Sunday, June 08, 2008

Amy Coffman Disdains the "Senseless World of Blogging"

Candidate for 44th District Missouri State Representative Amy Coffman visited this blog last week to set the record straight on a side issue (she agreed with every fact I had set forth) for the campaign. To preface her remarks, though, she explained that "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."

Huh? Or, rather, how typical.

Shrugging off the hostility bristling in her comment, I served up a nice big softball and invited Ms. Coffman to tell me and my readers "What is the most significant policy difference between you and Jason Kander, and why is your position the correct one?" This weekend, in a tremendously kind and classy note, Ms. Coffman politely declined the opportunity to answer (as is her right, by all means).

Think about that.

Why would a candidate refuse an opportunity to deliver her most substantive message to thousands of politically-interested readers, many of whom will be voting in her race?

I will go ahead and speculate that the reason has to do with a desire to avoid "the senseless world of blogging and the damage I believe it does to campaigning".

Personally, I think it takes a lot of chutzpah for a lobbyist to accuse you, me and everyone else involved in the world of blogging of discrediting "Democrats, [and] the democratic process." But, I suppose it makes some sense from the perspective of the lobbying community. The uncontrolled and unpaid-for voice of public opinion is a theoretical threat to those whose business is conducted quietly by people who are paid to go to Jefferson City and make things happen. A blog post by some uncredentialed yahoo in his or her living room could undo a deal painstakingly constructed over countless lunches and dinners in the booths of Jefferson City's finest restaurants.

Perhaps, though, the discomfort with blogging comes from a concern that it coarsens the level of debate. As one who sometimes gets frustrated by the anonymice who spew unsupported venom in the comments sections, I understand the concern. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen an anonymous comment unload the profanity I saw directed at me by one of Ms. Coffman's most ardent supporters in person a couple weeks ago. Anybody who has been around political types knows that the gossip, trash-talk and cruelty dished out at a cocktail party could make blog commenters blush.

What's remarkable, though, is that the distrust and hostility toward blogs and those that read them has led a local candidate to refuse such a great opportunity, and to write so negatively about those of us who participate in the "senseless world of blogging". Some of us vote, and many of us host yard signs. Why would she accuse us all of discrediting the democratic process, when we're only trying to participate?

Amy Coffman was offered an opportunity to present her message to thousands of potential voters, but she refused. More disturbingly, she has voiced concern that those of us who read and write blogs are "discrediting the democratic process", but she refused the opportunity to elevate the level of debate by setting forth "the most significant policy difference between you and Jason Kander, and why is your position the correct one?"

I agree with Ms. Coffman that there is nastiness in the blogosphere, just as there is in the world of political insiders. I'm proud that I offered her an opportunity to rise above the nastiness, and saddened that she refused that opportunity, and that she voices such disdain for the rest of us.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous R. Speck said...

Dan you are about to get your goofy-ass kicked off the CCP Executive Committee because of your mean-spirited, personal attacks upon fellow CCP members and local political leaders. Learn from the experience Dan, you dumb shit.

Amy Coffman, what the Hell are you doing even sinking to the depths of writing to this guy for?

Dan shills for bigots(Funkhouser/Squitero) and liars (Kander/Bullerd and others). When one or more of his chosen candidates or officeholders proves to engage in hate or dishonesty, Dan spins yarns of alternative reality to defend them. Dan reminds me of the Dennis Hopper character in Apocalypse Now who said: "Your looking at the heads aren't you? Well the Man is a genius who sometimes gets carried away!"

It is not like you can reason with Dan anymore than you can reason with David Duke or the Ghost of Richard Nixon. Do not expect fair treatment from Dan, and do not give him the time of day.

Leave the likes of Dan to the mental degenerates (like us) who observe his sociopath-like disturbances on a regular basis. We have have hardened to both his behavior and to treating him with the disdain he deserves.

We lack the basic human virtues that stay the application of cruelty of the kind Dan needs to feel. Leave it to the professionals who know that Dan is so fucked in the head that he does not deserve the respect of civility. BARK Dan -- you dog boy!

You just don't get it Amy.

6/09/2008 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, what makes you think anybody owes your blog anything? Do you really take yourself so seriously that you call for a candidate, whom you oppose, in question for not commenting on your blog?

Your blog means nothing in the smaller scheme of things, much less the larger. I suggest you get your mind oriented to the real world.

You could lose alot of your self-importance.

Stick to posting recipes.

6/09/2008 9:16 AM  
Anonymous DKC said...

The blogging world has frequently been ahead of the traditional press in exposing evildoers and their schemes. Maybe that's what she fears... after all she already lives in the senseless world of lobbying.

6/09/2008 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read and then re-read Coffman's post. It doesn't make any damn sense. "The time has come for me to personally to address the banter to nonsense." "Purports the senseless world of blogging." Can someone tell me what in the hell this means?

One of my main gripes with the General Assembly is that legislators do not write clear statutes that can be understood. Coffman, if elected, would only perpetuate this problem.

Come on. A basic requirement to elected office should be that the person can write comprehensibly.

6/09/2008 10:15 AM  
Blogger les said...

It doesn't get any better than this--an incoherent, English as a second language blast at the dreaded blogosphere, and then a coarse, stupid and intolerant from a supporter of the blaster! "purports the senseless world," forsooth! If I didn't know Dan better, I'd think he made the whole thing up as a spoof.

6/09/2008 11:45 AM  
Blogger les said...

Yikes--followed by a comment with a word missing ("intolerant comment). We demand an edit button!!!

6/09/2008 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Kander supporters - keep on talking amongst yourselves. lol.

Oh, and keep up that tradition of lying. You know that tradition? Like when Jason lied to the UAW recently, and was called out publicly as a liar.

Here's a multiple choice question for all of you wonderful, light-hearted Kander supporters:

"Jason Kander is a lying sack of shit"

Who said that at a recent PROVOTE meeting?

(1) Matt Blunt
(2) Clem Whitman of the UAW
(2) Jeff Roe

I'll provide the answer when all of the votes are in.

6/09/2008 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Doc said...

"...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."

The above is quite possibly the most poorly constructed sentence I have read in over a year.

It says absolutely nothing in and of itself. It does, however, speak volumes about the author's A) ability to reason and B) ability to communicate that reasoning.

Based upon that quote alone the massive resources of WNBTv will be aligned squarely behind Mr. Kander.

6/09/2008 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

State reps don't have to be the best and the brightest, though that would be nice. But is too much to ask that they be able to write?

And this isn't an isolated incident for Coffman.

Please tell me that substance and merit still matter in politics.

6/09/2008 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a silly, partisan blog, interesting in the same way a car accident is.

Please tell me that a blog comment, especially on this blog, matters. It doesn't.

And the commenter above was correct - this is a bunch of Kander supporters poking away at nothing, talking to themselves. Tell you what, Kander supporters, keep focusing on blog comments. Keep focusing on things that don't matter, and we'll worry about the real campaign.

What really matters is the truth about the candidates - a truth that will never come out in this silly, partisan blog.

You Kander supporters are really a bunch of blabbering idiots.

6/09/2008 1:02 PM  
Blogger Faith said...

I'm not big on the political mumbo-jumbo, as you well know, Dan. But I just had to speak up and say I find it fascinating how many of these nasty name-calling comments come from people who hide behind the anonymous tag.


6/09/2008 1:22 PM  
Blogger Dan said...


Do you think they're intimidated because I'm such a big tough guy?


6/09/2008 1:33 PM  
Anonymous whistleblowme said...

Anonymous 1:02, if the comments are so unimportant, why did Amy Coffman post one on this blog? If you're focused on the important things in this campaign, how come Amy is getting her butt kicked in fundraising, and she only has about 5 yard signs up, compared to hundreds for Kander?

6/09/2008 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Keep focusing on things that don't matter, and we'll worry about the real campaign."

Latest Fundraising numbers:

Kander $111,795 raised ($51,450 on hand)

Coffman $35,510 raised ($18,879 on hand)

Spence $12,089 raised ($8,992 on hand)

KC Mike

6/09/2008 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coffman can have all the endorsements in the world. But endorsements don't vote; voters do.

6/09/2008 3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the Kander people are a little, shall we say, rattled?

Why this post and the elaborate attacks on blog comments?

I think we have a campaign, and a set of Kander supporters, trying to make some news after that big CCP defeat. I mean, it's not like Amy has lied to the UAW (or others) or anything.


Keep shaking the bushes!!!

6/09/2008 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Dustin said...

I think that your quite opinionated and that's what I appreciate. I know that when I come here and read, that I am getting one side of it. You're not a reporter, don't consider being one, I value your opinions.

R. Speck. - You have quite the mouth, lemme guess, you're a union worker?

6/09/2008 6:33 PM  
Anonymous ray ray said...

Kander will blow them both away. Mark it down. Superior candidate, superior cash raising, superior campaign. Just drive around on sidestreets and see the 'signs' of his door to door/hard work.

It wont be close.

6/09/2008 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I got an Amy lie in the mail today.

I got a letter claiming that Amy is "the only candidate in her race who is a product of public higher education."

Mary Spence's website says that she has a masters from UMKC.

Last time I checked, that was public.

Does Amy plan to apologize to Mary?

6/09/2008 8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You kandanistas are pathetic. Who ever opined that the kandanistas are threatened big time is very correct.

This post is a pretty lame hit piece, up there with the hit piece on Gottstein.

Dan and assorted other kandanistas: you're not changing anybody's mind, and you are proving how at risk the Kander campaign is right now.

Oh, and to that moron anon above - when I tell people I went to public school, I never have to explain the fact I went to a public high school, ever.

Nice desperate attempt to accuse your opponent of lying, kansdanista. For it to stick, Amy is really going to have to tell a whopper and get stigmatized by it, just like Kander did.

If I was Jason I would be very nervous, especially after two big losses in a row.

6/09/2008 9:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon at 9:13,

Do you refer to "higher education" when you're talking about high school?

Also, I just reread the letter and my favorite line has to be where she laments MU's "inability to education enough students."


6/09/2008 9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 9:13 -

Umm. You don't need to inform people that you are the product of KC public schools. It is obvious by your writing.

6/09/2008 9:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


What an incredibly disingenuous piece to write. You feign objectivity when you are clearly a partisan.

After your prolonged defense of the co-Mayors, and your hit pieces associated with the defense of The Liar Kander, you're starting to get a rep as a very dishonest and strangely misguided person.

6/09/2008 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While Coffman racks up endorsements that will, at best, net her 200-250 votes, Kander is knocking on doors. If you talk to voters in the 44th and walk the blocks, you sense that Kander has momentum big time. He has been criticized for starting his campaign over two years ago. But Kander's efforts are clearly paying off.

I don't see Coffman or her supporters making up the lost ground, even with a deluge of negative mailers, which you have to assume are coming.

6/09/2008 9:30 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 9:26

That's hilarious. I have never denied that I'm supporting Jason. Why wouldn't I - he's always been the best candidate?

It's just as well that you remained anonymous - otherwise, you would be developing a reputation as horribly misguided person.

6/09/2008 9:30 PM  
Anonymous Seems like a fair question to me said...

Why won't Amy answer Dan's question?

6/09/2008 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does Amy diss people who comment on blogs?

6/09/2008 9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why won't anyone let Amy put up a yard sign?

6/09/2008 9:37 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

If she's afraid of Dan when he's being nice, how will she handle the big bad republicans in Jefferson City?

6/09/2008 9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

stfu blowme,

Afraid of a blogger? Afraid of Dan?

Tell me the people that are afraid of Dan.

Name them.

And you're not allowed to list the people he has endorsed. That's not fair.

what an ahole you are blowme.

6/09/2008 10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amy won't answer the question Dan posed because many of us have told her not to play Dan's game.

We only need one reason to vote for Amy over Jason. Jason is a lying sack of shit.

If you want one more reason; Amy has the life experiences gained by years. Jason, by any reasonable measure, has just entered the "real world". He was a student until a couple of years ago.

Tell Jason to grow up, learn to stop lying (although I doubt he will ever stop) and try again in about 10 years.

6/09/2008 10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason has had his law degree for what, 18 months? He's spent most of that time running for office.

6/09/2008 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Go ahead and call me names, first anonymous 10:05. It seems like you're afraid of Dan, since you won't use your name.

Second anonymous 10:05 - But why is it that you (apparently one of Amy's lobbyist WPC handlers) told her not to answer? And why would she listen to you? Isn't she smart enough to figure stuff like that out for herself? Where's the game, anyhow? What's wrong with setting out her main policy advantage over Jason? Is Dan so much smarter than her that it is some kind of sneaky trap that she can't even understand?

Also, you might want to check out the bio sections. Amy polished her nails while Jason fought for our country.

6/09/2008 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's why Jason got fired from the Montee Law Firm. Even the state's biggest collection ambulance chasers could not stomach lousy job performance.

6/09/2008 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He is too young...He has not paid his dues...He needs to play the game more. This is the same crap that was thrown at Obama, until he became our nominee.

Lincoln first ran for office at age 23 -- even before he began his law studies. Does anyone want to argue that Lincoln started too early?

No, I am not comparing Kander to Obama or Lincoln, except to prove the point that some of us mature more quickly than others. Many of our best leaders did not sit back and "wait their turn." Kander is ready.

And for those of you who have doubt, watch Kander and Coffman debate. Then tell me who is ready.

6/09/2008 10:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watch kander talk to screening committees.

6/09/2008 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure that Kander has had his law degree for a lot longer than Amy Coffman has lived in Kansas City, Missouri.

6/09/2008 10:37 PM  
Anonymous A Hawk said...

Kander is a clearly the more mature and prepared candidate for the job.

I am very mad at the poster who compared Jason to the John Bullard, who is a liar and a dog torturer. Bullard lied about having Congressman Cleaver's endorsement, and yes Dan did try to cover for that. But Jason has never done anything like that. Jason is the quarterback that every team looks for.

Jason should have never been compared to Bullard, even if the poster did not know how to spell Bullard's name. Bullard is a baffoon. Bullard cooked a dog in a car because he was too busy talking to see the dog was cooking alive on a hot day.

When you go to the polls on August 5 please vote for Jason Kander and Mike Mauer if you live in South Kansas City. Jason's credentials are spotless and the same is true of Mike Mauer. They are both the product of Catholic educations and they both deserve our vote.

6/09/2008 10:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are a lot more important things going on in the world, and it truly is a shame that all of you waste your time attacking each other here.

Typical politics. What a pathetic waste pit it has become.

Does it really make any of you feel that important? Or add to your stress? K

6/09/2008 11:29 PM  
Anonymous ha ha said...

anon 9:13

you must be confused "Hit piece on Gottstein". The Star called out Beth for her trash mailings the last 2 days of the election. They rarely call out a candidates hit pieces but they did hers.

Just a reality check for you.

6/10/2008 12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So tell me A Hawk, you insist on trashing the reputation of a tough, career cop in Independence with lies and yet your candidate is running a stealth campaign that only helps Mike Sharp. The voters have spoken on that dog story and you know it. Is Maurer really working for Sharp like Mary Spense is working for Kander? Did the two security guards meet at a Republican fundraiser? Let me give you a tip. On the night of August 5 go to the victory parties held by Amy Coffman and John Bullard and you will have a much better time. Stick with the winners.

6/10/2008 7:11 AM  
Anonymous A Hawk said...

Anon 7:11 cut the crap. First of all you are off topic, we are talking about why Amy Coffman chooses to attack Democratic values like blogging and not the sheriff's race.

However, there is a point that I need to correct in your stupid comment. The last thing that Mike Maurer would do is work in anyway with Sharp. Sharp thinks with the wrong head and we have documented proof of it.

Bullard is the one who needs to get out of the sheriff's race he has trouble on the campaign trail to match his trouble at home. It is Bullard who is just pulling enough votes according to scientific surveys to keep Sharp in the race.

That is dangerous to the safety of the county because the Sharp is likely to fill his sheriff's department with perverts. Friends of mine know alot about this guy now and the company he keeps. That is documented too. For instance that tub of lard manservant he runs around with who is as queer as a three dollar bill. I have seen pictures of that so-called married man going in to a gay bar on Main Street alone. Married guys do not do that but this guy looked very comfortable doing it in the pictures. He even stepped out side to take phone calls and got all dramatic. He even looked all weepy at one point. They must have been talking about Elton John or something and it got to him. Pictures do not lie. It was raining like hell but there was the man servant shashaying around on the stoop of a Main Street FruFru Palace like it was his own front porch. He had been there before. Is this the type of "guy" that Sharp wants to put in uniform?

There is no way that Mike Mauer would put up with any of this. Do not try to spin this wrong. I am not against the Homosexuals and I am sure Mike Mauer is too. But you need to know who you are. you need to stand up for who you are. Secret lives only leave you open to blackmail and that is something that you cannot have in a military type organization like a sheriff's department.

I hope all of the Kander people who read this will vote for Mike Mauer because we know him and can trust him just like Jason. They are both good upstanding men who are being slandered by political opponents. It is the type of thing that can turn people off to politics and that is very sad.

6/10/2008 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Hawk: HOMOPHOBIC MUCH? Be careful; the latent always scream the loudest.

6/10/2008 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what has Jason actually accomplished in his life, other than getting a law degree?

He doesn't have any job experience that I can discern, other than promoting himself.

6/10/2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Amy apologize to Mary Spence yet? You know...for lying.

6/10/2008 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

is going to gay bars still a shooting offense?

Get over it!

6/10/2008 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both, Amy and Jason are good people, and would do a great job. This is stupid talking point banter and should be reserved for the weak-minded.

I know both of them well, and can not choose who will get my vote. The fact your sinking to a he-said she-said, name calling squabble is crap, and is not helping your candidate.

Talk up you candidate, and what you and they believe. Not like the Ass-Clowns in the last 40 some odd post!

6/10/2008 10:44 AM  
Blogger Capt. Geoffrey Spaulding said...

Boy Dan- watch out for anonymi.

They run in packs- attack at will- and you didn't even know who or what it wuz.

Mom says they used to call anonymi "chicken shits" back in Oklahoma.


6/10/2008 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Lance Weber said...

I don't recall who first used the term "marketplace of ideas" but it is clear that is such a marketplace. Too bad for her that Coffman abandoned the opportunity to lend credence to her claim that she would make a better choice for voters in the 44th on August 5.

I've compared the websites of Kander and Coffman. As far as policy goes, I can't tell any difference. It does seem like Kander's positions are the product of more analysis. Coffman should have taken the time to share with Dan and the readers of this blog what it is that distinguishes her from her opponents.

As you all know, the world is run by those who show up. That is a small section of our society. Most people just want to be left alone. The percentage of those who bother to "show up" that actually take the time to inform themselves by doing their own research is even smaller. Those people (and the press) read blogs like this one, so I would argue that blogs do indeed matter because they are part of a conversation among those who hold some measure of influence over other parts of our society. One great example is the story of the "Downing Street Memo" which the MSM tried to let die but was kept alive by bloggers for about a year, long enough to make it back into the MSM with more extended articles and news coverage.

I was impressed by Amy's courage in posting a comment on this blog. I am usually pretty picky about spelling and grammar but I was willing to disregard Amy's grammatical errors as technical infractions and gave her credit for dipping her toe into this fracas. It is more important that she takes the time to write anything at all! Her failure to follow up and answer Dan's friendly questions makes it look like she is hiding. She should have replied - maybe she is new to the world of the internet? I promise you that in the future a candidate's participation in online activities will make or break his or her success. Do you know how much information our kids get off of the internet as opposed to anywhere else?

Keep up the great work, Dan. Regardless of whether you and I agree on everything, you are doing me and my family a great service by taking the time to participate in the political process this way.

6/10/2008 10:58 AM  
Anonymous PI said...

Lance Weber -(Lawyer)
Dan Ryan -(Lawyer)
Jason Kander-(Lawyer)

Amy Coffman-(Non-Lawyer)

I think we can all see a pattern here. The lawyers want Amy to play their game. Amy is intelligent enough not to bite. That frustrates the lawyers, and so, they call for Amy to have the courage to respond to Dan's call.

Dr. Spaulding identified the correct term for these lawyers -Chicken-Shit!

6/10/2008 11:47 AM  
Blogger sophia said...

Am I the only one giggling at the thought of A Hawk standing in the rain, across the street from a gay bar, waiting to see who comes in and out? Aside from the fact that I don't consider being homosexual (closeted or not) a relevant factor in evaluating public servants, I just find it simultaneously creepy and hysterical that someone would tell a story like A Hawk just did.

As for local blogging in general, I think too many people get caught up imagining that every other commenter is paid campaign staff sent out with specific talking points. No doubt some of them are. And I've been amused by speculating about which comments fall in that category. But the bottom line is that, regardless of who is saying it, any points made can be responded to on the substance. People who do nothing but spread rumors and conduct whisper campaigns can be called out as such. People who want to discuss substance (that can be verified by news reports or the campaigns themselves) can have those discussions.

Having lurked in the liberal blogosphere for years, I can personally attest to the fact that long before any campaign worker would deign to visit a blog, anonymous people were having interesting discussions about politics and sharing verifiable information about politicians. It was a good thing. It's not a space that should be abandoned to smear merchants and campaign aides who entertain themselves stirring up shit on the blogs.

Coffman seems willing to abandon it, and I wish she would reconsider. I'm not suggesting that it's terribly important she respond to Dan's question in a comment thread. But I do hope that she can recognize that the internet can be a great place for people to learn about and discuss politics.

6/10/2008 12:52 PM  
Blogger The Steve that everyone likes said...

All of these comments read like they're written by the same person. Even the negative ones. I guess all lawyers and politicians sound alike to me. Is there a third candidate in this race that I can vote for?

6/10/2008 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Lance Weber said...

PI, the "game" is merely public discussion. Interesting that you include me w/ Kander & Dan b/c of the lawyer gig, though. Relax, all lawyers aren't evil...

6/10/2008 3:31 PM  
Anonymous anonymite said...

Thaaaaat's the problem with this blog. Too many lawyers runnin' & commentin' & blogin'.

6/10/2008 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

too many posts. lost the conversation. pretty sure both will do well but both are in it for themselves.

6/10/2008 5:55 PM  
Anonymous PI said...

Lance Weber,

Did you feel guilty? :>)

I did not insinuate that all lawyers are evil; only that they, as a profession, stick together. (as members of most professions do) i.e. teachers, doctors, police officers. -its human nature

It is reasonable for those with the same training to feel that their peers would be the most competent to represent them.

I only point this out because Jason, other than being a lawyer, doesn't really have any attributes that would make him more qualified to represent the people of Missouri than Amy. In fact, his age, as many of us that are quite a bit older can recognize, prevents him from having many of the life experiences needed to understand some of the issues.

I'm sure the 10 years since you graduated law school have provided you with wisdom, and the next 10 will increase that wisdom exponentially.

Jason and Amy both possess the qualifications needed to represent the citizens of Missouri. Jason (in my eyes) failed because he lied to the UAW, and has not been forthright about his military service. (he states that he joined the Reserves, when he really joined the National Guard)

Most lawyers (at least by all appearances) don't seem to have a problem with someone fudging the truth. The average voter does have a problem with that. If you can't be honest before you get elected, why would anyone think you would become honest after being elected?

6/10/2008 6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, why do you manufacture these useless, nasty hit posts?

6/10/2008 6:57 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

PI -

He joined both. That's pretty good experience, in my book. And, so far, nobody has denied that Amy bought the car after starting her race.

Anonymous 6:57 -

Where's the "hit post"? I think it's a legitimate question - why won't Amy answer it? Why does Amy have such disdain for you, just because you read blogs?

If the world of blogging really is senseless, why didn't Amy choose to be part of the solution and answer a completely legitimate and soft question?

I think this discussion has been pretty interesting and it certainly has given people an opportunity to voice their opinions. If you chose to add the 57th comment, it seems you saw the conversation as something worth joining . . .

6/10/2008 8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Beth authorize this blog entry?

6/10/2008 9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To quote our good friend Gloria "I bet you would like a good nine inches!"

6/11/2008 1:17 AM  
Anonymous PI said...

"He joined both. That's pretty good experience, in my book."

Seriously Dan? What do you really know about military experience?

From your claim that "He [Jason] joined both", you have demonstrated that you don't know jack-shit about military experience.

When you join a branch of the service, you incur an obligation. Are you trying to claim that Jason fulfilled his obligation in one, and then joined the other?

I think you, like Jason, are full of shit.

No one is claiming that Jason's service was not honorable. However, we have all taken notice of your friend Jason's failure to respond to claims that he is being deceptive about his military participation. Why is that? Is he afraid that he will be caught in this lie?

That little lying sack of shit didn’t join the Reserves; he joined the ROTC. Just because the Reserve Officer Training Corp has the word “reserve” in it, that doesn’t mean that he joined the reserves. He, as a member of the military knows that. When he decided to take advantage of some of the educational benefits open to ROTC members, he incurred an obligation. He then had a choice; join the Army Reserves or the Army National Guard. Jason chose the National Guard. After graduation, he entered the National Guard as a Second Lieutenant, and has not advanced since.

Jason’s campaign website is a bold-faced lie. He never joined the Reserves. He lied to get people that are ignorant about the military to support him. He states that after 9/11, he joined the Reserves. (a lie) How long after 9/11 was it that Jason joined anything associated with the military? He won’t state it because it will demonstrate proof of his deception.

If you vote for Jason Kander, you are voting for a scumbag that has based his campaign on a lie.

6/11/2008 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

has amy coffman apologized to Mary Spence for lying yet?

6/11/2008 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was Jason ever in a combat role? Will Jason ever be upfront as to whether he was a paper-pusher?

No one knows, other than Jason, what he has accomplished in his adult life.

It's amazing that Jason always has an excuse for avoiding having to actually say what he has accomplished.

Do you practice, or did you practice law, Jason? If so, how many firms were you with, for how long at each firm and what exactly did you accomplish with each firm you worked with?

What did you actually do in the military? You're avoiding that one, although we know, from previous comments, that you weren't in a combat role. But we know nothing else.

And what did you accomplish at the Heartland Democrats, other than get in a huge internal fracas?

Being Jason means you never have to explain what you accomplished; it means you never have to say "I'm sorry".

Jason, what have you actually done other than run for office?

And is that story in the Georgetown Voice really true? Inquiring minds are inquiring. We know what you did last summer.

6/11/2008 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coffman people must have had some bad news or something today because they've gone back to just making shit up about Kander.

There was a 24 hour break there but I guess something set them off.

6/11/2008 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go to Heartland Democrats

Click on the "blog" link

6/11/2008 11:03 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

PI - Pseudonymous Attacker of Troops, My understanding is that he joined the National Guard in 2002, and then, about three years later, he was commissioned as a Military Intelligence Officer in the Army Reserve, and got shipped off to Afghanistan. I could be mistaken in my details, but that's what I recall from back when I met Jason, several years ago, and from what I read on his blog back when he was writing from Afghanistan.

You Coffman supporters are awfully quick to use profanity . . .

6/12/2008 6:36 AM  
Anonymous PI said...

Attacker of Troops?

Dan- are you a freekin' idiot? I have not attacked the troops. My attack is focused on the lying sack-of-shit Jason Kander. (The mendacious candidate that you support.)

If, as you say, Jason "joined the National Guard in 2002", why does his website say that he joined the Reserves? Why does he not mention the ROTC?

He, like you, is being deceptive. You have an excuse. You can plead ignorance. Jason, on the other hand, does not.

I'd suggest Jason become more forthright about his service or face discipline under Article 133 of the UCMJ. “Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Son (Dan Ryan), before you attempt to accuse someone of attacking the troops, when they attack an individual, I would suggest that you look back in your blog archives to see all the individuals in the military you have chosen to attack.

6/12/2008 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all the reserves. This is probably the silliest of silly fake controversies your side has come up with.

6/12/2008 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want to keep up this silly game, how about these questions:

Why does Amy's bio list her business as "Stretch 'N Grow" while her filing with the state lists the business as "Stretch 'N Grow of Independence and Belton"?

How many years did Amy live in Alaska? It sounds from her website that it was college plus maybe a year or two. Is this something Amy is hiding? Why does her bio keep saying that she "returned" to Kansas City or "came home" to Kansas City when she had never lived there before?

Now, I ask these questions for one reason:

To point out that they are stupid questions. They are equally as stupid as the ones you are asking and I don't really care if you answer them, but it sure would be easy to keep asking them as if they were somehow scandalous.

I'm sure you see my point here.

6/12/2008 11:13 AM  
Anonymous PI said...

Anonymous (Jason, Diana or Dan),

The Kander bench must be calling in their all-star pitchers. (BS is still BS, no matter who pitches it)

While the Army Reserves and National Guard are both considered to be reserve components of our military, the only one that is a branch of the Army and is known as the Reserves is the Army Reserves. Jason knows that. He is just being deceptive. Is he embarrassed about his National Guard service or does he just have trouble keeping his stories straight?

Your attempt to duck having to present a rational answer for Jason’s lies is obvious.

Amy’s use of the common (or short name) for her business is not an act of deception. In fact, as a franchise, she is obligated to use the short name rather than the full corporate name. Amy did not tell us her business was “Tykes and Tots” when it is “Stretch ‘N Grow”.

Jason (the liar) on the other hand, told us he joined the Army Reserves when he really joined the National Guard. Jason seems to have a problem distinguishing true from false. (it appears that his wife is supportive of his lies). What a team! Jason has not exhibited the integrity we desire in our elected representatives. I would vote for a rock before I would vote for a Kander.

Side note: Silly or silliest are adjectives that are not in common use today. Dan has used the words on multiple occasions. Dan; would you ever post anonymously? Have you posted anonymously in this current article?

6/12/2008 4:33 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

PI - You are, in a word, silly. And, no, that wasn't me that used the word earlier - you must somehow make that word come to mind for people. FWIW, a quick check on Google Blog search shows the word being used 334,000 times in the last month.

And, referring back to your post of 8:38, don't you ever, ever call me son. My father was a proud veteran of two wars, and would never stoop to your level of attacking a soldier based on wrong-headed and misguided assumptions. You are not the sort of person my father would have liked.

Anonymous 11:13 - I liked your approach to illustrating just how silly PI's arguments were, but it appears that the point went right over his head. He's probably struggling to come up with an explanation of how Amy "came back" to a place she's never lived before, and is worried because it's such an important issue . . .

Good effort, though!

6/12/2008 5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What in the hell does it matter if Kander is in the National Guard or Reserves or both? Who honestly cares if he was a pencil pusher rather than a combat hero?

This entire back-and-forth is absurd. The only relevant point is that the guy enlisted, and in doing so he made many sacrifices, unlike the rest of us. For that he should be commended, not criticized.

I live in the 44th and have told both candidates (no offense Mary) that I would stay out of this race. This crap is making me reconsider that decision.

6/12/2008 7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL It looks like PI hit a nerve.

Who cares if Jason was a paper pusher or a combat vet? I only care if he lied about what he did.

The truth will come out. As PI expressed- it may be at an Article 133 courts martial.

6/12/2008 7:54 PM  
Anonymous where is Jason? said...

Does Jason "have the right stuff"???

Upon scrutiny, Kander is asking his advocates to sell him as a no-holds-barred tough guy, but in reality he's not doing anything in Afghanistan other than risking his life to answer voicemail. Why is it that his defenders fly away from him when we start asking whether Jason served in a combat role?

As a matter of fact, Dan, I challenge you to say that Jason served in a combat role in Afghanistan.

Say it, Dirtbag Dan......if you dare.

6/12/2008 10:27 PM  
Anonymous What is up with Kander? said...

Jason "lying sac of shit" Kander (in the words of the UAW) served in Afghanistan.

But how honorably, as he represents himself here in the U.S., did he serve?

What do we know about Jason?

Only (1) his wife is very "controversial" to put in diplomatically; (2) he served in Afghanistan, but he won't tell us what he did; (3) all of his defenders want us to think Jason is "tough", as if he served in combat; (4) problem is, everyone abandons Jason, even his chief defenders, when the word "combat" is mentioned.

Why can't we find out what Jason has done for the last five years?

6/12/2008 10:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can see light through his ears.

6/12/2008 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 10:27-

I am not stupid.

6/12/2008 11:26 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Seriously, the baseless questions you guys and gals are raising about Jason's service are one of the most reprehensible things I have seen in local politics.

I honestly cannot imagine how you have the gall to attack Jason for serving his country, even if it was in a "pencil-pushing role". That just astounds me.

I am not going to call Jason and ask him to detail his combat experience for me. I'm simply not going to do it - I find the prospect to be disgusting and ungrateful.

I don't write about his combat role because I have never asked him the specifics, and I never will. I read his evaluation - it refers to him being a "shooter" on convoys. I read that he was an exemplary officer. That's good enough for me, even if it isn't for you.

I don't hide from your questions, I shake my head in disgust at them. For people too gutless to sign their names to come here and call a veteran a war criminal and question his record without one shred of evidence is a new low.

I realize that Amy Coffman's sister has said it is a "fair question" to pursue this line of questioning, but I'm not going to do it.

Go ahead and email him if you want to ask specific questions.

I'm grateful to Jason and the other veterans who have served our country in whatever role they have served. I think they're all tough.

6/13/2008 6:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, They read the same evaluation but they choose to ignore it.

I don't know how a guy who was with a "special operations" team and volunteered for "force protection" gets called nothing but a pencil pusher, but the coffman people have managed it.

A few weeks ago he was a war criminal. now hes a pencil pusher.

Amy, this is sick. You need to condemn it.

6/13/2008 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think, having read both sides here, that Mr. Kander's veteran status is, right or wrong, a central positioning theme for his campaign.

I think we can all agree with that.

So why is it "disgusting" to ask questions about what he actually did over there?

6/13/2008 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think, having read all the comments here, and having read both websites, that Jason's veteran status is less central to his campaign than his policies.

I wonder why nobody wants to discuss Amy's attack on those of us who read and comment on blogs. Are we really more of a threat to democracy than the isidious influence of lobbyists?

6/13/2008 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So why doesn't Jason get the blog at Heartland Democrats working again?

6/13/2008 8:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heartland Democrats is a shell organization that serves as a vehicle for promoting the Kanders.

Really look at the site, and tell us this is a well attended organization.

Funny that the Heartland Democrats and US Army serve the same purpose for Jason Kander.

Does Jason "have the right stuff"? I don't know, but a little birdie tells me there a big difference between Jason Kander and Tom Cruise in the movie.

What did Jason do in Afghanistan?

And what did his wife do in the U.S. while Jason was over there? (hint: she got herself into a heap of trouble in local politics)

6/13/2008 9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kander: 45%
Coffman: 38%
Spence: 17%

You can take this to the bank.

6/14/2008 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Say what you will about the Kander. In the end, he will win this thing.

6/14/2008 7:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, have you deleted any comments lately?

6/16/2008 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kander the Panderer!!!

6/16/2008 10:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home