Fred Arbanas - "I've told many, many people that this is my last term."
It seems my post yesterday about Mr. Arbanas caused a bit of a stir. According to the KC Star, they asked him about my suggestion that he plans to not run for reelection, and he "responsed" (sic), "That's a bunch of bunk." The Star elaborated that Mr. "Golf Course" Arbanas says, "he has made clear to numerous eastern Jackson County organizations that he intends to run for re-election."
I wonder if they're the same people he told back in 2004 that he was then in his last term (fast forward to the 4:50 mark). At that time, he stated, on the record and in a meeting, that "I've told many, many people that this is my last term."
Apparently, when nobody filed against him, he decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth and stayed in his seat.
This time around, though, he's going to be almost exactly the same age as John McCain when he's running for office. He hasn't run in a contested race since Salt n Pepa and 'N Sync broke up. But the only way he gets to handpick his successor is if he convinces potential opponents through a gullible press that he still has the fire in the belly.
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. He hasn't cast a dissenting vote in the past quarter (probably the past few years, but my patience for downloading and reading minutes of legislative meetings has limits). I couldn't even find an instance where he was alert and engaged enough to second a motion.
I'm sticking with my prediction.
Labels: 2010 Elections, Fred Arbanas, KC Star, Uncanny Gone Mild Predictions
posted by Dan at 7/09/2009 06:33:00 AM
20 Comments:
The anonymous commenter gets no credit?
Good point, anonymous! I should have mentioned that an anonymous commenter to yesterday's item posted a link to the video and told me what was in it. I'll clarify that on the front page this evening.
(That's one of the reasons that I don't ban anonymous commenters, despite my occasional temptation to do so.)
Fred seldom participates when he makes it to the Legislative Meetings.
However, to his "credit", he conducts the land use committee meetings off-camera and off-site on an irregular schedule, announce only during public meetings, at Flemming Park.
That would likely be considered a violation under the Missouri Sunshine Laws. He even requests to wave the reading of the agenda for these meeting during the public session so no one really knows what goes on there.
Anonymous commenters are great.
(That's one of the reasons that I don't ban anonymous commenters, despite my occasional temptation to do so.)
---
If you didn't permit "anonymous commenters" you would be writing mostly to yourself.
Lucky the anonymous commenters wasn't posting anything derogatory to your boy Funk, the Municipal Nightmare.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous comments sometimes contain the best information. I don't care whether Dan or any other blogger deletes comments, but I do care whether or not they allow anyone to post comments anonymously.
Nice work on this story, Dan.
I'm curious about this part, though:
Apparently, when nobody filed against him, he decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth and stayed in his seat.
I assume he would have had to take some kind of action (like file some paperwork) to stay in his seat during the subsequent term. Did he simply wait until the end of the applicable time period to file or is there some unusual rule that allowed him to do nothing and wind up on an uncontested ballot?
Thanks.
Unopposed for forty years. He must be more generous than Santa Claus.
I bet he leaves the "naughty or nice" decision upto the little elves in his workshop.
Come on, Dan. I can't believe you are playing the old guy card by stating "he's going to be almost exactly the same age as John McCain." Are you really saying he is too old for the job? Is he also too jock (ex-Chief) and too white, for example? I really don't have much knowledge of what Fred does at the meetings. However, it is not really fair to make light of his age. I could say that liberals get away with this kind of labeling all of the time, are quick to use it when it suits their current position, and are the first to hammer conservatives whenever they say something like this, but I won't. :)
wkb
Dan,
Isn't it interesting that you blog about what people say - in relation to their jobs. And you criticize them for it.
Yet when someone criticizes what you say in relation to your job you delete their comments.
Don't you think that is hypocritical?
A double standard?
I've seen briefly a few of the comments you've deleted, and there is nothing offensive in them.
Unless of course you are scared to death that your boss will read what you say - unfortunately you don't have the same compassion about the people you blog about.
And you don't bother to hide your identity.
So why are you scared about your boss finding out?
dan is afraid of his shadow
To heck with the county. Any news from City Hall?
What could they possibly say about your employer and faith that you would institute moderation?
Wimp.
*delete this*
Damn if you're going to moderate comments, get on with it!!
Jesus H.
If you want readership you are definately going the wrong way to get it. I can remember days when you received more than 100 comments on a post.
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
WTF? Either have blog or do not have a blog.
You are kidding, right Dan? Why even have a blog? Well, at least your hand is now exposed, Dan. I suggest you change Gone Mild to Gone Away From Being Relevant.
Have a nice time with your blog and your selected friends.
Dan is mighty and Glorious. I worship him.
Isn't it interesting that you blog about what people say - in relation to their jobs. And you criticize them for it.
Yet when someone criticizes what you say in relation to your job you delete their comments.
Don't you think that is hypocritical?
A double standard?
Mylo,
This isn't difficult to understand. Dan does not post about his job. Dan does not post about his employer or his creed. He never introduces these as subjects on the blog. So when people start commenting on them, they are off-topic. They're also generally ad hominem, attacking the substance of his argument with something along the lines of "but you work for a bunch of pedophiles!!"
Now, these comments are objectively and profoundly stupid. Subjectively, they are intended to insult Dan and frequently, I'd guess, trying to get him into trouble by luring him into discussions and concessions that the commentor imagines will have negative consequences for Dan in real life. These people aren't just trolling Dan on the internet, they are hoping to cause him trouble in real life.
I think these people are stupid and the discussions would not have that outcome. But I also think that Dan is being perfectly reasonable in not commenting about his employer or his faith. He has every right to keep these subjects private. And if he wants to go hair-trigger on commentors who are obviously contributing in bad faith, I support him 100%.
Boundaries, people. Learn about them.
Post a Comment
<< Home