Saturday, July 26, 2008

Expose' From Inside the Kander Campaign - What I've Learned in Working With the Kanders

Sorry, friends and readers, this is going to be a long post, so either click to another page or settle in for a few paragraphs. The primary votes will be cast in 10 days, and I suspect that what I type here will be too late to either show up on a campaign post card or change the minds of anyone who reads it. So this post is not an attempt to sway voters or to impact a campaign. This one's for me.

When I first spoke of supporting Jason Kander to seek Jenee Low's seat when she was "termed out", several people cautioned me against it. A political insider told me I would be wasting my time, because the "insiders have found a lobbyist they like". An old friend assured me that the Kanders would run a dirty campaign. Several people told me that the Kanders had an awful lot of enemies, and it would be unwise for me to associate with them. One person emailed me and told me that they would try to destroy my life if I crossed them.

My own experience, though, suggested otherwise. I had met Jason a couple times, and he was bright, straight-shooting, and honest. Where he disagreed with me, he asked questions to make certain he understood where I was coming from. When I pushed him on topics, he didn't candy coat his perspective or try to be all things to me. He promised to work hard and run a clean campaign, and he looked me in the eye. I believed him.

Was I getting scammed by a smooth politico? If so, it wouldn't be the first time that someone I admired turned out to be something less than what I thought he was. As an enthusiastic delegate for Gary Hart, I've learned that you cannot judge politicians by looking at them.

I also had some experience with Jason's wife, Diana. Diana worked for Doug Gamble when he ran for City Council against my friend, Beth Gottstein. Diana and I had several conversations throughout the campaign, and, even though we both strongly wanted the opposite side to prevail, she was always respectful, thoughtful, and honest. I once posted something that I mistakenly attributed to the Gamble campaign, and when she telephoned me to point out my error, she was calm, accurate and professional. She impressed me as intense but absolutely fair and upstanding.

The campaign was a tough one, though, and the lowest point, in my opinion, was reached by a campaign piece that I thought was anti-Semitic. A lot of people attacked me for making that accusation, and many local politicos thought I was being oversensitive, but I call them the way I see them, and that was definitely the way I saw it. After the campaign, I had an opportunity to discuss the matter with her. She is a Jew who fled Odessa because of anti-Semitism, so I wanted to know the background. Our conversation was confidential, but I can say that I walked away from it satisfied that her integrity was beyond reproach.

So I volunteered my time to help Jason Kander on his campaign.

This may seem an odd choice to some. Why would I volunteer to work to elect a guy I didn't know incredibly well, when my friends were telling me he was bad? Why would I affiliate with a guy who the "insiders" weren't supporting?

Those are fair questions, and they get to the very heart of why I blog and why I am interested in local politics. In a nutshell, I think a lot of local politics is controlled by a relatively small group of not-incredibly-bright insiders, and they are accustomed to getting their way. Second, I think that reputations are often completely unearned, both positive and negative. Reputations, by their very nature, reflect mob mentality. Third, the whole reason I blog is to stroke my own ego and perhaps have a positive impact on my corner of the world. As such, the Kander campaign offered a no-lose opportunity for me.

If I got involved early for Jason, and I was right about him, I would have the opportunity to support a great, hard-working candidate who has the determination and skills to be HUGE in Jefferson City. I win, and the citizens of the 44th win.

But, if I got involved early for Jason, and I was wrong about him, I would have an opportunity to make a huge impact by loudly breaking with those evil Kanders. I am not one who believes that bloggers generally have much influence on anything, but I'll flatter myself and say that if I loudly denounced the Kanders and wrote about bad tactics they had employed, after having loudly been on their side, it would have had a major impact on this local race. The local insiders would love me, and I would help cut short the career of an up-and-coming slimeball. I win, and the citizens of the 44th win.

So, my little win/win scenario dancing through my head, I called up Jason and told him I'd like to help on his campaign.

Since then, I've gotten to know both the Kanders a lot better. I've stuffed a few envelopes, filled out a few postcards, made a few phone calls, put up a few yard signs, and hosted a small neighborhood event. I've participated as a volunteer - not a great volunteer, or a spectacularly dependable one, but I like to think I've helped. I've traded emails with the candidate on a couple policy issues, though not too much of that (he's better thought-out than I am, and needs my input like he needs another tour of Afghanistan), and I've been around at the end of long days in the unguarded moments when exhaustion and camaraderie allow you to say whatever you want to say.

(Let me interject here what I have not done. I have NOT served as a mouthpiece for the campaign. I have NEVER allowed Jason or Diana to write anything for me, and they have not even suggested what to write about. I have never offered them an opportunity to review what I write before I post it, and they have never asked me to edit my pieces. I suspect, as some commenters have surmised, that they have occasionally wished that I would shut the heck up, since I have certainly provided those who oppose Jason plenty of opportunity to dish out whatever anonymous abuse they want. The ONLY time that I received a request from Jason regarding my blog was one time he called me up and directed my attention to a comment that described a local politico in nasty homophobic terms, and he requested that I delete the comment. I did so, and felt awful that I had missed the comment when it was made.)

So here's the news, folks. Jason is running a squeaky-clean campaign, and he really is as bright, sincere and hard-working as he appears.

A campaign presents thousands of temptations, and it takes a person of remarkable character to avoid them. It's a weird phenomenon, but campaigns attract the attention of nutcases and scumbags from all over. I've seen it as a blogger in past campaigns, when people send me "shocking" info about some candidate's minor arrest from decades ago, or claim that the candidate is having sex with someone s/he shouldn't be, or that they cheated on their 4th grade math test. It's even worse in a campaign, because people who have grudges from anywhere along the person's life feel compelled to call the opposing camp and report all kinds of transgressions, minor to allegedly major. And, in the heat of a campaign, it's tempting to spread the word about some of them. But a great candidate says, "Really, I'm not interested in hearing that. I'd rather talk about why I am running." And that is how Jason has handled those calls, and I admire him for it. My friends who told me about how dirty Jason is would be shocked. Or disappointed.

(It occurs to me that in the crazed world of blog commenters, someone could think that I wrote the above paragraph to sneakily hint that some awful facts about Jason's opponents have come to the campaign, and that I'm trying to plant that seed without making a real accusation. No. Simply no. I have heard nothing about either of Jason's opponents that is both credible and major. Nothing. So, if that seed has been planted, please douse it with Roundup, okay?)

So, while commenters here have been telling us all that Jason is a lying sack of sh*t and that he and his wife are the local versions of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, I've been witnessing something quite different.

One would have expected that the complete absence of negative or dirty campaigning by the Kanders would silence the complaints about negative or dirty campaigning by the Kanders. Unfortunately, such an expectation would be unjustified. Instead, it has only turned the complaints louder and more unhinged.

Tony's Kansas City did a post yesterday about the gossip attacks on the Kanders. The KC Blue Blog did a follow-up post responding to the bogus nature of the attacks and busted out the red letters for an "easy" endorsement for "Democrat and Veteran Jason Kander for State Representative."

Rumor has it that the next ten days will see some negative pieces sent out to trash Jason and his wife, Diana. I hope the rumors are mistaken, but the figure of $20,000 has been attached to them, allegedly at the absolute insistence of a local elected official. Who knows? Again, this stuff is circulating at the rumor level, and may have exactly the same lack of credibility that I have seen were behind the accusations of the Kanders engaging in underhanded campaigning.

So, here I am, nearly at the end of my little experiment in local democracy. The people who were shrill in attacking Jason at the beginning of the race for being an underhanded campaigner have shown themselves to be the ones engaging in negative tactics and underhanded campaigning. The rumor-mongers and spreaders of hate, it turns out, have not been in the Kander camp.

When this campaign got started, I thought there was a chance I could be writing a huge expose' today about slimy tactics, lies, rumors, and underhanded campaigning. Instead, I find myself writing about a candidate I admire more than when I started. When people at the doors have been mean to him, he has been polite in response, and respected their views. When I have been angered, he has been calm. When cheap shot opportunities have presented themselves, he has refused them.

I don't know how the votes are going to come in next Tuesday. Amy Coffman and Mary Cosgrove Spence have run good races, and they have been supplemented by an enormous amount of gossip and nastiness directed at Jason Kander. Amy's years of lobbyist experience have paid off in lobbyist money and endorsements. Mary Cosgrove Spence has some wonderful volunteers and supporters who are refreshingly enthusiastic and positive. All three of them are good Democrats who I hope to support in future elections.

As for my expose' - well, I'm just awfully proud and happy I didn't get to write one this time.

Labels: , , , , ,

74 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Dan.

This election pits merit vs. political hackery. History shows that the latter often wins, but I am hopeful this race will be an exception.

Too often, politicos confuse "being connected" with being competent (many times, politicos are neither competent in politics nor their chosen professions).

Jason Kander, however, is competent - he is more than competent. Jason has outstanding credentials and the life experiences necessary to succeed as a public official. Let's get it right this time. Vote for the candidate who has the qualities to be an outstanding leader in our community and our party for years to come.

Vote for Kander.

7/26/2008 2:09 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

Okay, I'm only 1/3 of the way through this but it's all pretty interesting and insightful stuff.

Also, it puts the contention that bloggers can't throughly analyze a topic to rest.

7/26/2008 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your post is too long for me ;)

If so, it wouldn't be the first time that someone I admired turned out to be something less than what I thought he was

Ain't that the truth. I met Kander when he walked through my block. He seems nice enough and gets my vote.

7/26/2008 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Mary Spence on August 5th said...

Mary Spence gets my vote on August 5. I haven't heard one negative thing about her in this campaign except from Jason who I would bet is threatened by her experience in the district.
Jason is an impressive person but I have strong doubts that he has the best interest of the district at heart. I would rather have someone in office who is invested in the district rather than someone with his eye on the Govenor's mansion.

Spence represents honesty, integrity and passion. VOte for her if you want to see results in the district.

7/26/2008 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon at 2:09 -

Who do you think you're speaking to when you post on this blog, a bunch of teenagers?

"Jason has outstanding credentials and the life experiences necessary to succeed as a public official."

Jason is 26 years old, you flaming idiot.

Tell us he has boundless energy. Tell us he has the vision and commitment to be successful in Jeff City. Tell us Jason is smart, he's a fighter.

But DON'T TELL US JASON HAS THE OUSTANDING LIFE EXPERIENCES TO SUCCEED, because he doesn't.

He's 26 years old you idiot. He recently graduated from law school. He hasn't held a single job for more than a year.

Tell us he's a nice guy and he works hard, and you'll sound credible. But don't even try and BS us with your pathetic attempt at advocacy.

"Overselling" your candidate and trying to oversell yourself, especially at the expense of others, will backfire on you.

Mark my words.

Dan's starting to learn. He started off with a totally negative campaigning approach on this blog and it backfired on him at least three times in a very big way.

Read and learn.

7/26/2008 10:57 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymouse -

Back off. You're wrong - and sloppy with the facts. Jason is not 26 years old. Your sloppiness does NOT give you the credibility to attack Jason.

And it's you who should be reading and learning. I haven't made a single post that I have backed away from one iota. We'll see what backfired on election day - I hope that nothing has. I'm hopeful that Jason is going to win. As of now, i see no backfiring, unless you're counting the claims by the Coffman camp that the UAW wasn't going to support Jason. That one backfired big time. Don't you agree?

As for your other lies - Jason worked longer than you think for Spencer Fane, and he has SERVED OUR COUNTRY in Afghanistan. Personally, I think that each week of that service counts for a whole lot of years serving as a lobbyist in some booth in Jefferson City. Don't you agree?

7/26/2008 11:13 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Anonymous 10:57...

I'm not a Kander supporter, but I think your clock must have stopped running.

Jason Kander
Bar Number: 57916
Date Admitted: 9/21/2005
Kansas City, MO 64114 US

I haven't looked for Jason's DOB, but I would imagine that he is about 28 years old.

Three years out of school doesn't indicate much life experience, but it's two years more than you want to give him.

7/26/2008 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stand corrected.

He's 28 years old.

Name me a job he has held and actually worked in for more than a year.

I dare you.

Name me a job he has worked in for more than 365 consecutive calendar days (not interrupted by military call).

Is that too difficult?

Oh, and when you tell me he's worked 18 months at this place or that place, be careful, you're just underlining the fact that this guy has no real credibility - a lot of talk, but he appears to be your candidate du jour.

I'm just waiting for Dan and all you other nutso's to abandon Kander like you've abandoned Funkhouser.

Jason is the candidate du jour, just like Funkhouser was. And when was the last Funkhouser post made on this blog?

Oh, and I'll stay tuned on the Jason Kander holding a job for more than a year....

Man, Dan doesn't talk about or defend Funk anymore, what's the deal with that?

Did Dan make a bad choice?

7/26/2008 11:30 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

You're really criticizing Jason Kander for serving in the military while he was employed by Spencer Fane? Really? That's awesome. I'm sincerely impressed with your callous hatred of a man who chose to serve his country. You don't see that kind of anti-Americanism on display very often.

Fellow readers, please note that we are seeing some ugliness here, and it does NOT come from the Kander campaign? Why is it NEVER Jason engaging in negative tactics? Who's the bad guy here?

Now, why is it that you are trying to shift the topic to Funkhouser? How about we talk about Funkhouser on August 6?

7/26/2008 11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huh?

You're a little too quick on the response, Dan, and a little too on-message with the "how dare you question his miltary service".

Slow down, pal.

My point was, he hasn't worked a solid year for an employer in his entire life - it could have been because of his lifetstyle choice, military service, or other issues - he just has never worked a solid year on anything.

My focus is on Jason's life experience to date, not on his military service.

You should quit being so defensive on the military stuff.

And you have just proved my point, Jason evidently hasn't worked a solid year anywhere.

Oh, and in my challenge to find a place Jason has worked for more than a year -- it does NOT include high school jobs.

Just thought I would add that.

7/27/2008 12:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason worked less than a year for Spencer Fane?

How long did Diana work for Lathrop and Gage?

7/27/2008 12:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan.

You are shifting the subject to Jason's military record for purely emotional, manipulative purposes.

Let's focus on his actual work record.

7/27/2008 12:13 AM  
Anonymous Dist44Vet said...

Since when has serving our country in war not been considered a full-time job? I'll take a vet any day in any field. I think attacking Kander's service is the lowest any person could go. Definitely not Democratic. Coffman blew it by not controlling or changing her veteran hating team.

I'm with Kander

7/27/2008 1:18 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

See, this is exactly the sort of nonsense that Jason has held himself above.

We have here a gentleman who has worked his way through school, and the anonymous haters don't want to talk about that.

We have here a gentleman who has been with Spencer Fane for a good long period, but the anonmyous haters don't want to talk about that, and have already claimed that they don't want to hear about any period of time of 18 months or less (shifting the goal posts is an old Republican trick). (I haven't bothered to find out the exact period of time Jason worked at Spencer Fane, because I sincerely do not care, and the anonymous hater has promised he will attack Jason regardless of the answer.)

We have here a gentleman who has been out of law school for three years, and has volunteered to serve our country in Afghanistan when he could have been sucking down that big firm salary, and the anonymous hater doesn't want to talk about that - s/he would much rather complain about how the period of time spent working for America prevented him from having a long expanse of time working for the law firm.

If you think a candidate should be middle aged and have worked for the same employer for a decade or so, then, really, Jason is not the candidate for you. I saw early on that Jason does not try to be everything for everyone.

But if you're interested in a young man who has built up a remarkable record of accomplishment, who went to one of the best law schools in the country, who has helped found a democratic organization to support other candidates, who has risked his life for our country, who has knocked multiple times on every door in his district, who has innovative ideas on the environment, who has run a clean campaign while wolf packs of naysayers have attacked him and his wife, and and who will be a Democratic leader in Jefferson City, then I'd highly encourage you to set the calendar aside and vote for Jason Kander.

7/27/2008 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan -

Agreed.

I am curious whether the anonymous haters have bothered to find out if Amy Coffman works full time at "Stretch 'N Grow." (Incidentally, the irony in the name of Coffman's business is priceless.)

7/27/2008 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Hey Anon 12:07am said...

Anon 12:07am You said....
"he hasn't worked a solid year for an employer in his entire life"

How about The US Government? I think that's a damn good employer to work for if you are running for office. You?

"My focus is on Jason's life experience to date, not on his military service."

Are you seriously saying that a veteran's service doesn't count as both professional and life experiences?

I honestly wasn't sure who I was voting for until I saw the anti-military mentality of the Coffman camp. It's rather pathetic.

7/27/2008 12:23 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Dan said...

"Personally, I think that each week of that service counts for a whole lot of years serving as a lobbyist in some booth in Jefferson City. Don't you agree?"

Though not addressed to me, I’ll still weigh in. - My answer - No. I don't.

And my assessment is that of a veteran, not someone who has "volunteered my time to help Jason Kander on his campaign".

Since neither Jason nor Dan will tell you; I will:

Jason's campaign website states that after 9-11 Jason joined the "Army Reserve". That's kind of deceptive. Let’s look at the whole story.

In 2002, Jason joined the Army National Guard. Jason is using a little play on words by using terminology unknown to most voters. While the National Guard is a reserve component of the U.S. Army, it is not the Army Reserve. The National Guard and the Army Reserve are two separate and distinct components, with separate and distinct missions and utilization.

In 2003, Jason elected to take ROTC classes. The ROTC is also not the Reserves. The ROTC is a college elective. (During such, Jason was a Cadet in the National Guard)

Jason states that after college (2005) he joined the Army Reserve.

At the end of July 2006, while serving in the Army Reserve, Jason was placed in an active status. He left Missouri for Florida. He was stationed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa from July until October of 2006, to support Central Command and to prepare for deployment to Afghanistan. In October of 2006 Jason went to Afghanistan and returned to the states in January of 2007.

Jason was in Afghanistan for three months. His role was political not combative. (A role that I think is very important to achieving peace.)


In 2007, Jason requested to be transferred back to the Army National Guard. His request was approved. Jason is currently serving the remainder of his 8 year officer obligation in the National Guard. He will be eligible for separation in 2013. (He can apply to resign his commission prior to 2013, but it is possible that such request may not be granted.)

Why would Jason choose to avoid publishing his National Guard service on his website?
As Democrat pundits discounted George W.'s service in the Texas Air National Guard as more like play-time than real military service, it would not be advantageous for Jason to disclose his National Guard association.
Though I may understand his reasoning, I find that to be disrespectful to National Guard members and veterans. I believe that all branches of active duty and reserve components of the U.S. Armed Forces deserve our deepest respect and admiration.


This is what I see as the problem with Jason and his campaign.

Deception! That's it. We already have plenty of that in government. Thanks to the internet, it's getting a little harder to be deceptive.

"We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and foreign policy; but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. ... Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity.... The weakling and the coward cannot be saved by honesty alone; but without honesty, the brave and able man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by every lover of righteousness. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community." –Teddy Roosevelt

If you're young and ambitious; more power too you; but don't hide what the voters may or may not consider an unpopular attribute. Voters deserve to know your strengths and weaknesses. You’re asking them to trust you to be their representative. Trust gained by deception is a scam. If ambition and youth can replace the wisdom of years, let the voters decide that.

If you originally joined the National Guard, just say so.

Everything you do should not be used as a political merit badge. Volunteering as a "shooter" is just your position in the vehicle for that ride. Don’t play it up to be something more.

Matt Blunt used his military service as the backbone to overcome his lack of years. How has that worked out for all the Missouri voters that thought it was sufficient experience? (Blunt was a 1993 graduate of Annapolis and went on to serve over 5 years on active duty before converting to reserve status.)

On September 18th 2006, Jeff Moore posted the following comment on the "soldier's blog"

"Diana [Diana Kander], Steve [Steven Bough] and the rest of the crew,

I applaud him [Jason] very much for his service, which is not the question here. What the others are concerned about, and for good reason, is that this blog and HDA are nothing more than ways to raise his profile for a race where he has obviously made his intentions very apparent. If during visits home or after this tour he is trying to garner support for his run, then these fears are well founded. Let us just see if http://www.jasonkander.com ends up a campaign website or pointing to one for it’s creator in 2 years.
That said, I applaud him for the service and wish him a safe tour and return."


Jeff Moore's suspicions were correct.

---------------------
I think Jason's service was always intended to be used as a tool used to build credentials for a likeable young man who has dreams of being a politician. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)

The Kander's, like all those who are vying to be the Democrat on the November Ballot, have managed to avoid being directly connected to any negative campaign tactics. Unfortunately, the only negative campaigning has come from this blog. In fact, the only person, admittedly connected to a campaign, that can be tied to negative campaigning is Dan.

Jason didn't make a negative comment about Coffman's initial website. A volunteer (Dan) did.

Jason didn't insinuate that Coffman had an ice pick in her hand. A volunteer (Dan) did.
Will Coffman and Spence Drop the Ice Pick?

Just for the record: Jason was only a full-time employee of the U.S. Government for 6 months. Three months in Florida and three months in Afghanistan.

7/27/2008 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While lengthy, your post is actually not factually correct. I spoke to Jason about his service at a houseparey a couple of months back and I think I remember him telling me that he was on active duty for 12-14 months (I can't recall for sure) and that he also served in Arizona.
I didn't trick Jason into telling me these things, I simply asked him in person. You on the otherhand continue to pose questions to other anonymous bloggers and are surprised when your accusatory questions aren't answered. Just call Jason. His integrity will allow him to answer your questions even though your motive is to use whatever Jason says against him.
He is an upstanding young man and he will represent this district honorably.

7/27/2008 5:56 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Oh, come on, Whistleblower. We've been through all this before, and I proved you horribly wrong. But, just in case somebody reading this didn't see that, let me explain one more time.

Jason enlisted in the Army National Guard with the 1-115th Infantry in 2002, after 9/11.

In May of 2005, he was commissioned a Military Intelligence Officer in the Army Reserve. He served honorably in the Reserve, and went to Afghanistan as an individual augmentee with Centcom. His review for his outstanding service has been previously mentioned on this blog.

When he got home, the Army National Guard approached him about becoming a combat leadership instructor for OCS. So in May of 2007, he joined the Guard again and that's where he is today.

Like several other veterans I know and respect, he refers to his service as Reserve because the whole thing is called the "reserve component" by people in the military.

But if you want to draw nasty conclusions about Jason because of his service, you'll have a tough time finding another candidate who has done more for our Country.

As for the negativity in the campaign, you really do not know what's going on. Other blogs, like Tony's KC and the KC Blue Blog, have spoken of the vast amount of negativity being spread about Jason. I know you're not from around here, so I don't blame you for not knowing the truth, but please don't claim that this blog is the source of negativity in the campaign when you know so little about what is going on.

As described by the other blogs, the "negativity" displayed by this blog is child's play compared to the nastiness from the Coffman camp.

And let's look at that alleged negativity. I truthfully pointed out that she was raising funds without having a website. Her campaign treasurer claimed she would have a website up and she failed to deliver on that promise. I think, sincerely, voters ought to be concerned about voting for someone who doesn't deliver on promises.

And I can't believe that you are still whining about the ice pick thing after I clarified that very point in my comments. As I stated back then, before you went off on bizarre rants - "In reading the comments, I want to stress that I have no knowledge that anyone is planning on resorting to third party committees. Thus, if you read my post to imply that Coffman or Spence has already picked up the ice pick, then my phrasing was misleading. No offense intended."

Now, by the way, the rumors are that Amy has picked up the ice pick. Our mail boxes will have the answer over the next 9 days.

7/27/2008 6:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan - remember this is Amy Coffman we're talking about. The negative third party campaign pieces are probably going to be a month or so late. She's not very good at getting stuff accomplished.

7/27/2008 6:06 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Dan...

It's a little hard to "prove me horribly wrong" when you repeat almost everything that I stated.

Further, without providing a link to some documentation, the only thing you have managed to prove is that you disagree with me. I will happily concur with that.

There may have been a time when people took you at your word. That time is no more.

I do find it laughable that you would attempt to tell me, an honorably discharged veteran, about the military.

To demonstrate your ignorance on the subject, let me point this out:

You claim that Jason "was commissioned a Military Intelligence Officer in the Army Reserve".

Jason was commissioned as an officer, not a military intelligence officer (as you claim). After receiving his commission he then attended a Military Intelligence Officer Basic Course. He was a 2nd Lt. when he arrived at Fort Huachuca to take that course.

As anonymous 5:56 pointed out, Jason was in Arizona. He was stationed for at Fort Huachuca, AZ for 18 weeks. (add that to his 3 months in Tampa, and 3 months in Afghanistan) Fort Huachuca is where Jason attended his Military Intelligence Officer Basic Course.

Jason "went to Afghanistan as an individual augmentee with Centcom."
That is correct. His role in Afghanistan was mainly a political role, not a combative role. I point this out for accuracy only. His role was just as important as those serving a combative role.

Further, among military personnel, the term "Honorable" is a "Character of Service" designation. It is contained in Block 24 of Form DD-214. It is a discharge term, not an in-service term. I would not expect you to know this.

My biggest gripe has to do with Jason’s avoidance of association with the National Guard at his campaign website. I feel this presents a demonstrated lack of respect for fellow Guardsmen by doing so. (I do have a right to my opinion. Don’t I?)

Members of the National Guard do not refer to themselves as "the reserve". They refer to themselves as "Guardsmen". They do so because they are proud of their role and their service. I belong to two veterans organizations. A whole lot more than "several other veterans I know and respect" will concur with my statement.

Any reader can call the National Guard Public Affairs Office, M-F at (703) 607-2584. Ask them if members of the National Guard consider themselves to be Guardsmen or in the Army Reserve. They will tell you the Army Reserve is a different branch of the U.S. Army and that National Guard members proudly refer to themselves as Guardsmen.

The United States Army Reserve is the federal reserve force of the United States Army. Together, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard constitute the reserve components of the United States Army.
----------------------------
I’ve been out of the Navy for over twenty years. If I was running for public office, and somebody questioned my service, I would supply them with my DD214 and give them a list, with dates, of every duty station. I would post it on my campaign website.
-------------------------
"Now, by the way, the rumors are that Amy has picked up the ice pick."

I can link this rumor to only one person that has direct ties to any campaign. -That's you Dan.
Repeating the rumor does just as much damage as starting it. As someone who has just recently outed himself as a volunteer for the Kander campaign, your intention is more than obvious.

7/27/2008 9:01 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Blower - Man, you are a tedious person.

We agree on some things, and disagree on others. I don't much care whether (or expect) you to take me at my word - those who read here regularly can form their own opinions of my veracity. If you want to question it, though, I'd love to see where I've ever told a lie on this blog. Because I haven't.

I know what an honorable discharge is - but, holy cow, did you read that evaluation? That's a whole lot more than an honorable discharge, isn't it? Obviously, the military appreciates Jason's service much more than you do.

It's good to see you are honest enough to slink away from your assertion that Jason was somehow hiding his National Guard service, and now are admitting that it's just your opinion that makes you disrespect his service. In fact, I have done my research on this point - he has served in both the Reserves and the National Guard, and most military personnel refer to such service as the reserves. I've heard that from three different sources I asked. Maybe your experience is different - or maybe you think this is all part of the conspiracy that has Missouri ruled by dictators.

As for your reaction to the fact I've been supporting Jason, what in the hell do you mean that I "outed" myself? In your fevered imagination, do you somehow believe that bloggers are not allowed to help candidates they support?

That's funny. Guess what - some of the anonymous commenters on this blog also volunteer for Coffman's campaign! Shocking, isn't it, that people who care about politics to write about it care enough to actually get involved?

BTW, if, as you suggest, you run for office someday, please let me know about it, okay?

As for the rumor that Amy has picked up the ice pick, it's not surprising that you've only heard it from me. You don't live in the area. What's more important, though, is that I've heard it from multiple sources, some connected to the Coffman campaign. But I'm still hoping it's not true.

7/27/2008 9:27 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Wow. Are we a little over-sensitive Dan?

I stated that you were "recently outed" because you stated, for the very first time, in this article that you "volunteered [your] time to help Jason Kander on his campaign."

That's a little different than a blogger supporting a candidate. I’m a blogger. I support a lot of candidates, but I don’t work for any campaign.

"I know what an honorable discharge is - but, holy cow, did you read that evaluation?"

I only read the part of the evaluation that Jason posted on his campaign website. I'd be happy to read the whole eval if it was posted. (it's not classified) High praise in an OER is pretty standard. And when you consider it is based on only 3 months, I wouldn't read more into it than that.

"I'd love to see where I've ever told a lie on this blog. Because I haven't."

Would you admit to it? No!
Let's stick to the topic.

"Obviously, the military appreciates Jason's service much more than you do."

I never said that I did not deeply appreciate his service. I appreciate the service of all members of our Armed Forces. I just don't appreciate Jason's service as much as you do. Then again, you probably don't appreciate George W.'s or John McCain's service as much as I do.

I did not "slink away from [my] assertion that Jason was somehow hiding his National Guard service. I still believe that to be the true. Two of my friend's that served in the National Guard are pretty bothered by the omission on his campaign site.

I disrespect Jason's deception, not his service. You're a little man for making such a ridiculous claim.

I respect the service of John Allen Muhammad (the DC sniper) but I despise his subsequent cowardly actions. (I hope you agree.)

I can't believe that you want readers to believe that "anonymous" comments are linked to a campaign. Maybe you should look up anonymous.

As for the rumor; until you can link it to someone directly associated with a campaign, you're just demonstrating the kind of attacks that you claim to despise.

7/27/2008 10:57 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Blower -

I don't really know whether I had mentioned my volunteer work for Jason's campaign or not, but using the term "outed" to describe my post is simply ridiculous. "Outed" implies that there is something shameful about the conduct, and I don't think that helping a great candidate should be viewed as wrong. And, besides, I know that you've done some volunteer work helping a candidate who you've supported in comments. I admire you for that, though, and would never criticize your involvement.

Those who supervised Jason Kander's service were effusive in their praise. I trust the officer who wrote it a lot more than I trust your dismissal of it.

When I call you out for falsely accusing me of lies, you suddenly want to "stick to the topic", after you were the one who made the false accusation in the first place? Mr. Byrne, you shouldn't make false accusations against me, or Jason, or anybody else.

Do your two friends who served in the National Guard know that Jason served in both the Reserves and the National Guard? Do your two friends know that many "double servers" refer to their service generically as the reserves? Do your two friends understand that the thorough explanations of service that the two of us have offered in these comments are nothing but tedious blah-blah-blah to most people, who are simply impressed that Jason was brave enough to become a soldier and go to Afghanistan, and don't really care about the details?

As for the anonymous commenters, you do realize that there are records about some of this stuff, don't you? You also realize that I talk to people from the Coffman campaign, as several of them are friends, don't you? I don't know who all my anonymous commenters are, but I certainly know who some of them are.

7/28/2008 6:03 AM  
Anonymous Fed up with the stench said...

Anon 11:30. do not believe everything your read on blogs, especially this one.

According to voter registration records, Jason David Kander was born on 5/4/1981, which means he just turned 27. Nice try whoever tried to add some maturity to the boy, who seems to have a troubled employment record.

The Kander supporters cannot even be honest about their candidate's age on here. That is unless Mr. Kander misled the Board of Elections Commissioners when he registered to vote on 6/13/03. But Jason does have a history of telling Whoppers.

Hmmm I wonder why he waited until he was 22 years old to register to vote? That seems odd for a guy who obviously wants to blow the Missouri Dust off his shoes and be a US Senator at 30 and the President at 35.

Was Jason always a citizen of Missouri? I mean for all the grief he has given Amy Coffman over going to school in Alaska, which supposedly makes her an Alien Life Form, it would be a little disingenuous if Jason had been a "practicing citizen" in somewhere other than the Show Me State. But then again, the rules that apply to mere mortals do not apply to Jason.

Also, has Jason done anything to correct the record about claiming the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) on his literature? The HRC does not endorse in state and local election, but Jason decided to claim the endorsement anyway. Has Jason decided just to let this untruth linger out there through Election Day?


This kid just cannot help himself. He needs to grow up before he is elected to office.

7/28/2008 6:22 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Stench -

You make a great point, but a little too broadly - be cautious about what you read from commenters on this blog, because they sometimes lie, though I do not.

I never asserted his age because I never cared. And before you claim that it was Kander supporters who claimed he is 28 - that came from the infamous Whistleblower, in a guess, and was adopted as the truth by a Coffman supporter. Get your facts straight, okay?

While we're on the topic of lies, let's go ahead and address this whopper - where is it that Jason has given Amy grief "over going to school in Alaska, which supposedly makes her an Alien Life Form"? I think you made that up - I've never seen Jason give Amy grief about that fact. Have you, really?

7/28/2008 7:08 AM  
Anonymous PT 109 said...

After reading Whistleblower's long but informative post on Mr. Kander's military service I have the following observations.

I am old enough to remember that John F. Kennedy, a true wartime hero did used to distance himself from his exploits during the war. He had a real story to tell, but he usually brushed off questions about his heroics with a statement like "they cut my boat in half."

Mr. Kander on the other hand has taken every opportunity to infer that he was on the front lines fighting in the dust and smoke. His web site and literature has carried picture of him in combat gear, which infers that he was just a grunt facing fire and eating MREs.

Now I think I understand why Mr. Kander never addressed his military service straight-on by saying -- this is what I did on a day-to-day basis. This is how I served my country.

Instead, Mr. Kander has insisted on suggesting that what he did was somehow so secret, and so sensitive to national security that he could not talk about his day-to-day assignments. Instead, he has offered colorful pictures of him dressed like an action figure and recounted some stories about having to decide whether to shoot an Afghan child who jumped on the side of the truck he was riding in.

Why couldn't he take pride in his service as a political officer? Why did he have to put all the visual suggestions of danger and heroics? Why not just state the facts. Service is service and should be honored. If anyone is dishonoring service it is an immature young man who discounts what political officers and other military personnel do, but disassociating himself with THEIR service to the county.

And now, after weeks of talk about "swiftboating" I have to wonder if that is not just a set up for Mr. Kander to be made a martyr by his own political allies.

First of all, lets quit misrepresenting what the term "swiftboating" means. That term was used to describe what reactionary conservatives did to deny John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam. Has anyone other than Mr. Kander misrepresented the tenor his service record, let alone falsified the record of his service like the swiftboaters did to John Kerry? No. Bloggers have simply asked Mr. Kander to provide details of service that he himself introduced to the campaign. That is not swiftboating.

By even using the term, Mr. Kander is inferring that he did something heroic -- once again, provide the details and quit producing the wink and a nod record.

Far from reminding me of John Kennedy, Mr. Kander reminds me of another less honorable politician: Matt Blunt. Matt Blunt ran and governed as a hard-line conservative with an Anti-Gay agenda, and yet there is reason to believe that Mr. Blunt was being a hypocrite all along.

All too often, ambitious people are crushed by the weight of their hypocrisies, but Mr. Kander is too young and immature to know that.

He should not be elected to public office at this time of his life. He needs focus on growing up professionally and personally. He is in too much of a hurry. In the longterm being in such a hurry is bad for the 44th District and bad for Jason Kander.

7/28/2008 7:31 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

109 -

You've done a great job of highlighting the negativity of the anti-Kanderites. I wrote a positive post about Jason, and here come the negatives. Can you not control yourself? Must you prove me right at every single turn?

Attack, attack, attack.
Criticize, criticize, criticize.

Will we be seeing such attacks in our mail boxes soon?

7/28/2008 7:50 AM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Dan -

Has Jason mentioned "swiftboating"? I haven't heard him say anything like that - have you?

I think 109 has a guilty conscience.

By the way, I also don't think the thing about the kid is on Jason's site - I think it got dug up by a Coffman supporter to try to attack Jason.

All this stuff about Jason's military career is funny, because Jason himself doesn't make that big a deal of it. The anti-Kander people want to have it both ways - attack him for mentioning it, and then attack him for not going into every detail.

I admire the dignity with which Jason has handled the whole thing. Always positive, always honest, always focusing on the issues the voters want to discuss.

I wish the people who insist on attacking Jason would stop with the negative, dirty campaigning.

7/28/2008 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Call Jason and ask him about his service. There is not a single account of someone not getting the full story in person. And if you have to insist on responses to anonymous blogger questions, why not start with amy coffman, who was given the biggest softball question: what policy positions separate you from your opponent? Why has Amy refused to answer this? Does she not have anything to say? Maybe that's why her supporters are forced to attack Jason personally.

7/28/2008 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kander's website describes him as the "political-military intelligence officer" in Afghanistan. I'd hardly say he hides it.

Can we be honest about the fact that many of us civilians don't understand that there are not combat and non-combat roles in this war?

The dude worked in intelligence and he had to leave the base to meet with people. What more do you need to know to understand that in Afghanistan that is frickin' dangerous as hell?

The anti-Kander people are starting to look a little pathetic I think.

7/28/2008 9:01 AM  
Anonymous A Hawk said...

This is Monday of Truth Week in the Sheriff's Race.

Kander will win this one in a walk.

7/28/2008 10:41 AM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

"All this stuff about Jason's military career is funny, because Jason himself doesn't make that big a deal of it."

Thanks for the good laugh.

Jason's bio page on his campaign is dominated by his military service.

Dan is just perpetuating Jason's lie.

From Jason's Campaign Bio:
"In addition to the campaign, Jason practices law out of his office in Waldo. He is still in the Army Reserve and serves as an Instructor one weekend per month at Fort Leonard Wood, where he prepares new Army officers for leadership in combat.

That's a flat-out lie. I don't care how you try to spin it.

The National Guard is not the Army Reserve.

Maj. Michael Stella of the Army Reserve had this to say.

Q. What's the difference between the two?

A. The Army and other reserves are always under the president's control. Not so with National Guard units. Though the federal government picks up much of the bill, both Air Force and Army National Guard units are assigned to and primarily controlled by states, which actually gives them greater freedom on the home front. The Posse Comitatus Act makes it illegal for troops to enforce civilian laws but doesn't apply to soldiers serving states. Governors can and frequently do call up National Guard troops to serve as kind of adjunct police (as, for instance, when National Guardsmen are asked to enforce curfews after hurricanes).

7/28/2008 11:32 AM  
Anonymous whistleblowme said...

Exactly, Whistleblower! We should not support Jason because he has volunteered to serve Missourians in case of an emergency. What a despicable person he is.

By the way, 'blower, Dan called you out on a lie. You flat out claimed you don't work for any candidates, and he flat out said "you've done some volunteer work helping a candidate who you've supported in comments."

Is he right, Whistleblower? Did you lie to us? Or is Dan lying about you? One of you is lying . . .

7/28/2008 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do the anonymous Kander supporters always want to change the subject?

If Kander or any candidate is misrepresenting himself or herself, that's what we should be concerned with.

7/28/2008 2:04 PM  
Anonymous whistleblowme said...

The answer is, no, Jason has not misrepresented himself, but it sure does look like my pal 'blower did!!!!

Haha - Dan busted the lying sack of shit!!!!!

7/28/2008 4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Au contraire blowme one, and blowme again.

Whistleblower's facts are spot-on.

Mr. Kander is a weekend warrior with the national guard. It may just be that Mr. Kander doesn't know that he's not in the Army Reserve. If my memory serves me right, army intelligence is considered to be an oxymoron.

Speaking of moron (whistleblowME). A review of archived commentary displays a fairly consistent pattern of whistleblowER ignoring whistleblowME.

Judging from your commentary above (whistleblowME), I can't say that I blame him. If he denied Dan's accusation, you (whislteblowME) would still call him a liar. How could he prove otherwise? The burden of proof must be placed on the accuser, not the accused.

the stupid--it burns

7/28/2008 7:17 PM  
Anonymous An Echo in Georgetown said...

Was Jason a "Political" officer or did he command convoys?

Let us talk about an exposé.

But before you Kanderites accuse me of being unpatriotic, always keep in mind that military service is honorable, but being deceptive about one's military service is not.

First, read about what Jason says in the Georgetown Voice on August 24, 2007.

Here's the link to the original article:

http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2007-08-24/feature/from-georgetown-to-the-frontlines

It's the second paragraph, which is below:

“I don’t really like to talk about it, but one day while I was commanding a convoy through stand-still traffic in Kabul, something slammed into the side of my vehicle,” writes Jason Kander (LAW ‘05) who served as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan and is now an army reservist. “The tactic of suicide bombers at the time was to jump onto vehicles and hold on until detonation. I raised my rifle, switched off the safety, and placed my finger on the trigger, beginning to apply pressure. When I looked through the iron sights, just before I would have fired, I saw a very scared little boy looking back at me with his face pressed against the window. I still thank God that I had the split-second judgment to focus my eyes before firing. The face of that kid still wakes me up in the middle of the night when I’m stressed out.”

(Note: that's cute, he "doesn't like to talk about it" but he does anyway.)

Second, consider that this whole story is based upon the fact that Jason was "commanding a convoy".

Jason, an Army Reservist, as stated in the article.

Jason, a "political" officer (?).

Jason a military intelligence officer (?).

Jason, whose staunchest supporters will not ever attest that he saw combat. As a matter of fact, they backpedal when faced with accusations of making that claim.

And Jason? He has never said he saw combat, except in this Georgetown Voice article. Lots of pictures of Jason dressed in full combat gear on his web sites. Yet his friends will not attest to his combat experience. Jason, only once, talks about his combat experience - in this article.

Why is it this is the place that Jaon talks about combat - explicitly? Was he only in combat once? Or maybe...maybe he wasn't in combat at all.

So was Jason a "political Officer" or did he command convoys?

Let's have the straight facts.

Note to Kander supporters: this article has been mentioned before and you dismiss it. If it's true, it's a touching story, so why haven't you (1) recognized the existence of the article and statement; and (2) referred to it when defending Jason's record?

It's like it just doesn't exist.

Don't you think that's strange?

7/28/2008 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason is Lord God. Bow to him fart brain.

7/28/2008 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol!!!

7/28/2008 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Just answer a simple question said...

Dan, what is your position on a woman's right to choose?

7/28/2008 9:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have to wonder what Mary Spence got out of all of this?

7/28/2008 9:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jason - come over here and defend yourself, and explain things. Why are you hiding?

7/28/2008 9:48 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

This is too darned funny, people!

Thank you for coming here and proving my point that the nastiness and negativity in this race is coming from other sources.

I'm so happy I'm supporting Jason and his positive campaign!

7/28/2008 9:50 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Anonymous -

Jason doesn't need to defend himself from made-up accusations. Besides, he's too busy writing his victory speech. This race is his.

7/28/2008 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Made up? Jason says he leads convoys, but his supporters won't vouch for his combat experience.

Since when does Military Intelligence lead convoys?Especially a reservist?

Jason doesn't like answering questions like this, and I can see why....

He can't answer them. (adequately)He needs to hide behind the Cheney Iron Curtain of Patriotism.

7/28/2008 10:26 PM  
Anonymous Chip Diller, ROTC-Pastor said...

Dan does it go like this?

"Remain calm. All is well."

7/28/2008 10:32 PM  
Anonymous A Father said...

Fuck you all. If it were not for guys like Jason Kander there would be raghead terrorists stealing your daughters for fun and torment rather than rotting in Cuba. You are all a disgraceful, pus sucking band of faggots.

7/28/2008 10:37 PM  
Anonymous heather said...

Dan, don't worry about those negativce campaigners. Clearly, from your post above and your past posts you have studied Jason Kander's position on the issues and agree with him, on most of the issues I would think.

One of the tyop three issues in the state is abortion. I have two questions for you,

Is Jason pro-choice?

And are you, Dan, pro-choice?

Considering you are such a straight shooting fellow, and you know Jason a bit, I would have to think you would have some insight on this issue.

If you or Jason are for some reason too shy to articulate your views on abortion,then if somebody could point me to the right place on Jason's website. For some reason I can't find it.

Also, Dan, I've searched your blog and you have been conspicously silent on this issue. That's why I'm asking the question here.

I mean, you guys are strong democrats and I assume you are pro-choice, but I've never heard either of you say it...

I mean, in the 44th, how could you notke a stand on choice?

7/28/2008 10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, The blogger above "a father said" is a Jason fan and I maybe wrong but "pus sucking f****s" sounds a little negative. Is this how Jason thinks about the gay constituents of the 44th?

7/28/2008 11:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amy (or Greg) or whomever,
A word of advice. Rather than posting as a strawman ("A father said") and then attacking Kander as negative, you need to do something like pull a major rabbit out of your hat.

You're losing this race and you're losing it badly. As someone who has stuck my neck out to support you, I'm not pleased to see your campaign blogging at this point.

You are on pace to lose by double digits and I think you know it. That's why this is all so venomous.

7/28/2008 11:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no no no Anon at 11:15.

It's not venomous primarily because of Coffman or her people. I don't think they're blogging much, and when they do you can certainly tell.

The problem is that the Kanders are an abnoxious political couple. They tend too turn out people against them....

7/28/2008 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the last anon, you just proved my point. You're clearly from the Coffman campaign. There are two misspellings and a typo in your short two sentence comment.

7/29/2008 12:30 AM  
Anonymous ray ray said...

Jason will win a walk.

Better candidate.
Better capmpaign.
Better person.

7/29/2008 1:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

More nastiness not from Jason.

I wonder where it comes from?

7/29/2008 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason pretending to be someone else.

7/29/2008 7:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm....let's examine the obvious. A piece hit my mailbox today that says "there's no questioning Amy's position on choice."

Meanwhile, the anonymous fools are suddenly on here asking about Jason's position on choice (nevermind that Jason already sent out a mailer about his choice position and has had it on his website forever).

So...next we see the negative mail piece from Amy's campaign (or from a third party) questioning Jason's position on choice. Amy, will that hit in the last three days or before?

7/29/2008 9:23 AM  
Anonymous KC Mike said...

I was interested in Kander's position on abortion as well. It took me about 3 seconds to find it on his web site:

"Pro-Choice. I am pro-choice and oppose any further limits on a woman's right to choose. I opposed the recent legislation affecting family planning clinics in Missouri."

Wow. That was hard.

7/29/2008 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daniel,

Do you agree with Jason's position on abortion, and a woman's right of choice? You spent a lot of time in your post telling us how closely aligned you are to Jason in terms of your beliefs. But you are careful to say you may have some differences.

So tell us, do you support Jason's belief in a woman's right to choose?

If you do not answer, on this very important issue in our state, we will have to assume that you are letting your faith guide you.

After all Dan, Jason will be facing people like Matt Bartle, which his entire constituency opposes.

Your silence is telling. Shall we expand upon your silence? And provide our own explanation?

And what is your position on stem cell research? Are you with Jason or with Matt Bartle?

Again, on this issue we will simply have to assume your silence means your faith is guiding you.

You can delete this post, but we'll just post it again, here or somewhere else.

7/29/2008 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Amazing - the Coffman camp is attacking a Catholic for supporting a candidate who has the same position on choice as Coffman.

The Coffman people may be setting a new low for nastiness in campaigning.

Ugly.

And futile, too.

7/29/2008 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No shit, Whistleblowme.

That's some evil douchery brought by the Coffman people.

Jason supports choice, and so do I. Who cares what Dan thinks?

7/29/2008 10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're not from the Coffman camp, "blowme".

And we never mentioned "catholic".

You brought up both issues.

But if one is a blogger, like Dan, who criticizes anonymous bloggers for their bravado, well...

If you work for Coca Cola and run a blog that espouses the evils of soft drinks, what do you expect?

So who is being honest here?

If Rush Limbaugh were to endorse Jason, people would have something to say about that. Right?

Well, if someone who is anti-stem cell research -- and pro-life --endorses Kander, like the person who runs this blog perhaps (judging from your comments) I think people would have something to say about that.

Right? The most public blogger -- the strongest advocate of Jason Kander online or offline -- is pro-life.

Jason's biggest supporter is pro-life.

What does that say about Jason?

7/29/2008 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Jason Rocks said...

Dan, this isn't right.Set the record straight here, please.

7/29/2008 10:32 PM  
Anonymous gone.wild said...

gone.wild dot

com

catholicism rocks

7/29/2008 11:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMFG Did anyone else get the anti-Kander attack door-hanger on their door overnight. HOLY SHIT

7/30/2008 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I with Amy Coffman. You lie Dan!

There nothing clean about the race that Kander has run. He is a slime ball.

7/30/2008 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a fun tidbit I received from coffman in my inbox: "If groups that defend human rights like PROMO and groups that defend working people like the AFL-CIO are "special interests" - then they are MY special interests. The irony is that my opponent worked for the support of these "special interests" as well and attacks them now because they decided to support my campaign."

Well, PROMO also endorsed Kander. So Amy's not only mean, but she's also kind of a liar.

7/30/2008 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now did PROMO endorse Kander like HRC endorsed Kander?

7/30/2008 1:04 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

And we never mentioned "catholic".

You didn't need to, it was pretty obvious what you were talking about. I don't know or care if you're involved in some campaign. I do know that you're acting like a first class jackass.

You also didn't mention that certain Catholic bishops get a little bitchy about catholics espousing pro-choice beliefs in public. And you didn't mention that you were hoping to place Dan in an uncomfortable position that he would respond to with silence so that you could fill that silence with more innuendo. All of that went unmentioned and yet... it was so present at the same time.

I'm not even going to take the time to catalogue all the sleaze oozing from your comments. Just wanted to you know that "we" got it.

7/30/2008 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kander never claimed an HRC endorsement. That has simply been made up.

He claimed membership in HRC, not support from HRC.

Both he and Amy were endorsed by Four Freedoms and PROMO.

Why isn't Coffman an HRC member?

7/30/2008 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Probably because she does not have a rich uncle to underwrite her membership in every political club.

In other words, Amy is not just a spoiled brat who has come to expect having life handed to her.

7/31/2008 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It costs about $20.

7/31/2008 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why isn't the Heartland Democrat's blog working?

7/31/2008 7:47 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Who knows? You should ask the Executive Director. I'm not responsible for every blog in town, you know.

7/31/2008 9:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home