Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Play Ball!! Quarterly Campaign Finance Reports Time!

Political geeks like me love campaign finance reports. A baseball box score reveals secrets of strategy, individual performances, and key statistics, but only a tiny portion of the success of the season. Similarly, quarterly campaign finance reports provide enough hard facts to fuel gossip and speculation, but only a tiny part of what it takes to have a successful election season.

In the 44th District, for example, Jason Kander once again defeated Amy Coffman in an extremely close contest, continuing his sweep of the series. (Both defeated Mary Cosgrove Spence, who appears to be a shoo-in for Rookie of the year, but thus far has not shown much potential for the play-offs.) It was a tight battle, though, with Jason Kander edging Coffman out $16,110.15 to $15,075.00.

One troubling sign for the Coffman team is that they had to resort to their bullpen awfully early. As a lobbyist, Coffman was obviously going to resort to her lobbyist friends and their easy cash sooner or later, but I, for one, didn't expect her to call up the farm team in Jefferson City as early as March. But there it is - including campaign funds from the lobbyist dream team of school voucher flamethrowers, Flotron & McIntosh, LLC. Honestly, that is like throwing spit balls in a Democratic primary, but maybe she felt like she had to pull out a late-inning miracle.

Another curve ball from the Coffman side was a purchase of T-shirts from non-union CheapesTees.com, in Burlingame, California. Her website (which is a very nice one, by the way, now that it's up), claims that
I think we can agree that personal security begins with stable, well paying jobs for Kansas City’s working people. A healthy economy, strong labor unions and a vibrant business environment help families reach their economic and professional goals.
I know I agree, but it appears that some may be a little shaky on that one.

All told, it's only one box score, and this week's stats don't tell us what's going to happen in the World Series. The rookie could catch fire. Any of the teams could commit a crucial balk. The umpire could toss someone out for throwing bean balls, though all sides seem to be pitching strikes at this stage. Amy Coffman has attracted an impressive group of fans, including the current officeholder, and my favorite City Councilwoman.

To carry the analogy one final step, in this local race with three fine candidates, the ultimate winner may be decided by which one takes the most walks - door to door.

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous segretti confetti said...

Accusing someone of being a turncoat could be a serious charge.

If you’re pro-Union, and you use a non-Union shop, you can accuse that person of aiding and abetting the enemy. Dan has accused Amy of being someone who did exactly that.

Clearly, Dan has made the charge of turncoat. Or more accurately, has directly charged Amy as a traitor to her Union supporters. (All for getting a batch of t-shirts printed…hmmmm)

Another charge of “turncoat” has been levied against Calvin Williford. Someone has charged him, an ostensible Democrat, with the hiring of Jeff Roe for political purposes. And Jeff Roe is a notorious Republican operative. A Democrat hiring a Republican to smear a Democrat.

An anonymous “Williford Roe” has accused Mike Sanders of being a turncoat. A traitor to his Democratic supporters because his chief operative hired a Republican.

Two similar charges, one anonymous. One not.

Are any of them true?

There must be something in the water they serve at these Dem fundraisers…..

Does anybody think Amy is ant-Union because Dan accuses her of buying non-Union t-shirts?

And --- does anybody think Sanders is a Republican because some anon spammer says so?

My verdict: both charges false and contrived.

And I have to ask the question: does anybody have any morals that they apply to their political behavior?

4/15/2008 10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kander worked for a Union-Busting Law Firm for several years but I guess Diana and Jason did not tell Dan to write about that.

Amy why didn't you have the good sense to be born with a filthy rich uncle so Dan could fawn over you?

4/15/2008 11:04 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wow, confetti, you really stretched for that one.

I pointed out that Amy Coffman used a non-union shop - and I was correct, wasn't I?

Now, if you want to stretch my truthfulness and embellish it with your imagination, go ahead, but I'm not the one lacking in morality.

4/15/2008 11:04 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Nobody tells me what to write, anonymous.

4/15/2008 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Proud Vet said...

Kander also worked for the United States of America, volunteering for service in Afghanistan.

That settles it for me.

Neither Coffman nor Spence is fit to polish his boots.

4/15/2008 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hold on a second, Confetti - where did Dan or anyone else "charge" Coffman with being a turncoat? All I could see was where he pointed out true facts and said there were 3 fine candidates.

Do you think Amy should fail to support unions while claiming she supports them?

My verdict: Segretti's making a straw man.

4/15/2008 11:16 PM  
Anonymous Proud American who is not named Diana said...

Did Kander "volunteer" to associate himself with everything that military intelligence has done in Afghanistan? Or is he going to pick and choose what he claims to be experience there too?

Why is Kander ashamed that he worked for Spencer Fane, proud vet?

4/15/2008 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Screw the Foreign Policy debate on both sides.

Dan, did you fact check anything you wrote with Amy Coffman?

Did you follow basic tenets of journalism and check with the person you were about to report on before you published?

You need to answer this one Dan, it goes to the heart of your credibility.

4/15/2008 11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 11:37, are you saying that Dan is wrong and that Amy bought T-shirts from a Union printer or that she did not have a lobbyist fundraiser in Jeff City?

4/15/2008 11:43 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wow - I thought my post was a fairly straightforward, factual extended metaphor, tempered with genuine appreciation for all 3 fine candidates. It sure seems to have touched a nerve with some of Coffman's supporters, though.

I honestly wonder, and I'm not casting aspersions on any particular commenter, whether some late-night comments on this and other threads are fueled more by alcohol than by reading and rationality. Perhaps we need to have checkpoints established on the information superhighway . . .

Anonymous 11:37 - too funny. Blogs are not journalism - get that through your skull, please. That's one of my pet peeves - some bloggers forget that fundamental fact, and get carried away with their "citizen journalist" fantasy. Not me. I read widely and comment on what I see.

As for calling Amy, I don't have her cell phone number, and wouldn't have bugged her during the late evening. Blogger records the time I start a posting, not the time I finish it. This one didn't get posted until around 10.

So, to answer your question, no, I didn't call Amy, nor do I see why I should have. If I was wrong about anything, though, please show me where.

And, finally, for all commenters, draw a deep breath and loosen your clenched fists. You'd have to be crazy or a Republican not to realize that we have three great candidates in this race, and those of us who obsess on facets of campaign finance reports and t-shirt vendors are a quirky little insider crowd . . .

4/16/2008 6:19 AM  
Anonymous a former reader said...

Dan you are playing "gotcha" with Amy Coffman, over and over. You could have called or emailed her before you painted her as a Scab, but you did not want to know the answer. This is the kind of garbage that you praised Beth Gottstein for opposing. Where are your ethics Dan?

Dan, in my opinion, you are a mean little man with petty interests and a penchant for attaching yourself to creeps and losers. You do not support candidates -- you worship them and bathe yourself in the reflection of the light you shine on them.

You wrapped Jason in the flag when you introduced him on your blog, even though we have no idea whether he spent his time incarcerating people without trial. He has never even made the unit he served in public, which makes me wonder whether that unit might show up in some reports on collateral damage or the like. You just heap praise on the little patriot without asking.

And yet you insist on branding Amy as "a lobbyist" but you never mention that she worked for AARP. One can reasonably assume that you do not mention Amy worked for the AARP because their lobbying operations are generally viewed as helping the public interest. At least there are no questions as to whether the AARP has waterboarded anyone. You seem content to plant the seeds that she just might have worked for Andy Blunt.

The better bloggers do conduct themselves as citizen journalists Dan. A higher standard that you clearly reject because it might get in the way of your whorish devotion to one of your candidates,who seem to make you feel important.

Dan, you seem to think you are very cute. But in the way you treat Amy Coffman, you seem to me to be nothing more than a liar.

4/16/2008 8:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Proud American,

"Why is Kander ashamed that he worked for Spencer Fane"? Interesting comment. Could you please explain this further? What's wrong with Spencer Fane?

4/16/2008 8:23 AM  
Blogger les said...

"Perhaps we need to have checkpoints established on the information superhighway . . ."

Now Dan, don't contradict your fine post re: the wast of resources in sobriety checkpoints. I'm sure that the Ether Police have better things to do than monitor the alcohol fueled wanderings of the Great Anonomi.

4/16/2008 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Former Reader - it's a shame that you are giving up on reading. Reading is fundamental. Without it, you may never learn how to think clearly.

And it is pretty obvious you need some help there. Let's take a look at some of your confusion:
- Dan called Amy a scab, though he never says that.
- Dan should have called Amy to ask her about ordering nonunion tshirts, even though it's a fact, and nobody has denied it. beyond attacking Dan for stating the truth.
- Dan is evil for saying nice things about people he supports, yet you are good for calling him names.
- You speculate that Kander is a war criminal, but claim Dan is wrong for pointing out the undeniable truth that Amy was a lobbyist.
- You dream up wrongdoing in Afghanistan, but act like the AARP is not a special-interest group buying favor with our legislators.
- You seem to think Dan is being rah-rah for Jason when he mentions Jason's past (military service) but unfair to Amy when he mentions her past (lobbying for a special interest group).
- You call Dan a liar, but fail to question a single fact in Dan's fact-based posting.

4/16/2008 8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still no word from Amy or Greg about where the shirts came from huh?

I think I have an idea as to why they chose a California, nonunion printshop. Maybe the fact that she's not from here has something to do with it. Maybe its the fact that when you google cheap shirts, her printshop Cheapes Tees is one of the top 3 paid sponsors that pop up. They can afford those advertisements because their shirts start at $1.78. Nice

4/16/2008 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan -

You should not blindly write everything the Kanders feed you. You claim Kander raised more money than Coffman this quarter. Okay, but only if the improper contributions are counted. Many of Kander's donors exceeded the $325 limit. Or, maybe Kander's treasurer "accidentally" listed the same donations more than once to boost his numbers. Regardless of the reason, these donations should not count towards his quarter totals. Once they are subtracted out, Coffman beats Kander for the quarter.

Dan - Did you even look at Kander's filing before writing your post?

4/16/2008 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Diana: If you want your husband to have any chance in this race, please stop blogging.

4/16/2008 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:41-

Attacking the messenger? Really? Why does the Coffman camp have to get so nasty, when all Dan has done is point out the facts contained in the report. Do you have a shred of evidence that this was "fed" to him? And, even if it were, do you have a shred of evidence that it isn't true and accurate?

As for the >$325 donations - I just looked. There aren't any. You made that up. Why can't the Coffman camp stick to the truth, the way Dan has?

Anonymous 9:49 - Now you're claiming Dan is "Diana"? Notice that this untrue, baseless lie is coming from Jason's opponents.

Why does everybody respond to Dan's truthful post with lies and accusations?

4/16/2008 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Jason's Friend said...

HOLD IT!! Here's an anonymous untruth being told about Coffman - Anonymous 9:29 said she's not from here. Amy Coffman grew up in the area.

That untruth doesn't rank up there with the lies spread about Jason, but we on Jason's side tend to be sticklers for fairness and truth.

4/16/2008 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 9:41 -

You obviously did not look very closely. You need to look no further than the second page of Kander's report and you will see the same Spencer Fane attorney gave two donations of $200. Gosh, I think that is $75 over the limit.

Facts are stubborn things.

4/16/2008 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, you're the one who didn't look very hard. The report was amended a few hours after it was filed and it clearly states a typo of "duplicate contributions" as the reason for the amendment.

You're looking at the wrong report, smart guy.

Facts are stubborn things.

4/16/2008 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry - I'm not very smart.

Thanks for correcting me.

4/16/2008 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 10:41 -

How interesting. Riddle me this - if the original counted the same donations more than once (as you say), than how is it that the amended report and the original report have the same $ total of contributions?

That sure is some fancy bookkeeping. Your explanation raises a boat load of serious questions.

4/16/2008 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hate to embarrass you once again, but the amended report has a different number for donations. Why don't you use up some energy by calling Amy and asking her why she bought non-union shirts?

4/16/2008 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Diana -

Your tone and style overshadow your husband's substance. This is the reason he has not gotten endorsements and, ultimately, the reason he will lose.

Your mistake was thinking this campaign was about you.

4/16/2008 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only in politics can someone raise tens of thousands of dollars from hundreds of people and still have it assumed that those on his side on a comment board MUST be married to him.

I think there just MIGHT be other people willing to defend the dude...

4/16/2008 1:03 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Dan, there is an unsettling pattern here.

You say you like to read MEC reports, but you consistently support candidates that can't file a correct MEC report to save their lives.

What's up with that?


4/16/2008 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Mainstream, cut Dan some slack. This time, it was only a few hundred bucks, and the mistake got corrected in a couple hours. That's a LOT better than Funk!

4/16/2008 3:00 PM  
Blogger Lance Hafner Rocks said...

Great use of the baseball terms in this blog.

The first rule in a Democratic race is to check for the Union bug on everything! Bad mistake by Coffman.

I'm guessing that someone in the campaign did simply google for some cheap shirts as was suggested before. Still not acceptable.

It is not only laughable, but also disgusting to me that someone has associated Jason with waterboarding because he is in the military. I thought we were all over that "Post-Vietnam" way of looking at our soldiers.

Oh, and I'm not Diana.

4/16/2008 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, Former Reader, and the one not named Diana:

First: I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that Diana does not comment on this blog under any name other than her own.

Second: The very thought that a commenter on this blog would make even a veiled reference to Jason Kander being a war criminal absolutely turns my stomach. While you, Former Reader, were glibly going about your normal routine of life in Kansas City; Jason was walking and driving the roads and hills of Afghanistan developing intelligence about the people who have dedicated their lives to killing you. At no risk to you, Former Reader, and at great risk to himself. And yes, before you even ask, I do know what "the little patriot" did over there. I'm his Father.

4/16/2008 4:39 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Anon, my comments towards Dan (this time) were tongue-in-cheek.

Note to Lance - I'm going to have to call bullshit to your comments, for two reasons.

First, the Union Bug - most Democrats put a bug on stuff (mainly literature and yard signs) as a symbolic way to show their Union support. Campaigns forget to do it now and then. I have been a part of a few campaigns where we've had to print stuff with the disclaimer "printed in-house";
"donated labor" etc and on other occassions where the bug just didn't happen.

It happens all the time, Lance my man.

And guess what, Lance? If the bug is missed now and then the Unions don't give a rat's ass. That's the truth and the reality. So quit trying to bullshit us here.

Do you know what Union's give a shit about? A candidate's commitment to supporting pay raises for their membership, and many other tangible ways an elected official can support their organizations.

No one cares about whether a cheap campaign t-shirt has a bug on it or not. This is the way it works, you idiot: Dan is simply doing a good job of nitpicking the Coffman folks just like he did on their website, and the Coffman folks are rising to the bait.

Nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with your comments.

Let's talk about waterboarding, interrogation and detention. Jason refers to his MOS as Miliary Intelligence, and does not share any information about his activities and unit ostensibly because he was operating in an "intelligence" capacity.

With no other information, it is a legitmate inquiry to want to know understand the nature of his closely guarded activities.

There's nothing wrong with that, and it's a legitimate line of inquiry.

4/16/2008 5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice point out on the non-union t-shirt buy. There is a fine union t-shirt company in Raytown that anyone with knowledge of KC would've immediately turned to.

Many people do use the printed in house labor donated as Mainstream points out, but that is in the case of emergency last minute printing. T-Shirts, signs, literature, buttons, etc don't apply.

You know that you are getting those in advance and it takes longer to find the webpage than find the local union printer so don't give me that.

Dedication to union printing of all materials is a good sign of your dedication to working men and women.

Nice catch Dan.

4/16/2008 6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anon 6:35pm said...

P.S. i don't know any of the candidates and can't vote for them so i could careless. i am just correcting some comments here.

4/16/2008 6:37 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

We should note that Kander is missing a Union bug on his literature.

On Blog CCP,there is a post comparing the Kander Mother's Day invitation against an Amy Coffman endorsement piece, where Justus, Lowe and Garza, among others, endorse Coffman.

There is a Union bug proudly displayed on the Coffman piece, and not a thing on the Kander piece.

The Kander literature is utterly without a Union bug while the Coffman piece proudly displays a bug.

I didn't notice a bug was missing the first time I looked at it, because (1) the light is shining so brightly through his ears you can hardly see anything else; and (2) the Mother's Day invitation, to a political event, is so incredibly ridiculous it distracted me. Why would I want to take my moother to meet a politician she doesn't even know on any day, let alone Mother's Day???

Anyways, no Union bug on the Kander piece of literature.

Pot meet kettle.

That is, by the way, one of the most embarassing political comparisons I've seen -- The Kander Mother's Day nonesense up against a very, very strong Coffman endorsement piece.

4/16/2008 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what that could mean is that Dan had to actually scan the Amy Coffman campaign's piece because he is too afraid to talk to her. On the other hand, the Kanders probably just provided the artwork for their campaign piece to Dan along with everything nice he was supposed to think and say about them. Oh I understand that they tell Dan to say he comes up with this stuff on his own, but Danny is nothing more than a sock puppet for the ever so brutal Kanders.

Yes I know that the pieces appeared on Blog CCP but Dan seems to still administrate both outlets, it is just a matter of which place he decides to plant another unreported donation in advertising services.

MORTALS, kneel down before the Power of Dan!

4/16/2008 11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, you're incorrect.

I was one of the volunteers handing those out at the polls. It's a flimsy little piece of paper, admittedly no where near as professional or upscale as the Coffman piece. However, on the flipside of the flier, where it tells Jason's background, it clearly says, "Printed in House."

4/16/2008 11:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A real soldier would still be overseas fighting. Ms. Butter Bar went to Afghanistan as a way to further his political career. Enough said.

4/16/2008 11:23 PM  
Blogger Todd said...

If you need business cards and you are a progressive, you should use a union printer to get the bug. Yet the truth of the matter is that for small runs and specialty items, union printers aren't competitive.

This isn't just about price, but also customer service and innovation. Want to upload a design via the web and have it delivered in a few days? Not a problem? By a union printer? I don't know where. I've worked with several small non-profits where the scale and scope of what they are doing just doesn't make sense to union printers.

Corporate Copy in Independence is a great example of a small, family owned print shop that isn't union. They are on Main Street and just off the square. They provide more than a living wage and benefits for their staff. Sorry for me downtown development and buying local would trump any old ideological commitment to only use labor.

(And yeah, some of my best friends are union guys.)

4/17/2008 4:19 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Exactly, Todd. Good point.

There aren't many union printers left. Price and time are big issues with so few union shops remaining.

It's a challenge, but it should force democratic politicos to know where and who their union printers are.

4/17/2008 7:15 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Oh, and anon at 11:23, sorry, but I will NOT be taking you at your word. And I'll remind you the piece doesn't have a bug.

On the scale of IMPORTANT THINGS - fundraising literature is at the very top, and t-shirts are at the bottom.

4/17/2008 7:21 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

Printed-in-house has become acceptable for letters or fliers produced by a campaign that is subject to change (mail merges) or on short notice when printed material is truly produced using basic office equipment.

After talking to a representative of Amy's Campaign (it is not that hard Dan so do not be scared) they produced in-house iron on logos for blank T-shirts. If she would have asked an experienced campaigner (and listened to the answer) she probably would not have done that, but she is basically within the accepted rules.

It is hard to see how either campaign could argue that a parade which was advertised for the past year or an election cycle established for the last few decades were special events that caught them by surprise. Both campaigns win a Penny Wise and Pound Foolish award in my book.

Kander has used the printed-in-house approach several times for things that most campaigns would have had printed. I remember the first printed edition of his newsletter last year also displayed printed in house, and I remember then thinking that it did not look like it was produced on a home-model laser or ink jet printer. The newsletter looked a lot like your standard "Quick Print" product.

I guess I do not give Kander much slack or trust because of his wife's reputation for dirty campaigns. The way she ran the Gamble campaign was particularly unethical in my opinion. Jason has a tougher row to hoe because people who are active in Democratic politics know his wife's handy work. I am sure that as nasty as these blog posts get now, the Kander campaign regrets playing hardball on here early in the campaign with "The Voice In Amy's Head" and other such nonsense. The seeds of mean were sown back last fall.

With regard to Dan's response a few nights ago (I don't need no journalistic ethics)I think your writing would be more credible if you did check your facts. I am not sure why you were in such a hurry Dan. You were not breaking the Pentagon Papers, you were making a blog post about a financial filing in a state rep race. An email or phone call to Amy was in line Dan; although with the way you generally unethical way that you treat her I really would not answer your calls if I were her.

Personally I have had it with the 44th because Amy Coffman's campaign shows a distinct deficit in seriousness and Kander's campaign seems more serious than basic human decency should allow. I am not sure which group scares me more when I think of them in public office. I still believe that Mary Spence is a shill for Kander.

4/17/2008 7:56 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

By way of clarification, Anonymous 11:13, It was Stephen Bough who posted the two pieces thing on Blog CCP - a real, non-anonymous, stand-up guy who I believe has given to both Amy and Jason. Also, I'm far from afraid of talking to Amy - I had a fairly lengthy chat with her a few weeks ago on the street, and exchanged pleasantries with her and her husband on Election night. Finally, I did set up the Blog CCP as a communications effort for the CCP, but I don't control content there at all.

I was going to respond with the same sarcastic tone you adopted, but realized that you probably don't know those facts, so your erroneous conclusions were, if not justifiable, at least understandable. As a general rule, though, I'd advise you to read this blog with a little less suspicion that I am at the heart of some conspiracy full of secret emails and intrigue. Believe it or not, this blog is just a hobby, and none of this stuff is important enough to me to cause me to surrender my integrity.

I happen to think that Jason Kander is the best of the three candidates for the 44th rep. I've met each of them, and I really, truly, sincerely think they're fine people. But IMHO Jason is smarter, more effective, and harder working. He is the sort that will be a leader for the district and the state. He has the straight-shooter, can-do attitude and authenticity that will generate results down there in Jefferson City. His strength will win respect and results with not only the Democrats, but the Republicans who are accustomed to riding roughshod over the Dems.

4/17/2008 8:08 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Porchpundit -

I did my post on fair and unfair advocacy before I saw your most recent piece. Where have I done anything unethical to Amy?

4/17/2008 8:13 AM  
Anonymous porchpundit said...

Porchpundit - You chide Dan for not checking facts, but you're flat out wrong. First off, there was absolutely no fact checking to be done. He accurately reported exactly what the campaign report showed, and the campaign report came from Coffman.

In a bigger sense, what bothers me is that you seem to think that bloggers ought to call everyone they are about to write about. Where does your slippery slope end? Does Dan need to call Koster each time he writes about Koster? Jay Nixon? George Bush? Does he have to call the brewer when he does one of his beer reviews (hint, hint, Dan)?

Did you call Dan before posting your comment criticizing him? Did you?

Does Tony have Funk on speed dial for every mean-spirited, racial attack Tony makes? Do you think so?

You accidentally raise a good point, though. One of the problems with most commnters is that they are anonymous. I'm going to post this one as porchpundit just to prove my point. You seem to think that the Voice in Amy's Head, whoever that was, had some connection to Jason's campaign, even though those comments reflected nothing from Jason, and were so ugly that they were just as likely a plant from Coffman's camp to play into the perception that the Kanders play hardball. Similarly, it would be a mistake to confuse the creep questioning Kander's service with Amy Coffman - as Dan said this morning, the partisans are worse than the principals. I would add that they are a lot less believable, and a whole lot more sneaky.

4/17/2008 8:55 AM  
Blogger Lance Hafner Rocks said...

Sorry for the late posted response to mainstreams comments about my bug comment. I respect your opinions with regards to the Unions and their personal desires. I have only worked on campaigns on the East side of the state, so perhaps their Unions are more stringent.

When I worked for Gephardt in the early 1990's, he wouldn't use toilet paper without the bug on it. The Unions were very outspoken about using any non-Union products. Not sure how they thought about printing in-house material as a campaign of that size didn't do it.

When I worked on the Wheat/Danner coordinated campaign (boy that worked out...) I can recall Union members in Southeast Missouri shunning a fellow campaign worker who pulled up to an event in an old beat up Mercedes. She was hounded about not owning an American made vehicle. Perhaps KC unions could care less. But based on the posts here, it still is an issue.


"I'm not Bullshitting you"

4/17/2008 11:31 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

No, Lance, you're correct, and it does vary by region.

My point was only that a miss here and there on unimportant campaign items isn't a big deal to any union.

The car you drive, and your lead campaign literature and lots of other things are very big deals.

Also keep in mind that the dynamic between Gephardt and labor is totally different than the dynamic between a freshman state rep candidate and labor...

There is definitely a contextual difference depending upon the power and position of the candidate.

4/17/2008 11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please excuse my ignorance, but I've been enjoying this silly debate about "union bugs" and t-shirts and all...

From out here in JOCO, it hasn't ever seemed to matter, but maybe I haven't paid enough attention.

But I don't get why the car you drive is such a big deal. Aren't most cars a hodge-podge of foreign and domestic now? Seriously, this seems really stupid to me.

4/17/2008 11:57 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

It is a big deal, from a few different perspectives. The Ford plant here employs a lot of people, and driving an Ford Escape Hybrid is a great car for a Democrat to drive.

Parts come from all over, but the unions have the people actually assembling them here in Kansas City.

It sends the right message about supporting an important economic engine that has a huge impact on our area economy, in addition to supporting union membership/employment.

Purchasing a car made elsewhere, where the wages and/or profits may go abroad, or away from a union, is viewed (as you can imagine) as a bad thing.

4/17/2008 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Deckpundit said...

There are a hell of a lot of porchpundits on this blog.

4/17/2008 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow it is on fire here. A bunch of volunteers going at it. How many phone calls could you have made or doors could you have knocked during this conversation? I would be upset that my volunteers were wasting their time on this.

4/17/2008 5:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home