Koster Defies Kansas City Priorities
One of the interesting sidelights to the controversy over Festival Licenses has been Senator Chris Koster's abandonment of Kansas City.
In a quick recap, Kansas City listed as one of its priorities in Jefferson City the increased flexibility in making "Festival Liquor Licensing" available for districts in Kansas City. It's a great idea - a few more festivals with adult beverages available would make our city a better tourist attraction.
Believe it or not, Chris Koster actually voted against this common-sense, pro-Kansas City proposal when it came up in committee. Fortunately, a bipartisan majority, led by Senator Jolie Justus, outvoted Koster's anti-Kansas City sneak attack.
Labels: attorney general, Cordish, Justus, kansas city, koster
posted by Dan at 5/01/2008 06:21:00 AM
25 Comments:
That's an easy one. Sen. Koster was the best man in Charles Hatfield's wedding. Just so happens that Hatfield is representing Cordish in this fight.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2008/04/hatfield-donation-limit-supporter-makes-no-apologies-for-helping-some-skirt-limits/
Thus Sen. Koster votes for his lobbyist friend's cause even if it does screw small KC businesses.
Next.
So, let me get this straight. Koster would sell out Kansas City voters for a Republican friend. Not only would he, but he has!
Please, Democrats, reject this loser Republican!
Anonymous - Hatfield is a democrat.
At least he was supporting a Democrat when he sold out Kansas City!
It's not just Cordish and KC. Koster also sold out Cass County on behalf of Aquila.
He took $1275 from Aquila back in October for his campaign for Attorney General. And now he's come out in support of the legislature's bill letting the Aquila plant stand. Koster is working for the corporations, not his constituents.
http://www.moethics.mo.gov/Ethics/CampaignFinance/CF_SearchResults.aspx?Year=2008&Report=0&Type=0&CD1Type=All&CD3Type=All&Name=aquila&City=&EmpOcc=&AmtBeg=&AmtEnd=&MECID=&ComName=
Jeff Harris and Margaret Donnelly are total phonyies. When given the opportunity yesterday to raise taxes to help the people they say were hurt by last years budget cuts, THEY BOTH WALKED OFF THE FLOOR AND DID NOT VOTE. THEY TURN THERE BACKS. COWARDS!
On a dailly basis Harris and Donnelly call Koster out for his votes, and when given the opportunity to step up, they both act like cowards and do nothing.
Harris and Donnelly do not have the courage to be attorney general. Koster made a hard decision to balance a budget last year, you can agree or disagree with his vote. Harris and Donnelly had a chance to help the people they said Koster hurt and were afraid to act, so they walked away.
Jeff Harris and Margaret Donnelly are pathetic.
Jack - spelling and grammar are a little more relaxed on blogs than in formal discourse, but you've gone a little far with your freedom, and made me question your intellectual credibility.
Even in perfect English, though, your attempt to act as though Hunter's bit of political theater means anything whatsoever.
It did remind me, however, that Koster helped to toss thousands of people off of Medicaid.
Even in perfect English, though, your attempt to act as though Hunter's bit of political theater means anything whatsoever.
Can anyone decipher what that sentence meant? I mean, if you are going to be a grammar nazi, at least try to make sense.
Is it true that Funk's lawsuit is going to cost the city over $100K?
How many pot holes could $100K fix? According to this http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/03/the_cost_of_pot.html , it cost about $20 per hole. So Funk is going to cost us 50,000 pot holes.
Brilliant bust, anonymous! Wow - that will leave a mark!
What I meant to say, before I lapsed into my pre-lingual grunting, was "Even in perfect English, though, your attempt to act as though Hunter's bit of political theater means anything whatsoever would fail miserably."
Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
It's not Funkhouser's lawsuit, and it will cost a great deal less than the money we are wasting on a lying, thieving City Manager. The Nasty Nine deserve complete blame for the lawsuit.
Why did Harris and Donnelly not vote, why did they walk off the floor rather then trying to help the people they say have been hurt?
If you believe so strongly that the vote last year hurt these people, why do you defend this?
Btw, I am glad to know that prior to that posting you did not question my intellectual credibility. thanks Dan!!
Seriously, Jack, that was simply cheap political theater. If it had been a serious proposal, it would have been announced ahead of time and the proposal would have been subjected to analysis. Instead, it was simply an attempt to force the the Dems into either voting to raise taxes on middle-class voters or vote against curing the harmful cuts that Blunt imposed on Missouri with the enthusiastic support of Chris Koster.
If Hunter sincerely wanted to fix the horrors inflicted by Koster and Blunt, he would not have tossed his proposal in as an amendment on a bill focused on corporate income tax.
Your attempt to make it seem like a meaningful piece of legislation is exactly what it was designed to accomplish. But, really, stupid little tricks like this are just legislative onanism - nobody outside of the chambers will pay any attention to this kind of nonsense.
I refuse to go off topic and address your comment about how it's nine council members' fault that two OTHER council members are suing the city.
The charter's clear, and the lawsuit is very clearly frivilous. If it was their own money, they wouldn't be progressing this suit.
But I'm not going to go there, I'm in too good a mood because the Sebelius veto override failed this evening.
The Nasty Nine deserve complete blame for the lawsuit.
They are only to blame, if they are legally wrong. So far, the courts have come down on the side of the "nasty" nine. (Oh, its nice to know how Funk's advisers publicly refer to the majority of the city council)
You may not like their choice, but the mayor the right to make a frivolous lawsuit over every decision he doesn't like.
So, Dan, are you saying the appeals court will go in Funks favor? Care to make any bets?
If the Mo Supreme Court rules against Funk, will you refer to them as the "Nasty" seven?
Are you calling Beth "Nasty"?
Anonymous 4:20 - I hardly consider myself the Mayor's "adviser", so please allow me the freedom to speak as I choose, okay? And, sure, I'll take a bet on the Appellate Court's view of the illegal extension of Cauthen's contract. Email me and we're on.
Even if, by some small chance, the appellate and Supreme courts were to mistakenly interpret the law, though, they would not be as nasty as the gang of nine was. I can understand misinterpreting the law, but the behavior of the nasty nine was simply wrong for the city. They gave Cauthen a big raise and a three year contract without public hearing or comment - simply as a way of showing their frustration with Mark. Sorry, councilpeople, we elected you to use your best efforts to serve the city, not your petulant emotions to punish it.
As for my opinions of Beth Gottstein and Cathy Jolly and several other members of the nasty nine, they are fine councilpeople who make a reckless, stupid mistake.
Is it possible that they didn't act stupidly/recklessly, and just honestly disagree with your position?
No.
Have you discussed this with Beth?
Please keep chatting about me!!!
Anonymous 5:57 - We briefly mentioned it the last time we spoke, but we moved on pretty rapidly to the many areas we agree on, and where she is doing a great job exercising leadership for the city. She knows where I stand on Cauthen.
Tony - I figured a couple oblique references to you were the least I could do - you've devoted lengthy posts to me lately, while I've only mentioned you in passing. I see that you've been kind of desperate for comments and traffic, so I do what I can to help.
Did you discuss the Nelson dispute with the neighborhood regarding the tennis club?
guess not
Glad you enjoyed NY. What about this thread?
Post a Comment
<< Home