Writing in Candidates - Not as Easy as You Might Think

The Write-In Ballot is the fantastical "out" for independent voters everywhere. Don't like the candidates listed for a given position? Go ahead and write in your own name or your best friend's or Kanye West. You might not win, but at least you will have lodged a vote for the best candidate for the office, while striking a blow for independence. In the back of your mind, you may even indulge the fantasy of puzzled pundits reacting to a tide of votes for an unknown name. Can't you picture Wolf Blitzer on election night announcing, "In an unexpected development, it appears that Tony Botello has emerged as the leading vote-getter for Missouri Governor. Stand by for Jay Nixon's stunned concession speech . . ."?

Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy.

Write-in ballots only count in Missouri if the named person has filed with the Secretary of State's office prior to 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday immediately preceding the election day. Votes for write-in candidates who haven't jumped through the hoops don't even get counted.

So, sadly, writing "Martin Sheen" in for president won't get us President Bartlett.

Leadership Shows Its Stripes

Why should we stick with segregated electoral districts for the Kansas City Metropolitan School District? Are we prepared to abandon our traditional electoral maps, with their separate "communities" representing traditional power bases?

Airick Leonard West was elected to the KCMSD Board because he is a change agent. He looks at things from a fresh perspective, and, when the need arose to redraw the electoral boundaries for the KCMSD, he saw an opportunity to strike a blow to the heart of our segregationist past and "Us vs. Them" present.

Look at the map posted here - this is what change looks like. Each of the districts stretches from State Line to the eastern boundary of the District - like a stripe across the KCMSD. Each of the districts shows a commonality of interests in making sure our children get the best education possible in the KCMSD. This map changes how we will elect our leadership and how we could view our participation in the district. (It won't, however, alter boundaries for neighborhood schools or create zones for busing - it is solely aimed at elections for school board membership.)

If you think its time for Kansas City to try a new way of creating community, there are a few ways of helping bring this to fruition:
- send an email to both kceb@kceb.org and cspears@kcmsd.net or call the Election Board at 816.842.4820;
- contact individual election commissioners and school board members you know;
- forward this or a similar email to concerned Kansas Citians you know;
- attend the meeting where election commissions will vote on this issue: June 19th (www.kceb.org for further info).

We elected Airick Leonard West to make some changes. Now let's support the change we sought.

Bottoms Up! Put the Top Down! - Jackson County Legislature Keeps its Privileges

Theresa Garza Ruiz represents the best of the Jackson County legislature. So it came as no surprise that she came up with a workable solution to the awkward and unfair system of "first come, first served" ballot filing for County positions. Our current system, where candidates are made to wait outside the courthouse or obtain early access through favoritism, is simply an embarrassment. Rather than cursing the darkness of insider politics, Garza Ruiz lit a candle of fairness and proposed a lottery system for first-day filers, similar to the one that has been working effectively at the state level.

Garza Ruiz's common-sense solution got rejected 7-2 by a County Legislature that refuses to surrender its insider perks for the good of the County.

This may be a little thing, but tt's the little things that show character. Garza Ruiz showed that she is working for the improvement of the County. The 7 who voted against her showed that they are in it for themselves.

There will be a future round of elections for those 7 legislators, and I am quite confident that they will eagerly use their insider access to gain themselves the fruits of the system they have protected from improvement.

I propose that those of us who reject their ugly system of privilege launch a campaign to encourage voters to punish them by rejecting those at the top of the ballot. Perhaps the slogan could be "Bottoms Up!" or "Put the Top Down!", and it could foster the sort of anti-incumbent fever we need to rid our legislature of the self-serving seven.

A Primer on Election Watch Parties

Free food. Sometimes free drinks. Drama. Opinionated people with something in common. Strange people. Celebrities. TV cameras and print reporters.

Election Watch Parties are a fascinating niche in the party-going world. They represent the best that the political world has to offer - launch parties are universally earnest and strident. Fundraisers are either brazen or coy, but always measured by the bottom line. But Election Watch Parties are something special.

Who can resist a party with the inherent drama and tension of election results? Even in "sure-thing" elections, there's always that edgy worry that the sneaky opposition pulled off a miracle. Until the votes are counted, anything can happen. Remember Florida?

If you're not an experienced election watch party attendee, the risk hovering over the party probably sounds like a damper. The thought of being present when the star of the party gets demolished by public opinion probably sounds awkward and awful. Kind of like waiting in the church with a bride for a groom that never shows.

Oddly enough, losing parties aren't all that painful. The losing candidate usually (but not always!) tries to keep a shred of dignity, and the true believers struggle to put on a brave front. Alright, I'll admit that you have to be a bit of a hard-hearted ass to enjoy a losing watch party, but I'm blessed with the ability to appreciate a fine train wreck.

Winning parties are almost always a lot more fun, and, if you happen to be a true believer (as I often am), they can seem like Cinderella's ball without a curfew. There is a many-faceted joy in the room - the affirmation of the voters, the "told-you-so" glee of the activists, and the barely-suppressible "You like me, you really like me" exhilaration of the candidate and close insiders. I've never been to a watch party as a single person, but I imagine they are full of opportunity, if you like the political types.

Which brings me to the cast of characters at an election watch party. First off, the candidate (or, in non-local races, his or her proxy) may be the center of attention, but it's not the time to schmooze him or her. S/he will shake hundreds of hands that night, and you will only be part of the crowd. If, for whatever fine or nefarious reason, you want a politician to be your friend, establish that relationship during the campaign by hosting a couple fundraisers or doing a lit drop. The election watch party is too late.

Spend your time watching the other characters. There will be at least a couple, and probably a team, of Very Serious People furiously seeking the latest shred of data. They wear concerned looks the entire night, and their biggest thrill is handing folded pieces of paper to the candidate or other VIPs. They will not be drinking, for fear of transposition errors.

The political insiders are fun to watch, too. They are there to see and be seen. They will probably be wearing navy and red, and have a firm handshake. If you are a kind soul, get a quizzical look on your face when they introduce themselves, and say, "Haven't I heard that name before?". They will explode with false modesty and rattle through a list of committees and boards, glowing with excitement that you've heard of them. "Haven't I heard that name before?" at a political event is the equivalent of "Have you been working out lately?" at a singles bar. Use it often and spread shallow self-esteem.

By far the most fun people are the volunteers. Look for the poorly dressed (they were working the polls), the bad hair (ballcaps), the ones with their emotions on their sleeves. They aren't part of the crowd of sophisticated "insiders" - they are the people who really got out and worked. There are always a lot of first-timers in this group, and they got there because they knew the candidate in high school, or they're related, or they met him or her at a coffee shop and were impressed. Just walk up to them and ask how they know the candidate, and they will blossom with enthusiasm. These are the people you want to have a beer with.

Finally, there are the celebrities who show up late. But usually only to successful parties. They are the least exciting and the least welcome. If you happen to have one brush by you, use their first name when you shake their hand, and say "Hi, _________, good to see you again, it's been a little while." That phrase will trigger their mental rolodex, and they will try to figure out who you are. It's a minor form of psychological terrorism.

One last word of advice. I used to be shy about attending them. "Sure, I spent hours stuffing envelopes and phone banking and waxing the candidate's car to a sparkly shine, but am I really welcome at the Election Watch Party?" These parties are wide open for crashing. If you hear where one is, don't hesitate to eat the food and see if the drinks are free. Nobody is going to risk offending a donor or a volunteer, so walk in like you own the place. See you in August. I'll be the one in navy and red.

Crappy Day for the Polls - Your Vote Counts for More

It's an ugly day. It's Royals Opening Day. It's Rotary Greater Kansas City Day.

There are dozens of reasons not to vote this morning. Which means that your vote counts more, if you bother to cast it.

Right now, it's cold and wet and dreary. What a perfect day to vote in favor of Question 3! It reminds me of the schadenfreude I'll feel every time I walk past a cold, wet smoker on my way into one of Kansas City's soon-to-be smoke-free bars and restaurants!

Oh, yeah, vote "YES" on all the questions, and cast a vote for Airick Leonard West!

More on Funk

In the comments to my post about Funkhouser's refusal to go along with Kay Barnes' decision to stick him in an ugly car, several commenters have chosen to ignore the attempted humor and act like this minor flap is full of portent for the next four (or 8!) years. In the funniest hissy fit, one anonymous commenter wrote: "I voted for the man twice and as Roberto de Vicenzo said 'what a stupid I am.'" When I expressed my amusement at his fickle support, he elaborated: "It's not just the car. The car is old news, as far as I'm concerned. It's the special treatment he requested for Ed. It's the fact that he thinks he has a mandate even though he only won by 850 votes. It's the whole inauguration issue, not wanting to use the ballroom. It's the paranoia. It's the salaries he's paying his people."

I'm responding with a front page post because Funk's performance as mayor-elect is a legitimate topic of thoughtful conversation, beyond whether he should ditch the car idea entirely and fire up a Harley . . .

First off, I think my anonymous commenter and people like him are awfully quick to throw up their hands in worry. He's not even in office yet! The car thing is a silly diversion, and it's a silly diversion brought on by Kay Barnes waking up the morning after the election when her candidate lost and deciding to make an autocratic (pun intended) decision messing with Mark. The fault is on Barnes. Same thing with ballroom - Kay wanted it to be her party, and Funk wanted it to be the people's.

Anyone who wants to question Mark's choice of Ed Wolf for Chief of Staff doesn't know Ed Wolf. He is the best man for the job. Period. If you'd rather have the sort of mayor who would fail to do what is best for city government because he is afraid to change an ordinance, I don't understand why you voted twice for Funk.

Finally, as for the mandate - what do you propose? I agree that the margin was slim, but he's the mayor. He's not mayor 51% - he's our mayor 100%. Do you think he should govern as if he didn't really win? Whether he won by one vote or one hundred thousand votes, he's not going to govern effectively if he is afraid to make decisions or is filled with self-doubt. And he's not - in the times I've seen him since the election, he has seemed strong, confident, and purposeful. He's exactly who I knew him to be and exactly what this city needs right now. The margin of the last election is yesterday's news - after four years of better services and a stronger city, I predict his margin for reelection will set records.

Finally, a word about the "paranoia" label. It started with Glorioso, and that fact illustrates its absurdity. It may be impossible to be sufficiently paranoid when Glorioso is involved. He is the Jeff Roe of the backroom democrats - the subclass of the party that prefers to cut deals in smokey rooms and make sure the current elite stays on the inside. He'll manipulate and spin anything to make his side (the side that has made city hall into a hog trough) retain power. Anybody who wants to change things in Kansas City cannot be too paranoid of Steve Glorioso.

See you at the inauguration party!

Has Kit Bond Lost his Mojo?

A couple years ago, I would have thought that Kit Bond was as safe as anyone in the Senate (a pretty safe place for incumbents) could be. Except for when he ran against Jay Nixon, he hasn't faced a truly strong democrat in any of his four races. I even voted for him when he ran against Geri Rothman-Serot (one of those annoying St. Louis Democrats who think the world ends outside of the I-270 loop).

Bond has always been a tolerable Republican. Where many Missouri Republicans fit better into the John Ashcroft mold of crazy religious zealots, Kit Bond is a classic country club Republican. Raised at an east-coast prep school, he has dulled his once-sharp intellect with lobbyists' booze and high-living of the type most of us associate with Hugh Hefner and Ted Kennedy. When you meet most Missouri Republicans, you sense that they want to lecture you about how you should go to church and save your soul. When you meet Kit Bond, you sense that he wants to tell you about the strip clubs in DC.

His tolerability goes beyond the fact that he is not a sanctimonious pain in the ass - he has also brought home the bacon like a champ. The political elite of both parties like Kit Bond because he delivers more pork than McGonigles in the week before the American Royal BBQ contest. Politicians of all stripes like spending tax dollars, and Kit Bond has been the secret Santa of Missouri for over 20 years.

But I'm announcing here that Kit Bond will not win another term.

He's up for a race in 2010, and he's lost his mojo. It's been fun, but it's over.

As a member of the minority party, his bacon won't come in slabs anymore. He's going to have to fight for every strip. The Dems who have liked him as Candy Man are going to walk away when he can't deliver. And without the money, why should they tolerate one of only 9 Senators who voted to support torture and one of only two senators who voted to support the conversion of the US Attorney's office into a political attack dog?

On top of that, his own party's going to savage him, because he's not really a Missouri Republican. He's a Deerfield Academy, Princeton, University of Virginia east coast elite who came back to Mexico, Missouri only to launch a political career. He hasn't done the real work of attending all the confederate rallies, cross-burnings and church socials where grassroots work is done in certain Missouri Republican circles. Most of his party suspects that the last time he saw a Bible was when he stumbled across a Gideon's Bible while trying to call the front desk for more ice. He's not really one of them.

Bond may wind up not even trying. He'll be 71, and he's not going to be having much fun as a non-influential minority member of the Senate for the next 3 years. When the lobbyists dial down their level of attention, Kit Bond is likely to figure out that he can have more fun elsewhere, without the occasional scrutiny of the press. It might even be worth paying for his own Alaskan junkets.

Gonemild says that Kit Bond is finished in 2010.

In Defense of the Brooks Campaign - 10/10 Hindsight

As mentioned below, the pundits are having a field day criticizing the Brooks campaign for coming up 1010 votes short in Tuesdays election. Typical is Steve Kraske, who is beginning to resemble that guy in the Fed Ex commercials who is always wrong, and is shocked to learn they don't get "French benefits". He wrote:

On 10 different levels, it shouldn’t have worked. And it may not have worked had not Brooks run such a milquetoast campaign. The mayor pro tem’s campaign at times appeared invisible. So much ammunition was at his disposal, such as the former city auditor’s call to privatize the water department or raise trash fees, not to mention his startling one-time advocacy for school vouchers.

All that’s fair game. It didn’t have to mean “going negative.” But Brooks, a former cop, only flicked a jab or two at forums and his campaign, led by venerable tough guy Pat Gray, forgot to step on the gas.

“It never got off the ground,” said former City Councilwoman Teresa Loar of Brooks’ campaign.

From the start, this was Brooks’ campaign to win. He had every advantage: the money, the campaign team, the big-time endorsements, the name identification, the title of mayor pro tem, the unwavering backing of Barnes and decades of community service in his hip pocket.

But that wasn’t enough to sufficiently motivate his base. His numbers paled in comparison to another prominent black politician, Emanuel Cleaver. As good a guy as Al Brooks is, as much as he’s contributed going back decades in this community, he’s no Cleaver.

His campaign gave him no help in making up the difference.

I've got to call bullshit here.

While it's true that Brooks and Funkhouser both ran remarkably positive campaigns, and it's true that, all things being equal, it might have grabbed some attention if Brooks had gone negative, it is not true that such a move would have resulted in an uptick of votes for Brooks.

Such thinking assumes that the Funkhouser campaign would have remained static. Sure, I could beat the hell out of Mike Tyson, if I got to throw all the punches. Who knows how Funkhouser would have responded? I'm certainly not going to go negative now, but I suspect Funkhouser could have responded with similar, fact-based material that would have weakened Brooks' positive image.

Those who are decrying Brooks for running a clean, positive campaign, and claiming they could have done better, are using sloppy logic. Yes, some pointed criticism of certain audits drawn out of context could have changed the landscape, but the response from the Funkhouser campaign would have changed the landscape further. Perhaps the changed world would have resulted in a Brooks victory, but such a result is by no means certain.

The only thing that would have been absolutely certain is that Kansas City would have had an uglier Mayors race.

To claim that Brooks ran a bad campaign because he didn't go negative and came up 1010 votes short is to engage in utterly false hindsight. The race was run on the high road, and both candidates were wise and honorable to stay up there.

Back When We Were Foolish

Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to Mark Funkhouser on November 22, the day that I heard he was going to make a run for the Mayor's office:

Thank you for being willing to take on the job. You'll be a great mayor. I don't have access to polls and I haven't talked to the "insiders" (like the ones who were so confident that Wheeler would win), but I can see you coming in first with a plurality in the primary, and riding a populist wave. I think you're going to wake up with a huge job on your hands come March 28th.

From his response:

I like your analysis of the situation a lot. I heard a political insider say I'd finish 7th or 8th and my response was "I'm going to win this thing."

So, I was a couple hundred voters off from him winning the plurality in the primary, but that's not too bad an analysis for an amateur. Meanwhile, the "serious" and "informed" "experts" were providing "analysis" that said things like Funkhouser was a 10:1 long-shot to even make it out of the primary. The "experts" told us things like "Voters won't care about TIF - it's too complex a message," and "You can't win with that name." I cannot count the number of times I had people smarter than me tell me that this was a fool's errand and a waste of time. But when I looked around the campaign committee and saw people like Joe Miller and Jeff Simon and the Wolfs and Ruth Bates - I saw good solid people full of hope, and it was contagious.

Even today, the know-it-alls are insisting they know it all. From Kraske's column this mornning:

Funkhouser, who padded a fairly stodgy persona with his “The Funk” moniker, pulled off a win even though he was outspent 2-1 and operated the most unorthodox campaign I’ve ever covered.

No campaign manager. No phone banks. No fancy high-dollar consultants. No focus groups. No polls. Just a few good folks down at the “doublewide,” as the campaign cleverly referred to its 18th and Summit trailer-turned-campaign headquarters.

And gaudy orange-orange, for gosh sakes, as a trademark campaign color.

On 10 different levels, it shouldn’t have worked. And it may not have worked had not Brooks run such a milquetoast campaign.

The column then goes on to lay out how the brilliant Steve Kraske would have won the race for Brooks.

Yeah, whatever.

My point in writing all this is not to claim I'm a political genius, because I'm not. And it's certainly not to gloat - my respect for Alvin Brooks remains untarnished.

But what I am trying to say is that the emperor/experts aren't wearing any clothes. The "experts" who say that money is everything are wrong. The "experts" who say that endorsements make the difference are wrong. The "experts" who say that "serious" campaigns have self-proclaimed wizards like Pat Gray or Jeff Roe running them are wrong. They are lying to you.

If Funkhouser can win, we can get some Latino representation on the Council, maybe even Rita Valenciano. If Funkhouser can win, Mark Forsythe and Deth Im can win future races.

That's not to say that money, endorsements and experienced campaign consultants won't help. It's not like saving Tinkerbell - merely wishing and clapping won't do it. And even if things go well, there are more losers than winners in Kansas City politics. But it can be done, and don't let the people who are supposed to be smarter than you about these things tell you otherwise.

Every now and then, a naive amateur has more sense than Steve Kraske.

FUNKY Town

Now get out and vote for the man who drives Barnes crazy!!!!!!!

If You're on the Gottstein-Gamble Fence . . .

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.

Freedom Inc's Ranking Slum Lord Attacks Kansas City Housing Court

(Update and bump: The rumors were right, plus they are going after Judge Williams, partially because he said that being a municipal judge in Kansas City is a "good gig". Sorry, Freedom, but it is a hell of a good gig. If there were someone who DIDN'T think that getting paid $120k to be a municipal judge is a good gig, I wouldn't trust him or her to judge a dog show.)

Observant Kansas City voters with a sense of history can only shake their heads in wonder at how far Freedom, Inc. has fallen. Back in the day, they were a powerful organization backing credible leaders. Political luminaries such as Congressmen Alan Wheat and Emanuel Cleaver received much needed boosts from this once-powerful, formerly respectable organization.

Back in the early 90s, though, Freedom, Inc. was taken over by criminals and rascals, a tradition that continues to this day. They continue to survive only through unseemly shakedowns of desperate candidates (how did paying for their endorsement work out for you, Charlie Wheeler?) and trading on their long lost honorable name. Their current president is a real estate development lawyer (read: TIF pig), and Leon Jordan is spinning in his grave. Under his leadership, the organization has paid a $45,000 fine for failing to register as a Political Committee.

What fresh humiliation could the current leadership dream up to drag Freedom, Inc.'s name down further into the gutter during this election cycle?

Believe it or not, if current rumor is to be believed, they are attacking the housing court, in an effort headed up by none other than Richard Tolbert, a man who has done more than his share to keep that noble court busy.

What is the Housing Court? It is a division of the Kansas City Municipal Court that handles housing code violations. It is recognized as one of the strengths of Kansas City, and a huge source of support for our neighborhoods. Rather than letting absentee slumlords like Tolbert ruin entire neighborhoods on the east side, the Housing Court forces recalcitrant landowners to maintain a minimal standard of upkeep. I've represented a client in housing court, and, trust me, you need to be almost aggressively negligent to get in trouble there. Tolbert has not only gotten into trouble there, he has actually earned a jail sentence.

Rumor has it that Freedom, Inc., and Richard Tolbert will be asking you to vote NOT to retain Housing Court Judge Wayne Cagle. If anyone asks you to vote against Judge Cagle, tell them you refuse their advice. And that they should be ashamed of themselves.

Gottstein vs. Gamble - A Few Thoughts

There are several interesting races to be decided on March 27, but the one that is going to be drawing the pyrotechnics, probably even moreso that the mayoral race, is the race for the 4th District At-Large. The Gottstein vs. Gamble race appears to have all makings of an ugly, ugly donnybrook - which is sad, because I doubt the truth is going to be well-served, and the candidates are both going to come out of it damaged. Maybe, just maybe, cooler heads will prevails, but I'm not feeling really optimistic. If anyone cares, here are a few thoughts about the race . . .

1. Go Roe or No Roe? Rumor has it that Jeff Roe is helping out the Gamble campaign, and when I say "rumor", I mean rumor. I have no idea whether it is true or not, or whether he's being paid in cash, or promises, or not at all. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it were true, because even a political newcomer like Gamble can see that Roe is the kiss of death in Kansas City - ineffective and divisive.

I also have no idea where the rumor started - it seems that the Gamble side is enjoying their righteous indignation in denying the rumor much more than I've heard anyone from Gottstein's side spreading it. Could this be a case of falsely-claimed victim-hood being used as a political tool by Gamble? Wow, that would be so slimey it almosts sounds like something Roe would do . . .

In short, until somebody comes forward with proof that Roe is working for one of the candidates, both sides ought to drop it entirely - kind of a Gamble/Gottstein/Godwin's Law.

2. Debates or Forums? Gamble is trying to make hay by claiming that Gottstein is refusing to participate in "one on one debates". This is silliness - they are both at so many forums, etc., that anyone who hasn't seen them together just doesn't care. Which is most of us - sorry, but this is a kind of sleazy attempt to make it look like Gottstein, who has been all around town and met just about anyone who cares to vote, is somehow dodging Gamble.

Why would Gamble do this? Because he was a late-decider - he didn't decide that the City Council race was worth his while until January. So now, in an attempt to make up for his own lack of effort, he's trying to make it seem like Gottstein is trying some kind of stealth campaign. I gotta call "bullsh#t" on this one.

3. Small Business vs. Non-Profits? The Star thinks that Gamble is a small-business voice. Everyone admires small businesses - scrappy providers of jobs in the face of economic challenge. Count me in - I think it's great that Gamble employs lots of people in the "service industries", cleaning rooms and making food. But let's not go overboard with the small business rhetoric - this is a guy who is tied into a TIF Tax-give-away to the tune of a few million tax dollars taken from schools and potholes and pumped into profit margins.

Gottstein's experience comes from the nonprofit sector - a large and growing segment of our economy, but not one that has the reputation of financial sophistication. On the other hand, she has a Master of Public Administration from one of the best MPA programs in the country, and is well-equipped to participate in running a city government.

In a nutshell, neither should be claiming that experience gives them an edge. Both would be rookies on the city council, and both would need to learn on the job.

4. Jew vs. Catholic If there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, it is the potential tension between the two communities. So far, with the exception of Tony's site, anti-Semitism has been silent, as has anti-Catholicism. Let's all hope it stays that way.

5. Clean Campaigns. I know Gottstein is committed to running a clean campaign, and I've heard that Gamble is similarly committed. On the other hand, both have lots of volunteers who want victory much more than they want a clean campaign. Also, exactly what is a "clean campaign"? Is discussing Gamble's TIF plan clean? Where should the line be drawn, and where will it be drawn in this race? What is responsible reporting of the truth, and what is smearing? And what of the "S/he started it" phenomenon, where one candidate engages in smear campaigning in response to a perceived smear from the other? Given the number of emails and outreaches I've already received in this race, I'm not optimistic that it will be a positive campaign focused on important issues. And that's disappointing, because what I know of both candidates is that they both deserve better, and are capable of better.

Voter Turnout - Is the Glass 19% Full, or 81% Empty?

The "experts" were wrong again, but you won't find anyone pointing it out, or even admitting it, in the Star.

Remember this?

Election Commissioner Brian Newby said the reduction is driven in part by expected low voter turnout. He’s hoping 10 percent of the county’s 345,000 registered voters cast ballots, but history suggests turnout could be lower. The last countywide spring primary in 1997 drew less than 6 percent of registered voters.

The "experts" were claiming that we would have fewer than 34,500 voters in Jackson County, and they used that as an excuse to shut down polling places, helping to make their prophecy self-fulfilling.

Well, they were wrong, even though the Star today includes references to "low turn-out" rather than "unexpectedly high turn-out". By my count, 43,871 Jackson Countians cast ballots in the primary. That's over 12.5% of Jackson Countians voting. while that is a low number, that is more than double the "less than 6%" who voted in the last countywide spring primary.

Is the glass 12.5% full, or 87.5% empty? In this case, where the Star and the "experts" were assuring us the glass would by drier than ever, I think someone needs to point out that they were wrong. And who knows how many might have voted if the KCEB hadn't given Kansas City citizens completely wrong information on where to vote?

Update: Thanks to ubiquitous commenter "Anonymous", who pointed out that the quotation I included above actually comes from Johnson County, Kansas. Kansas City, Missouri actually did quite a bit better than I represented - 44034 of 235759 voters cast ballots - 19%. In the 2003 primary, only 9.6% of the voters cast ballots. More than twice as many voters cast ballots this time around - and yet the Star is reporting a low turn-out. So-called "experts" assured me that only 50,000 voters would cast votes the primary, but, counting Platte and Clay counties, 57692 ballots got turned - more than 15% over predictions.

At the Flea Market last night

The evening started out the way the campaign began - kind of a ragtag, polyglot collection of true-believers and political neophytes. Many of us wore orange, but a lot of us hadn't gotten the word, so we didn't even look like a spiffy campaign group. But it was a warm and friendly group of nervously optimistic people who gathered to crack wise and wait for numbers at the Flea Market. Not a tie to be seen, except for Mark's orange one.

Flash forward a few hours and several Boulevard Irish Ales . . .

Holy Crap! It really happened! We're in the general! And the people who weren't there at the beginning start rolling in. Jerry Riffel is chatting with a reporter. Mike Sanders and Charlie Wheeler have both come by. Kansas City's political insiders crowd around the star of the hour, Kansas City's next mayor.

Joe Miller is on a bar stool off to the side, and I finally get to meet Allie. She's charming and happy and way too good for Joe, but that's the way most successful couples are.

We have a whole new campaign now - 4 weeks in a race between two vastly different people. I've always liked Alvin Brooks, and I hope that nothing over the next 28 days changes my mind.

I bet there'll be more ties at the next watch party . . .

ELECTION WARNING - VOTING PLACES CHANGED!!

I started to post my endorsements and predictions, and decided to help voters out by linking to the website that tells you where to vote in Kansas City. Imagine my surprise, though, to find out that it gives you the WRONG INFORMATION!! For example, if you have always voted at the St. Peter's Legacy Center, you don't vote there this time, but, if you go to the Kansas City Election Board website, it will say you do.

Where DO you vote? I can't tell you, and neither can the Missouri Secretary of State, nor the Kansas City Election Board site. All I can tell you is to try to find the little card they mailed you recently, that probably got stuck in with all the campaign pieces, and tossed into the recycling bucket.

UPDATE: After playing around with the site, and trying other methods of figuring out where to vote, I have come up with a work-around to help Kansas City voters. Please follow these instructions carefully if you do not have your little postcard sent out by the Kansas City Election Board.

First, go to the KCEB website and enter your name and street name at the bottom of the left-hand column, where it says "Check your voter status", and hit "enter". THIS IS IMPORTANT - DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLLING PLACE INFORMATION ON THE PAGE THAT COMES UP. Instead, write down your four digit ward and precinct number (mine is 0809). The first two digits are your ward number, and the second two digits are your precinct number. With that information, you should go to the list of polling locations on this page, and find the polling location that will be serving your ward and precinct. Go to that location and vote for you chosen candidates.

Folks, this is ridiculous. In the last election, they made the unfortunate choice to make us use SAT-style, fill-in-the-oval forms without any assurance our votes were tallied. This time, they're shuffling the deck of polling places, on the probably-foolish assumption that we will have low turnout in an election with 12 mayoral candidates.

WHAT KIND OF NINCOMPOOPS CLOSE MORE THAN 20% OF POLLING PLACES ON THE EVE OF ONE OF THE MOST CONTESTED CITY ELECTIONS IN OUR HISTORY?? WHAT KIND OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IS IT TO THEN FAIL TO UPDATE THEIR OWN WEBSITE TO TELL THE VOTERS WHERE THEY MAY VOTE?!?! I sincerely hope that the victorious candidates will get to the bottom of this scandalous stupidity.