Race for the 44th Ends Peacefully

One of the underlying themes of the Kander/Coffman campaign has been the issue of dirty campaigning. Who would do it, when, and how much? Like the wired boats floating in Gotham City harbor in The Dark Knight, each campaign has sat there, feeling vulnerable, wondering if the other will be quicker to act.

No movie spoiler here.

In this case, at least, it appears that neither boat triggered the other's bomb. Neither Amy Coffman nor Jason Kander launched the kind of attacks that we all feared. Bravo to them both.

That is not to say that there aren't quibbles that may fuel post-election conversations. Jason Kander's mailer contrasting his and Amy's positions on lobbyists was a strong piece, and left no doubts in anybody's minds about which candidate was closer to lobbyists. From the other side, Amy Coffman's treasurer falsely claimed that Jeff Roe (to carry the prior metaphor one step further, Jeff Roe is the Joker) had endorsed Jason Kander, and Tony's KC repeated the exaggeration.

In the grand scheme of things, though, this has been a pretty darned good race. Any of the three candidates would be a fine representative for the 44th District, and each of them kept their dignity throughout the campaign. Whatever the vote totals are at the end of the day, I hope each of them is glad to have participated in the process.

Now that the primaries are over, let's run the table in November!

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.

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.)

McCain Agrees With Amy Coffman's Position on Bloggers

"I hate the bloggers." - John McCain

"the time has come for me to personally to address the banter to nonsense that, in my opinion discredits Democrats, the democratic process, and purports the senseless world of blogging and the damage I believe it does to campaigning." - Amy Coffman

Just to keep myself on the high road, I will extend to John McCain the same invitation spurned by the Coffman campaign - I will happily publish the answer to the question "What is the most significant policy difference between you and your opponent, and why is your position the correct one?"

Amy Coffman refused my kind invitation - will John McCain follow her lead?

Amy Coffman Disdains the "Senseless World of Blogging"

Candidate for 44th District Missouri State Representative Amy Coffman visited this blog last week to set the record straight on a side issue (she agreed with every fact I had set forth) for the campaign. To preface her remarks, though, she explained that "the time has come for me to personally to address the banter to nonsense that, in my opinion discredits Democrats, the democratic process, and purports the senseless world of blogging and the damage I believe it does to campaigning."

Huh? Or, rather, how typical.

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

Think about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kander Shows Leadership on Campaign Finance Reform

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

Jason Kander understands the issue well.

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

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

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

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

An Alternative Space . . .

Over at this posting, the comments had evolved into a wide-ranging examination of whatever crept into the minds of a few anonymous commenters. A few who purport to be Amy Coffman supporters had gone pretty far astray discussing a car she drives, and, finally, Amy Coffman herself visited to address some of the nonsense.

She wrote a rational and calm comment, never disagreeing with any facts that I laid out. I responded with a couple clarifying questions, and decided to keep the comments there free of further commentary so that her dialog could progress without being buried or distracted. She indicated she wanted a higher level of debate on blogs, so I asked her a giant, substantive softball of a question, and I (and a bunch of pro-Amy, pro-Jason, neutral and one pro-Spence person who have emailed me) are eager to see the dialog progress.

Apparently, though, my attempt to create a space for a respectful dialog has upset some who prefer to make anonymous allegations. So, here is a space for whatever comments you wanted to post under that thread, where I will continue to delete comments that aren't Amy's. She deserves a space of her own, and I'm willing to foster intelligent debate. Apparently, there are those who feel I'm required to host their nasty ranting, too, so here's the space for that. Enjoy yourselves . . .

Should I Be Feeling Guilty? Because I'm Not Feeling it . . .

This morning, I did a post about an email that my friend Beth Gottstein sent to the Executive Committee of the CCP to urge that committee to reject the findings of its own selection committee, and endorse Amy Coffman for the 44th District instead of Jason Kander.

It appears that my post may have upset Ms. Gottstein.

I just read over the post again, and I'm kind of at a loss. Nothing in my post is inaccurate. Nothing in my post is slanderous. Nothing in my post criticizes Amy Coffman (whom I genuinely like) or Beth. I did say she was trying to hijack the process, but it's obviously accurate that she was trying to change the result at the last minute. Maybe hijack was a strong word, but not as strong as the words I've had directed at me this evening . . .

Now, that said, I do feel a little sheepish that I asked whether the Executive Committee would "follow Beth's endorsement, or support the work of its own screening committee". I should have mentioned that the third possibility is that they could vote their own opinions, which was the flamingly obvious course they in fact chose. It turns out that Amy Coffman won the support of a majority of the Executive Committee. (I did not arrive at the meeting in time to vote.)

The real CCP endorsements come after the entire membership votes in June. The CCP has a solid process - I look forward to seeing how this all works out.

Will the CCP Executive Committee Do Beth's Bidding?

Here's an interesting little micro-drama that will run its course today.

In the wee hours of this morning, Beth Gottstein wrote an email to the Executive Committee of the CCP, expressing her opinion that it should ignore the work of its own candidate screening committee. That committee, composed of volunteers without ties to any candidate, chose to endorse Jason Kander for the 44th District. As readers here know, Jason is a great Democrat with a long history of Democratic involvement in the Kansas City community, and I support him enthusiastically.

Beth offers no real reason to ignore the work of the screening committee, other than noting that she met Amy Coffman when Amy moved to Kansas City from Alaska. Beth alludes to the fact that Amy is a woman, but fails to explain why those who prefer to avoid Y chromosomes should not support Mary Spence.

It's a confusing little note, and the fact that it got sent out in the wee hours of this morning suggests it is a sort of last-minute hail-mary attempt to hijack the process without allowing adequate time for a response. Beth's fellow councilwoman, Jan Marcason, is supporting Jason Kander, but apparently isn't choosing to campaign for him at 3 in the morning.

The CCP Executive Committee gets to decide this evening if it will follow Beth's endorsement, or support the work of its own screening committee.

Which will it be?

Candidates, Slander, and the 44th

My humorous extended metaphor on baseball box scores and quarterly campaign finance reports ignited a surprisingly bitter round of accusations and attacks. The simple facts I pointed out from Coffman's campaign finance report (fewer dollars, non-union t-shirts, and donations from pro-voucher lobbyists) triggered accusations that Kander's wife does my writing, though I do Stephen Bough's writing, and hints that Kander's military service to our nation in Afghanistan means that he is some kind of war criminal.

Once again, the partisans are turning out to be worse than the principals.

The three candidates in this race, Jason Kander, Amy Coffman, and Mary Spence are fine people. And I don't say that as a simple nod to polite political conversation - I've talked to each of them, and I like each of them. I know their supporters, and their supporters are good people supporting a candidate that they think would served the district well. I hope all three find their way into public office in some role.

My rosy view seems to be shared by the candidates themselves. I've talked a fair amount with the Kanders, and I've never heard them say a negative word about any of the others. 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. While I haven't discussed the topic with Mary Spence, those supporters of her I know would react with disgust at the sort of slander spread in the comments of my Tuesday piece.

And by no means do I want to single out the attacks on Jason as being the only ones worthy of condemnation. Some anonymous creep over at the BlogCCP posted a horrible comment attacking a candidate's physical appearance.

There is a huge distinction between fair and unfair partisanship. For me the test is whether it is relevant and whether it is supported by specific facts. If I say that Candidate X is corrupt, that's an unfair attack. If I say that Candidate Y is corrupt because he has taken bribes, and I can back up that claim with specific facts, then that's a fair attack.

As I look back over my own political involvement, I can see where I've used both, so don't misunderstand my commitment to fair partisanship as a "holier than thou" pretense. For example, I think my approach toward Chris Koster provides examples of unfair name-calling, but also examples of well-supported and well-deserved criticism. Looking forward, though, I am going to condemn what's unfair, and invite anyone to call me out on any unfair attacks I might make in the future.

Play Ball!! Quarterly Campaign Finance Reports Time!

Political geeks like me love campaign finance reports. A baseball box score reveals secrets of strategy, individual performances, and key statistics, but only a tiny portion of the success of the season. Similarly, quarterly campaign finance reports provide enough hard facts to fuel gossip and speculation, but only a tiny part of what it takes to have a successful election season.

In the 44th District, for example, Jason Kander once again defeated Amy Coffman in an extremely close contest, continuing his sweep of the series. (Both defeated Mary Cosgrove Spence, who appears to be a shoo-in for Rookie of the year, but thus far has not shown much potential for the play-offs.) It was a tight battle, though, with Jason Kander edging Coffman out $16,110.15 to $15,075.00.

One troubling sign for the Coffman team is that they had to resort to their bullpen awfully early. As a lobbyist, Coffman was obviously going to resort to her lobbyist friends and their easy cash sooner or later, but I, for one, didn't expect her to call up the farm team in Jefferson City as early as March. But there it is - including campaign funds from the lobbyist dream team of school voucher flamethrowers, Flotron & McIntosh, LLC. Honestly, that is like throwing spit balls in a Democratic primary, but maybe she felt like she had to pull out a late-inning miracle.

Another curve ball from the Coffman side was a purchase of T-shirts from non-union CheapesTees.com, in Burlingame, California. Her website (which is a very nice one, by the way, now that it's up), claims that

I think we can agree that personal security begins with stable, well paying jobs for Kansas City’s working people. A healthy economy, strong labor unions and a vibrant business environment help families reach their economic and professional goals.

I know I agree, but it appears that some may be a little shaky on that one.

All told, it's only one box score, and this week's stats don't tell us what's going to happen in the World Series. The rookie could catch fire. Any of the teams could commit a crucial balk. The umpire could toss someone out for throwing bean balls, though all sides seem to be pitching strikes at this stage. Amy Coffman has attracted an impressive group of fans, including the current officeholder, and my favorite City Councilwoman.

To carry the analogy one final step, in this local race with three fine candidates, the ultimate winner may be decided by which one takes the most walks - door to door.