Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Kander Shows Leadership on Campaign Finance Reform

Campaign Finance Reform lies at the heart of good government. It is also, unfortunately, one of the most difficult areas for even the best-hearted legislators to accomplish meaningful change. Money is kind of like toothpaste in a tube - if you press down on it in one spot, it rises in another.

Jason Kander understands the issue well.

He knows that even where campaign limits are in place (as they are through the primaries in Missouri), they can be easily circumvented through third party committees (look at Koster's scheme to fatten his coffers with Republican donations). Jason has pledged not to resort to such tactics, and has called on his opponents to do the same. "I will not take contributions above the $325 limit from committees or use third party committees to criticize my opponents. I hope that my opponents will also follow the letter and spirit of the law," Kander said in a press release.

As alert insiders know, this is not one of those meaningless gestures that typify campaign reform discussions. Jason received some very large donations early in the campaign, and he returned them. I'm confident he could get them again, and funnel them through committees just like Koster did.

By refusing to play such games and calling on his opponents to do the same, Jason Kander is demonstrating the same kind of leadership by example that will make him a powerhouse for the 44th District in Jefferson City.

As soon as I receive word that Amy Coffman and Mary Spence join in the pledge, I will happily post their press releases.

Labels: , , , ,

43 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will the real Jason Kander please stand up?

From the Kander campaign website:

"Though he opposed the war in Iraq, Jason enlisted in the Army Reserve after 9/11 and volunteered for combat duty in Afghanistan."

And, from a post on Fired Up Missouri.

"If you're gonna go to war, go to war, and if you're gonna occupy a country, occupy the damn thing! We have plenty of personnel to send to the gulf and keep these guys from getting outflanked everywhere they go. We need to reinvade parts of Iraq and take care of business." -Jason Kander CDT, Infantry, U.S. Army National Guard

Which is it Jason? For or against? Army Reserves or the National Guard?

The Coffman camp has produced some pretty convincing evidence that Jason lied about her to the UAW.

A propensity to lie (or deceive) is not a trait that we need in Jeff City.

6/03/2008 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it inconsistent to oppose the war in Iraq, but want to see it carried out effectively?

To me, that's just smart. And I want more "smart" in Jefferson City.

Also, regarding Coffman's "evidence", can you point me to any evidence whatsoever, other than blog comments?

Even if he did say two days, who cares? She admits she didn't get it until after she was running, and that's the point.

6/03/2008 9:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a typical Coffman supporter type quote to post. You omit the date of the quote...2003. You omit the rest of the quote that clearly shows that Kander is upset about fellow soldiers dying. Can't wait to see this in a third party committee mailing on behalf of Coffman.

Here's the whole quote when you don't take it out of context: "When the director of the CIA sits across your desk and tells you something is a lie, and then you put it in a speech, that makes you a liar. Plain and simple. I'm tired of hearing this defended by bringing up Clinton. Yes, Clinton put his hand on the bible, but when Bush lied over 180 of my brothers in arms died (so far). Sending it down the line to your subordinates is no way to "stop the buck." Harry Truman is looking down and he's pretty upset. And now that Bush dressed up like a military dictator and declared the war over, he lacks the political courage to say we need more troops. If he calls for more troops, that would be like admitting he was wrong. Good G-d! He can't do that! If you're gonna go to war, go to war, and if you're gonna occupy a country, occupy the damn thing! We have plenty of personnel to send to the gulf and keep these guys from getting outflanked everywhere they go. We need to reinvade parts of Iraq and take care of business. I am tired of hearing about another couple U.S. Army soldiers from the 101st or the 82nd killed every single day. Jason Kander CDT, Infantry, U.S. Army National Guard"

6/03/2008 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which is it Jason?

For or against?
"We need to reinvade parts of Iraq and take care of business." sure sounds like you're in favor.

Army Reserves or the National Guard?

6/03/2008 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So wait Amy, let me get this straight, you can't be for the troops but against the war? Sounds a lot like Bush reasoning, then again, your campaign tactics take pointers out of Carl Rove's manual, so it only makes sense.

6/03/2008 9:59 AM  
Anonymous KC Mike said...

For what its worth, I've had discussions with Kander about his military career. I recently left Active Duty in the Army and I understood his position to be as a MI (Military Intelligence) Officer presumably in Army Reserve (as most MI reserve assets are in the Reserves as opposed to NG).

I'm not sure it matters too much whether he's in the Reserves or NG, and I could easily see where someone unfamiliar with the proper terminology could confuse the two.

I'm comfortable with his explanation of his service and I think its something he and his supporters should be proud of.

Sorry I can't really answer Anons question about NG vs AR. As someone who worked closely with soldiers from both components, I guess I would need to know why the distinction is important? Is Anon implying that Kander went to Canada for a year while claiming to be in a combat zone?

6/03/2008 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Inquiring Minds said...

That's a crucial question, whether Jason was in the Army Reserves or National Guard while he was defending our country and risking his life in Afghanistan.

While Kander was serving his country as a soldier of whatever variety, was Coffman a lobbyist or a special interest advocate?

Inquiring minds want to know.

6/03/2008 10:23 AM  
Anonymous eldervet said...

thanks for your input kc mike.

I know most civilians may not know the difference between the army reserves and the national guard, but it would be very unlikely for a member of either to be confused.

If jason joined the national guard, why would he claim to have joined the army reserves on his campaign website?

If he was or is against the iraq war, why was he pushing GW to send in more troops? Why was he bad mouthing GW for not sending in more troops?

6/03/2008 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

eldervet,
let me give you a little history lesson.

in March of 2003 we invaded Iraq. Just to give you reference, Amy Coffman was living in Alaska where she had been for something like the previous 12 years. The quote is from July 2003 after Bush had declared Mission Accomplished and was allowing troops to be significantly outnumbered by the opposition. In Jasons quote, 180 people had died at that point. Today that number is over 4000 because politicians not military leaders made decisions on the ground.

It's so easy to sit in your anonymous chair and criticize while others including myself actually served.

How about dropping the distraction tactics and spending some time questioning your candidate why she doesn't want to agree to follow the spirit of the campaign ethics laws and not use 3rd party committees to launch her attacks?

Coffman has already pledged to run an honest and substantive campaign, this should be a simple commitment for her to make.

6/03/2008 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's what Howard Dean (surely a warmonger) said on July 27, 2003 on Meet the Press (two days after Jason's post):

MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?

DR. DEAN: I can't answer that question. And I don't know what the answer is. I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now.



MR. RUSSERT: How many troops would you have in Iraq?

DR. DEAN: More than we have now. My understanding is we have in the neighborhood of 135,000 troops. I can't tell you exactly how many it takes. General Shinseki thought that we were undermanned by roughly 100,000. Maybe that's the right attitude.

Has anyone ever accused Howard Dean of being pro-war?

No, but then again he never ran against Amy Coffman.

6/03/2008 10:45 AM  
Anonymous eldervet said...

Why the big ruckus? Nobody has challenged Jason's service. The questions posed are reasonable and easily answered.

Army Reserves or National Guard?
Why the discrepancy?

"If you're gonna go to war, go to war, and if you're gonna occupy a country, occupy the damn thing!"

This doesn't sound like a statement that came from someone who was against the war at the time the statement was made.

FYI- I served my country and for more years than Jason has.

6/03/2008 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Dustin said...

Howard Dean is Pro-War.

6/03/2008 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you really wanted the answer to your question you would just email Jason and ask. But you don't want any answers. When your questions of jason's actual service didn't have any traction you started grasping at new stupid straws.

BTW where are Amy Coffman's public comments on the war from Alaska Democratic publications in 2003? Did she think that everything Bush was doing was right?

Moreover, where are Amy Coffman's condemnations of attacks on a patriot's military service and posts that take his quotes out of context. We know she will post on this blog when there is something she doesn't agree with.

6/03/2008 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you really wanted the answer to your question you would just email Jason and ask. But you don't want any answers. When your questions of jason's actual service didn't have any traction you started grasping at new stupid straws.

BTW where are Amy Coffman's public comments on the war from Alaska Democratic publications in 2003? Did she think that everything Bush was doing was right?

Moreover, where are Amy Coffman's condemnations of attacks on a patriot's military service and posts that take his quotes out of context. We know she will post on this blog when there is something she doesn't agree with.

6/03/2008 12:05 PM  
Anonymous notakanderfan said...

It's time to stop covering for Jason. When he tells lies he deserves to get caught. Instead of asking him to be honest, you try to attack Coffman. How pathetic.

6/03/2008 12:31 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I'm not attacking Amy - I'm waiting to publish her press release and her best policy reason to vote for her over Jason.

6/03/2008 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a question that has been bothering me as I've watched this race. Can Kander be called back to Iraq or Afghan?

What happens if the Dems have a 1 or 2 seat majority or minority and Kander gets called up? I know alot of Dems who are working their tails off to win back the majority. Isn't it a touch selfish of a guy in his late 20's to be seeking a seat when he has known and open obligations that could cost a razor thin balance of power? If he is so committed to the principles he's fighting for then why not wait until your not a liability to the greater good. It's not just the citizens of the 44th he would be putting in peril, but all of Missouri.

This is not slighting him for service, this is a reality of the obligation his service demands.

BTW - don't you have to have a committee willing to let you run money through? Last time I checked most of the local pols are supporting Coffman. Who knows how Koster gets away with it.

- Resident of the 44th

6/03/2008 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Okay, it's been established that the Coffman team doesn't want soldiers involved in our government, and will raise frivolous questions about their service whenever and wherever they can.

Understood.

But where does Amy, a lobbyist who knows her way around the rules, stand on Jason's proposal?

6/03/2008 2:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the anon above who called Jason "selfish" and a "liability" because he's running while in the Reserve...

I recently sat on a screening committee and I thought that argument was just as dumb when you made it then in the EXACT SAME WORDS that you use here. In fact, I was kind of embarrassed for you then. I'm really embarrassed for you now.

Yeah, I like Kander. I voted for him when I was on the screening committee. I liked how he handled this argument then and I hope he doesn't give you the time of day now.

If you want to keep making this argument all over town, that's fine. But I would suggest you stop putting it in writing. At some point, it may jeopardize your office.

I'll spare you the embarrassment of using your name (or your title).

But grow up.

6/03/2008 5:12 PM  
Anonymous 44th Patriot said...

If you're not willing to serve in the U.S. Military, or worse, you can't serve in active duty because of a disability or the skirt that you wear, you don't deserve and haven't earned my vote.

Go home to wherever and let real patriots lead.

It galls me that I risked my life for this country and some woman and her campaign calls Mr. Kander unpatriotic.

It makes me sick.

Jason has the military experience that we need in Jeff City. Women can't earn combat experience, and until they do they're not representing us in the 44th.

6/03/2008 10:12 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I think someone is looking for attention . . .

6/03/2008 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and pretending to be a Kander supporter...

There's no one in the 44th that feels that way, and if there is, that person doesn't read liberal political blogs.

Try again, poser.

6/03/2008 10:47 PM  
Anonymous 44th Patriot said...

Poser? I don't think my service in Desert Shield was posing. No one knows what it is like to put your life at a real risk, day in and day out for an extended period of time. If you want to serve your country, that is the true test.

Jason's military experience clearly makes him the better choice for the 44th.

Anyone disagree???

6/03/2008 11:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 5:12

Screening committee? No idea what your talking about.

I don't know who you think I am but your wrong, the only title I hold is that of concerned citizen. I admit to repeating EXACTLY the same argument I've heard many of my friends use, but that is because I know people who understand how all this works. It has been discussed in more than one circle. Think the Coffman camp hasn't discussed it with the few insiders who actually pay attention?

Perhaps liability is too strong a word, which word would you use to describe a vote the Democrats must have being potentially unavailable?

Do you pay attention to the issues? How about history of Missouri? The Republicans have had a few legislators miss extended time due to service the past few years, when you have a 20 seat majority you can absorb the loss. How about a 1 seat majority? You think its a matter of growing up when the Republicans try again to pass their agenda of attacks on the judiciary and labor or push issues like vouchers and photo id? Am I wrong? How is that not a fair question?

You can deflect the question by trying to divert attention because you heard the same argument used by someone else at some other time, but it doesn't make the question any less valid.

I state for a second time, I'm not attacking Kander for his service, I am asking a question I have heard others, whom I respect, discuss in detail because they won't take the time to get involved with blogs. The stakes are too high not to discuss it.

6/04/2008 1:39 AM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

I don't live in the 44th; so I won't be voting for either candidate. I do, however, have an interest in who joins the other elected representatives to create laws for the good of this state.

I'm also a proud veteran. I served 8 years as a U.S. Navy Submariner. I don't think you will find anyone more respectful and thankful to those who served and continue to serve our country. I would like to see a large percentage of our elected representatives be veterans.

Dan…

Do you support a candidate who lies? Do you support a candidate that joined the National Guard, but tells people that he joined the Reserves, (because the National Guard has been so defamed by the anti-bushites that it is wrongfully seen as “less than honorable service”)? Do you support a candidate that would lie to the UAW about his candidate? (If the information told to the UAW was a mistake; where is the letter of apology to the UAW, and to his opposing candidate?)

Lying is a deal-breaker for me. Bush lied, and we all despise him for that. Why should we elect someone that would lie just to get the position? Hilary lied about sniper fire, and you can see where that got her. People are fed up with liars, and being lied to.

6/04/2008 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Service is my middle name said...

Of course Dan doesn't support liars. Kander hasn't lied.

Maybe one of those Coffman slanderers ought to consider whether he could have served in both.

6/04/2008 9:04 AM  
Anonymous The Progressive Voice said...

Really? This is what this race has boiled down to? We now have a blogger stating his fav for the world to see, dishing on his executive committee conversations and then limiting people and the responses to posts? Come on, this blog should be better than Jeffy Roe and that piece of fascist media he touts as "The Source". This should be a battle of who is progressive and will represent the district. If someone wants to lie cheat and steal to get the nod, (and although I may be late in saying this) try it. I think that has been done before. The questions I want to ask (if I am allowed to by Dan “Dick Cheney of the 1st Amendment” Ryan and the free speech monitors) are not which branch of the military one served in, what car, domestic or foreign, someone drives, when the American cars were purchased and not what someone says about how they will conduct themselves in office.

The questions are much more personal. They are about which candidate truly cares about my district, which one has a long term approach to continue the leadership shown by Rep. Lowe and is committed to helping the progressive cause in Missouri?

I have seen how some candidates in this race, or their spouse behind them, can try to ruin a true progressive candidate because they are thirsty to drink from the cup of victory. I have seen them blog, mail and make calls to destroy true progressives and the agenda they set forth (unfortunately Dan, you have been complicit in these tactics against your friends) and stop at no ends to kill off true progressive democrat opponents.

This is not the way races should be run in a primary. If you think you have skills and the background to win, you can. There is no need to engage in character assassination, deceit, false truths and innuendo to win. If indeed there is a spouse or someone in a management capacity pulling the strings on the negative campaign BS that has been spouted on this blog and at my door since January, I only have one thing left to address. We are all Democrats! It is about time some of our candidates start acting like it. Doug Gamble lost, not because of money, not because of issues but because he allowed his campaign manager to run exactly the same type of campaign she is running for her husband, Mr. Kander.

I would urge my neighbors to really press these candidates on our issues, who is going to be our voice, who is going to stand up on issues like healthcare losses, the environment, care for seniors and our economy? Then ask yourself this: are any of these candidates looking to how other parts of the metro, or Missouri, view how they vote? If your answer is yes to the second part, run and run fast. You are not getting anything other than a calculating politician who will say whatever he has to in order to get your vote. Lets face it, we have far too many Republicans in this stat who already do that. Why would we want to send a Dem who engages in the same tactics to join them?

6/05/2008 12:53 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

"The" Progressive Voice -

Welcome to my blog. How immodest of you to label yourself "the" Progressive Voice - my experience is that progressive voices are multitude, and stronger for the variety! One who would label him or herself "The" progressive voice would seem to have issues with authoritarianism and intolerance.

Nonetheless, let's look at some of the misunderstandings set forth in your screed.

First, it is truly hilarious that you attack my commitment to the first amendment - hilarious on so many levels. First off, you do realize that this is not a state-run blog, and I can do pretty much whatever I want here, don't you? Now, that said, what I do here is maintain a wide open zone of free speech (including attacks on me and those I support). In the instance you criticize, I published in unexpurgated form the comments of a politician I'm opposing in her current race, and am keeping space open for her reply, while opening a space specifically for continued free conversation. What have you done, "the" progressive voice, to rival such a dedication to free speech?

You want to know "which candidate truly cares about my district, which one has a long term approach to continue" Rep. Lowe's leadership. Let's see - Amy moved back to town and started lobbying in Jefferson City in 2005. I have t-shirts older than Amy's commitment to the 44th district! She's been here around 3 years - I don't think she gets to talk about "long term approaches" until she's lived here long enough to vote in a presidential election, do you?

You make vague, unsupported and hence unanswerable allegations about destroying true progressive candidates. Color me unconvinced by talk like that. I can report, though, that Jason is running a first-class campaign in the sidewalks and living rooms of the 44th district. I have personally seen him silence negativity about his opponent, and focus on the issues of the race. I have seen him send checks back to high-dollar donors, and call upon the suddenly silent Amy Coffman to eschew third party committees. I've been close to this campaign, and I've been sincerely impressed with the high level of professionalism and idealism it represents.

Perhaps you do not have any campaign experience. Indeed, your unintentionally humorous claim that "If you think you have skills and the background to win, you can" compels this conclusion. Just wish it and make it so? Really? It also helps to have hundred of yard signs up all over the district . . .

Now, you go on to make the claim that Jason or someone in his campaign is engaging in "negative campaign BS" on this blog and elsewhere. Where is the negative campaigning? I mean, really, let's do a quick tally here for the readers.

Coffman supporters have claimed Jason was a war criminal.

Coffman supporters have been claiming Jason won't be able to serve because he will be called back to Afghanistan, thus seeking to rid our political system of those with the courage and integrity to join the reserves.

Coffman supporters have claimed that Jason is lying about his service.

Coffman supporters have claimed that Jason is lying about having served in both the National Guard and Reserves.

Coffman supporters have falsely claimed that every picture of Jason on his campaign materials shows him in combat fatigues.

Coffman supporters have made sure that everyone who reads blogs has read an alleged quotation that Jason is a "lying sack of shit" - adopting name-calling as a hallmark of their campaign.

Most perniciously and audaciously, the Coffman camp has claimed that Jason is the one running a negative campaign! This tricky bit of pot calling the squeaky clean china black is almost breathtaking in its chutzpah. Indeed, the "Kanders are mean" slander has been the constant whine of the Coffman supporters, though, if you ask them for support, they do not point to anything from the current race, but try to rehash other races run by other candidates.

Now, to be fair (as always) there is one specific allegation of negativity which has been spreading concerning Jason in this election, and that is an allegation that Jason told the UAW that Amy Coffman bought a Ford Escape "two days" before the UAW screening, when it appears she bought it two weeks AFTER forming her finance committee for the race. So far this rumor has only been spread by hearsay, but, even if true, it is hardly the sort of thing that I can imagine getting upset about. Obviously, Jason's specific knowledge of Amy's financial transactions is going to be a little murky, and the truth, according to Amy herself, is that she bought the vehicle only after the race was underway. Like you, "the" progressive voice, I don't care all that much about the vehicles, either, so I'm surprised to see the Coffman supporters flogging the story in virtually every conversation . . .

Doug Gamble lost because he ran against Beth Gottstein. She's a hard-working person with a passionate dedication to the people of her district, and she has a long history of working for them. It's as simple as that.

It's way too funny that you act as though Jason's views need to be identified by "pressing" him for them, and that they are crafted with an eye to impressing other parts of the state. The good news is that you are entirely wrong - if you want to hear Jason's views, he'll show up at your door to discuss them, or you can go to his website and read them, where he presents much more detail than Amy does.

Ironically, it is Amy Coffman herself who has thus far refused to answer the simple "softball" of a question - "What is the most significant policy difference between you and Jason Kander, and why is your position the correct one?"

6/05/2008 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan lies, Jason lies!! Jason is NOT a MISSOURIAN born and bred!!!
5th generation KC my ass!!! This ain't the burbs!
Not really the same now is it?
HE is from JOHNSON COUNTY, private schools, and etc. etc. LIE, LIE, He can stay off my porch; I have heard enough.

6/06/2008 2:10 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Hold it now, anonymous. You want to call me a liar, but you fail to point out where I have lied. Furthermore, where has Jason claimed to be a born and bred Missourian?

Was Amy raised in Kansas City, or in a suburb? Has she lived in Kansas City long enough to have voted in a Presidential election here?

6/06/2008 10:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet you supported Hillary, who moved to NY to run for Senate? What should matter are the candidates' views, not whether they have lived in the district for their entire lives.

6/06/2008 11:10 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 11:10 -

There are a couple responses to your comment. First off, I didn't support Hillary in the Democratic primary for her Senate race, so the comparison doesn't match up. I supported her in her Presidential primary, where she had lived in "the district" her entire life.

Second, it wasn't me that raised residency in this thread - I was responding to someone (that wasn't you, was it?) calling me and Jason liars for making claims we've never made.

FWIW, the residency issue is, to me, only a minor side-issue. If you're interested in why I think Jason is the superior choice, stay tuned - I hope I'll find the time tomorrow to write a post covering that issue in some detail.

6/07/2008 8:16 AM  
Anonymous Bob said...

Dan,

Where someone was born, and what car they drive has nothing to do with their ability to represent us well in Jeff City.

What has everything to do with that is whether Jason lied to the UAW about Coffman or not. The fact is that Clem Whitman and a few other UAW folks were spreading word around Jeff City that Amy had just purchased her Ford TWO DAYS before the event.

The car isn't the issue, Dan.

The issue is whether Jason lied or not. You have not said so, and refuse to address the issue head on. Addressing the issue head on involves a simple YES or NO as to whether Jason lied or not.

You can accuse Amy of pandering regardless of when she bought hefr Ford, but you are blatantly avoiding the issue of Jason, his lie, and his motives for lying.

The longer you deflect the issue, the more apparent that it is damaging to the campaign.

You want to focus everybody on the fact that Amy bought her car "sometime in the recent past" to deflect attention from what actually happened that night between Jason and the UAW.

Jason lied to the UAW that fateful night, and the UAW isn't going to back him because of that simple fact.

Jason lost the Union, and he may very well have lost the election, with that simple, dishonest act.

It's a small district.

6/07/2008 8:55 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Bob -

Your comment is a fine example of the lines of argument being laid out by the Coffman Camp. Thank you for assembling them in one place, so I can address them in one responsive comment.

You start off by arguing that where someone was born and what kind of car they drive has nothing to do with their ability to represent us in Jefferson City. You're so close to being correct on that point that it is tempting to ignore your mistakes and move on. But I won't.

If, indeed, a person's geographical history is irrelevant to representing us, then why was it an AMY supporter who raised the issue in a groundless attack on Jason and me? This is becoming kind of typical of Amy's supporters - launch a misguided attack based on a losing issue, and then complain when they lose the issue. Ridiculous. You're kind of like a younger sibling who starts a fight, gets swatted, and then goes crying to mommy. If Amy supporters don't want to talk about the fact that she is such a newbie to the district that she has never even voted for a president here, then please don't bring it up. And don't call Jason and me liars when you do.

Ignoring the poor judgment and vicious manner of bringing it up, let's look at the substance. Is it really true that an outsider can move in and represent a district like the 44th as well as someone who has been working in the area for years? Back when Amy was still working on Alaska stuff, Jason was helping to form Heartland Democrats for America. Maybe that doesn't matter to everyone, but it does to some of us.

As for the car issue, once again, we're seeing Amy's supporters raise a losing issue in a failing attempt to go negative on Jason. Whether the Ford Escape was bought two days before the screening or two weeks AFTER she began her race, the truth is that she was driving a Toyota Prius until she was in the race (and even after). Once again, the Amy supporters are trying to bludgeon Jason with a self-destructive tool. I wasn't at the screening, and Clem Whitman has not spoken to me about it, but even accepting that Jason was mistaken about the precise date of Amy's pandering, it remains a death-bed conversion.

Now, let's look at this "lie" issue logically, because it seems to be horribly misunderstood by some of Amy's supporters. Now, I was not at the screening, so I don't know exactly what was said or how it was phrased. Presumably, you don't either.

In the absence of clear language, it's awfully difficult to convict Jason of a lie. Did he say "I know for a fact that Amy purchased the Ford Escape on this date - XXXXX XX, 200X - and that her sole intent was to convince the UAW that she is supportive when, in fact, she will, if elected, introduce a bill requiring all State Troopers to drive Toyotas."? Maybe he did, but it seems a little far-fetched to me. My guess is that if he said anything at all, he said something along the lines of "Amy's been driving a Prius, and I drive American." Not my idea of a hot campaign issue, perhaps, but it certainly is something a UAW member would pay attention to, and clearly within the bounds of constituent-focused campaigning.

Again, before I can answer yes or no as to whether Jason lied, I have to know exactly what you're claiming he said, and what he did say. I don't know that, you don't know that, but we do know that Amy bought her Ford Escape after she began her race. So, once again, the Amy supporters have started a fight that they lose, and want to blame Jason for being a big meanie.

Now, you claim that Jason lost the union, and lost the election, and that it is a small district. Perhaps it is a small district, but it sure seems to hold an awful lot of Kander yard signs, doesn't it?

Let's plan to chat after the primary and see who lost the election, okay? Maybe we can look back at this post and claim that you lied when you made that statement.

6/08/2008 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason is the only one claiming he is 5th Generation Kansas Citian; he is from Johnson County, Ks, NOT Missouri and NOT from the public school system. No one else is trying hold on to this claim because they are Missourians. Johnson County is NOT in MO, and the other Candidates as far as I know are Missourians. Anyway, he is still a bottom feeding liar.

6/09/2008 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason is the only one claiming he is 5th Generation Kansas Citian; he is from Johnson County, Ks, NOT Missouri and NOT from the public school system. No one else is trying hold on to this claim because they are Missourians. Johnson County is NOT in MO, and the other Candidates as far as I know are Missourians. Anyway, he is still a bottom feeding liar.

6/09/2008 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Amy from the KCMSD? I thought she grew up in Blue Springs.

6/09/2008 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blue Springs is a PUBLIC school system; hello?

6/10/2008 9:08 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous -

I believe the point being made is that Amy Coffman did not go to public school in this district, either.

Kind of subtle and minor, I agree, but none of the candidates appear to have attended public school in the relevant district - and, in so stating, I must say this must be the silliest "issue" I've seen thus far - it makes the Ford Escape purchase date seem almost substantive by comparison . . .

6/10/2008 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am done with You DAN; get some hot clothes, a nice tan, and a good lay and you would not be worried about all this nonsense.

6/11/2008 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kander the Panderer!!!

6/16/2008 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, Dan didn't you donate to the campaign? I know you're not a committee, but even so you certainly do have a tendency to attack Amy Coffman a lot.

I know, I know, this is your blog and your opinion...but let me ask you this Dan...

When did you stop beating your wife?

This seems to be the same sort of question/situation you are putting Ms. Coffman in.

Sigh. I am going to stop reading these stupid blogs.

6/27/2008 1:31 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Why should I not donate to Jason? Believe me, I did NOT violate the $325 limit and I am not a third party committee using attacks ads. And Jason is certainly not "using" me - I write what I want when I want. I suspect there are times he wishes I would shut up (which doesn't make him unique, I realize . . .).

6/27/2008 6:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home