Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Will the CCP Executive Committee Do Beth's Bidding?

Here's an interesting little micro-drama that will run its course today.

In the wee hours of this morning, Beth Gottstein wrote an email to the Executive Committee of the CCP, expressing her opinion that it should ignore the work of its own candidate screening committee. That committee, composed of volunteers without ties to any candidate, chose to endorse Jason Kander for the 44th District. As readers here know, Jason is a great Democrat with a long history of Democratic involvement in the Kansas City community, and I support him enthusiastically.

Beth offers no real reason to ignore the work of the screening committee, other than noting that she met Amy Coffman when Amy moved to Kansas City from Alaska. Beth alludes to the fact that Amy is a woman, but fails to explain why those who prefer to avoid Y chromosomes should not support Mary Spence.

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. Beth's fellow councilwoman, Jan Marcason, is supporting Jason Kander, but apparently isn't choosing to campaign for him at 3 in the morning.

The CCP Executive Committee gets to decide this evening if it will follow Beth's endorsement, or support the work of its own screening committee.

Which will it be?

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan - I'm sure you will let us know how it all works out based upon your attendance.

5/28/2008 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan - your post makes it sound like you think that if the Executive Committee doesn't rubber stamp the screening committee's recommendation, it's not doing its job. I think the reverse is true.

People are entitled to see things differently than the 4 or 5 people who did the initial screenings -- just like the 130 other members of CCP might see things differently when they vote on 6/4. Remember McCaskill v. Holden? This is the process of debate that goes on in CCP -- something I'd think you'd be encouraging.

What is it about urging others to support your candidate that makes Councilwoman Gottstein's e-mail a "last-minute hail-mary attempt to hijack the process?" Councilwoman Gottstein, Rep. Low, Sen. Justus and others have been supporting Amy for some time, just as you have been supporting Jason. If the shoe were on the other foot, and Amy had gotten the screening committee's recommendation, would you be content to stand by and let the next two votes go her way as well? I doubt it.

5/28/2008 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Voted for Gamble, anyhow said...

I don't have any problem with Beth telling anyone who she supports. I just can't imagine why anyone would care . . .

It is funny, though, that she tried her hand at late-night subterfuge. It will probably do Coffman more harm than good, don't you think?

5/28/2008 1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

will you post the ccp endorsements immediately following the meeting?

5/28/2008 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, what a misguided post.

So Beth doesn't have the right to voice her opinion? It was well within any sense of decorum for her to do such a thing.

This is yet another extension of the Kander hit machine/parade. Coming from the same camp/candidate who lied, and told the UAW Amy just purchased her Ford car two days before the UAW screening, which was 100% wrong.

Birds of a feather....

You're an asshole, Dan.

5/28/2008 4:16 PM  
Anonymous The Soul of Walter Reuther said...

Dan you ignorant slut.

If Kander was worth supporting in this election he would have talked about his merits rather than slandering Amy Coffman at the UAW. It is the measure of the boy that he chose to tell a several big lies instead.

Beth Gottstein is down right goofy at times, and who knows what she was doing at her computer at the wee-small hours (and I refuse to form a mental picture of that), but Dan she is right and you are wrong.

I was watching over a PROVOTE meeting recently where the venerable UAW Representative Clem Whitman, put it best: "Jason Kander is a lying sack of shit."

Kander lied to one of my Locals, and then tried to lie his way out of it when he was caught in the lie.

"Jason the Liar" goes down to defeat in June at the CCP and in August.

With this kind of public record of dishonesty, it is hard to believe he will be an officer or a licensed lawyer for very long.

5/28/2008 4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didrex without a prescription
Ambien Online

5/28/2008 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan -

You have a point. It would be nice if endorsements were based on merit rather than politics. If, based on merit, the screening committee thought Kander was the best candidate, I would hope that accounts for something with the rest of the CCP.

5/28/2008 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


So what is the motive for this post? Many other people have contacted the CCP exec committee, via phone, in-person and email. I'm nottracking the times they called, wrote or spoke btw.

Why single out Beth? And highlight the time it was written? What is the significance of highlighting the time the email was sent? Explain that please, you smearing coward.

Obviously your motive was to discredit her. What a horrible example you set for politics and the blogosphere. And by the way, I find nothing wrong with the time it was sent.

This is interesting.

Clem Whitman did call Jason Kander "A lying sack of shit" in front of God and everybody at the PROVOTE meeting.

That is true.

He said that because Jason lied to the UAW, and jason's lies traveled all the way to Jeff City.

Kander smears Coffman. By lying.

Dan smears Beth, through cowardly innuendo.

What a nice crowd you hang with, Dan. You & Jason are lying and smearing your way to an election loss. That much is clear.

Keep up the good work, coward.

5/28/2008 5:53 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wow - this is some funny and awful stuff.

Let me start with the last commenter. Nobody else has contacted me to try to get me to ignore the advice of the selection committee. Nobody. Not by telephone, not by email, not by 3 a.m. text message.

So, yeah, Beth's late-night email stood out.

Now, you want to know why I mention the timing of it. Don't you find it odd that she waited until hours before the meeting to express herself, depriving Jason's fans of the opportunity to respond? The selection committee met almost a month ago - why didn't she see fit to voice her perspective earlier? Doesn't that seem odd to you?

I've not heard Jason tell a single lie about Coffman (nor have I heard Coffman tell a single lie about Jason - this appears to be a case where the candidates far outshine their supporters.)

Finally, you call me a coward. What did I do that was cowardly?

While you're at it, tell me where I slandered Beth. She tried to influence the process, and that's the absolute truth. So did I.

5/28/2008 7:48 PM  
Anonymous Lance Weber said...

Interesting how many people called Dan a coward but failed to post their real names. Nice. Pot, meet kettle.

5/28/2008 8:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is wrong with sending e-mail late night / early morning? Or is your issue more with the proximity to the vote?

5/29/2008 2:43 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous - yes, the real issue was the small window between the email and the vote. As you demonstrate, good commentary is not limited to business hours.

5/29/2008 5:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home