell you.

2/11/2008 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Jake said...

Dan,

quite the endorsement process you have. Lunch with one of a possible 7 candidates and you go with him.

Makes you wonder if your earlier post was bullshit and you had this planned all along.

2/11/2008 10:33 AM  
Anonymous A Hawk said...

Maybe Bullard will bring to the Sheriff's office some of those Independence policing techniques like throwing pregnant women to the ground and jumping on them. Which will be good for plaintiffs' lawyers but bad for the county budget.

2/11/2008 11:50 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Jake, I should have mentioned that I read up on all the candidates. Oh, I did. Maybe you missed that.

Hawk, are you somehow so incredibly misinformed that you think John can be blamed for every incident that happens in the City of Independence, or are you just desperate to smear a good man? So sad to see that Bullard's opponents aren't going to be as dignified and classy as he is.

2/11/2008 12:08 PM  
Blogger Kanga said...

John Bullard is the best-qualified, hardest-working candidate in the race. He has been building ties with local communities in the county for years, whereas his opponents have jumped in more-or-less opportunistically. John has given a great deal of thought to ways to improve county law-enforcement.

As someone who was present at the lunch, I was impressed by the depth of knowledge and breadth of vision John displayed.

Judging from the comments so far, it seems that some folks are more interested in slamming Dan that actually discussing the substantive issues in the Sheriff's race. I notice none of the current batch have mentioned any other candidates.

2/11/2008 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad to hear that you have had the chance to meet John Bullard and are supporting him. Everything that you said is right on the money. He is the only 100% honest and dedicated candidate for the position, and his endless hours of hardwork shows it. He is the best man for the job and I look forward to voting for him and doing everything I can to help get him elected.

2/11/2008 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Clean or Laundered said...

Dan I am surprised that you gave a public endorsement to a guy who takes relatively large campaign contributions from Chris Koster, which is the same as taking money from "Right Wing Rex" once removed. After all there is a Rockhurst guy in the hunt who is not beholding to Rex and Chris.

2/11/2008 3:30 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

That'a a fair concern, Clean and Laundered, and thanks for commenting.

I discussed Koster with Bullard very directly. We disagree on the relevance of finding bodies in barrels as a qualification for AG. But his alignment with the FOP is actually a strength for the Sheriff, if he is going to accomplish the cooperation which is one of his main goals.

I don't think it's fair to tar everyone who takes Koster's money with Right Wing Rex. Truth is, the Jackson County Democratic Committee took Koster's money, too. I think that issue is dead.

2/11/2008 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Victor Komarovsky said...

Sorry you are not feeling well Dan. Maybe it is odd of me to say so.

I am not sure I agree with your statement, "his alignment with the FOP is actually a strength for the Sheriff, if he is going to accomplish the cooperation which is one of his main goals."

It seems to me that you are talking about a labor/management situation -- and the public interest is not well served with one side or another is "aligned" with the other.

I do not want a sheriff or any boss who is "anti-union" but I do expect management and labor to maintain an arms-length relationship with each other. For example Sanders stood up to the FOP over triple time pay last Christmas. Would a sheriff "aligned" with the FOP be able to stand up to the Union?

2/11/2008 5:58 PM  
Blogger craig said...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.....
I agree with Dan. Just kidding. Glad you took the time to make an informed judgement. Bullard is a good man and a good police officer. Also glad to see that you can disagree with him as far as support of Koster but still support him. BTW, the twits at the Star mispelled his name.

2/11/2008 6:00 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Ohhhhh Danny Boy!

To whom am I corresponding with this very moment, the Old Dan or the New Dan?

The New Dan doesn’t care very much about the provenance of campaign funds.

The Old Dan cared very much about where campaign funds came from. His criticism of Koster and Righty Rex are one example. Another even better was when you said Amy Coffman is kicking off her campaign with a "fundraiser sponsored by . . . a lobbyist for a health insurance company famous for denying coverage to dying cancer patients. Hmmm." (Old Dan, Gone Mild, 9/10/2007)

The New Dan: "It's not fair to tar everybody who takes money from right wing Rex"?

You've made the conscious choice to tar Koster, and many others you oppose, but no one you support.

That works quite well for you, eh?

Well, A Vote For Bullard Is A Vote For Koster And Right-Wing Extremism.

Bullard takes $500 from Koster & Right Wing Rex (on 11/7/07 I believe). It's making more sense now.

I heard Bullard talking recently in front of the DFA, and he made clear to us, in no uncertain terms, that Al Qaeda cells might just be more numerous than Meth labs in Independence. He spent practically the whole time talking about how we needed to be vigilant against the terrorists "OR ELSE". Nice to know where Bullard's priorities are.

Well, before Bullard starts tapping all the payphones at QuikTrips, and hiring lip readers to shadow irate drivers with beards, and think we should consider a more reasonable candidate. Mr. Mike Mauer has the experience and a more balanced view of his role and responsibility in providing for our safety.

Bullard? Right-wing supported and right-wing scary. This guy is a loose cannon. Bullard will be chasing snipe terrorists around the county. Mr. Bullard is has been and will continue to be exposed for his (downright) weird views and the extreme right wing money types behind him.

Here's who's backing Bullard:

"Rex Sinquefeld, one of those folks who donated 100k to Matt Blunt, has found a novel way to skirt campaign finance laws. He has created 100 (count em...100)PACS in support of school voucher programs and other issues to reduce or eliminate Government programs."

Or we could choose Mike Mauer. The voice of experience and good judgement. Keeping families safe instead of chasing terrorist snipes around the county.

www.mauerforsheriff.com

2/11/2008 6:02 PM  
Blogger craig said...

"For example Sanders stood up to the FOP over triple time pay last Christmas. Would a sheriff "aligned" with the FOP be able to stand up to the Union?"

You mean when he pulled something dirtier than Sheilds would have even thought of. That move of Sanders was cold, heartless, and low down. I voted for him, and think he is a good man, but he has made mistakes and that is just one of them.

2/11/2008 6:03 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Candy - I'm surprised Mauer is aligning himself with a hate site and its tactics. I look back at John's refusal to say anything bad about any of his opponents, even off the record, and the contrast is staggering.

You should be ashamed of yourself, and Mike should be ashamed of you.

2/11/2008 6:22 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

The New Dan is now on the same side as Koster and Craig.

Any other Republicans care to speak up for Bullard?

2/11/2008 6:25 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

New Dan!

This isn't about hate.

It's all about professionalism, safety and security.

www.mauerforsheriff.com

It's about aligning yourself with a strong professional and not a republican front man who takes money from Koster and Sinquefeld, with the wrong priorities for our great county.

2/11/2008 6:37 PM  
Anonymous Porchpundit said...

I think it is fair to say that the Mauer for Sheriff supporters have found your blog now.

2/11/2008 6:39 PM  
Blogger craig said...

mongo,
This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. I think the Sheriff's race should be non-partisan. I don't know exactly why Dan supports Bullard. But I support him due to fact, that as a former police officer, I see him as the best choice to enforce the laws in Jackson County and keep its citizens safe.
Another thing, and this may suprise you. Bullard has the integrity to tell his donors that they are simply donating to his campaign, they are not buying influence.

2/11/2008 6:50 PM  
Anonymous Bull Rider said...

You know Mike Mauer might just want to calm down. He cannot win this thing without a single Black vote. And when the Black neighborhoods find out that Mauer's uncle was the so-called judge that let those two cracker KC cops that caused a young African American mother to lose her baby after she reported that she was bleeding and needed help, Mauer will not gain a single Black vote. The White woman cop even told the young mother she was just having a period.

2/11/2008 9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see that the level continues to drop.

2/11/2008 9:41 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Mike Mauer joined the Jackson County Sheriff's office in 1971, and in 1974 joined the Independence police force as a patrolman.

Mr. Mauer served the residents of Independence for 20 years as a patrolman, detective, and narcotics officer.

Mike understood the danger of methamphetamines early and formed a joint task force in Independence to combat meth labs.

After retiring from the Independence Police Department, Mike founded a residential and commercial security business. Building on his law enforcement training and experience, Mike built a business from the ground up that protects homes, families and businesses in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

Mr. Mauer has capped off his career by NOT accepting contributions from a right-wing Republican turncoat like Koster, or his chief financier "Righty Rex" Sinquefeld who maintains an almost illegal, almost covert network of campaign committees that launder money to right-wing radicals.

And as a card-carrying member of the DFA, I was offended that he spent so much time talking about Al Qaeda in Jackson County. The guy has a vendetta – I wouldn’t be caught within a cat’s throw of that guy in cold weather wearing so much as a muffler, much less a Burka.

Professionalism, security and safety.

www.mauerforsheriff.com

2/11/2008 10:02 PM  
Anonymous Bull rider said...

Home builder, why don't you just say a guy who profits on subprime lending who is part of what is bringing down the economy into recession.

What the Flying Frick is DFA anyway?

2/11/2008 10:11 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Bullrider,

Historically the DfA is shorthand for the Greater Kansas City Democracy for America.

2/11/2008 10:43 PM  
Blogger Kanga said...

Candy: Wow. Quite the stream of consciousness writing there, bud. As the VP of a Democratic club that has already endorsed John Bullard, I think I can speak for his Democratic credentials. He has attended our meetings regularly for the last several years, is a member in good standing, and has NEVER said anything that even hints at GOP sympathies. He has made sincere efforts to reach out to minority communities, and that work will stand him in good stead this summer. So please keep your boosting for you candidate in the realm of reality. We know you like Mauer. Goody for you. We'll see you on the trail.

2/12/2008 9:06 AM  
Anonymous P said...

As a Mauer supporter, I would like to say that candy doesnt represent all of us. Mike is a great guy, but so are some of his opponents.

I like Mauer, you like Bullard. Big deal. They both will run good campaigns and who knows who will win with a half dozen folks running.

Let's just hope the nominee is one we can all get behind.

2/12/2008 9:19 AM  
Anonymous P said...

addendum:

I just wish Dan would have set down with other candidates before endorsing.

2/12/2008 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Gutbucket said...

Dan always likes to just pick someone who a friend has pointed him at to endorse. After that Dan will run his credibility into the ground trying to defend the goofy behavior of the endorsed candidate.

It is his way. It cannot be questioned.

Actually meeting the candidates would only muddy the process.

2/12/2008 8:25 PM  
Anonymous Jerry B. said...

I haven't heard anything positive come out of the Mauer or Sharp camps. Bullard has ran this race like a true candidate who's only invested interest is Jackson County; and not his only personal gain. John Bullard has my vote; especially after seeing some of these Mauer whisper campaigns.

2/13/2008 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jerry I have not heard ANYTHING out of the Sharp Camp. Personally it looks like this race is a Bullard and Mauer mud rasselin' championship.

2/14/2008 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Honest question, is Mike Sanders supporitng anyone? In my opinion, whomever is elected HAS to able to work with him for them to be successful.

2/15/2008 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting question, but I think he has stayed out of it to date.

2/17/2008 2:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Kanga when he says:

"John Bullard is the best-qualified, hardest-working candidate in the race. He has been building ties with local communities in the county for years, whereas his opponents have jumped in more-or-less opportunistically. John has given a great deal of thought to ways to improve county law-enforcement."

2/17/2008 2:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Bullard was disciplined by the Independence Police Department, his employer, for a little scandal concerning money that was supposed to be used to buy dog food, but wound up in John's pocket.

2/18/2008 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Baseless, pathetic, anonymous lie. What a scumbag you are, anonymous 2:26.

Which one is your candidate? Whichever one it was has been disciplined for having sex with goats.

2 can play the "anonymous baseless lie" game.

2/18/2008 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Bart said...

Dan you have a nose for controversy in your endorsements. Bullard and Mauer are more fun than Itchy and Scratchy so far.

2/18/2008 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are the scumbags who keep on making shit up about Bullard? Do they think this is some kind of joke blog???????????????

2/18/2008 4:13 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

I hear Bullard's issue was a "misappropriation of federal funding" to put it delicately. It may have been just for something k9related, but I have to wonder.

Can he be trusted? Especially in lieu this and other information. He takes money from the Sinquefeld/Koster money landering syndicate. He goes off on rants about Al Qaeda cells in Independence. Now we come to find out he can't seem to hold onto money meant for PD uses. Where did the money go?

There is a troubling pattern here.

If we have issues like this when Bullard was just responsible for buying the dog food, what's the guy going to do when he's in charge of everything?

Scary.

2/18/2008 10:12 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

There's a troubling pattern here, indeed. A troubling pattern of anonymous cowards making up lies about a good man. If you have a shred of integrity left, apologize.

2/18/2008 10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous Coward who knows Mauer is better said...

Dan, how much did you learn about this guy in the course of one lunch?

Do you really know if the Dog Food Stealing story, the Dog Baking Story, or the fake Cleaver Endorsement Story or the Dirty Koster Money Story are true or false? Although I have to say that I have lived in this town a long time and no one has accused me of baking a dog, so the oddity of the situation does carry some weight.

Maybe you should wait to endorse until say 2 or 3 months before an election? You would still be much earlier than say a rational person.

2/18/2008 10:55 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous Coward -

You've already chosen your candidate, and have begun false campaigning and spreading lies on his behalf, yet you suggest the rest of us remain on the sidelines and let you spread your false hate unchallenged?

2/19/2008 5:55 AM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Dan,

Instead of participating in a cover-up, why don't you insist on investigative efforts to clear the air? If Bullard was disciplined, we certainly need to get to the bottom of the issue of why he was the object of disciplinary action or investigation. Those of us who want to get to the bottom of this, and potentially other issues are only insisting on getting to the truth of the matter.

I didn't raise this issue. But now that it's raised, we can either brush it under the rug, go on a McCarthy-like witch hunt for the accusers or simply get to the bottom of the issue in a transparent, honest way.

I get the impression that Bullard supporters, including yourself, want to cover up or ignore the issue. Why else wouldn't you insist on an investigation?

Watergate was alleged before it was proved. The Gonzo attorney firings were alleged, until they were proven. Blunt's email deletions were alleged, until they were proven true.

Do you really want to be on the wrong side of this issue? Or worse, aiding and abetting a cover up? We need to get to the bottom of this.

We also need to understand whether Bullard received Cleaver's explicit permission to claim his endorsement. This is yet another potentially dishonest act.

And if you're confident of your candidate, you should be at the front of the line asking for the resolution of these issues. Instead of remaining silent or actually trying to prevent the truth from coming out. All we want is the truth. If you're confident about your candidate you shouldn't be so defensive.

Dan, on behalf of everyone I challenge you to uncover the truth!

Thanks for your help Dan. It’s hard for me to sort out the truth from fiction.

“Mongo only… pawn in game of life.”

2/19/2008 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I insist on a full investigation into the Mauer goat-fucking allegations!

(By which I mean that Candy is playing games . . .)

2/19/2008 12:11 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

I don't approve of profanity. I, like everyone here, simply want the truth.

And not a cover up.

Fortunately we're not counting on this blog to do the investigation. If we were by the looks of it, we'd either get silence, misdirection, untruths or a combination of all of the above.

No one here is after the truth. They're only abou protecting their cadidate, and perhaps even Koster and Singuefeld syndicate funding the Bullard campaign.

Well, thank God other people, as we speak, have and will be looking into this matter. We'll get to the bottom of this, and past the silly, amateurish cover up that the commenters on this blog attempt to make.

2/19/2008 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I insist on a full investigation into the Mauer goat-sexual intercourse allegations!

Anything less than a full investigation will be a cover-up of the Mauer goat-sexual intercourse allegations!

I, like everyone here, simply want the truth.

2/19/2008 1:17 PM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

Gotta love Jackson County politics.

2/19/2008 1:19 PM  
Anonymous whistleblowme said...

Well-stated, Porchpundit. The Mauer people come here, make unsupported allegations, then claim there is a cover-up because there is no support for their allegations.

2/19/2008 1:34 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

You'd like support?

Ok,

Several people have already validated the fact Cleaver has not endorsed Bullard.

If you'd like to confirm it yourself don't believe me, do what a few others have done and pick up the phone and call Jeff Jolley on Mr. Cleaver's staff.

And then report back here so we can all know the truth. We need to make sure we honor the facts when allegations have been made.

Just ask Cleaver's staff. It's a fact. I mean, if you really think it serves your purposes to keep on claiming Cleaver endorsed Bullard when you say he did, by all means keep on saying it. Personally I think it's better to go off of what is true.

I'd be careful and cross my T's before making any further claims.

As for the allegations of financial misdealings that someone previously noted (on here? I'm not sure where this originally came up), they may be true, they may not be, but there may be more information on this at 10.

2/19/2008 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Dan -

Did you claim that Cleaver has endorsed Bullard? I haven't seen where you did that.

Candy - why should Dan or me or anyone waste time chasing after your baseless allegations until you come up with a thorough explanation of the Mauer goat-sexual-intercourse incident? Is it true that the goat was a male? Why don't you call the local goat farms and ask them if Mauer has been having sexual intercourse with their goats lately?

So far, it seems like Mauer folk are awfully fond of making shit up and expecting other people to react to it.

2/19/2008 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well folks, looks like this one is gonna be a whopper of a campaign. It MAY have the potential to even rival the Wheeler v. Sanders rumble of 06. Oh how I enjoyed that race! It kept me entertained for months!

2/19/2008 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Place it on Lucky Dan said...

Dan I understand that you did not raise the issue of the Cleaver endorsement, but looking back over the charges and counter charges on this thread, I think it is the one issue that could be settled.

I went to John Bullard’s website and I saw that he does claim to “have been” endorsed by Congressman Cleaver. I read in the exchange above that someone claims to have called Cleaver’s Office to ask whether there was an endorsement given, and that commentator says that the answer was no.

With all due respect to that commentator, I have no idea if I can trust you. I do not even know whether the same people use the same names on here day-to-day. If I were to call and ask the question, other readers would be in the same situation because they would not know if they could trust me.

So Dan, will you do us all a favor? Will you call Cleaver’s Office and ask whether the Congressman has endorsed John Bullard in the 2008 race for Jackson County Sheriff.

Yes, we all know that you support John Bullard, but we also know we can trust you to report back with an honest answer, otherwise we would not read this Blog.
If Bullard has earned the Cleaver endorsement along with your endorsement this early in the campaign year, then in all likelihood he has earned my vote and those of my family. That said, if a candidate were either to claim an endorsement that he or she did not have, or play games with an endorsement that was given in a previous election, then I would not want to support that candidate, and I imagine you would feel the same.

Thanks for all the effort that you put into keeping this forum up and running.

2/19/2008 5:39 PM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

"Lucky Dan" the post above asking you to mediate the Cleaver endorsement issue might be the most reasonable entry made to this journal in months.

2/19/2008 8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pretty quiet. Is that bad news for Bullard?

2/20/2008 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

I haven't seen anyone offer to pay Dan to interrupt his workday and chase down bullshit that some anonymous asshole made up.

I also haven't seen anyone offer to call all the goat farms to get to the bottom (eww) of that goat-sexual-intercourse incident involving Mauer.

Why call on Dan to investigate one but not the other?

2/20/2008 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Place it on Lucky Dan said...

Hey folks, I am not intervening on either side of this debate yet. I am a long time reader and I trust Dan to find out what is going on and report it.

Anon 9:40 please do not use my post as a platform for a cheap shot.

Whistleblowme: Why are you afraid of my simple question? I look to Dan for accurate political insight on a wide range of issues. He seems to have a job that allows him to take some time to put toward this blog and that includes a little research. That is why Dan is credible and some other political blogs are not credible.

Dan, I will not say "No rush" because partisans on both sides of this race seem to want twist things around, but I do appreciate that I did ask you to put some additional effort toward this question. Thank you.

2/20/2008 10:57 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Place -

I appreciate your good faith attempt to move the ball, and, if I get a chance, I'll try to make a call tomorrow. I hesitate to do so because of my experience with people like Candy - they tend to be weasels. If I whack this mole, up will pop another one. We'll hear claims he didn't pay property tax, we'll hear claims he cheated on his wife, we'll hear claims that he was behind the grassy knoll when Kennedy got shot. Never any proof attached, but they expect me to spend time proving the negative. It's easy to make up accusations, and people like that kind of get off on drawing any kind of attention, good or bad.

But, since you've asked and seem genuinely interested, I'll try to find time to make the call. The Cleaver office is not well-known for quickly returning calls, though.

2/20/2008 5:51 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Whack-a-molé! No, not really.

At this point we should have two questions:

(1) Did Cleaver officially endorse Bullard for this current election for Sheriff? Some times an unscrupulous campaign will represent endorsements, even though they were made for previous or unrelated circumstances. (And has this tactic been perpetrated by another candidate Dan has endorsed? Hmmm.)

(2) This question isn't for Cleaver, but it's perhaps even more important: has Bullard ever been investigated and as a result been subject to any disciplinary action and/or subject of an official reprimand for any conduct while on duty? (Follow-on question: did any of these events occur in conjunction with an allegation of misuse of federal, state or local money intended for official use by the Independence PD?) This is not a spurious claim, it is quite specific. This to be a real issue, that if true I think we would all agree would have a direct bearing on his suitability for office.

No spurious claims here. These issues have been brought up by several people. What I do not know is what evidence of disciplinary action can be made publicly available. However, in the interests of honesty in campaigning I'm sure Bullard himself can clear this issue up himself, by speaking to it directly.

Unfortunately on these two issues I only know what I read and hear, so then I must take the extra step and look for more information and further evidence to form an opinion.

If this is such a non-issue we would think it could be clarified or denied immediately by the candidate. Right?

I cannot tell truth or fiction without the help of others. After all,

"Mongo only pawn in game of life."

2/20/2008 7:30 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

See, there s/he goes again. Making shit up, no references, all unprovable gossip and inuendo without sources. All directed at requiring those of us who live in the reality-based world to prove negatives.

S/he claims that these spurious claims are somehow not spurious because an anonymous commenter without evidence claims that other un-named people without evidence say they heard about it.

This is exactly equivalent to the commenter who was joking about the goat-sex incident with Mauer. If that commenter comes back and claims that he heard it from a couple buddies, well, presto, you have yourself a scandal, don't you?

If there were something to these stories, there would be evidence - real evidence, in the form of documents and real people coming forward. Without that, it is slime, coming from slime, vouched for by slime.

Candy is a despicable coward, practicing character assassination under the cover of dark anonymity. Why would anybody want to hear about anything s/he has to say, unless s/he presents real evidence.

2/20/2008 8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Candy is a lying idiot. Ignore him. He's not worth your time.

2/20/2008 9:34 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Present real evidence?

On Question #1, regarding the truth of the Cleaver endorsement, no evidence is required.

Because you see an endorsement is meaningless until proven. To say it another way, an endorsement has to be proven. Just because someone says they were endorsed by so-and-so doesn't mean a hill of beans.

If the Bullard camp had the endorsement of Cleaver we would have seen someone cough up a document or quote. An anonymous or other commenter would have pointed to something.

But it appears that “something” doesn't exist.

Bullard has to prove the endorsement is true. Just because he puts it up on his website doesn't prove a damn thing. And no one is offering up anything.

Is this how Bullard and his supporters roll?

Someone needs to offer up proof that Cleaver endorsed Bullard for this exact race, and I'll gladly eat my words on this specific issue.

The problem is, is that no one wants to implicate Cleaver's office in this mess. Cleaver shouldn't be in a position to have to make a statement making another Democrat look bad.

This whole situation is quite unfortunate for everyone involved.

So you're asking people to prove that Cleaver didn't endorse Bullard? Present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Cleaver did not endorse Bullard?

That's a joke. Bullard needs to cough up the proof, which he doesn't do on his website.

So, you're asking for some pretty ridiculous things on question #1.

So why should any of us take you seriously on any of your issues regarding question #2 - the issue of the reprimand and misuse of funds?

I want proof on this one. But we won't get the proof until we ask for it.

2/20/2008 9:46 PM  
Anonymous Porchpundit said...

Dan you are right. I know I raise your blood pressure sometimes but this time I think you are right.

And the points you made in your last comment is exactly what "Place it on Lucky Dan" said in another way. I hope you do not let Candy or some of the goat herders on here have a veto over Place it on Lucky Dan by paying more attention to them.

I was impressed by the Place it on Lucky Dan comment. It was not about the more colorful charges being made by either campaign. He or she came to you with a specific question asking for a credible answer. I admit that I was impressed to see a reader express that confidence in you. And no I am not making a sarcastic comment by saying that.

Furthermore, if you ever quote this back to me in a post, I will dismiss you as a shoe-less liar. Fair warning.

Congrats Dan.

2/20/2008 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Place it on Lucky Dan said...

Candygram - please do not use my comments to support your political goals, because I do not think it impresses anyone anyway.

Dan - Thank you for whatever you can do.

2/21/2008 1:32 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I called Cleaver's office today and left my cell phone number, along with a detailed message. I'll let you all know when I hear back.

2/21/2008 6:05 PM  
Blogger craig said...

Dan,
I could probably do this myself, but you seem to be pretty good at it. Could you tell me how much Bullard has raised so far? I don't want to know who donated how much money, just the total. I ask this because I roughly know how much he spent on the last run 4 years ago, and just want to know if it is a lot more expensive now than it was then.
If you can, thanks. If not, no problem, I will just have to figure it out on my own.

2/21/2008 7:15 PM  
Anonymous Place it on Lucky Dan said...

Thank you again Dan.

2/21/2008 9:29 PM  
Anonymous SSideDem said...

Waiting for a call from Cleaver's office is a little like waiting on Steve Fossett to come home.

Metzl would have not filled his office with people who are of ethnic backgrounds who are not familiar with indoor phones or indoor plumbing. I will say this for Jews, You can trust Jews to run things at the lowest cost and highest production.

When I look at the web sites I think we are looking at a race between Bullard and Scherer.

2/23/2008 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I don't know if it will be Bullard vs. Scherer or not. True they are the people with the most experience in LAW ENFORCEMENT. Mauer lists 36 years law enforcement experience, most of it with the Jackson County Sheriff's Office. When you ask his "co-workers" about him they say WHO?

Do a truth check, call the Sheriff's Office and ask to speak to Mauer. After all he is a twenty year veteran, someone should know how to get ahold of him.

2/23/2008 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Gone Mild post was discussed on Prime Buzz this weekend.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/10174#comment

2/25/2008 7:11 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

It's a shame what has happened to the Prime Buzz. A group of not-very-clever commenters has taken over and drowned out any intelligent discussion. They're even worse when they get on city politics.

2/25/2008 7:34 AM  
Anonymous Petr Pethart said...

Sing with me, Amy Winehouse: Bullard wants to beeeeehee sheriff now, we tell him -- no, no no!

Cheater Bullard, Hustler Bullard.

And "Wind-Scherer". When Scherer showed up, he went bonkers, absolutely psycho, yelling at other candidates for "jumping" line when in fact they had done nothing wrong. Scherer made wild accusations and behaved generally in an unstable manner.

Some people are also talking about possible ties to less-than-honorable east Jackson County "families". Oh, and Scherer is a closet Republican. All of these factors add up to (sing along with me Amy Winehouse) "I tried to make me Sheriff - they said, no, no, no".

Back to Cheater Bullard. After Scherer's tirade Bullard walked out, jumped in his Independence police car, and left.

Wait a minute.

Hold on just one minute.

Did someone see, and did I just write that?

I think so. Someone who would be our sheriff used a police vehicle, resources and money for their own private purposes and personal gain. He drove an official Independence police car out of the city to the filing offices, in another city. Hmm. That's a very big NO-NO. The night before he tried to stay in the building overnight (to be first in line) and was escorted out like a homeless person. Another big NO-NO. And he allegedly was reprimanded for the misuse of funds by the Indpendence police department. Another NO-NO.

Ok, Amy, let's sing together: "Bullard tried to be elected Sheriff, and we said NO, NO, NO!".

2/27/2008 7:07 PM  
Anonymous another hawk said...

The hiding from Courthouse security in order to gain political advantage in a race for sheriff does sound pretty pathetic. Bullard is acting like a kook. And I can tell you if he is using a police car for political transportation, Bullard is asking for trouble. Did you ever hear back from Cleaver's office? Dan you may want to rethink endorsing publicly based on a pleasurable lunch.

2/28/2008 8:06 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Hah, you guys are pretty funny. Bullard has established himself as a classy and successful lawman - exactly who I want to be Sheriff.

Whining about failure is not what I'm looking for . . .

2/28/2008 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah that was kind of wierd. He should have just walked in with Dutchess Newman like Mike Sharp. See you are always more comfortable if your family owns a big bonding company. Sounds like a winner to me.

2/28/2008 8:19 AM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Cheater Bullard has established himself as someone not to be trusted.

He uses a police car to do his campaign work. And he was caught red-handed.

One of a long line of questionable moves by this candidate. Was his first instance of bad judgment when he was allegedly reprimanded by the police force for the misuse of police funds? We may never know since it may be buried in his HR file.

Was the reprimand the first instance, or was it simply the first time he was caught?

Really, Cheater Bullard looks silly getting escorted out of the building when he was trying to hide, to be first in line.

This is an embarrassingly scary candidate.

And why hasn't Dan spoken about the so-called Cleaver endorsement? Bullard, yet again, acting dishonestly by saying he is endorsed by Cleaver, when in fact he wasn't, or even worse, Bullard is playing up a years-old endorsement.

There's a pattern of behavior here.

Maybe I can speak for Petr when I say:

www.mauerforsheriff.com

"Mongo only pawn in game of life."

2/28/2008 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Bull Rider said...

Screw you. Bullard has Cleaver's endorsement. You lose.

2/28/2008 12:19 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Wow, Bull Rider you certainly don't have to work hard at sounding your IQ is, well, in the double digits.

Pick you knuckles up off the ground and cup them to your ears so I can be sure you get this point:

An endorsement has to be made by somebody. It can't be just claimed, as Bullard is doing.

Cleaver and his staff ought to be damned worried with what we're finding out about this guy with every day that passes by.

I don't hear a Cleaver endorsement, all I hear are crickets.

2/28/2008 7:10 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Wow, Bull Rider you certainly don't have to work hard at sounding your IQ is, well, in the double digits.

Pick you knuckles up off the ground and cup them to your ears so I can be sure you get this point:

An endorsement has to be made by somebody. It can't be just claimed, as Bullard is doing.

Cleaver and his staff ought to be damned worried with what we're finding out about this guy with every day that passes by.

I don't hear a Cleaver endorsement, all I hear are crickets.

2/28/2008 7:10 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Candy -

Bad form to criticize someone's intelligence while getting confused by the comment function on blogger. Just sayin'.

I haven't heard from Cleaver's office, but now you're contradicting yourself. If, as you accused, Cleaver did not endorse, then why would he be worried about what happens to Bullard?

So far, Bullard is looking a lot more on the ball and honest than his cowardly anonymous accuser.

2/28/2008 7:28 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

The questions, Dan, are:

#1: Does Cleaver endorse Bullard as Bullard claims? The Cleaver camp is conspicuously silent. The claim of the Bullard website is WRONG. Cleaver has not endorsed Bullard, and he won't.

Bullard's baggage won't fit in the overhead bin.

Crickets. That's all I can hear. And my Timex.

#2: Did Bullard drive to file for office in an Independence police vehicle? Use public taxpayer property and dollars(gas is expensive, didn't you know Dan?) to further his own personal goals?

Answer: He's guilty on this as charged. He's batting two for two now.

#3: Did he really try and sneak into the building the previous night to be first in line (at that fiasco)?

Answer: Yes, he was escorted out of the building the night before, because he was trying to look invisible on a bench inside the building, and he was practically given the bum's rush out of the building.

What a wonderful way to start off the campaign. Walking out from filing for office and driving away in the company car. Without an endorsement from Cleaver like you've told everybody.

I call all of this.......wait for it, wait for it....

"Conduct unbecoming an officer."

2/28/2008 10:07 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

The only one claiming Cleaver hasn't endorsed him is a cowardly anonymous commenter without any credibility. You lose.

Sorry, Candy, you've got no credibility here.

Bullard has my vote.

2/28/2008 10:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow Candy, I guess they would say the same thing about Mauer if he really was an officer.

P.S. Your guys just upset because he didn't think of it first.
BTW....
He probably should call Krahenbuhl and see if he can't salvage that"special" commission for another four years.

2/28/2008 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Petr Pethart said...

Mr.
Bullard wanted to be sheriff, and we said no, no, no!

2/28/2008 10:28 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

lol

There's only one. Hold on a minute.

No.

Two.

Two people claiming Cleaver has endorsed Bullard. And both of those people aren't Cleaver.

2/28/2008 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You deleted a comment. The A Hawk 2/29 6:09 comment has been removed from this thread.

Why is that?

SSideDem and many other people have said worse things, and you have not taken those comments down.

Why censor that particular comment?

3/01/2008 9:45 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Sorry I didn't post a comment explaining my deletion, as I normally do. I did it early this morning, and I had to run to a meeting.

The reason for deleting it was that it was racist, homophobic and beyond the bounds of anything even close to rational conversation. I'm more than willing to allow tough conversation (as demonstrated by some of the stuff on this thread), but Hawk was just ugly.

3/01/2008 10:15 AM  
Anonymous A Hawk said...

You just cannot take the truth about Bullard's dirty campaigning so you took my comment off before people could read the truth and make up their own mind. Bullard has a gun and uniform fetish and that is the last kind of guy that you should give a badge too.

3/01/2008 3:43 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

There you go, A Hawk, you managed to say something without being racist or homophobic. Good work!

Now, if you'd like to be persuasive, why don't you try to add some evidence to your charge? Frankly, it seems kind of silly to claim that a man who has devoted his entire career to law enforcement has a fetish for uniforms (he wasn't wearing one when I met him), but, if that's a charge you care to make, go ahead and give us a reason to believe you.

I'm trying to help you out here . . .

3/01/2008 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Obrien said...

I agree with Dan, comments are much more convincing when based on evidence.

Maybe the Mike Mauer people will answer two simple questions: 1. Why did your candidate close down his first campaign committee last year on 8/21/07, and 2. Who was the "individual" who gave that first committee $5000, and then received their money back as vaguely reported at the dissolution of that committee?

I imagine this was forced on Mr. Mauer by the State Supreme Court decision that reinstated contribution limits, but closing down a committee and forming a new one without ever clearly stating who funded the committee's activities seems a bit odd.

Who was this benefactor and why is Mike Mauer ashamed that he took the money?

Perhaps the Mauer campaign would like to clear up the record since they are on the blogs a lot anyway. Just looks pretty odd.

No problem, do not mention it.

3/01/2008 4:39 PM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

Obrien is on a fishing expedition. While you're trying to cast a net to pick up sardines - let's focus on how Rex Sinquefeld is funding Bullard.

Bullard simply can't dodge his bad behavior. His funders include Koster and Sinquefeld.

At least Mauer had the sense to give the money back!!

Nice try Obrien.

Pfffft. Bullard's baggage couldn't fit on a C130 transport, as this thread has proven.

3/01/2008 7:17 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Candy -

That's a flat-out lie. Absolutely, positively false. Go check out each one of Bullard's reports, and there is not a single donation from Sinquefield. Not one. Not even one from one of the nefarious PACS he created. Nada. Goose egg. You made that up. You lied.

I ask readers of this thread to please go back and see who is running a negative campaign here. The negativity starts with Mauer, and pretty much stops with Mauer, except for those allegations of sexual intercourse with goats, which Mauer has not denied. (That's a joke, folks.)

One side, and one side only, is trying to inject spurious, unproved allegations. One side is relying on anonymous, false attacks.

I've met Sharp and Mauer, and they seem like ok people as far as I can tell. I've got nothing bad to say about either. And this supporter of Bullard is focusing on the positive.

Racist, homophobic, anonymous, and outright false accusations have no place in an honorable campaign.

3/02/2008 9:40 AM  
Anonymous candygramformongo said...

I have been very careful in my allegations, if you have not noticed thus far.

Sinquefeld gave Koster in excess of $100,000 through his illicit right-wing network of organizations throughout the state.

Conequently Koster was feeling flush enough to donate money to other campaigns. If Koster kept all of his Sinquefeld monies in a separate account, all for himself, than I stand corrected.

However, if Koster wrote a check out of the same account that the $100,000+ from Sinquefeld went into, I and any accountant would conclude, and allocate, Sinquefeld dollars funding Bullard.

Follow the money.

If a state legislator were to raise money for a Islamic non-profit group, and that same not-for-profit gave money to Al Qaeda, would you conclude that the state legislator was funding Al Qaeda? You may not, but a few courts, and the court of public opinion would say otherwise.

"Mongo follow money, not rhetoric."

3/02/2008 1:00 PM  
Blogger craig said...

Mongo,
Answer me this question.
Even if I buy your argument. What does County Sheriff and school vouchers have to do with each other?

3/02/2008 2:03 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

By Candy's "logic", Congressman William Lacy Clay, the Jackson County Democratic Committee, and several other true-blue Democratic causes are now Sinquefield pawns, too.

Pretty weak and desperate allegations so early in the campaign . . .

Allegation: Bullard is funded by Sinquefield.

Truth: Bullard has not received a single dime from Sinquefield.

3/02/2008 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Seen it all before said...

Right Wing Rex is buying influence through his contributions. Koster is a main funnel. Bullard is just a political whore who turned the trick of providing the FOP endorsement for Koster, who if elected will do the real work that Rex needs.

Let's grow up folks. Bullard's connection to Koster is a real concern.

3/02/2008 4:39 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Seen it All -

That's complete and utter nonsense. Sinquefield has given absolutely no money to Bullard, and WHY WOULD HE CARE ABOUT A JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF?!?!

I understand that you are eager to say something bad about a good man, but that's just silly.

3/02/2008 5:20 PM  
Anonymous Seen it all said...

Dan do you think that Funkhouser should get the Super Delegate slot or do you think that Kay Barnes should get it, which would help her raise campaign funds?

This should be an interesting answer considering your generally simple view of the political world.

3/02/2008 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Petr Pethart said...

Well well well. Why was Bullard trying to hide out in the building overnight to get top placement on the ballot and who was consequently escorted out?

He mis-used federal money and was reprimanded.

And he claims Cleaver endorses him.

Geez. Why can't we at least establish that he has Cleaver's endorsement, like he claims on his website.

Has anybody, ANYBODY, established that? Has Cleaver endorsed Bullard, knowing that he has allegedly mis-used federal money??

Dan. You're awfully silent on that phone call you were supposed to make.

Did you ever place that call? I think not. Because you know the answer, and it's not favorable to your candidate.

3/02/2008 9:31 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Petr -
Yes, as I've reported already, I placed the call and left a very detailed message explaining exactly what I was calling about. No return call yet. I'm tempted to argue that this tends to prove there is no problem, since Cleaver's office would probably react more vehemently to news that someone was claiming a bogus endorsement than to some cowardly anonymous internet questioning of a genuine endorsement, but who knows?

What I do know is that none of your allegations have a shred of evidence, and that they are always made by people who won't stand up and identify themselves.

3/03/2008 5:49 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Seen It -

The delegate spot should definitely go to the person chosen by those who get to vote. Pretty simple, huh?

3/03/2008 7:12 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

I've been watching this discussion from afar, and now find myself compelled to comment.

To get this thread above 100.

3/03/2008 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan

Nutter is trying to force his boy Funky Mark on the Democrats so that he denies Kay a position that would aid her fund raising. It has nothing to do with "the person chosen by those who get to vote." Your response was completely uninformed.

Nutter is using Funkhouser for his own political purposes again. First he used him to kill the voter approved light rail initiative rather than reshaping it. Now he is using Funkhouser to hurt a Democratic candidate who has a chance to knock off one of the most vile and corrupt members of Congress. When are you going wake up Dan?

I can tell you this, if Bullard earned your endorsement he must be the dullest bulb in the box.

3/03/2008 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Mauer's Goat said...

Really, anonymous? It has nothing to do with who gets chosen? Nutter gets to decide all by himself? Really?

I think Dan is a lot more informed than you are . . .

3/03/2008 8:58 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

this would be comment #102.

Woot!!

Dan, how many threads on your little blog here have gone over 100comments?

3/03/2008 9:39 AM  
Anonymous A Hawk said...

I think Dan is a complete idiot who just gets his jollies thinking of himself as mover and shaker. Mr. Goat, which I guess tells us a little about your fantasy life based on the vile comments above, the Anonymous post did not say that is the way it should be. They said that it is the way it is way too often, and guys like Dan help Nutter keep his control on the politics of this city.

3/03/2008 12:00 PM  
Anonymous A Hawk said...

Mainstream do not test Dan with that math stuff. I think Dan went to Catholic schools like me and you know we had some trouble back then. Not everyone who shared in a special relationship with the Men In Black complained. Some of them would have never made it through a tough school without special attention. I think it is called "social" advancement.

3/03/2008 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But no one has addressed the real issue here.

Does Dan like Bullard's web site?

3/04/2008 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He ought to - it wasn't posted months after it was promised, like lobbyist Coffman's was . . .

3/04/2008 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bullard was allegedly reprimanded for the misuse of police funds. Word has it that he would have been formally charged but the incident exposed certain PD problems that would make the PD look bad.

These allegations are serious. We would all agree, that if they are true, they would end or seriously jeopardize his viable candidacy.

If they are true.

Everybody's talking about it. So how do we resolve this?

3/04/2008 8:54 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Ignore them as irresponsible rumors spread by anonymous cowards working on behalf of a weaker candidate until someone produces credible evidence that the irresponsible rumors are true.

3/04/2008 9:23 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Comment deleted for dragging employment into the discussion.

3/05/2008 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Sambo said...

Mauer says "I will shut down illegal meth labs." on his web site. Is there such a thing as a legal one? How stupid is this guy?

3/07/2008 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes and he said he works at the Sheriff's Office too.

3/08/2008 7:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone but me seen those impressive billbaords by Sharp? He gets my vote for being smart enough tor ealize that the best and most billbaords always win. Nice job Pat and Ducth.

3/10/2008 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He sure didn't get that money working midnights for KCPD.


Probably got it from his brother the bondsman.

3/12/2008 7:06 PM  
Anonymous A Hawk said...

Is there a fine buy the Missouri Ethics Commission for claiming a false endorsement on literature?

The Star and Gone Mild seem to have missed the story but Supposed-Democratic Candidate for Jackson County Sheriff, John Bullard listed Congressman Cleaver as endorsing his candidacy, but there is one problem.

Cleaver did not make the endorsement.

Dan ignored this problem and now the vultures are coming home to roost. Check out Tony's Kansas City. Tony actually DID call Cleaver's office and Dan just lied about calling or whatever he was told by Cleaver's office because it was an embarrassment to Dan.

This is not the first ethical problem that Bullard has exhibited. The Star managed to overlook the fact that John Bullard was removed from the county courthouse by security at 8:30 the night before the opening of the candidate filing period. Now Bullard had fragrantly and knowingly (he was warned) listed Congressman Cleaver as having endorsed his candidacy when the Congressman did not do so.

Bullard dos not have the integrity to be Jackson County Sheriff!

3/14/2008 10:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Now, Hawk, why do you go and jump to false conclusions? You claim that I lied, and your accusation is utterly and completely false. False.

I said that I called his office. I did. I said that I left a detailed message. I did. I said I haven't heard back. I haven't.

You owe me an apology.

Now, I have no idea whether Tony did talk to someone, or if this is another of his "jokes", but I know that my integrity is not on the line. Yours may be, but mine isn't.

3/14/2008 10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give me a break. This is Jackson County you are talking about. One of the most corrupt counties in America You can't be serious that you think ethics should be a part of any candidate for office.

The Courthouse is closed to the public after 5:30 PM but not to employees and law enforcement personnel. Mr. Bullard remained in the building and he can becuase he's a law enforcement official. He had just as much right to be there as anyone. He could have easily hid in the building if he wanted to. He was visible with nothing to hide and thats how security was alerted to his presence.

3/17/2008 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so if law enforcement can be in the building after hours, why was Bullard removed?

3/24/2008 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because Waits is backing someone else.

3/24/2008 1:39 PM  
Anonymous The Blindfolded Lady with the Scales said...

Bullard removed the name of Congressman Cleaver from his website today, because Cleaver had never endorsed him. Bullard lied about the endorsment and then refused to remove the Congressman's name for nearly three months. Bullard does not have the integrity to be Sheriff.

5/23/2008 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no one on here knows john bullard
or met all the other candidates or worked with of these people in a professional law enforcement capacity , i have.
for one you couldnt have worked with anyone in law enforcement except for john. he is the only full time police officer with years of experience. the others do not.
john is supported by many organizations, families, lgbt community etc.

john is on the up and up , i know the others and know there history.

i know john i call him a friend
best of luck to him in this last few weeks till election.

ps i might note sharp has all the money.. believe it or not not sure where its coming from john doesnt have the money but has the support of the community more signs are in peoples front yards for john, sharp has to pay to his signs ....

money isnt everything . signs arent either..

hope you vote for john !

7/18/2008 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just discovered this site and this is my first blog ever!!! John may be a good man but if you cross him, you better watch out for his wife who is an ordained minister in their church who I have personally heard use such foul language that a sailor would blush. Do you vote for the man and get stuck with the wife too??? I also know John was NOT endorsed by E.Cleaver due to the "dog issue".

7/25/2008 4:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home