3 Big Differences Between Reid and Lott

The Republicans have suddenly discovered their previously undetectable racial sensitivity, and are calling for Harry Reid to resign as Majority Leader of the Senate because of some awkward language Reid used to describe his enthusiasm for Barack Obama's candidacy. They are equating Reid's stated enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy to former Senator Trent Lott's stated enthusiasm for segregation. Sadly, some soft-minded liberals are joining them in claiming that Obama and those of us too smart to fall for this false equivalency are hypocrites.

There is a difference between Reid and Lott, and what Reid and Lott said, that distinguishes the cases for anyone who is neither intellectually dishonest nor intellectually stunted. In fact, there are three big differences, and I'll point them out for those who think that all unfortunate mentions of race are equivalent, and justification for a political death penalty.

1. What They Said: Let's look at what Harry Reid said, in his enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy. He made the accurate observation that Obama's skin is relatively light, and said that he speaks "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." It uses a '50s era term for African-American, it (inaccurately?) implies that America might face more difficulty in supporting a darker-skinned candidate, and it implies that the pattern of speech employed by a segment of African-Americans is a broader "Negro dialect". One might just as fairly express joy that a Missouri politician speaks with no inbred hillbilly dialect.

Distasteful, I agree, and not the sort of thing I like to see from a Democrat.

Trent Lott, on the other hand, said that he was proud to have voted for Strom Thurmond when he ran as a segregationist and opposed anti-lynching legislation, and that "if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Do I need to map out the differences? While Reid was speaking enthusiastically about electing a black president, Lott was speaking enthusiastically about segregation and wishing that we could go back to the pre-civil rights South and lynching. To find a distinction between the two does not demonstrate hypocrisy, it demonstrates an understanding of the difference between a little insensitivity and a deep resentment of uppity blacks causing problems.

2. Who They Are: As President Obama points out, Harry Reid has worked with him and other Senators on socially progressive causes to help the underprivileged for years. He's got some credibility on racial issues. He's built up a store of good will that he can draw upon in assuring his friends that he is sincere in his remorse and forward in his thinking.

Trent Lott was a product of the Republican racist "Southern Strategy" to win the votes of those who believed exactly what Lott said to Thurmond - we'd be better off with segregation and lynching. Lott was an enthusiastic supporter of the Klan-like CCC, and sought to regain citizenship for Jefferson Davis. He voted against extending the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. He voted against the Martin Luther King holiday. Suffice it to say, Lott had not built up a store of good will on racial issues.

3. Reid Has Been Forgiven: It is amusing to see all the pundits (especially the white ones, and certainly including me) and right wing politicians trying to tell everyone else how to think about a verbal exchange between two men who have already put it behind them. The RIGHTeous indignation on behalf of someone who has announced himself satisfied with an apology is enough to make one think that they are more interested in political opportunism than concern about Obama's tender feelings.

Folks, this thing is not about hypocrisy, for the simple reason that it is not hypocritical to distinguish between a thoughtless remark supporting a black presidency and a career spent yearning for the good old days of segregation and lynching. The intellectually corrupt Republicans and the fuzzy-thinking liberals who are attempting to equate the two are acting as though Lott's only flaw was one awful remark, and that Reid's remark is equivalent to a career.

Shoe Bomber vs. Underwear Bomber - A Study in Republican Effectiveness

Republican scoundrels are spinning the thwarted terrorist attempt on Christmas Day into a reason to attack President Obama, and the media are repeating the frothing opportunism as if it is legitimate discussion. It's an all-too-familiar pattern of attack and repeat, at a level that leaves thoughtful persons shaking their heads at the breathtaking hypocrisy of it all.

Honestly, it never ever occurred to me to accuse Bush of weakness or failure when the shoe-bomber attempt presented almost exactly the same opportunity to those of us on the left. Foolishly, I viewed the attempted terrorist attack as an attempted terrorist attack, instead of as a welcome cudgel with which to bash our nation's President.

Commenting on a post by Politico noting the wildly different Republican reaction to the two wildly similar situations, John Aravosis of AMERICAblog does a great job of explaining the difference:

I suspect a few things are going on here. First, the shoe bomber incident was three months after September 11. We were all still shell-shocked. Rather than being afraid to criticize the president, I think we were all so scared, the thought didn't even cross our minds (and the same thing applied to the media, which was also tempered following 9/11). Second, Democrats aren't as good at political PR as Republicans are. Republicans are always looking for an opportunity to take advantage of a situation, a crisis. Democrats tend to be more principled. And finally, Republicans are better at shutting down criticism. If Democrats had tried to speak out, the GOP would have accused us of being un-American, and the Democrats would freak.

Democrats are Better People than Republicans

But Max Baucus proves me wrong.

Ignoring the morality of it, how do you think that you will get away with nominating your mistress for one of the most important jobs in the United States, and one which involves investigations into the nominee's background?

Spend a Couple Dollars Tonight - It's Bargain Night in Politics

Want to make someone happy for $25 or $50? Tonight's your night.

Like some sort of third world currency, the value of your political dollars varies month-to-month, even day-to-day. Right here in Kansas City, your political dollar is at a peak, but the value will come crashing down before the end of the week.

Why? Because the June 30 reporting deadline is today. What a candidate receives today will show up in a week or so when the campaign filings are done, and political insiders will dissect those reports not only for total figures, but also for depth, breadth and identity of support.

It's about intimidation. A candidate who shows early strength in fundraising looks formidable. A candidate who turns in a lackadaisical fundraising report looks vulnerable. It's still early enough that potential opponents still think they could take on a vulnerable candidate, so tonight's the night that could determine the difficulty of the 2010 elections for a lot of candidates.

Your small check tonight could save a candidate tens of thousands of dollars down the road.

Not surprisingly, there are fundraisers aplenty tonight. If you're wanting to help out strong young Democrats, you should seriously consider dropping by Wine., 112 West 63rd Street, tonight, where Kevin McManus will be launching his campaign to succeed Kate Meiners after she is termed out, or coming to the "Party on the Porch" being thrown by "lots of fabulous women" for Jackson County's best legislator, Theresa Garza Ruiz.

I hope to make both. I love a bargain.

Why I Don't Blindly Trust Democrats, Either

I've just posted two rather partisan pieces, and a casual reader would be justified in thinking they've wandered onto the homepage of blind Democratic partisanship.

Make no mistake about it - we have our flaws on the Democratic side, as well.

The report last week by Steve Kraske and Dave Helling about Victor Callahan ought to have Democrats talking about policing their own ranks. The Westport Community Improvement District made one political donation in 2008, and that was a $10,000 gift to a Senator who played a key role in defeating their top priority in the prior year.

Now, Callahan is working to pass their top priority. Even though he does not represent that district.

Tit is dangerously close to tat, don't you think?

Jackson County Dems Bringing in Fake Sarah Palin - Jennifer Granholm Coming to Truman Days

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm served as a stand-in for Sarah Palin while Joe Biden was preparing for the Vice Presidential debate. Frankly, I don't see the resemblance, other than the fact that they're both women governors who happen to be relatively young. Unlike the shrill and unqualified governor of Alaska, Granholm is smart, compassionate and successful.

She will be speaking at the annual Truman Days hosted by the Jackson County Democratic Committee. She's the real deal - political insiders see her as an up-and-coming leader on the national stage. Jackson County Dems are fortunate to have brought in such a leader for their annual conference.

I've never met a president, before or after they were elected. This could be my chance. You betcha!

John McCain is Not Too Rich to be President

It's fun to make fun of John McCain right now.

He doesn't know how many houses he owns.

He spends more than a quarter million a year on servants.

He thinks you have to earn $5 million to be rich.

He wears $500 loafers.

Etc.

But, I ask my fellow Democrats - are those reasons to vote against him? Do those facts make Obama the superior candidate?

John F. Kennedy had some serious coin. John Kerry and John Edwards don't worry about the price of milk.

When we indulge in our childish mocking, we buy into the same silly non-issues that typify our discourse. We take our eyes off the reasons that John McCain is the wrong choice (Iraq, Iran, Supreme Court, Tax Breaks for the Wealthy, Environmental Degradation, Spying on Americans, Pro-Torture, etc.). At the same time, we legitimize the attention which will come to whatever non-issue the Right Wing Noise Machine generates about Obama. I don't want this election to turn on what brand of sunglasses Obama prefers, or the fabric of his socks.

On the other hand, this sort of nonsense sways votes. As has been demonstrated in past elections (in a spirit of bipartisanship, I won't name which), a significant portion of voters cast their ballots on "feelings" or factors other than a rigorous analysis of which candidate holds positions they share. If the Democrats limit their debate to the high ground of policy discussion, the Republicans will run the table with all their friends in low places.

It's a sad fact of democracy that elections don't always get decided on the issues I would choose. So, I regretfully acknowledge the importance of non-issues, and hope that those who focus on them for the Democrats sway at least as many foolish people as those who focus on them for the Republicans.

Should Donnelly Seek a Recount?

Tuesday night's primary surprised a lot of people, myself very much included. As the vote counts trickled in, the margin between Koster and Donnelly bounced around in the hundreds. When I finally went to bed, I hoped that I would wake up to find that Margaret Donnelly had managed to scrape together enough votes to bring in a winner.

As of this writing, fewer than 900 votes separate Koster and Donnelly. 500 votes in St. Louis County were not counted. Yesterday morning, Margaret Donnelly issued the following statement:

At this time we are waiting for certification from the Secretary of State's office. We know that there are still over 500 votes that have not been counted in St. Louis County. And while we are not aware of similar situations elsewhere, we have not had the time to investigate other election jurisdictions. After certification we will weigh our options, including asking for a recount.

A recount often results in changed totals, and it could strengthen Koster's margin, or reverse it.

Meanwhile, the Republican AG nominee, Mike Gibbons, would like nothing more than an extended fight between the Democrats.

So, readers, what should Margaret Donnelly do? Should she seek a recount? Should she accept the reported totals as they stand, and begin the process of welcoming Chris Koster into the party, now that he's been through the most elaborate and painful initiation ritual since hell week at the KA house?

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.

Koster Won't Use the "D word"

Have you noticed anything funny about Chris Koster's yard signs?

They don't use the word "Democrat".

I would put up a photo of one, but it appears most of the people who had Koster signs took them down in disgust when they heard about his ethical problems with money laundering in fundraising. If I find one in the yard of someone who has a strong enough stomach for Koster's behavior, I'll try to get a snapshot and post it.

Jeff Harris and Margaret Donnelly both proudly claim to be Democrats on their yard sings. Perhaps Koster's Republican donors would not pay for signs with the "D word".

Lacking Kander

Under the cover of dark on Tuesday night, anti-Kander activists lurked through my neighborhood and stole Kander yard signs from each of 6 houses on my block. It was the first time in all my years of managing the famed "Yard of Power" that anybody has sunk so low as to steal a yard sign from my lawn.

Meanwhile, Jason continues to run a great campaign and is even having a little fun with it.

Don't Take My Word For It - Come And See the AG Candidates for Yourself

Here's a rare opportunity - indeed, probably a unique opportunity on this side of the state of Missouri. On May 22, the Committee for County Progress is hosting a debate for all four Democratic candidates in the Missouri Attorney General Primary. You are invited. You will be welcomed. The doors will open at White Recital Hall in the UMKC Performing Arts Center at 5:30, and the debate will start at 6:00. There will even be a free reception afterward.

I know I've been pretty direct in my assessment of the candidates - Harris is the only one with the Democratic values combined with high-level Attorney General experience, and deserves to win the primary election and the general election. If you're content to take my word for it, then go ahead and do something else on May 22nd, but, if you want to form your own opinion, show up at UMKC.

Here are a few ways to figure out if you're in the right place. If you see Chris Koster there, talking about being a prosecutor, and avoiding all mention of his time working for a criminal Republican in the AG's office, you're in the right place. If you see Margaret Donnelly there, with her campaign staff telling her that Kansas City is St. Louis' western most suburb, you're in the right place. If you see Molly Korth Williams there, wearing a "Koster" button "because Judge Dandurand asked me to", you're in the right place. If you see Jeff Harris there, tuning up a guitar, you're in the right place.

Mark your calendar today, and come out to the Attorney General debate. See if you agree with my pick . . .

Beth Gottstein Shows Moral Leadership

Beth Gottstein is doing even better on the City Council than I thought she would. She's smart, she's hardworking, and she has solid moral instincts. With the exception of her joining with the Nasty Nine in voting to reward Wayne Cauthen with a foolish 3 year contract, she's been on the right side of all the important issues. (Even on that one, I wonder if perhaps she traded her vote for future concessions, since she could see that a majority of the Council had abandoned all rationality and wanted to shower scarce city money on a guy who lied on his resume and stole from the travel budget. Or maybe Funk's ungraceful handling of the situation provoked her into making one big, but forgivable, mistake.)

Recently, a bunch of Kansas City Democrats received a hateful, bigoted email attacking a fellow Democrat. Because it so thoroughly blended charges that would raise concerns if true with idiotic frothing worthy of Coulter, I simply deleted my copies and put it out of my mind.

Beth Gottstein, though, reacted with a better and more sensitive moral compass than my own. She posted a memo to Democratic leaders on BlogCCP, calling on the state party to censure those who fail to "practice ethical self-discipline". Thank you, Beth, for calling on us to live up to our consciences, rather than to ignore evil when it does not directly touch us.

Jeff Harris (Missouri's Next AG) Takes it Down a Notch

This is the Jeff Harris I have met and talked to. He's smart, funny, and a real person. He's going to be a great Attorney General.

(Update: Thanks to the code genius that fixed the video so it wouldn't automatically start up whenever you open the page.)

Koster Wants to Name Bridge For Ronald Reagan

I was over in St. Louis this weekend - my mother celebrated her 80th birthday with a great collection of friends, relatives and nieghbors. Happy 80th, Mom!

Did you know that there is a bridge proposed from St. Louis, Missouri to St. Clair County, Illinois? Did you know that Chris Koster, one of the Democratic candidates for Missouri Attorney General, co-sponsored a bill to name that bridge for Ronald Reagan?

What kind of democrat is Chris Koster?

My mother would never vote for a Republican, and she won't vote for Koster, either.

Should Super-Delegates Vote with the Majority?

Interesting question. Here is Steve Bough arguing that they should, over at Blog CCP, and here's me taking the opposite side.

I sincerely hope it doesn't come down to a controversy - ideally, the party's choice will be clear by the Convention.

But, if it doesn't happen that way, what do you say?

Happy Ronald Reagan Day, Chris Koster

Today, February 6, is Ronald Reagan day in Missouri. Guess who co-sponsored the bill to designate a day to honor the man responsible for Iran/Contra scandal, in which we provided arms to Iran?

Chris Koster, who is now claiming to be a Democrat, who claims that he can represent Democratic principles, stood on the floor of the Missouri Senate and helped make Ronald Reagan Day a reality for Missourians.

There are two possibilities here. One is that Ronald Reagan truly represents ideals that Chris Koster holds dear, and his conversion to the Democratic Party is insincere. The other is that he was insincere in his eager embrace of a Republican icon, and merely trying to fool people into thinking about his party affiliation.

(A third possibility would be that he was sincere then and now, and has entirely changed his view of Ronald Reagan. That would entail a staggering amount of sincerity for someone who is not particularly recognized for that characteristic. If that's it, though, and Chris Koster wants to issue an explanation about why he was gung-ho for Ronald Reagan Day a couple short years ago, but he now rejects Ronald Reagan as a personal hero, I stand ready to publish his apology.)

Koster Misses an Opportunity to "Show Me"

Chris Koster needs to convince Missouri Democrats that he is really a Democrat if he is going to stand a chance in the Democratic primary for Missouri Attorney General. Many of us have adopted a "Show Me" policy, and are waiting to see what he can do over the next several months to atone for his years of vigorously opposing Democrats in our state capital.

One such opportunity came to him in the chance to support the Jackson County Democratic Committee. That Committee is hosting a fundraiser on February 7 to support increased activity in 2008. The theme is Make Missouri Blue Together! - what a perfect opportunity to prove that he's really one of us, really working to make Missouri a Democratic state.

He passed up the opportunity. Here's the list of supporters of making Missouri blue, and Chris Koster is not on it.

Jeff Harris, the likely Democratic nominee for the Attorney General position, appears prominently on the list of donors, even though nobody can doubt his Democratic credentials. (Margaret Donnelly is not on the list, but her absence is understandable, since she is running as the St. Louis candidate, and concentrating her campaign entirely within the I-270 loop.)

I know that Chris Koster has far smarter (and better paid) political advisers than me. He's even paid Jeff Roe for his advice, so he's had access to the full range of political input.

But it seems to me that if I were a candidate trying to prove that I am a real Democrat, and I have a real interest in Jackson County, I would have seized the opportunity to invest some of right wing Rex Sinquefield's money in this event.

Online Poll for Page

I know, I know, that online polls are worth the paper they're not even written on, but please consider taking a moment to go here and cast your vote for Dr. Sam Page at the St. Louis Business Journal.

Dr. Page represents a new breed of Lieutenant Governor for Missouri. Rather than using the position simply as a parking place for some dependable partisan twit who isn't qualified for one of the more visible statewide positions (for example, our current LG), the Dems are running someone who really cares about the issues that the LG handles, and who is also freakishly well-qualified for the position. If you care about good, effective government in Missouri, no race presents a more obvious choice than Dr. Sam Page's campaign for Lieutenant Governor.

While I normally don't participate in online polls, I appreciate the St. Louis Business Journal for giving me an opportunity to vote more than once for Dr. Sam Page.

A New Kind of Lieutenant Governor - Dr. Sam Page

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to sit down and chat one on one with Dr. Sam Page, the Democrat seeking the nomination to become the state's next Lieutenant Governor. We spent about an hour at the cafeteria at Truman Medical Center, a location he suggested when we found out that You Say Tomato is closed on Mondays. It turned out to be the perfect venue for Sam Page - the more you chat with Sam Page, the more you realize that he cares deeply for those in need, and is willing to do what needs doing.

The first thing I asked him was why in the world he wants to be Lieutenant Governor. Not exactly the sexiest of positions, the LG has traditionally been a parking place for some dependable partisan twit who isn't qualified for one of the more visible statewide positions. Sadly, our current LG fits into that mold.

Sam Page wants the position because he is freakishly well-qualified for it, and it fits into his approach toward public service - solid, substantive, and not flashy. It so happens that one of the important aspects of the LG office is to sit on 12 state commissions, 6 of which would benefit greatly by having an experienced physician on them. Similarly, Sam's 6 years of accomplishment as a legislator make him qualified to serve in the unique position of LG, the only office to formally bridge the Executive and Legislative branches.

As a candidate, Sam is also very attractive. He grew up in Van Buren, Missouri, spent much of his life in Kansas City (including medical school), and now lives in St. Louis County. He has substantial roots in both urban areas and outstate.

There are more exciting races to talk about right now, for positions that capture the imagination more than the LG office does. But, if you care about good, effective government in Missouri, no race presents a more obvious choice than Dr. Sam Page's campaign for Lieutenant Governor. Definitely plan on voting for him, and, even better, consider making a donation here.

Wise Thoughts on Faith, Politics and Party

This is just a small section of a long post, but it gives a flavor of the whole:

We've reached the point where Republican voters can claim the philosophy of absolute greed.

"I make a great deal of money through my own hard work. I don't want to pay for someone else's child to eat breakfast at school anymore."

Get that? She makes not just enough money, but a "great deal of money." How dare anyone take it away for something so frivolous as feeding a poor child? And yet Republicans, through their actions in blurring the lines between church and state, have become the "party of faith." Because they say so. Because they are bold in their actions and snarling in their defense.

We need to be just as adamant. We need to not hide behind any abstraction or evasion. We need to be unafraid to address this voter and say "I am going to take some of your money, and give it to that poor kid, because it's more important -- both to the child and to society -- that he eat, rather than that you have an extra week in Cabo."

Note that we should not pretend that "a program will take your money." Or "the government will take your money." This is a democracy, and we are the government. I will take your money. I will. Some of that money you worked hard for and want to keep. I will give it to a kid who is hungry. If your concern is that poverty should be addressed by individuals, then there's a simple solution: feed him. If there are no poor children needing food, I won't have to take anything for them. If your position is that people would be more generous if only the government would stay out of it, then sorry. I'm not willing to put this child at risk to as part of your experiment. Besides, if that were true, then why were their more hungry kids before we started these programs to give them a little breakfast? If your position is that your being able to keep all your money is more important than a child being fed, then I simply think you're wrong. And sick. You want to keep that money? You better beat me at the polls.

There's much, much more there to read and think about.

Kander Newsletter

Jason Kander has another newsletter out. He's running a good, solid campaign, and I'm looking forward to him representing the 44th District in Jefferson City.