Should I Be Feeling Guilty? Because I'm Not Feeling it . . .
This morning, I did a post about an email that my friend Beth Gottstein sent to the Executive Committee of the CCP to urge that committee to reject the findings of its own selection committee, and endorse Amy Coffman for the 44th District instead of Jason Kander.
It appears that my post may have upset Ms. Gottstein.
I just read over the post again, and I'm kind of at a loss. Nothing in my post is inaccurate. Nothing in my post is slanderous. Nothing in my post criticizes Amy Coffman (whom I genuinely like) or Beth. I did say she was trying to hijack the process, but it's obviously accurate that she was trying to change the result at the last minute. Maybe hijack was a strong word, but not as strong as the words I've had directed at me this evening . . .
Now, that said, I do feel a little sheepish that I asked whether the Executive Committee would "follow Beth's endorsement, or support the work of its own screening committee". I should have mentioned that the third possibility is that they could vote their own opinions, which was the flamingly obvious course they in fact chose. It turns out that Amy Coffman won the support of a majority of the Executive Committee. (I did not arrive at the meeting in time to vote.)
The real CCP endorsements come after the entire membership votes in June. The CCP has a solid process - I look forward to seeing how this all works out.
Labels: 44th District, Amy Coffman, Beth Gottstein, blogging, CCP, Jason Kander
posted by Dan at 5/28/2008 07:49:00 PM
68 Comments:
I wouldn't worry about it, Danny Boy. I heard the language she was using and the volume - so did everyone else within a couple blocks. You showed a lot of class by not responding in kind.
Dan,
The reason Jason lost was because he lied. He lied to Clem Whitman. And Clem Whitman went around Jeff City retelling and believing Jason's lie.
Then Clem realized that Jason had misled him, and he was stained with Jason's dishonesty.
That's is when Clem proclaimed publicly "Jason is a lying sack of shit". Lots of witnesses, Danny boy.
Clem had every reason to be mad, and he was justified to feel the way he did. Jason Kander lied to the UAW and to Clem Whitman.
That summarizes the reason why Jason lost. It's the reason why just about every elected official in their viccinity is lined up against them.
And punching Beth Gottstein did you a lot of good, right Dan?
You are anything but a class act, especially when you make statements like "everything I said was accurate". With statements like that you're in pretty sleazy company.
Next time, Dan, why don't you STFU.
Doesn't matter how you try to backpedal now, you've punched a fundamentally nice, good-hearted person in the gut, in front of everybody.
You have absoluterly no class.
That's funny, moron whisperer. I'll let you know when the candidates reach your level of insight. I'm sure that just about every elected democrat in the area will be asking for a retraction of my support.
Including Beth.
what a shame, I know Dan was a Gottstein supporter, and to turn on her like that?
You guys really eat your own
I still am a Gottstein supporter. She's doing a good job on City Council. But if she wants to mix it up in other races, I'm not going to squelch my own opinions.
Um, Dan. That was my point.
I have Weds 2-3 pm open. First consultation is free.
Republican Dan - too true. And the funny thing is, just about everyone agrees that the 44th is a race between 3 great candidates.
Whisperer - you're not making any sense, are you?
We're sitting around here, drinking a beer after the vote and listening to a little U2, and discussing the situation. We were curious Dan about your comment:
"It's a confusing little note, and the fact that it got sent out in the wee hours of this morning suggests it is a sort of last-minute hail-mary attempt to hijack the process without allowing adequate time for a response..."
We are discussing why her note of support would require a response? As Jackson County Democrats we are unaware of this custom...
Please explain.
Best Regards,
Wenn das Bier 75. Straße genießt
Thank you for the best regards! Good to see some other Dems with class - I'll happily buy you a beer at 75th "strasse" sometime soon.
You're quite right - there's no tradition of dueling letters of support. That's one of the reasons that the latenight missive struck me as so odd - why did she feel the need at three in the morning to suddenly seek to persuade us with a blast email? The whole thing struck me as odd, especially coming from someone who had earlier voiced an intention to stay out of the race.
I described this whole thing as a "micro-drama" this morning. I was right about it being "micro" in terms of its meaning - good God, this isn't even the real endorsement! But the drama has certainly not been micro, has it?
I'm beginning to understand why smart people stay out of local politics.
How's the IPA? They just put in on tap on Monday.
you would be better off drinking beers at the 75th Street brewery than blogging in favor of liars.
By the way Dan. Have you noticed that your sheriff's candidate had to take down a major endorsement from his web site? Bullard finally took down the endorsement from Congressman Cleaver that he never had. Cleaver finally had to order him to take down the unauthorized use of his name.
What is your attraction to liars Dan?
I appreciate the advice, doc, and I'll certainly be visiting 75th Street in the near future.
I don't support liars, though. Bullard fixed an error based on a prior endorsement by Cleaver - no biggie, as far as I see it. If you want to flog that dead horse, go ahead, though.
I'm still not sure what the deal is with Coffman's Prius. Frankly, I don't pay that much attention to cars, and I think the whole issue is much ado about nothing. As far as I can piece it together, Jason may have claimed that Amy bought a Ford Escape right before a UAW meeting, when, apparently, she bought it right before filing for the race? Is that what is causing people such turmoil?
I really don't know much about it, and I haven't talked to Amy or Jason about it. It seems kind of trivial, doesn't it?
How did you hear that your post may have upset Ms. Gottstein?
Perhaps Beth is too thin-skinned to be in politics.
Anonymous 9:05 -
Beth made her unhappiness with me quite clear in a loud and linguistically impressive manner. I showed up at the meeting in time to interrupt a tirade, and provide a live target for a fresh one.
Isn't she usually more professional than that?
Absolutely, she is almost always more professional than that. She was angry because she thought I had exposed the CCP and her to unfair criticism, and reacted strongly. While I don't think the reaction was warranted, I understand and even respect where it came from.
Have you talked to (or corresponded by e-mail with) her today?
So Dan launches an unprovoked attack on Gottstein, and then tries to act noble in not asking for an apology from her when she (correctly) chastises him for it.
This is truly the democratic "no spin" zone. They both have Irish surnames, after all. The O'Dan Factor.
Dan is building quite an interesting portfolio of accomplishments in the political world.
75 -
Where's the unprovoked attack? I pointed out that she launched a last-minute attempt to influence the vote, which she certainly did.
Humorously, she claimed not to have even read the post that made her so angry . . .
How did she phrase her response it if she allegedly didn't read it? (Or did she claim that someone told her about the post?)
She claimed her Blackberry was jammed with people emailing her about it.
Clem Whitman was and has always been a Coffman supporter. So be candid "rare and "honest" catholic".
Coffman drove a prius until she decided to run. So all the sudden she was reminded of what it meant to be Pro-American Auto Worker?
If she is so experienced in politics and labor causes shouldn't she have known that when she was a lobbyist?
Amy surrendered her prius two weeks after filing for office, and one of her supporters is using bad language to slander her opponent?
This is something you're bragging about?
Really?
Jason lied to me.
Lol Kander supporters like to switch the subject. Like the catholic said - quit trying to change the subject.
Allow me to quote my anonymous but insightful commenter:
"Amy surrendered her prius two weeks after filing for office, and one of her supporters is using bad language to slander her opponent?
This is something you're bragging about?
Really?"
Now, it appears that you would prefer to question the credentials of a volunteer soldier who served in an intelligence capacity. While Amy was "serving" as a lobbyist. Please, think carefully - is this the issue you want to raise? Does Amy agree with this line of attack?
Uncle John, send more money to those committees. I really screwed up.
Thanks
I fear I may have been over-subtle with my question about Amy's approval of the slimy attacks on a patriot. My point is, of course Amy is not launching any such attack. She, I am confident, would be horrified to be tied to that kind of conduct.
Just like SSideDem says ridiculous and offensive things purporting to support Jason, Amy is burdened by slimy anonymous "supporters" who make disgusting, baseless attacks.
Thank goodness both candidates are better than their supporters (and I should mention that Mary Spence is a fine person, too, who apparently doesn't have any slimeballs posting stupid, anonymous comments on her behalf).
"Jason is a lying sack of shit"
Does any other candidate have the distinction of that salutation?
And you're taking the Cheney path of "if you question our military, you're unpatriotic". That should work well for you
:o)
Jason is now a publicly confirmed liar. This guy is trouble.
And why does everybody avoid that very obvious issue that this guy photographs himself in combat gear for ALL of his campaign photos, but he was never in combat?
Crazy. Politics attracts the crazies.
Dan, did you attack Beth Gottstein for supporting Amy? How would you exactly characterize your post on her endorsement of of Amy?
keep up the good work. You earned employee-of-the-month 3 times in 07 and I'm thinking, the old "fig leaf" award may be coming your way in 'o8.
*wink*
Let's break it down here, Anonymous 11:04. I hesitate to dignify your baseless attacks with a reasonable response, but I'm feeling generous today.
You ask whether any candidate has been called a foul name. First off, I haven't heard Jason called that name by anyone who is not anonymously commenting on a blog. Second, I think that kind of language reflects poorly on the campaign using it. Thirdly, it appears, from what I can piece together, that the much-ballyhooed "lie" was that Coffman bought a Ford Escape two weeks after she filed for office instead of two days before the UAW screening. That's a pretty weak and unflattering "lie" for Coffman fans to be propagating.
Now, Jason's military service. Wow. Nobody disputes the fact that he signed up for the National Guard after 9/11. Nobody disputes the fact that he went to Afghanistan on intelligence missions. Nobody disputes the fact that his review included the following: ""Second Lieutenant (2LT) Kander is an outstanding leader and a superb intelligence officer … his hard work directly resulted in arresting enemies and saving lives … leading by example, 2LT Kander volunteered as a shooter [and commander] on several convoys, one of the only officers to volunteer for force protection duty … he improved intelligence support to information operations by joining a psyop special operations team on a four day mission … his contributions will have a lasting and positive effect [in Afghanistan] for many years … track this officer's career closely; he is one of the best."
Now, maybe you can read that and decide that what he really did was stay on a base most of the time and clean latrines. I, on the other hand, understand that Jason cannot and should not provide me with a thorough accounting of every action undertaken in an intelligence outfit during a war in a hostile land which is ongoing.
Furthermore, even if he were cleaning latrines in Afghanistan instead of serving as a "shooter" and joining 4 day psyop missions, I'd still be proud to support him and I'd still respect his service. And, yeah, I do think those who are taking anonymous, cowardly cheapshots at a returning soldier are unpatriotic, and, yeah, I do think that returning soldiers should get respect from those of us who didn't volunteer. Apparently that sentiment is absent from some who claim to be on Coffman's side.
Finally, you claim that "this guy photographs himself in combat gear for ALL of his campaign photos". What a silly and demonstrably false charge! Go to his website. Look at his issues page, which is far more substantive than any other candidate's. Indeed, look at all the pages - you'll see that the only photographs of Jason in military apparel are in the Bio section, where Jason writes about his military service in the context of the rest of his life of service.
Anonymous comment sections attract the crazies. I feel kind of tainted by even addressing your disgusting post, but I hope the other commenters will benefit from seeing exactly how baseless and how slimy your anonymous attacks are.
Anonymous 11:06 -
Good question, and one that gets to the heart of the matter.
No, I did not attack Beth Gottstein. I criticized her tactic, and attempted to minimize its effect, but there is nothing in there critical of Beth. I disagreed with what she did, just as she disagrees with me on several major issues.
Now, maybe that is a subtle distinction, and it could easily be lost by Beth if, as she claimed, she did not take the time to read the post. But I get criticized all the time here, and I am accustomed to distinguishing personal attacks from criticism of my posts (some of which deserve the criticism). One of my very best friends often calls me up or emails me or meets me for a glass of wine to tell me how misguided my analysis is. Once in a while, she's right. And once in a while, I'll admit it.
I've never understood the "my candidate, right or wrong" standard. If people expect that from me, they are bound to be disappointed.
Anon 11:04 -
You can attack a candidate's honesty - that is fair game. (Here, I think the attack is pretty weak, but that is just one opinion.)
But you have no right to criticize or denigrate a candidate's military service. I don't care if, as Dan writes, Kander cleaned latrines 24/7 in Afghanistan. The point is he volunteered for service. He sacrificed years that could have been spent building a family, establishing a career, or just enjoying life as a 20-something. You did not make that sacrifice, and you are in no position to criticize. So, for the sake of everyone, shut up.
I am struggling to look at this objectively. It is difficult.
Dan said:
"..I think that kind of language reflects poorly on the campaign using it."
A campaign didn't say that. The statement calling Kander a liar was made by a person associated with the UAW.
"...it appears, from what I can piece together, that the much-ballyhooed "lie" was that Coffman bought a Ford Escape two weeks after she filed for office instead of two days before the UAW screening."
That is a totally wrong characterization. My understanding is that Jason told the UAW that Coffman had purchased her Ford car two days prior to her screening, in his screening. That was not true, and was a false statement obviously intentioned to undermine Coffman's credibility. Making false statements for political motives is the issue, and it matters not whether Coffman purchased her car two months or two years prior to the screening.
As far as Jason's military service, his isn't really relevant to the campaign. This is a State house rep seat, and military service is certainly not a pre-requisite or required experience to be successful in office.
I will say, however, that a candidate's full record should be subject to scrutiny. I think that makes common sense.
Objectively, it seems to this Spence supporter that Whitman has not spread that characterization here - that has been done by those who appear to support Coffman. Objectively, Coffman's campaign (or those supporting it) is using the quote.
Objectively, if you care what kind of car a candidate drives (though I don't), it undermines Coffman just as much to have "gone American" two weeks after filing as two days before screening, doesn't it? It still shows a lack of commitment to labor.
Objectively, Kander and Coffman's supporters seem to spend a lot of time knocking each other, while we on the Spence side are running a nice, positive, clean campaign. I think I see where the leadership lies.
So why would Beth get upset without actually reading the post?
This isn't about commitment to labor, this is about Jason Kander lying for political gain.
Kander's defenders seem to think that changing the subject, or worse, saying it was a "small lie", is an effective defense.
It's not. It is yet another instance that further establishes a troubling pattern of behavior for Jason and Diana.
Anon at 12:13 p.m. -- Agree completely! Thanks for one of the more lucid posts on this topic.
I thought it was about attacking Jason Kander's military service, without any basis in fact.
Or is it only Coffman supporters who get to change the topic?
(Change it like changing to American-made cars two weeks after filing . . .)
Actually, it's about whether I should have felt guilty about questioning Beth's attempt to influence the endorsement process.
I don't have much power, but I do get to define the topics of my posts, at least.
Shouldn't you ask Beth's permission before posting about her?
Shouldn't you submit your writing to the city government before publishing it?
Anon 2:46 -- why would you do that?
Same reason someone would need permission to write about a city councilperson's political activities.
You don't.
So, just read a bunch of the fanatic postings on either side of this argument. I'm new to it all and this race, as I live in Kansas. It seems like you all need to grow up, on both sides. All you posting during the afternoon, do you even have jobs?
Dan believes women should not speak unless they agree with him.
I'm gonna have to say a few words here, Dan.
I can't weigh in on whether her communication to the exec commmittee was ethically in the public domain or not. Let's assume for the moment it was.
You did criticize her opinion itself by saying she didn't offer good enough reasons per se, which is ok. I'm fine with that.
However, you also criticized her timing and characterized her intent as an intent to "hijack" things at the last moment. You also highlighted the day part in which she sent the email to further bolster your "hi-jacking" metaphor. Your ultimate intent at the moment in time you wrote the post was to attribute less-than-honourable motives to the councilperson.
And I do not think you had the knowledge of Beth's intent behind her timing and words, when you wrote your post.
I think you were ultra-hyped just prior to the vote, and you may have over reacted. Beth doesn't have that much pull where one email from her will throw the whole thing.
My hope is that, as a long-time Gottstein supporter in the heat of political polemics you have not betrayed a personal trust between you and Beth. I believe Beth's a fundamentally good person, her motives are fair, she's far from perfect, and I like her votes on council.
And I believe that you came close, and probably crossed the line in your initial post.
Just sayin'...
May I chime in?
I have just finished reading through all of this and have just a few things to add.
Dan, this is your blog, you can write whatever you like. however, you must already know that when it is offensive (intentionally or not), it will bring out the nastiness in others. I don't know if you should feel guilty. If Beth is your friend as you claim, then you probably should feel a little bad for your insinuations..regardless, it won't be solved here on the blog.
As for Jason...he served this country, that much is clear and for that I am(and my family is) extremely grateful. My husband served in the Navy during "peace" time and though he never saw the front lines or was in imminent danger, his service was still for this country.
I too have been appalled by some of the comments regarding this issue, and find them very spiteful. Do we have the right to know what Jason did? That's definitely a fair question. I don't know how much we should know, but certainly it's fair to ask.
As for Amy, ya'll are really working the spin on this. So, for the record, the Escape's transfer of registration is from their Jeep Cherokee (American made). The timing of the purchase was based on my schedule. That was my 1st day off to go and look for cars, Amy and Jay waited to make their purchase with me because my father-n-law offered them the opportunity to purchase on the friends plan. (He works at the Claycomo plant), so we all went together. It's very simple, no conniving and manipulating as has been suggested here. Sorry that I was unable to buy before her filing, but as shocking as it may be...not everything in my life revolves around this campaign...unfortunately or fortunately the same cannot be said for my sister. But regarding this car issue, ENOUGH already...she bought it, she drives it! Period.
It's a simple fact that the manipulating came from your guy, Jason. He told the UAW that Amy didn't own the vehicle at all, that he would even offer proof by going by her house and taking a picture (creepy)...but damn the luck when he drove up with his camera and there was the Ford Escape (and by the way, if it hadn't been there, that would have meant that she was out, driving in it). So anyway, he goes back and says oh, well she must have only bought it two days ago... so whether or not he intentionally lied to set the UAW against Amy, or he just miserably failed in gathering his facts..what he did was inexcusable and that is what everyone is angered about.
I don't know Jason personally, I can't say whether or not he has what it takes to someday become a great leader in government. However, it would appear that his desire to get ahead comes at the expense of others. That's not what is best for the people of the 44th district or anywhere else as far as that goes. Not now, not yet, and if his tactics don't change...not ever.
Cortney -
Respectfully, I think it's you that's doing the spinning here. The ultimate issue (and a silly issue it is, IMHO) is whether Amy is committed to "driving American". She apparently wasn't before she filed - and she apparently continues to own two foreign cars. She drove her Prius around, and that's fine with me, but not so much with the UAW.
So, she goes and gets herself a Ford Escape. That's super. It's a good vehicle from what I've read, and I would certainly look at one if I were buying a new vehicle. But, come on, tell me with a straight face that one of the key reasons for her to make the change (after filing for the race) was not to make herself more palatable to the union vote. Of course it was! You don't park your Prius and buy a new Escape just because you have too much money in the bank, do you?
Perhaps (and I wasn't there, and haven't had anyone who was talk to me about it) Jason mentioned Amy's Prius to the UAW. That would be legitimate, wouldn't it? Perhaps (same caveats) he had the precise details on the timing of her trade-in wrong. Would that really be "inexcusable"? Would that really mean that he is trying to get ahead at the expense of others, any more than you are trying to help Amy get ahead by trying to spin this incident into something much more than it is, or ever was?
Again, Cortney, notice whose partisans were the first to mention cars in this thread. Notice whose partisans have attacked Jason's military service. Notice whose partisans are eager to quote someone calling the other a lying sack of shit. And ask yourself who is trying to get ahead at the expense of others.
Seems like the lobbyist is not so pure . . .
OK, the time has come for me to personally to address the banter to nonsense that, in my opinion discredits Democrats, the democratic process, and purports the senseless world of blogging and the damage I believe it does to campaigning. Let’s begin with the facts:
Fact: I am from Missouri. I was born and raised here - January 19th, 1973 (yes that makes me 35 years old) at Spellman Memorial hospital in Smithville, Missouri. I was raised in Blue Springs, with my sister, Cortney, (whom you all have now heard from) and by my parents, Rose Mary (who worked for the Blue Spring School District) and David, (a retired elementary school principal in Raytown).
Fact: I went to Alaska to get my degree in linguistics. With 13 Alaska Native Languages, it was an amazing place to receive such a degree.
Fact: I worked in the Alaska State Legislature. I served as the Chief of Staff for the House Democratic Leader.
Fact: I returned home to Kansas City in May of 2005. I was ready to be near my family and in the City that has always been home.
Fact: I worked for AARP Missouri a non-profit organization focused on issues facing aging Americans. Yes, part of my job was influencing public policy which required me to register as a lobbyist. I enjoyed teaching my volunteers how to work with legislators and other non-profit advocacy groups on issues such as - Health Care, Long Term Independence, Consumer Protection, and Voting Rights. I am proud of the successes we had while I worked for AARP. We made Long Term Care safer, worked to restore health care to thousands of Missourians and protected millions of consumers from increased utility rates.
Fact: My sister and I own a business teaching children healthy lifestyles and proper eating habits. This is important to me since I have struggled with weight issues my entire life - something many of you on this blog have taken the time to point out.
Fact: I drove a 1994 Jeep at the beginning of 2007. In July of 2007, I was worried, with starting a new business and a campaign, that with its more than 150,000 miles it might not last until August of 2008. My sister’s father-in-law works at the Ford Plant and was able to add us to his friends plan to buy matching vehicles for our business at a much reduced cost.
Fact: It was confirmed to me by first-hand witnesses that one of my opponents walked into the UAW, AFT, SEIU, and the Progressive Vote Coalition and spread lies about me to undermine my credibility with them. Everyone makes mistakes, but if this was indeed a misstatement he has yet to apologize to me personally, or to correct his error with these respected organizations.
My commitment to the working people of Missouri goes well beyond the car I drive. I am committed to having friendly and safe work environments for all Missourians which is why the Missouri AFL-CIO decided to give me their endorsement - not always given in primary battles.
I know that we can give this district the representation and campaign that it deserves. I will continue to run an honest and positive campaign focused on my strengths and vision, not personal attacks against my opponents. I ask that they do the same.
Amy,
Welcome to my blog. I'm puzzled by what you meant when you wrote "purports the senseless world of blogging", but I am grateful that in your listing of facts, you did not contradict a single fact that I have posted. Not one.
Seems like this blog is not part of the senseless world you describe, after all.
Since you want to stick to factual matters, let me ask just a couple questions.
Question: Did you drive a Prius in 2007?
Question: Did you buy a Ford Escape before or after you filed for office?
Now, if you answer those two questions, I'll do you the favor of serving you an absolute softball of a question that I ask with the utmost respect and sincerity. What is the most significant policy difference between you and Jason Kander, and why is your position the correct one?
I don't want the dialog with Amy to be distracted or buried by a thread of anonymous comments, so I'm going to respectfully delete them to facilitate Amy's responses.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
uh...while i'm on vacation, i do tend to read a blog or two. noticed in comments that you seem to be addressing me as a anonymous snarky commentor.
just to set the record straight: snarky, even haughty I may be, anonymous, never. that was not me.
cheers.
Why does Doc get to post here when you are deleting any other posts?
Anonymous - I probably should have posted an update. Amy has decided not to respond, so there's no longer any point to trying to preserve a place for her response. If she changes her mind, I'll put it on the front page, rather than in the comments.
Kander the Panderer!!!
Does that mean we can go back to discussing Beth?
What do you think of Tony's post
Post a Comment
<< Home