Friday, July 11, 2008

Follow-Up on Koster's Money-Laundering - Will Coffman and Spence Drop the Ice Pick?

When Chris Koster got caught orchestrating a money-laundering scheme, many people began focusing on the ugly role that "third party committees" play in Missouri politics. While Chris Koster has pushed the envelope for their corrupt abuse in an unprecedented and probably illegal fashion, political insiders know that third party committees are nasty little tools that can used in several slimy tactics - mostly in launching ugly, usually false but always despicable attacks on opponents without having the candidate's name attached. They are the ice picks of Missouri politics - dangerous tools with few legitimate uses in today's world, other than inflicting damage.

Long before the light of day was shone upon the depths of Koster's corruption, Jason Kander was already providing leadership on this important facet of campaign finance. On, June 3, Jason Kander issued a press release pledging not to use the third party committees to circumvent the law, the way that the Koster campaign has.

"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," said Kander.

So far, Amy Coffman and Mary Cosgrove Spence have remained silent about third party committees. Now that Chris Koster has refocused attention on the corrupt uses of third party committees, will they join Jason in his simple pledge? Will they agree to not take contributions over the $325 limit from committees, or use third party committees to criticize their opponents?

Now is the time when they can either put down the ice pick or start using it to get nasty in the final weeks of the campaign.

Amy Coffman and Mary Cosgrove Spence - will you join Jason in putting down the ice pick, or will you resort to third party committees like Chris Koster?

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

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Dan, have you seen this site yet?

Chris Koster Kicked Your Puppy

7/11/2008 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Dan. What is your opinion of a candidate who benefits from third party attack pieces? Don't you find that the ends justify the means? How can you expect candidates to control the actions of others?

7/11/2008 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, it's no win. If they don't put out a press release (regarding something they were never planning on accepting anyway perhaps), you could attack them. If they do, you could sarcastically congratulate them for following Jason's lead.

7/11/2008 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Not playing this game, this time said...

Dan, you're a little late with this. Amy has been contacting people already to serve as third party attack committees against Kander. I'll bet you a thousand dollars we get some nasty crap from Amy in the days right before the primary.

Amy will NOT be taking this pledge.

7/11/2008 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonnymous 12:22 - I don't understand how Dan can make them look bad if they agrees not to use third party committees. Are they really so afraid of Dan's sarcasm? (Which I doubt he would use, anyhow - he's been nothing but honorable in my dealings with him.)

It they're really so scared of Dan, how can we trust them to stand up and represent us in Jefferson City?

7/11/2008 1:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon at 12:22 - that's exactly what Dan intends - it's a rather cheap tactic.

What's next?

"Jason's against communism!!!! I would expect Jason's opponents to join Jason in opposing communism. If they don't join Jason, they're obviously communists, aren't they?"

Dan's reinventing McCarthyism in Waldo. How wonderful.

7/11/2008 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What, exactly, anon at 1:34, in honorable about Dan's post?

Why don't you tell me that if I'm critical of Dan, I must favor dirty campaigning.

How McCarthiestic of you.

7/11/2008 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Jim Byrne said...


While everyone else refuses to stand up and be recognized, I will not.

Who put Jason Kander in charge of campaigns for all the Democrats seeking elected office?

If Coffman and/or Spence follow Jason's lead, it makes Jason the leader.

IF they refuse, you will insinuate that they are less ethical than Jason.

You have presented a losing proposition of which you should expect no support.

Jason isn't stupid. He arranged the financing of his campaign prior to calling for Coffman or Spence to go along.

Coffman had the courage to respond to allegations presented on your blog. Now, you seem to think she owes you continued commentary. You must hold yourself in pretty high regard.

Other than possibly providing an anonymous comment, has Jason Kander had the courage to respond to anything said about him on your blog?

If you say yes, please provide a link.

"To remain silent when your neighbor is unjustly persecuted is cowardice; to speak out boldly against injustice, when you are one against many, is the highest patriotism." Abraham Lincoln - 1855

7/11/2008 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Jim.

7/11/2008 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Typical Jim Byrne - full of sh*t.

You don't think it's legitimate for Jason Kander to seek a commitment to run a clean campaign? Before she saw how badly she was losing, Coffman claimed that she was going to run a clean campaign. Now she's running around trying to find committees to do her dirty work for her. Just like a lobbyist.

Spence, OTOH, is running an ethical, clean campaign. What's the harm to her in coming out and saying she won't use third party committees? Do you REALLY think that, even if Gone Mild or Kander claimed that he was the first to do so, it would sway any votes? Would that somehow look weaker than refusing to take a stand on an important issue because she's afraid someone might, but probably wouldn't, make a sarcastic comment that nobody would read?

If they refuse to drop the ice pick (great metaphor, Dan!) - yes, they are less ethical than Jason. If Amy gets a third party committee to send out slimy postcards, yes, she is definitely less ethical.

I will agree with you, though, that they don't need to post here on this blog to show their commitment. They can send out their own press release, or post it on their websites, or make their commitment however they want to.

By the way, who the fuck asked you to be the protector of Amy Coffman and Mary Spence? Do you really think they are so weak and so easily defeated that they can't stand up for themselves? If so, do you think they ought to be trusted to represent us in Jefferson City?

We know why Amy won't agree to drop the ice pick. She has every intention of using third party committees. She's dirty.

And Jim Byrne is trying to give her cover.

7/11/2008 2:56 PM  
Anonymous whistelblowme, blow me said...

Whistleblowme - stfu.

It's pretty clear the Kander camp has some information and is running scared, trying to pre-empt a perceived threat.

Where's the proof that Coffman is running around trying to get someone to do her dirty work?

Who is she talking with, specifically. Name some names, coward, or stfu.

And define, specifically, what "dirty work" means. Define dirty work, or stfu.

Speak with facts you moron, before you open your mouth again. Sounds like you and the Kander camp are running scared.

But until you come up with some facts, and can attribute an actual "dirty mailing" to Coffman camp, you're just not making any credible claims.

So next time you make a comment, make some sense for a change.

Where’s the proof or facts behind anything you say?

Blowing in the wind.

The Kanders have a lot of enemies out there that aren't supporting Coffman, so something must be definitely going on.

7/11/2008 3:31 PM  
Anonymous whistelblowme, blow me said...

You idiot McCarthyites really think that unless the other two candidates follow your lead, they are tainted?

Explain that too, moron. Or, just save yourself the effort and stfu.

7/11/2008 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

I'm not blowing my sources - and I hope they're wrong. If Amy isn't planning on going negative, so much the better. I hope the stories I've heard are absolute BS. I'd much rather see Amy be clean than catch her with a bloody ice pick.

Now, show me where I claimed that the other two candidates are tainted if they don't follow make the same commitment that Jason did? FWIW, I don't think Mary Spence is tainted, and I won't until I see her using third party committees (and I don't think she will).

Remember, if Amy isn't going to use third party committees, this is all pretty much irrelevant.

7/11/2008 3:55 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wow - you all really go after each other while the rest of us are hard at work!

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.

As far as the thought that this is a no-win situation for the other candidates, well, pish-posh. If they let me know they're not using third party committees, they will get nothing but genuine praise and respect from me for their clean campaigning. Seriously.

You know, it kind of cracks me up how suspicious so many of you are. Believe it or not, I am not some diabolical genius who can make a candidate look bad just by doing the right thing.

I think blogs can do some good in the political process, along with the mischief. I think offering space on this blog to the other candidates to publish their own carefully worded press releases is pretty darned reasonable. If they ask me to, I will ban comments under their posts.

I sincerely hope that none of the candidates is as afraid of me as some of you seem to think they are. I like all three of them, and I hope to have a positive relationship with whomever wins.

And if they share your concern that I am so much more clever than they are that I can make them look bad for doing the right thing in their own words, well, I can't imagine why they would want to go to Jefferson City, where there really are some diabolical geniuses.

7/11/2008 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Jim Byrne said...

“Will Coffman and Spence Drop the Ice Pick?”

Before you can drop something, you must first have first picked it up.

“Now is the time when they can either put down the ice pick or start using it to get nasty in the final weeks of the campaign.”
” Amy Coffman and Mary Cosgrove Spence - will you join Jason in putting down the ice pick, or will you resort to third party committees like Chris Koster?”

And Dan’s follow-up comment:
“Thus, if you read my post to imply that Coffman or Spence has already picked up the ice pick, then my phrasing was misleading.”

Dan, do you really believe your own BS? Phrasing has nothing to do with it.

I swear. If you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you’d claim that somebody stole your hand and replaced it with that one.

From a posted titled: Candidates, Slander, and the 44th dated 4/17/2008, you stated;
“I've chatted a little with Amy Coffman, including a conversation about the tone of the race, and she is 100% in favor of a clean race.”
Yet you continue to insinuate otherwise!

The two leading contenders are Kander and Coffman. You chose Kander from the beginning. Stick with your candidate, but stop trying to make anybody believe that you welcome Coffman with open arms. The knife tucked in your belt exposes your true intent.

You failed to address the question I posed. - As you have pointed out numerous times, Amy Coffman had the courage to post a comment on your blog when she was attacked. Did Jason Kander do the same?

Don’t worry Dan. No one has accused you of being “clever”, or a “diabolical genius”, or “so much more clever than they are”. Those are your words, not the words of those of leaving comments.

7/11/2008 7:03 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Jim - you are a deeply cynical person - you remind me of Jeff Roe, who claimed that I do this blog for "power", which is kind of funny.

Your speculation about what would happen if my hand were caught in a cookie jar assumes my hand WOULD get so caught. Dude, I'm doing Weightwatchers.

There you go again with the claim that I have some crafty plan to knife Coffman. Even assuming that I am as evil as you claim, how would I do that, publishing her words on this blog? Is she so easily duped - if you think so, maybe you have less confidence in her than I do.

Where's this "courage" that Amy displayed by typing a comment on my blog? Does that really count as courage in your book? Compared to, say, going to Afghanistan? Posting comments on blogs has nothing to do with real courage, despite your eyebrow-raising claim of "highest patriotism".

Sorry I missed your question - you daytime commenters spin out a lot of verbiage . . .

As far as I know, Jason does not post comments on blogs. Amy Coffman, though, has posted a comment on this blog.

7/11/2008 7:57 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Does Jim Byrne even live in the 44th?

Does Jim Byrne think that Amy Coffman or Mary Spence should "take contributions above the $325 limit from committees or use third party committees to criticize their opponents"? I don't.

7/11/2008 8:02 PM  
Anonymous Kander and Ebb said...

Does Uncle John Kander still get to make unlimited contributions to committees on Jason's behalf in order to buy his nephew a political career? After all the Missouri Supreme Court ordered Jason to give back the 40 K that Uncle John gave to the state rep race.

7/11/2008 9:20 PM  
Anonymous A heavy sigh from HRC Leadership said...

OOOOH do not say anything about Uncle John Kander on this blog because he may not come to KC and entertain the richest of the rich Gay men. That is the only reason we put up with his pushy nephew.

7/11/2008 9:23 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Kander and Ebb -
You are so mistaken it is hilarious. But, in case anyone out there is confused, Kander returned all donations that were over the limits, even though he could have fought it.

Heavy -
I have to stand up for Jason's opponents here, and assure my readers that none of them would want to be associated with such gay bashing.

7/11/2008 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Jim Byrne said...


To answer your question "Where's this "courage" that Amy displayed by typing a comment on my blog? Does that really count as courage in your book?

If anyone wants to read Amy's answers to the attacks on this blog, here's a link. Her comment is towards the end.

YES! I think Amy answered the tough questions and Jason avoided them. (my opinion) I find that to be courageous. (given this blog has supported Kander from the beginning)

If Jason doesn't want to answer questions posed on blogs that is his prerogative. If that leaves unanswered questions about his honesty and integrity; so be it. He was given the chance to respond.
Jason had no problem with posting a “guest editorial” on the CCP Blog in order to attack Koster.

If he is the candidate that you support; Why would you expect Coffman to answer questions that your own candidate has not? (At least, until now, he has not volunteered to answer.)

Why not ask your candidate to answer the question you posed to Amy. Is he incapable of answering the question?

For the record: I don't live in the 44th. I have not donated to the campaign of anyone in the 44th. My comments are unsolicited and impartial. I'm also an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Navy. (So you can't claim that I am somehow anti-veteran.)

Avoiding a bad neighborhood is a good instinct to have. Amy seems to have that instinct. I concur with her decision to not respond.

7/11/2008 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Uncle John said...

You mean I did not have to redistribute all that money to third party committees like I was told to do? Damn!

It is just so complicated anymore to buy a political career for a nephew who cannot keep a job!

Money makes the world go round!

7/11/2008 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is the latest poll (July 7-10). Sample is 325 of likely Dem voters; margin of error +/- 8%. (High error margin because of small sample.)

Kander 46%
Coffman 32%
Spence 22%

7/11/2008 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought Spence would be polling better. I am convinced she is the dark horse to watch out for.

7/11/2008 10:16 PM  
Anonymous A robott with arms swayingin the air said...

Dan you are heading down another Mark and Gloria Hell Hole. ABORT ABORT ABORT!

7/11/2008 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Jason did not put Mary in the Race said...

Spence is a favorite among people who support SCAB labor. No bugs on the Princess's signs.

7/11/2008 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Kanders have enough money to poll? This race is over.

There will be some big political divisions after this one. Look for the politicos to start hedging their bets. Kander, get ready for the phone calls: "Oh, I was with you the entire time. I just got so much pressure to back Coffman, but you always were the better candidate. I look forward to working with you. [Blah Blah]"

7/11/2008 10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see Coffman making up 14% in 24 days. Best case scenario, Coffman might eat into Kander by 6-7% with negative mailers. But Spence's supporters aren't going anywhere.

I agree Spence is the dark horse to watch. She has been hitting the living rooms and has some prominent supporters.

7/11/2008 10:29 PM  
Anonymous The Emcee said...

Money makes the World Go Round.

(even if your nephew gets fired from every law firm he works for for reasons of competence or ethics. OOOOH I am sorry he just had a desire to work in private practice for no pay.)

7/11/2008 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, you really need to shut up. by the way, gentle Readers, this post has a surprise ending. Read it through to the end and you'll be shocked.

Provide us one piece of nasty campaigning that has occurred outside of your blog.

You can't name one, Dan, because there isn't.

But please, name all the dirty tricks that are being played, outside of your blog.

I repeat, the only nasty statements come from posts and comments generated from your blog, Dan.

You are the singular source of dirty tricks and ice picks.

Why is that?

It seems that the Kander thugs, including you, suspect something is up - so why don't you do all of us a favor - when you have some facts, give it to us but until then stop the dirty campaigning.


Your March 27th post of 2007 was entitled "If You're on the Gottstein-Gamble fence". I've pasted it here, because it's definitely worth reading. Here's the link to the original post:

I quote from you, Dan:
This has been the most awful race of the year, but, despite many friends who support Gamble, I have to stick with my initial choice of Gottstein. It seems many, many people have their minds made up so strongly in this race that they are beginning to lose those minds.

If you're on the fence, though, let me offer one last piece of persuasion. The blogs are full of frothing Gamble supporters whining about a third-party piece exaggerating the extent to which he benefitted from his TIF tax give-away. They ignore the fact it was a third party piece, and that the Gottstein campaign BY LAW could not control it.

Contrast that with the piece below that comes DIRECTLY FROM THE GAMBLE CAMPAIGN. It highlights Beth's Jewishness, and relies on the ugliest photo they could doctor up.

I understand that the desire to win runs strong in a political campaign, but this is a direct call for the KKK vote, and it comes from Gamble. Maybe that kind of thing was okay in the Pendergast era, but I don't like it. If you're on the fence, I hope you'll look at the level to which the Gamble campaign has sunk, and ask yourself if you want people like that around City Hall.
(For a larger, more readable version, click on the picture.)
Sadly, this is not the race I care about the most. I hate to get distracted from the race I truly am passionate about - FUNK for MAYOR! But my sense of right and wrong just can't sit in silence when I see things like this.

You'll have to view the original post to see a picture of the piece.

Who put out this hit piece against Gamble?

DIANA KANDER, campaign manager for Doug Gamble.

The only known dirty campaigners in the race are the Kanders.

Anybody know of Amy Coffman, or Mary Spence putting out hit pieces inprevious contests (or this one, for that matter?)

Dan, you are a true moron.

Dan!!! You accused Diana Kander directly of issuing a KKK hit piece.


I'll quote you again:

"Contrast that with the piece below that comes DIRECTLY FROM THE GAMBLE CAMPAIGN. It highlights Beth's Jewishness, and relies on the ugliest photo they could doctor up."

Diana Kander, the only dirty campaigner (in this race).

Oh no, that's wrong. There are two known dirty campaigners with ice picks - Diana Kander and YOU.

Good job Danny.

7/11/2008 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, Dan you also defended the Gamble campaign by saying campaigns don't have control over third party committees, so that dirty mailings by third party committees was not the issue of the campaign staff/candidate themselves.

So what's the issue, and why the change of heart, Dan?

Explain all of this to us, Danny boy.

7/11/2008 10:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coffman cannot gain 6-7% by going negative on Kander. She can bring his numbers down but she can't bring hers up. If anything, Spence will be the beneficiary.

Is Coffman plan to go negative on Spence too? That is like going negative against your own monther. Spence is the nicest woman in the world. Hell, Spence just might win this thing because the other two may knock eachother out.

7/11/2008 10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mispoke above, you were defending the Gottsstein campaign and third party committees..

7/11/2008 10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa. I think Dan just got his ass kicked.

7/11/2008 10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't give two shits who plans to send out negative mailers against whom. What I care about is who is going to win this race. What do people think? The Kander people (I assume it is the Kander people) make a compelling case that Kander's lead is insurmountable and that even negative mailers will not help Coffman. So, what do the Coffman people say?

Have they given up?

7/11/2008 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is telling that the Coffmanites are spending their time talking about Dan and past campaigns. It seems the politicos have conceded this one to Kander. Ouch - that must hurt.

7/11/2008 10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only two individuals with dirty campaign tactics in their record are Diana Kander and Dan.

You're right anon (above).

I've never seen or would expect Mary or Amy to employ the tactics we've seen from the Kanders and, unfortunately, from Dan.

7/11/2008 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy crap!

I just checked out Dan’s post on the Gottstein hit piece, and pulled it up. It appears that it’s true.

Diane Kander, the campaign manager for Gamble at the time, was accused by Dan of putting out a anti-semtic hit piece against Gottstein.

Was Diane really responsible for that makiling?

7/11/2008 11:10 PM  
Anonymous Steph said...

What's amazing to me is that the last local person Dan accused of dirty campaign tactics was Diana Kander.

7/11/2008 11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's ask Dan's question, from his March 2007 post on Diana Kander:

"If you're on the fence, I hope you'll look at the level to which the Gamble campaign has sunk, and ask yourself if you want people like that around City Hall."

Remember that Diana Kander was campaign manager for Gamble.

I guess the new question is, "Do we want people like Diana and Jason Kander in Jeff City?"

After all, in Dan's words, "we need to look to the level at which the Kander campaign has sunk".

7/11/2008 11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan works with the Kanders hand-in-glove. This post is meant to inoculate the Diana and Jason when they release independent committee attacks on Coffman and/or in favor of Mary (Puppet Girl) Spence. Then they will say with the straightest of faces: OH MY GOODNESS, Jason is on the record against such hit pieces, we do not know WHO would put out a mailer linking Amy to stealing pets for animal testing labs!"

Jason and Diana Kander are liars and cheats in my opinion and they will do whatever they think it will take to win this election. He still has access to Uncle's money, where ever they may have parked it.

7/12/2008 7:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you have to say, Danny boy?
The only person with a proven record of dirty campaigning is the wife and campaign manager of Jason Kander.

You really look like an idiot, Dan. And, you've managed to highlight a major issue with your own candidate.

What a maroon.

7/12/2008 9:12 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

20 comments in an hour? Funny that my records don't show 20 computers visiting in that same hour. What we've seen here is a clumsy attempt to create a mob of support on one keyboard.

Honestly, I'm happy to host that much attention from one (maybe two) of Coffman's most active supporters. I trust most of my readers to see through all the noise and notice the one GLARING area of silence - nobody is claiming that Amy Coffman is NOT going to use Chris Koster tactics.

Now, with that point made clear, I'll go ahead and correct some of the mistakes included in the spurt of comments.

Jim Byrne - Thanks for caring so much about our race, even though you don't live here. I agree that people outside the district should be excited about this primary - Jason is going to be a dynamic leader in Jefferson City - much more than just another representative. He will have an impact that will help all Missourians. As for why Jason hasn't answered my question to Amy - I suppose the reason is that I have not asked him, and he, unlike Amy, does not comment on this blogs. Jason has never, to my knowledge, decried the "senseless world of blogging" or launched an inarticulate attack on bloggers. In fact, as the BlogCCP post you found (I had forgotten about that - thanks for reminding me of his leadership again!) demonstrates, he has a pretty solid grasp on the strength of blogs and how they should be used.

Anonymous 10:13 (and those others who wrote about the poll) - I don't trust anonymous reports of what polls report, regardless of whether they appear to support my favored candidate. I can just as easily post anonymously that the numbers are 98% Kander, 1% Coffman, and 1% Spence, and claim a MOE of 3.5%, and it would mean exactly as much as yours does.

For those who wrote about Spence - she has run a darned good campaign, and I have to respect her "my way" approach. She hasn't really sought endorsements, she hasn't kissed the asses of the people who expect it, and as someone said, she's running strong in the living rooms of the area. She also isn't burning any bridges or alienating anyone. I honestly don't think she will win, but, if I'm right, I would love to talk to her about the County Legislature on August 6.

Emcee - Jason has never been fired from a law firm. You must be thinking of someone else. Shame on you for lying.

Anonymous 10:41 - Ahh, yes, the Gottstein/Gamble campaign. I was wondering when someone would try to rehash that bit of history. Different candidates, different campaign managers, different donors, different office sought, but I suspected someone would try to make this race about that one. I'm not going to play that game, beyond pointing out that it was ME who stood up and shouted, and now it's ME who is standing with the Kanders. The entire story of that race has not been told, and never will be, but suffice it to say I am proud of my support for Beth, and I am proud to support Jason. Other people who were involved in that bit of last minute nastiness should not be so proud. 'Nuff said.

Now, if you want to accuse me of nasty campaigning, I'd like to see where. I'm happy to go back over any post you've seen me make and discuss whether it's fair or not, but I'm not going to accept a blanket accusation that I've been a nasty campaigner, because it simply is not true. I've pointed out a few instances where Amy looks kind of bad, but they're all absolutely factual, and usually in response to some back-firing bit of criticism offered up by the supporters of Coffman (like that hilarious attempt to make Jason look bad because Amy bought a car after she began her race).

Anonymous 10:55 - No, the Coffman people have not given up - she has some very bright, committed people supporting her, and they will continue to run a strong race. I suspect they give the bogus poll information exactly as much weight as I do. Anyone who thinks anyone has this race sewn up will get a lot more sleep on election night than I will.

As for nasty campaigning, I have seen none of it from the Kander side (except for the crap comments posted under the name SSideDem, who, fortunately, seems to have gone silent over the past few months). But from others I have seen:
1. A bunch of stolen yard signs, including, for the first time ever, a theft from the Yard of Power.
2. Encouragement by Coffman's sister for those raising questions about Jason's military career.
3. Gossip spread far and wide that the UAW was claiming Jason is a lying sack of sh*t, even though it turned out that Jason got the UAW endorsement!
4. Nasty, negative commenting on blogs by anonymous supporters.
5. A refusal to agree to not use third party committees to attack opponents or to funnel money.

Once again, it appears I have wound up on the ethical and clean side of a campaign. Funny how that keeps on happening, isn't it? Kind of makes you think I know what I'm doing, doesn't it?

7/12/2008 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the best you can come up with? Citing a few anti-Kander commenters that are in no way associated with the Coffman campaign?

Produce and speak with facts. So far you haven't provided one iota of a factual claim. Because you're dirty player, Dan.

So let's talk about some facts, Danny boy.

FACT #1: You accused Diana Kander of despicable behavior and dirty campaigning.

"I understand that the desire to win runs strong in a political campaign, but this is a direct call for the KKK vote, and it comes from Gamble."

Diana Kander was Gamble's campaign manager and directly responsible for the piece you criticized.

Fact #2: You defend the use and participation of third party mailings, and you specifically say that the campaigns by law cannot control them. that is a true statement. You directly defended Gottstein's campaign when a nasty anti-Gamble hit piece was produced by a third party.

FACT #3: 99% of the negativity in this race is generated on your blog.

Those are the facts, Danny.

There are only two dirty campaigners in this race: You and the other one you have acccused: Diana Kander.

Unless of course, you have any more facts that link Coffman or Spence to dirty campaign tactics. If you have those FACTS, Danny, cough'em up, or SHUT UP.

7/12/2008 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Feet On The Street said...

The Kander campaign apparently doesn't have a good record on clean campaigning. we're not Coffman supporters, or Spence supporters for that matter. But, the idea does come to mind that if Jason publicly calls for the other candidates to join him in the silly pledge you talk about in this post, well, there might be people there passing out the Gottstein hit piece and your criticism of Diana. It would all fit on one page nicely, and we have all the materials, and can honestly represent them as facts, courtesy of your blog. Because there are some people out there, including us, who are only on one side: clean campaigning. Someone spoke above about your McCarthy tactics, and they do resonate (negatively) with us. There are some people in the 44th that will not be bullied and manipulated by the likes of you and Diana.

7/12/2008 11:22 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Feet -
Where's the evidence that Jason's campaign hasn't been clean? Do you really think that talking about another race and a candidate's spouse is going to persuade a lot of swing voters? Really?

I hope nobody is planning on violating my copyright . . .

7/12/2008 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Feet On The Street said...

Your copyright? Pffffttt!!

This is the public domain, buddy.

Our actions, if we take any, will (as they always have been) guided by experienced legal counsel.

First McCarthy tactics, now additional threats. Keep it up!!!

7/12/2008 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Feet On The Street said...

Oh, if you're worried that we will not attribute your statements to yourself, be assured we will give you all of the credit you deserve.

And put the statements into their exact, honest context, of course.

7/12/2008 11:41 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Feet -

Better tell your "experienced legal counsel" that blogs are not "public domain". Here's a little free advice, though - look into the "fair use" doctrine - you might stand a better shot there.

A little bit more free advice - you're not running against Gamble.

7/12/2008 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Feet On The Street said...

Thank you very much Dan, but we'll keep our own legal counsel.

Fair use does work well, however, here's a little legal advice for might want to think about adding a COPYRIGHT NOTICE on your blog. That may help you in the future when you make copyright infringement claims.

7/12/2008 12:09 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Thanks, Feet, but common-law copyright suffices for me. I'm not likely to sue anyone. I'm just a nice guy sharing wisdom and perspectives.

7/12/2008 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Jim Byrne said...

Now that the ridiculous copyright debate is over.

“As for why Jason hasn't answered my question to Amy - I suppose the reason is that I have not asked him.”

Well. Why don’t you ask him? To be fair, it should be the same question presented to Amy.

Ask Jason - What is the most significant policy difference between you and Amy Coffman, and why is your position the correct one?

I would never ask/expect an adversary to do something that I would not first ask/expect from the person that I support.

7/12/2008 2:15 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Jim -

Jason has not come here and slammed the blog world, and all who participate in it. When Amy did that, I offered her an opportunity to elevate the level of debate.

Rather than curse the darkness, I offered Amy a chance to light a candle. Perhaps I was too kind, but that's just the type of guy I am.

7/12/2008 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Jim Byrne said...

Yes Dan...

I agree. You are that kind of guy.

And for those that haven't figured it out; I think Jason may be too.

Too bad. Plenty of brains, but too little integrity.

Reality Check

As if a scolding from me would penetrate your ego. I don't say these things as a mean spirited attack, but with hope that you will recognize your flawed perception of right vs. wrong.

In case you haven't noticed, your regular bloggers have abandoned you. Sure, a few of us stick around to keep the newbies from considering your distorted presentation of truth to be that of reality. But for the most part, your blog has becoming just like the KC Blue Blog. (anonymous commentary)

Look at the comments from a year ago, and tell me you are heading in the desired direction. (Nevermind. I know you will never admit to being wrong –about anything.)

Perhaps sophia said it best in response to your post entitled McCain Agrees With Amy Coffman's Position on Bloggers

“This is kind of funny, but your repeated revisiting of this topic seems unlikely to convice Coffman that your requests for dialogue are made in good faith. I, too, want politicians to appreciate the good that can happen because of blogs. I don't see how this helps. You seem to be proving more about yourself than about Coffman at this point.”

One of these days you will recognize that winning isn't everything. The end does not justify the means.

The Kanders are still children. They don't have the wisdom gained by years. You, however, should know better.

7/12/2008 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan -

If Coffman's legal team is led by the wonderlings at Husch Blackwell, I would not be worried. The firm barely made it to Band 2 of the 2008 Chambers rankings. They just aren't that good, at least not on the litigation side.

7/12/2008 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is so interesting that Coffmanites spend their time attacking Dan and previous campaigns. What they don't do, however, is explain why Coffman is the better (or even a good) candidate or explain how she can possibly win this election.

Again, negative mailers may bring down Kander's numbers slightly, but they will do nothing for Coffman's numbers. This race is over.

7/12/2008 5:59 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Jim - Thanks for supervising me - you might want to check my traffic and commentary, though. Both are way up from the "good old" days, and, while I'll agree with you that some of the commentary is merely flaming from Coffman supporters, I think a lot of the comments are well-thought-out and challenging. The Blue Blog, if you've been by lately, attracts almost zero commentary (though they've been writing some good stuff lately).

You're funny, Jim, because you claim I'm wrong and that I'm on a bad path, but you never are able to demonstrate where I've gone astray. Or, on those occasions where you have a valid point, I agree with you quickly, but you continue to criticize old points (I'm thinking of the "dropping the ice pick" issue - I agreed that neither has been shown to have picked it up yet, though nobody is denying picking it up, and nobody is defending using third party committees).

As for ends justifying the means and immaturity and all your other insults, you're the guy who runs a site claiming that Missouri judges are dictators. I don't think you have anything to teach me, Jim.

Anonymous 5:43 - Husch Blackwell has a great legal team. But, don't worry, I'm not suing anyone - it would just be a shame to see them violate my copyright. That's all.

Anonymous 5:59 - The race is not over. Three solid candidates remain running hard. The race won't be over until 7:00 p.m., August 5. I hope that none of the candidates resorts to negative mailings, whether through third party committees or not - it's not good for the party or for the district.

7/12/2008 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find the claim that the average voter in the 44th district "feeling bullied" by Diana Kander to be hillarious.

Does the Kool-Aid drinkers of the "Vast Kander Conspiracy" really believe the average voter thinks like them?

They must be sipping one too many martinis

7/12/2008 7:31 PM  
Anonymous Feet On The Street said...

The only factually-proven dirty campaigner, who put out just last year a misleading, RACIST, anti-semitic hit piece was Diana Kander.

Diana Kander.

Those aren't our words, they're Dan's.

No one else has a record or reputation of dirty campaigning. Amy Coffman and Mary Spence are honest campaigners.

But the one who wants to take credit for "clean campaigning", and blatantly cast aspersions on their opponents, are Jason and Diana Kander.

That's the issue.

This little ruse has backfired terribly on the Kander camp.

We officially request Jason Kander to make his silly challenge public, and to schedule a press event, with several days advance public notice, to issue his challenge to his opponents. After all, Jason has already issued the challenge in a blog. If Jason's campaign does truly intend to operate a clean campaign, Jason should WANT to do this.

And by the way Anon at 5:59 - we're not avoiding the issues, we're just trying to stay on topic - the topic of Dan's post.

We didn't bring this issue up, Dan did.

And we're definitely not Coffman supporters. We support clean campaigning, and don't want our district dirtied, like the 4th district council race involving Diana Kander was.

How honest are Jason and Diana? Only time will tell.

The amazing thing is that Amy and Mary have no intention of dirty campaign tactics, and do not have a history of dirty campaigning like the Kanders do - so why on earth would they feel the need to promise the voters they will act with integrity?

They already have the trust of prospective voters. It would never occur to anyone, meeting Mary or Amy, that they would do such a thing.

So if Jason issues a challenge, publicly, that's probably the general tenor their responses will take. It's not an issue with them, but they will deal a clean campaign, like they have, and that is a pact between them and prospective voters - it doesn't involve Jason.

Jason doesn't have a damn thing to do with the way they conduct their campaigns. And given the Kander track record, it's a very good thing.

And a note to Kander supporters - we operate on facts - not sophomoric challenges, trash talk and conjecture. You will help your credibility by doing the same.

7/12/2008 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feet -

I am impressed. You belong to the all-important, shadowy "we." The "we" group can turn an election with a phone call. Oh, the power "we" possesses. Unless "we" is on your side, you will not win. This is so stupid.

"We" - By the way, the "anti-semitic" Diana Kander is, herself, Jewish. But why let that fact get in the way of your argument.

7/12/2008 10:35 PM  
Anonymous Feet On The Street said...

It's not our argument, it is Dan's argument. We did not say that, Dan did.

Do you get that? Did you read Dan's previous post?

"It highlights Beth's Jewishness, and relies on the ugliest photo they could doctor up."

Those are Dan's words.

A commenter adds: "OK, I'll admit it. I don't see the Antisemitism. Please enlighten me. Is just quoting the Jewish Chronicle ."

and Dan responds:
"If you don't see the message behind pulling a quotation from the Jewish Chronicle talking about how Beth is not afraid of seeking money, I'm not certain I can enlighten you. And I'm not saying it's untrue that Beth is Jewish - it's just a shame that the Gamble campaign is running on that fact."

We need to make sure we're clear here - all the words above in quotes are DAN's WORDS, not ours.

Get that?

7/12/2008 10:44 PM  
Anonymous Feet On The Street said...

Dan also said of the hit piece Diana Kander authored, and the campaign Diana Kander ran:

"Gottstein is not guilty, and she was certainly wronged here. But, yes, Kansas City as a whole has suffered in this race."

That's exactly our perspective. We're actually agreeing with Dan.

We don't have a lot of experience in the blogosphere (yet) but we're finding we need to spell things out.

Here's another quote from Dan in the same comment thread:

"Again, I have not called the piece false, I have called it anti-Semitic. Why else would they have the Jewish Chronicle at the top of their piece talking about money? Strange coincidence?"

7/12/2008 11:01 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

The firm barely made it to Band 2 of the 2008 Chambers rankings. They just aren't that good, at least not on the litigation side.

Band 2 of the Chambers rankings... what a perfectly ridiculous crock of shit. Woo hoo! Big firm trash talk! My associates write better memos than your associates!!

Any day now we can stop pretending that comment trash talk does something more than entertain the committed and alienate the sincere information seeker. If we're going to continue the shadow boxing, can we at least raise the level of quality of trash talk?

7/13/2008 12:11 AM  
Anonymous The Nagging Echo of Truth said...

What about the money that (Dan-endorsed) John Bullard took from Chris Koster in return for obtaining the state FOP endorsement? If Koster is so bad, should not Bullard return the money and ask the FOP to recind the endorsement. Or is Bullard just bought and paid for?

7/13/2008 12:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feet -

Who is "we"? You and your cat?

7/13/2008 6:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For any political minds out there who still have some objectivity, Kraske today explains why Koster will likely win the primary: key endorsements (e.g., Congressman Clay) and money. See Kraske column in KC Star.

All of you out there in blogosphere can continue to bitch and moan about Koster's fundraising tactics. At the end of the day, however, Koster will win. That is just the objective truth.

(Now, here comes the usual "But Koster PQ'ed Justus...Medicaid cuts...he was a Republican...." Blah blah. All of those arguments are moot at this point, because Koster is our candidate for AG.)

7/13/2008 8:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

2 points. First off, nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does Kraske claim that Koster is likely to win the primary.

Second, Kraske is the most foolish person writing about Missouri politics in any format other than anonymous blog comments.

He's the genius that claimed Funkhouser was a 10:1 longshot at getting out of the primary. Google this site for Kraske articles, and you'll see he's been wildly off base time and time again.

But this time, he's not really off base - he's merely saying that Koster could go far IF he wins the primary.

Objective people don't misread columns so badly.

7/13/2008 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan -

Putting aside who you think should win, tell me if you disagree with either of the following predictions and, if you disagree, please explain why.

(1) Koster wins primary and beats closest opponent by 6 points.

(2) Kander wins primary and beats closest opponent by 8 points.

Of course, feel free to make your own predictions as well.

7/13/2008 1:10 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I disagree with both predictions. Chris is the bad boy of big money, and will be exposed as such over the next four weeks. It fits with his main weakness, which is a "smooth boy" facade over a self-promoting gamesman. Dems aren't going to fall for it. Clay's endorsement will backfire, once the financial nature of the transaction is widely spread (and it will be).

He's a pretty good candidate in a general election, where his Republican core can help out. But he's not that strong in a Democratic primary.

Guesswork about percentages is just that - guesswork. Depending on how bad this gets, I think he might be looking at third place. I know that sounds to a Koster supporter like I am engaging in wishful thinking, but, seriously, 81% of his money is fishy, and 3 and a half weeks of Missouri sunshine can make any fish stink badly.

7/13/2008 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

I'll play!

Wrong on both counts!

Harris - 42
Donnelly - 32
Koster - 28

Then, Koster, 2 years in Cameron.

7/13/2008 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is so interesting that Coffman supporters won't predict -- even anonymously -- that she will win.

7/13/2008 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coffman -49%
Spence - 47%
Kander - 4%

Happy now?



Take back your government!

Ordinary people get things done. Lawyers sue them for doing it.

Until the citizens take a proactive role in eliminating control of their government by one profession they will coninue to suffer the rule of an Aristocracy.

Ask yourself - Has this blog presented distorted information?

It is run by a lawyer.

Are you tired of the excuses in D.C. and Jefferson City?

7/13/2008 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kander 4%? Seriously? That shows the complete incompetence known as the Coffman campaign.

In the end when Coffman loses, it won't be a total loss. On the bright side, they'll have had some good gossip time on the blogs and logged many hours in bars drinking their martinis to victory!!

7/13/2008 8:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Add another to the list of groups that Coffman hates. So far, we know she hates labor unions (the UAW in particular) and bloggers. But now she apparently hates lawyers and is running as the anti-lawyer candidate. That approach ought to work well in the 44th, commonly referred to as the "Lawyers' Ghetto."

She should insult little old ladies next.

Are you Coffmanites aiming to finish in the single digits? The least you can do is lose with some semblance of class.

7/13/2008 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coffman hates annymous bloggers.
And puppy dogs
and bottle openers
and junkies
and teachers
and frogs
and whales
and aardvarks
and people named Todd
and yellow snow
and storms
and sunshine
and Frosted Flakes
strike that Coffman likes Frosted Flakes
but she hates corn cob pipes
and after shave
and mint cookies (except the girls scout cookies)
and natural shaped keyboards
and all mail delivery people
and small SUVs
and paychecks
and puppy dogs (did I already say that?
and orange vodka
and movies that are longer than two hours
and Vctoria's Secrets
and Karen's Secrets
and Paul's Secrets
and anything with grapes in it
and sidewalks that lean
and rotting sea lion
and late night talk show commercials
and reruns (no not the actor that played rerun -he's ok)
and all things not mentioned here.
Except for tabby cats
and roller blades
and chimpanzees
and curling irons
and the smell of rain
and ...................

Feel free to add to the list.

Vote Kander for the 44th

7/13/2008 9:39 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 9:39 -

Do you really want to "even the score" of nasty, anonymous comments? I certainly don't - the funny thing is, as I've said throughout, Amy is a perfectly nice person who happens to be running against someone I'm convinced will be an absolutely stellar state representative.

(The list, though, is pretty funny, though I'd not attribute it to any Dem, except Joe Lieberman.)

7/14/2008 5:46 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous 9:00 -

It's hardly fair to claim that Amy is anti-lawyer because some anonymous commenter posts a rant.

7/14/2008 5:54 AM  
Anonymous Dan can't tell the Bishop said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/16/2008 10:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home