The Newest Political Lie

A commenter on my post about Art Benson winning a seat on the school board reminded me of what is rapidly becoming a standard lie by politicians. "I don't read local blogs" is up there with "No new taxes" and "I'll look out for the common man".

It's funny how often I will meet local politicians who, upon learning that I produce this blog, assure me that they don't read blogs. Uh-huh, sure. Despite that assurance, they are quick to let me know if an obscure comment from 3 months ago was inaccurate, or to compliment me on something they thought was funny.

Does anyone on earth really believe that politicians - a group that craves attention - don't read what is being written about them? They like to claim they're somehow above it all, but it's a farce.

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.

Big Tobacco Got Burned, or How I Would Have Won on the Bad Side of Question 3

Question 3 on Kansas City's ballots a week from today is a proposal to prevent inconsiderate people from imposing health risks and cleaning bills on their intellectual and moral superiors. Or, at least, that is the conventional wisdom that will prevail at the polls next Tuesday, despite the $225,000 spent by tobacco companies to shift that attitude.

The tobacco companies got cheated.

They're not losing because they're evil. They're losing because they ran an utterly ineffective campaign. With the money they've tossed into the cause, I could have delivered a victory for them.

Mind you, I'm not going to go crying any tears for big tobacco. Their business model has been to spread death and to lie about it, so I hold no sympathy for them. I just didn't know they were so foolish.

First off, whoever designed those yard signs should be ashamed. The key to yard signs is to deliver a message at a glance. The "No on 3" signs, though, deliver an undecipherable black bar. Not only is it ugly, but, more importantly, the black bar swallows the dark red 3. The message delivered is "NO on Question". The "NO" stands out fine, but the sign fails in its main purpose.

Next, the whole thrust of the campaign was poorly chosen. Rather than running against casinos, big tobacco has been running to protect small business owners. Sorry, friends, but nobody really cares about bar owners. "Business rights" might sound good when you're sitting around having a pity party with your fellow bar owners, but the rest of us aren't crying into your river. We're also not falling for the made-up statistics claiming that all our local bars are going to close and the taps will grow cobwebs. It's a lie, and nobody's falling for it, so if they had spent half an hour listening to a focus group, they would have adopted an entirely different theme.

Now that it's too late for them to change their theme and yank up those worthless yard signs, I'll go ahead and give them the advice they needed before they blew almost a quarter million dollars.

"Don't Stack the Deck. No on 3. No More Breaks for Gaming."

There it is. A sense of unfairness. A focus on the casino exemption - the one aspect of the Smoking Ban that makes absolutely no sense to people of good will. And a big ugly target to run against.

Kansas Citians don't like big businesses getting an advantage over the rest of us. That's one of the main reasons that Funkhouser's Mayoral campaign focused on the TIF pigs. While not a single person in Kansas City could point to a single dollar that a TIF project had taken out of his or her pocket, the resentment against cozy insiders making big money over breakfast with the former Mayor ran deep.

The casinos should have been the TIF pigs of this race. Especially since they wouldn't even fight back - there's no way they would actually promote anti-smoking legislation.

Of course, I would have also ran a better street campaign, even beyond the yard signs. Every beer in Kansas City would have been served on a coaster that looked like a big ace of spades, with "Don't stack the deck - No on 3" written on it. Letters to the editor would focus on "why are we giving more breaks to the casinos?". Press releases would point out that this proposal favors not only the KC casino, but also the ones in other municipalities. I'd have those little oval car stickers with "NO3" available at every bar, and plastered on every bar employee's car.

Question 3 will pass by a healthy margin next Tuesday, and I'm glad of it. I'll be happy to see people voting in favor of clean air and pleasant bars.

But if the bar owners and tobacco companies were smart, we'd all be going out on Tuesday to vote against another break for "the house". I could have won this race for them. I'm glad they hired the incompetents.

Would You Sell Your Vote?

A survey of NYU undergraduate students shows that 20% would trade their right to vote in the next Presidential election for an iPod Touch. "66 percent said they'd forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they'd give up the right to vote forever for $1 million."

Ironically, these students are aware of the value of a vote. "70.5 percent said they believe that one vote can make a difference - including 70 percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for free tuition."

At first, these numbers surprised me, but further thought on the matter puts it into a more understandable light. Over one third of voters relinquished their right to vote in the most recent Presidential election. If you were going to relinquish that right for nothing, why not pick up an iPod Touch for the lack of effort?

Student explanations of the results varied. One pointed out that none of the likely candidates closely reflected his views, anyhow. The obverse of that point was made by a young woman who observed that New York would remain a blue state without her vote. None of these students pointed to the Supreme Court's overriding the election process in 2000 as ground for their electoral nihilism, but they were mostly under 15 at the time.

Personally, I'd enjoy an iPod a lot more than I enjoyed the results of the last two presidential elections . . .

New Group Political Blog - BlogCCP

With the demise of the KC Buzz Blog, Kansas City needs a new political blog with multiple voices and varied topics. The Committee for County Progress, a "Democratic political reform organization established in 1964 to reform and restructure Jackson County government" has launched BlogCCP to meet that need. It's just getting started, and your comments, criticisms and advice could help form it into an attractive political gathering place for Kansas Citians interested in politics.

It is set up now so that each of the 150 members of the CCP is allowed to do original posts, and anyone can comment. Anonymous comments are allowed. Blog posts do not reflect official positions of the CCP, so the debate should range far and wide.

YouTube Political Activism Hits Missouri

I don't know who "The Missourian" is, but somebody smart, informed and humorous has created a series of YouTube videos about Missouri politics. Spend a few minutes watching this and other efforts.

Political Day

I'm not a particularly well-connected person, and I'm certainly not a significant campaign donor, but yesterday was a day full of local politicians. In one day, I saw Mark Funkhouser, Theresa Garza (twice), Ed Ford, Bill Skaggs, John Sharp, Cindy Circo (twice), Jolie Justus, Paul Levota, Jason Holsman, Jan Marcason, Cathy Jolly, Beth Low, Jenee Lowe, Mike Talboy, and John Burnett.

The point is that Kansas City is a remarkably open town, and the politicians do a good job of getting out and seeing people. If you get involved in local groups, you'll get your opportunities to interact with the local politicians.

(Alright, this post may be a little lame, but I felt like I needed to post something that wasn't about McCaskill . . .)

Keith Olbermann Shares my Disgust

Take 8 minutes and go watch the video here. Keith Olbermann voices the sense of betrayal and disgust that I feel toward those who have buckled to Bush's irresponsible waste of blood and money in Iraq. We voted for a change, but we wasted our votes.

Missouri Democrats must accept the fact that one of our own betrayed us and our country on THE most important issue facing us. Claire McCaskill should be forced to attend every single funeral of every single soldier killed because of her gutlessness. She should be forced to change the dressings on the missing limbs her cowardice has caused.

She and Jim Talent can laugh about it over tea.

Claire McCaskill Gives Bush a Blank Check

Claire McCaskill brought shame upon Missouri Democrats by joining the Republicans and giving Bush a blank check to continue his wreckless and feckless quagmire in Iraq. Rather than insisting upon some accountability with our tax dollars. I'm still glad she beat Talent, but, today, she was his moral twin, voting in lockstep with Kit Bond. She should be ashamed of herself. I'm ashamed of her.

At the Scene of the Crime - The Funk's Inauguration

I was there. I saw it with my own eyes, and, now that it's attracting media attention, I might as well come clean. I was at the Inuagural Ball that the Star reports is drawing criticism for its expense. I'll even admit that I was at the more restricted pre-party, where the drinks were free and deals were being cut in the dark corners of the room.

It was awesome. By virtue of being there, I have a municipal judgeship lined up for myself, my wife is getting 10% of the action on the next Briarcliff expansion, my daughter has a summer job lifeguarding at the Miller Nichols fountain, and my son has received a lucrative commission to write a play about the election, with Adam Brody playing Joe Miller and Yao Ming in a breakout role as the Funk. All that, plus the turkey sandwiches were good and the Boulevard Pale Ale was cold.

Just as the critics of the party have pointed out, that is exactly how it works. The Star, in its almost-helpful manner, lists the $10,000 sponsors, but hides the complete list of donors behind the wall at PrimeBuzz, where absolutely nobody can see it.

The list of donors is crucial to understanding why this party was so important. If not for this party, such entities as the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and JE Dunn Construction and DST would not have any opportunity whatsoever to influence policy in this city for the next four years. Bill Dunn, Pete Levi and Tom McDonnell would be stuck waiting for an opportunity to try to get through on one of Funk's upcoming call-in shows for their voices to be heard at all if they had not sponsored the party.

I share with the critics a certain nostalgic yearning for the good old days, when Mayor Barnes threw her party for only $30,000, and stuck taxpayers with the tab, without inviting the entire city. Ahh, yes, those were the days, when the city administration was above influence by wealthy donors. And she didn't pack Union Station with a bunch of commoners who picked up their tickets for free at a community center - instead, she limited access to those who could afford to pay for a ticket. It was so much nicer then - you didn't have to worry about seeing poor people at the inaugural ball and you got to make taxpayers pay for most of the party. Wine tastes so much better when it's paid for by those unsophisticates who don't know how to get TIF status.

Yes, I was there this time. I was one of the couple hundred people jammed into a concrete room where I could barely hear anything. Let me tell you, it was a bacchanalian carnival of power and influence.

Though, frankly, I prefer the old way, when those $10,000 donors simply met quietly and privately with Mayor Barnes in a cozy booth at the Capital Grille, and nobody had to know about it, and no list of donors appeared in the paper.

The US Attorney Scandal - From the Beltway to I-70

The KC Blue Blog is doing a great job of staying on the US Attorney scandal and how it played a role in Missouri. I haven't written about it before today, though the story has all the elements I seek in a story. Corrupt republicans playing slimy politics under the cover of National Security to oppress poor people. Classic stuff.

The problem I've had writing about it is that the bigger lesson I draw from it is difficult to articulate. The lesson is that the Republicans are fouling the nest of government - turning the very workings of government into corruption. And even though it's a matter of degree, it's a matter of degree to such an extent that it changes the very nature of things.

Brad Schlozman was not the first US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri to be appointed with an eye toward politics. Take, for example, Steve Hill. When he was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993, he had been out of law school for all of 7 years (a year behind me at Mizzou) and had no significant prosecutorial experience. He had worked as a staff member for Ike Skelton. But everyone, on both sides of the aisle, knew that Steve was a solid lawyer with great judgment and a sincere desire to be the best US Attorney possible. Hill was hired because he would play it straight, and I've never heard anyone complain that he didn't do that.

So, no, Brad Schlozman was not the first US Attorney for Missouri's Western District chosen because of political connections. As far back as you care to look, you'll see the the office has been filled by lawyers with political connections - during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

But here's where it gets tough to explain. Schlozman was different. Never before have we had a political goon hired into the position. Where we've had lawyers with political connections appointed in the past, they have always been good lawyers with able intellects and a mission of doing their job as fairly and competently as possible. While I was no fan of Todd Graves, the republican appointee prior to Schlozman, my disagreement comes in the area of politics, not in the area of how he sought to do his job. But Schlozman was chosen partially because he was willing to back the unconstitutional Texas redistricting scheme. Better to be far-right than right.

I knew John McKay, the US Attorney who got fired in Seattle. John is one of the most conservative lawyers I know - he sincerely believes the government ought to be trimmed as much as humanly possible to defense and a court system - but he was so competent and effective that he was elected chair of the ABA Young Lawyers Division, a group which tends to be dominated by left-leaning folk (with some notable exceptions). Again, while I could disagree with John's politics, I respected his fairness and competence. He's the sort of person who has traditionally been appointed to the US Attorney's office. Bush/Gonzalez fired him.

That's the pattern I've seen in so many instances during this administration. Political ties have always been important, but it's new and different now. During the tenure of Bush I, and Reagan, the republican administrations were filled with what they thought were the best and brightest of the conservative ranks. Now, they seek the most thuggish and extreme.

During prior Republican administrations, the College Republicans at places like Dartmouth and Princeton would flow into the ranks of the staff. Bush/Gonzalez has hired 150 people from Regent University School of Law, an academically weak but far-right stronghold founded by nutcase televangelist Pat Robertson. 150. That's incredible.

Not only is it incredible, but it is a shift in the rules of the game. I can't adequately express how sad that is. The US Attorney of the Western District of Missouri has always been a politically-connected lawyer chosen for his or her competence. Now, we have an administration which is filling the ranks of the US Attorneys office with people whose competence is shaky, but whose loyalties are not. And that, my friends, is a very bad thing - a diminished US Attorneys office will hurt us all, Republicans and Democrats.

Please Give it a Rest

The Virginia Tech killings prove that we must restrict access to weapons that have no purpose other than to kill people.

No, they don't. They prove that the students should have been allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Wait, I heard that the killer was an Islamic Asian - this is terrorism.

No, I heard it started as a domestic problem - this shows we need to pay more and better attention to domestic violence prevention.

. . .

33 people, most of whom are the age of my children, just had their lives cut horribly short. I understand that fitting the tragedy into the framework of our political prejudgements is a form of trying to make sense of it. Sadly, I even understand the temptation to seize this tragedy as evidence to support your side of whatever argument you want to make.

But I urge you to hold off for a second. Simply feel the loss. Simply feel the tremor that the death of 33 people ought to cause. Don't allow yourself to chase the feeling away through placing it in a package of preconceptions. Think about their parents walking into their bedrooms back home. Think about their friends who were planning to have lunch with them. Feel the absence.

Our opinions cannot fill the absence, and ought not to try.

Why No Oath?

I can only think of one reason for Bush to insist that his aides not be placed under oath when called to testify.

Lying is all they know how to do.

He says a constitutional showdown is in the offing. For the first time since he stole the presidency, I think Bush knows he's going to get impeached.

Idiotic Democrat

Lest anyone accuse me of having a liberal bias, or not being fair and balanced, let me be among the first to point out that State Senator Tim Green, from the east coast of Missouri, is a goofball for proposing legislation firing principals who don't send all their 9th graders to prison for a day.

How confused must you be to think this is worth proposing? How badly must he have been shaken as a baby?

On the other hand, maybe it is a nice plan to encourage people to visit Governor Blunt and the rest of the his corrupt republican cronies after they are imprisoned for their misdeeds.

Jolie Justus - Let's Keep in Touch

After they get elected, political candidates tend to become like former workmates. When you leave, you promise to stay in touch, and then you get busy, and then a few months go by, and you realize you haven't talked to your old buddy in accounting for a year. Then you run into him at the grocery store, and have a warm and enthusiastic exchange of greetings, and swear you're going to have lunch soon. And you mean it. But then, 6 months later, you see each other at the grocery store again . . .

It's worse with political candidates, because they come around every few years, wanting to re-win our votes, and even, perhaps, a campaign contribution. I used to hold an association office that required running every four years, and I always felt sheepish calling and writing to people I hadn't spoken to since I last needed their vote . . .

It's good to see a local politician do a bit better than that.

Not surprisingly, Jolie Justus is a creative leader in this area of public service. Her blog, Fresh Meat is as fresh, comfortable, and direct as the Senator herself. Through it, she keeps us informed about what she's doing and working on. It's not some PR site run by a focus-group-obsessed consultant - she says what she thinks and serves her self up like, well, fresh meat. You have to appreciate Senator Justus asking for our luck before her first meeting with Blunt, or expressing her admiration for Matt Bartle's filibuster. It's a great read, and a way for Jolie to stay in touch with those of us who appreciate her (and those who don't) while she's not running for office.

Absentee Ballots for Kansas City Races

I know that this blog has a ginormous following on college campuses across the nation, and that students hailing from Kansas City have used it to keep in touch with my gritty, non-suburban outlook on their hometown.

It would be remiss of me not to use my enormous popularity for civic good, so here's a link to the page where you can get absentee ballots for upcoming Kansas City elections, including the upcoming council primaries (Go Mark Funkhouser, Beth Gottstein, Mark Forsythe, and Cathy Jolly!). Here is a .pdf of the application for the primary, and here is one for the final election. The applications sent in by mail need to be received by the Wednesday before the election - Wednesday, February 21 for the Primary - so go ahead, print them both off today, and get them in the mail.

Both of you.