Wrestling with Pigs - Advice for Local Politicians

The political season is warming up again, and new candidates are jumping into the pool. And, happily, there are some great ones - Jay Swearingen in the 31st District and Kevin McManus in the 46th District stand out as fresh faces ready to run great campaigns. Both have kicked off their efforts with successful fundraising and meeting lots of people.

As a blogger, I have a few words of advice for Jay, Kevin, and any other first-time candidates. Ignore us.

Here's a true story of why. A couple election cycles ago, I had chosen to support a primary candidate in a hard-fought state rep race. As is often the case, the partisans on both sides were getting kind of nasty in blog comments, while the candidates themselves were staying above it all.

One fine Saturday morning, when the weather was picture-perfect for door-to-door campaigning, the candidate I was supporting was out meeting people and asking for their votes. Around noon, though, the other candidate posted a long, passionate comment on my blog, way at the bottom of 80 or so comments. The candidate had obviously spent the morning on a computer instead of a sidewalk.

I knew the race was over right then. Shaking hands, asking for donations, putting yard-signs up - that's the way for a candidate to spend a sunny Saturday morning during campaign season. Worrying about what a few, mostly anonymous, commenters are saying is not. A few of that candidate's supporters told me after the election that they lost their optimism when they saw the comment, because they knew the candidate was not disciplined enough to stick to priorities. When the votes were counted, the candidate who spent Saturday morning going door-to-door clobbered the one who spent Saturday morning writing a comment on Gone Mild.

You will not win or lost your campaign by what is written on blogs. Another anecdote - back in 2006, another local candidate ran the most effective blog-based campaign I had ever imagined. He ran a first-class blog, participated in conversations in other blogs, and basically won the hearts and minds of everyone in the blogosphere. I sincerely thought he was going to win. He got crushed.

My point is that the blogosphere in local politics is a raucous scene populated by anonymous agitators who will say just about anything under their cloak of anonymity. Don't confuse them with the people you need to persuade.

If a blogger posts something factually inaccurate about you, go ahead and email the person and politely explain where he or she is mistaken. Most bloggers I know do try to stick to the truth, and the majority of us will print a correction. But ignore the comments, and don't try to win a battle in the comment section of a blog.

George Bernard Shaw wrote, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." While there are some tremendously thoughtful and fair blog commenters out there, the analogy fits.

Who Cares About All This - The Big Easy, Funkhouser and Getting Away From it All

Sorry for the outburst of silence on this blog. First it was illness, then it was a trip to New Orleans for my daughter's graduation from Tulane. A massive interruption in my ordinary life, with relatively little internet time, cursory attention to national news, and no awareness of local politics whatsoever.

In short, I was kind of like a typical voter for a week and a half.

Except for my botched attempt at factual reporting, I've pretty much ignored the Funkhouser Recall attempt, but it seems that the activists there are experiencing a bit of the disconnect I have felt. When wrapped up in local politics, and communicating with a circle of others that care about the same things, it's easy to think what's on our own minds is on everyone's mind. It's easy to convince yourself that the city wants a recall, but the reality is that the average voter does not care ten percent as much as activists do, one way or the other.

Spend a few hours with a group of political insiders, and you'll quickly find out what "everyone's talking about". The political gossip is intriguing and enveloping. But, when push comes to shove, it's only a few people talking amongst themselves. "Everyone" is not talking about politics - local, state or national. Instead, they are talking about dinner, sports, family, neighbors, and work.

I received a couple text messages on my phone about political developments last week. I appreciated the kindness of those keeping me informed, but receiving them while disengaged was kind of like receiving cricket scores from Pakistan - it was separate from the world I was inhabiting.

New Orleans feels like a different country, so the disconnect may have been stronger than it would have been otherwise. Also, it was the first time my family had been together since Christmas, so the presence of loved ones may have heightened the distraction. When you can look ahead to fried oyster po' boys with four people you love, it's hard to devote mental energy to city council matters, or even the Jackson County Ethics Blackout.

90+ percent of people spend most of their lives in the politics-free world I visited last week. The Recall people have seen that the near-unanimous outrage they expected to tap into was not nearly as deep or as widespread as they anticipated. I won't argue that the Recall is headed toward failure because of a deep and widespread love of Funkhouser - the only thing truly deep and widespread is apathy.

I'm back in the real world now, and ready to jump back into the world of state, local and national politics. I do care about this stuff, and it really does matter who is our Mayor, whether our County Legislature accepts ethical Home Rule, and who will replace Souter. It just surprised me how easily I shed all those concerns for a week and a half, and how "normal" it felt to be apolitical.

How to Influence a Legislator (Free Version)

It's action time in Jefferson City, and the updates are flying, insisting that we exercise whatever influence we may have on behalf of worthy bills or to fend off wrong-headed ones. 90% of the "action alerts" I receive are a complete waste of time, so I thought I would share a few tips for exercising influence with legislators.

1. Make Sure You Stand a Chance: If you want to accomplish anything with a legislator (as opposed to simply voicing your opinion), make sure you're not far afield from the core constituencies and principles of the legislator you are hoping to influence. In other words, you don't stand a chance of convincing Jason Kander to abandon the Missouri Plan, and you're not going to get Jolie Justus to eliminate support for childcare. Go ahead and vent if you disagree, but don't think you're influencing change.

2. Visit Your Legislator: If there's an important issue pending, get in your car and visit Jefferson City, or find out where you can meet with the legislator during a break, and do it. Nothing is as influential as a face-to-face meeting. If you have written materials, bring a couple copies so the legislator can review them and give a copy to a staff person. Legislators listen to visitors, so, if you can find the time and the gas money, go visit our Capitol City, and treat yourself to some ice cream at Central Dairy on your way home.

3. Write a Real, Personalized Letter: If you can't visit Jefferson City, let the postal service do the work for you. Send a real, personalized letter expressing your thoughts and enclosing any supporting information. I'm not talking about signing your name to a pre-printed post card or a cut-and-paste from an action alert. Those are a waste of time, trees and postage. But a persuasive letter on real stationery signed by a constituent will make a legislator take notice.

4. Pick up the Phone and Call: At this point in the session, where action on bills is happening at a fast and furious pace, calling is probably more effective than writing. Even if you only get to talk to a legislative aide, your voice will be heard. A lot of legislators are pretty generous about sharing their cell phone numbers, and don't hesitate to use them. If you wind up in voice mail, be prepared to leave a clear and short message, including the fact (if true) that you reside in his/her district. Leave your number, and you may get a call back.

5. Send an Email: Email's easy, and that is the problem with it. With a few clicks of the mouse, you can contact every legislator in Jefferson City, and hundreds of others can do the same thing. The result is a deluge that simply drowns out even your well-crafted, reasonable missive. If you care enough to write, care enough to put it on real paper with a stamp, pick up the phone, or drive to Jefferson City. Email is a decent way to communicate with a legislator once a dialog is started through one of those means, but, especially at this time of the session, don't expect to accomplish anything by writing an email.

Those are the basics for free influence with a legislator. If you have money to spend, other rules apply that are way too complicated and controversial to get into here.

Starting Your Political Biography - Day 73 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Has the thought of running for office ever run through your mind? Have you ever looked at the politicians on TV or at neighborhood meetings and thought, "I could do that as well or better than him (or her?), and I would do a better job of looking out for the people of this area"? Have you been thinking someday, when the time is right, you will seriously look at launching a political career?

The time is right in Jackson County. You can start your political career with a victory in 2010.

How does this sound for the start of your political biography?

_______________ started his/her political career in Jackson County, Missouri. In 2010, inspired by the election of Barack Obama, ______________ decided to take on an entrenched incumbent who had grown arrogant in office. His/her first opponent was a member of a cozy cabal of old-school politicians who existed in a dim world of prearranged, unanimous votes and a lax attitude toward ethics. In 2008, the Jackson County legislature went so far as to exempt itself from local ethical oversight, and _______________ realized that if real change was going to happen in Jackson County, it was not going to happen with the entrenched incumbents controlling the Courthouse.

______________ was swept into office as part of a group of reformers whose first priority on the campaign trail was to "Bring Ethical Home Rule to Jackson County". The Ethical Home Rule Slate of candidates turned the tide when they began winning the endorsements of reform-minded political groups, and campaign donors followed suit.

The Ethical Home Rule Campaign of 2010 succeeded in defeating a majority of the anti-ethics legislators who had controlled the Jackson County legislature. After serving two terms on the Jackson County Legislature, ______________ successfully ran for an open seat in the Missouri General Assembly . . .

If you've been thinking about jumping into politics, you will never face a better opportunity than running for Jackson County Legislature in 2010. The fundraising demands for a county office are manageable, and the incumbents have all come out against Ethical Home Rule for Jackson County. Many of the candidates have documented problems with ethics and the law, so their attempts to avoid ethical scrutiny will be impossible for them to explain on the campaign trail.

If you don't take this opportunity, who will? If you are waiting for the right time, when will the time be better?

Time for YOU to Start Thinking About Running for Jackson County Legislature?

Do you have a hankering to run for political office, but don't want to give up your career? Do you see the local politicians on TV and think "Somebody better ought to get involved"? Do you want to break up the cozy circle of local politicos who elevate self-interest over ethics?

Maybe you should run for the Jackson County legislature. And maybe you should start putting your campaign together now.

The Jackson County legislature is vulnerable. Every single one of them, with the exception of Fred Arbanas (who was absent), is ON THE RECORD exempting themselves from oversight by the Jackson County Ethics Commission, in violation of the Jackson County Charter.

If they don't reverse themselves on that point immediately, it should be a relatively easy matter to run against a Jackson County politician who has gone on the record supporting less ethical oversight for him or herself. Better yet, you will have your choice of two candidates to take on, since you can run either "in district" or "at large". To figure out which candidates you could run against, just find yourself on the district maps appearing under each legislator's name. You will be in two legislators' districts - one of the "at large" legislators and one of district legislators. Check out both, because they are not the same.

The only qualifications you'll need to run, as defined by the County Charter, are: "Each member of the Legislature shall be a qualified voter in Jackson County for at least three years preceding his/her election and a resident in his/her district for at least one year preceding his/her nomination." The filing deadline is not until later in the year, but now is the time to start talking to people who know the county and the districts. The elections will be in 2010, so you have more than a year to get your name out there if you get started soon.

If you've been wanting to get into politics, how often are you going to face your choice of two candidates who have publicly come out against ethics? This is a golden opportunity.

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.

The Real World Between Cynicism and Optimism

A couple weeks ago, I posted a piece suggesting that readers contact their congressional delegations to voice their opinions on the bail-out bill. First up in the comment section was Kansas City's Best Blogger and nonvoter Meesha, advising me with all his world-weary wisdom that "it will happen anyway".

Sure enough, it happened anyway.

So, was my call to action an exercise in futility? I don't think so, and neither do the millions of people who now will gain access to mental health coverage with their insurance. 24 million taxpayers will get relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. A lot of changes were made to the bill, some of which were good, some of which were transparent gifts to special interests. The fact remains, though, that our calls got their attention, slowed down the train, and got us at least a more palatable bill.

Total victory? No. Total defeat? No, but dangerously close. Worth a few phone calls? Absolutely.

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.

There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys; There's only you and me and we just disagree . . .

Let me start with an anecdote.

In litigation, many decisions are left to the discretion of the trial judge. While there are rules guiding who should be allowed to serve on a jury, or what evidence should be allowed to be presented, or dozens of other decisions that get made in the course of bringing a case to trial, many of them are left to the discretion of the trial judge.

When I was a young lawyer, I was helping one of my heroes try a case. After a long day of trial work, I was complaining that the judge had totally blown a decision to our detriment. "Dan, it was a decision within his discretion," he said, taking a drag on his pipe (yes, it was that long ago that he was smoking a pipe in the office). "He has the discretion to be wrong, too."

In other words, the judge's job is to make the decision and my job was to persuade. Complaining after the fact was pointless.

A friend who knows me pretty well emailed me this week asking whether I still support certain city councilmembers after they signed on to the misguided volunteer ordinance. Like me, this person views the attack on volunteers for the city as a premature over-reaction to an undecided lawsuit and a harmful restriction on the role of volunteers in our city. I've written to them all, in a very polite and professional manner, and only one (Jan Marcason) has even bothered to reply. (Yes, I'm disappointed with the other 8, some of whom are quite efficient in writing me when they're seeking support.)

I disagree with people all the time. I strongly disagree with people on occasion. I strongly disagree with nine members of the City Council on this. I've looked at the issue from the idealist perspective, I've looked at it from the practical perspective, I've looked at it from the perspective of a Funkhouser supporter, and I've looked at it from the perspective of how I would feel if someone else were in the Mayor's office, making decisions I would oppose.

It remains my opinion that this is a very bad ordinance, chock-full of unintended consequences and bad results.

But nine city councilmembers disagree with me. And they, in Ted Mullen's description, have the discretion to be wrong.

Does this mean the rest need to be voted out? Does this mean that I can assume that the others are either so stupid they can't see things as clearly as I do, or so fearful of Tony's criticism that they panicked, or that they've joined with the entrenched development crowd to undermine Funkhouser's attempts to stop the give-aways? Are all 9 stupid, panicked and/or corrupt?

Of course not. (Not all 9, anyhow.)

Perhaps, unlikely as it seems, I'm somehow missing out on understanding how throwing up huge, expensive hurdles on volunteerism is actually a good thing.

Perhaps, as happens in real life, inexplicable and apparently wrong steps are taken in a journey toward a greater result.

Perhaps they're just wrong.

For now, I'm going to go with the final explanation. They have the discretion to be wrong, and they blew it.

That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or even bad councilmembers. I disagree with them on this. I disagreed with them on their irrational decision to shower Wayne Cauthen with money and job-security after he had been caught lying on his resume, and several of them now privately admit that they were wrong.

None of us is perfect, city councilmembers and bloggers most definitely included.

If a judge consistently makes bad calls with his or her discretion, smart lawyers start taking a "change of judge" (an automatic right to get the judge changed at the beginning of a case) when that judge gets assigned to their cases. But not after a couple of bad decisions. That's just disagreement - but you learn to be alert for a pattern.

The Non-Scary Guide to Getting Involved in Politics

A reader wrote me an email recently in response to a post I had done about working for Jason Kander's campaign. "How did you get involved? What is it like to get involved? What if you don't know the right people?" Those are great questions that probably linger in the minds of a lot of potential volunteers who, in the absence of answers, wind up staying home.

How to Get Involved: The easiest way to get involved in a campaign is to call the candidate, or someone with his or her campaign. If you're interested in getting involved more generally, or if you're focused more on a cause than a campaign, then contact an organization with a good reputation for doing good work. Either way, use phone or email to contact the people involved, and they will be eager to get you involved.

(UPDATE: This coming weekend in Kansas City offers a rare opportunity to jumpstart your involvement. On Saturday, from 9-4 at the Uptown, the 21st Century Democrats are offering a FREE training as part of a program to develop "500 urban activists in field skills such as targeting, door-to-door communications, canvassing, data collection and analysis, message development and other important elements for winning elections". If you want to get involved, I cannnot imagine a better way to do so . . . Go here and follow the links to learn more and sign up.)

What to Expect: Working for a campaign is not like The West Wing, or even Primary Colors. There's a whole lot more phone-banking and envelope stuffing involved than there is policy discussion. You might as well leave your ego at the door, because a campaign runs on workers' hands, not their brains.

That said, remember that you are a volunteer, and can fairly and justifiably decline the opportunity to take on a task you don't like. If calling people and asking them if they would like to attend a forum with your candidate is outside your comfort zone, then say that to the person who is asking you to do it. Trust me, they'll find something more to your liking.

What If You Don't Know the Right People: Volunteering for a campaign is a great way to meet energetic, involved, interesting people, but it can be terribly intimidating. Often, the people you will be working with already know each other, and it can feel a bit like being the new kid in school. It can bring out the agoraphobic in even the most gregarious person.

Most of the time, that phase lasts for about 5 minutes. Volunteers are friendly people. They want to know you as much as you want to know them. They already like you because they appreciate the help and they agree with you about the person or cause you are mutually supporting. Small talk is really easy with this crowd. "When did you first get involved with (candidate or cause)? Are you originally from Kansas City? Have you worked on any other campaigns?" Trust me, by the end of your shift, you will not feel like the new kid in school.

It's not too late to get involved for the November elections. If the presidential race has your attention, the Obama HQ is at Gillham and Linwood - just walk in and tell them you want to volunteer. If you want a more grassroots, local campaign, I think that Joe Volpe's race is going to be a lot of fun, and he even has an "I Want to Volunteer" button on his homepage. Whatever race has your attention, it should be easy to find a campaign that wants your time and effort.

I know it's a little intimidating to get involved in a campaign, but I can assure you that it's easy to do, the work is unexciting but important, and the people are great. Believe me, election night feels entirely different when you've worked on a campaign, and, win or lose, you will feel like you've played a kind of significant role in helping Democracy work. You will have.

Candidates and "Spam"

I get a lot of political email. I've been invited to fundraisers for candidates from the far right to the far left, in spaces from lavish ballrooms to modest living rooms. I get invited by close friends and people I've never met. Most email asks for money, but some simply updates me on a candidate's news and views.

I don't think any of it is "spam".

But some people need something to complain about, and, this political season, it's been "spam". A commenter here responded to my endorsements by asking one of the candidate's "policy on sending unsolicited bulk e-mail to promote a campaign". In a nutshell, I don't know and I don't care.

Political speech needs to be free speech. Indeed, our federal laws regulating email recognize that political email is different from commercial "spam", and is entirely legal. Any alternative would be equivalent to our founding fathers passing a law banning pamphleteers.

Campaigns are fairly short-term enterprises. They rely on quickly and efficiently creating networks of like-minded individuals. In prior generations, this process was slow and expensive, relying on snail mail and traditional political clubs. Today, candidates can build email lists from prior campaigns and membership organizations, and create a viable campaign without selling their souls to major donors or third party committees.

The way I see it, each email I receive from a candidate, solicited or not, is evidence of democracy struggling to free itself from the corrupting influence of big money.

Now, I realize that some people need something to whine about, and I'd even agree with those people that candidates ought to be judicious in their use of email to avoid becoming email nuisances. The delete key, however, ought to be a sufficient tool for those who value the purity of their inbox more than freedom of political speech.

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.