The AG Debate Transcript
The wonderful people at Show Me Progress have produced a transcript of last week's debate among the Democratic Primary candidates for Missouri Attorney General, hosted by the CCP.
I was unable to attend, so I greatly appreciate the work they did.
Labels: attorney general, CCP, Jeff Harris
posted by Dan at 5/27/2008 07:24:00 PM
10 Comments:
Was Koster called out for voting for Medicare cuts, kicking the poor off healthcare, selling off MOHELA so that student loans are unaffordable, and basically sding with Matt Blunt and Victor Callahen?
Sorry, "life long democrat." Almost without exception (his opponents being the exception), the attendees agree that Koster won the debate handily. Even Steve Kraske, one of the impartial questioners, wrote that Koster showed himself to be the superiod candidate.
Folks, will you NOW agree to back Koster? Or do you insist on waiting until he wins the thing?
Anonymous -
That's not what Kraske said, and that's not what the people who were there had to say, either. You're lying.
Okay, Dan. Below is word-for-word what Kraske said in his Sunday column. Umm...sure sounds like Kraske is calling Koster the winner to me.
"The three Democratic contenders for Missouri attorney general squared off Thursday at UMKC.
The winner? Chris Koster, the state senator from Harrisonville who switched parties last year. The former Cass County prosecutor displayed a depth of knowledge and a commanding rhetorical style.
One example: Asked how to diversify the AG’s staff, Koster talked about downsizing the Jefferson City office and moving lawyers to Kansas City and St. Louis.
Not only would that put lawyers closer to most cases, Koster said, it would help with minority recruiting."
Since it appears you need to be schooled, anonymous, let me toss you an essay question - "Is the 'superiod (sic) candidate' necessarily the one who wins a debate?"
Extra credit if you acknowledge your prior mistake.
Bravo, Dan, well-skewered.
I hate it when spin-meisters like anonymous try to rewrite things to their advantage. It's dishonest and befitting of Koster.
I didn't attend the debate, either, but the transcript shows pretty much a tie between Koster and Harris, on paper at least. I think Koster does have a smooth style that plays well in forums like that, so he may well have seemed like he won to those who watched it.
I think Donnelly and Williams tied (!).
Dan -
We get it. You hate (or choose any word you want) Koster. Fine.
But be objective enough to recognize that others feel Koster is the superior (thanks for spelling correction) candidate. In Kraske's words, Koster is the "winner."
Anonymous -
I don't think Koster is a good candidate for the Democrats. I look at his voting record, including his behavior this past session, and I think he is an unreliable, unprincipled snake. But I was at the debate, and I agree with Kraske that he did slightly better then Harris, and worlds better than Donnelly.
That doesn't make him a superior candidate, does it?
Yeah ummm I threw out Anon's Kraske comment as soon as he called him "impartial". Kraske is the biggest Republican writing for that paper. Well one of them. Regardless, he's far from impartial. He was humping Blunt's leg up until Blunt dumped him.
All that pressure to go and I didn't see you. : ( j/k. You missed a good one. One of the questioners was so enamored by Koster that he performed fellatio on him right there on stage in front of everyone. Or maybe he just asked questions like normal, not sure, I'm sure some anonymous person could sort it out.
Post a Comment
<< Home