Contact Us


« A chill in the air | Main | Talent finds McCaskill ad problem »

August 14, 2006



Victor Callahan support of FLAHERTYis yet another sign of Callahan ties to the republican leadership. All the issues above are banner one. Tom Hoppe, Callahans top aide ran this campaign , is this the kind of democratic we need in Jefferson City. STOP CALLAHAN


Campaign funds are always an interesting trail to follow. But with Kansas City School District issues, have we reached a dead end? Why is it necessary for "liberals/ Democrats to keep this mostly minority block of school children locked into a failed district? Why do we allow these children to be our unwilling guinea pigs for our social engineering? Do you think only white conservatives want the best for their children? Which of you are sending or have sent your children to private schools, including religious ones? If you live in KCMSD and you have/ had the funds, then you more than likely got your kids the hell outta Dodge. Even one of the 10th District candidates, Ingrid Burnett, a school board member, revealed at a meeting in Independence, MO that her children were educated in private/ religious schools.
I am a Democrat and, more rare, I am a thinking Democrat. I sent my children to private schools and am thankful that we could swing the freight. I am also a minority and deeply resent anyone determining for me and mine what is best for us.

Are we bitter still "arewethereyet"? Since you think you are one of few thinking Democrats did you ever consider that perhaps you are really a Republican? Sounds to me like you are spouting that anti-public school tripe the voucher folks are selling. Your personal attacks on a good public servant for her religous beliefs not withstanding, cant you at least consider that people in KC may actually want good public schools and the Republican attacks on it and people who make it try to work are counter productive? Oh. You may simply be anti-Catholic - in that case have some fun trashing people who choose to send their children to parochial schools. That surely disqualifies them from public service.


Kit, please, enough already! The election is over and YOUR GUY LOST! Not because of the 'last minute negatives' (a game, by the way, that Klumb played more enthusistically and expensively than ANYONE else - uh, where's that story??), not only because of the strength of the Gay/liberal community and not because Flaherty was a conservative (duh!- whoever said he wasn't?. He lost because he tried to be ALL things to all people and ended up being NONE to anyone. At least Justus and Flaherty stood for things. That they happened to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum did not prevent them from personal liking and apparently respecting one another. They, like everyone else but you 'insiders', knew that there was a fundamental, visceral reason why he couldn't win - he had no true convictions- only what he thought might sound good to the next group he spoke to. Your blind devotion to him during -and now after- this race is as transparent as it is undeserved. Please settle a bet by answering these questions: (1) Did your friend Jason write your 'dirty tricks/sour grapes' articles for you- because he could have? (2) Did he have to concede the race(if he has) before you could bring yourself to write a positive piece on Jolie? (3)being a 'political reporter', did it occur to you that the 3-way ideological split may have actually affected the OTHER candidates as much or more than your friend Jason? and (4) Do you understand that your 'work' does not appear on the editorial page- and, if so, do you even understand the difference? Your editors clearly don't.


It's all about 'choice', is it not?

I'm not sure of Kit Wagar's objective in this post: Is it to bring attention to the fact that conservative groups are contributing to select candidates from both sides of the aisle or is it to suggest that there is some malfeance or monkey business going on with political money?

His intent is unclear. But he does raise a good topic that should cut across partisian lines: educating children. That task primarily should rest on the shoulders of parents. The financial burden is certainly required of parents through taxes, school fees, supplies, clothing, transportation, etc, etc, yule brenner....

It is more than obvious to anyone with a brain that the kansas city school district is a pathetic joke of an organization. The wasted time & monies in this district is a modern greek tragedy of titanic proportions. The children (and by extrapolation society) are the ones to ultimately suffer. Give the money back, in the form of a voucher, to the people who earned it (the parents) and let them decide how & where to best educate their children.



Bravo Kit&Jason!

A preview of Mr. Wagar's writing on next year's legislative session:

Kansas City Star
July 20, 2007 edition
by Kit Wagar

...Justus has sponsored or co-sponsored several successful Senate bills that have ultimately resulted in the reversal of the 2004 Medicaid cuts.

Jason Klumb agrees that Justus has done an excellent job but feels he could have been as successful if it weren't for that dirty political trick in the 2006 10th District Senate race. This trick, now ominously known amongst Klumb's small immediate circle of himself and Beth Gottstein as "The Trick," came so late that there was no way for Klumb to effectively respond.

J. Tull

Well it appears Flaherty's droogs have returned from their vacation, in the guise of voucher pimps.

Where's the money you owe the rest of us for your galactically bad election night predictions?


It is interesting to read the comments directed at Flaherty. Why is it that a Democrat has to tow the line on paticular issues to get elected. I thought we were a party of diversity. That there was room in our party for different ideas and suggestions. The voters elected Jollie Justus. She is the new State Senator. Flaherty did not get his message across but people should not beat him up for standing up for what he believed in. The Democratic Party lost alot of middle class voters over the last 20 years because we have not allowed for different voices to be heard or issues discussed. If one does not tow the liberal/progressive line they are termed "Republican". I am one who holds both liberal and conservative viewpoints on various issues and am a strong Democrat and feel our party needs to have other viewpoints expressed. Give the gentleman credit for getting out there and running. He lost but at least he stood up and tried. Alot of people commenting on here wouldn't do that themselves. Let's concentrate on November and the job we have to do to elect Clair McCaskill and some of our local State Rep. candidates. The primary is old news. Move on.


Old Yeller,

Finally a voice of reason! I agree with you 100%.


Old Yeller,

Finally a voice of reason! I agree with you 100%.


Old Yeller,

Finally a voice of reason! I agree with you 100%.


Old Yeller,

Finally a voice of reason! I agree with you 100%.


Old Yeller,

Finally a voice of reason! I agree with you 100%.


Old Yeller,

Finally a voice of reason! I agree with you 100%.




I would agree yeller, move on.

But this is not the same party. These are not the same elections. And these are not the same tactics. That's what is bothering a lot of people. We all bemoan backroom deals, or candidates agreeing that someone will sit down to 'wait their turn'. Even in heated races (primaries or generals), the truly negative and truly despicable used to be kept out of it.

No longer the case. Even in this thread someone has mentioned a name that is not a candidate's. Why? to show the world that you know whom worked on a campaign? Or to make sure that anyone who is anti-jason can also know this volunteers name?

Another good example - across the state in a Rep primary - a candidate's girlfriend is accused of being a former stripper and that he drunkenly killed his friend in high school.
"The blog contained information suggesting Brazil's fiancée, Kelly Piel, was once a stripper. Piel said Tuesday she is a sales representative for KMOX and never worked as a stripper. The two plan to be married on Tuesday."

It's not just D's and not just R's. In the last 10 years all politics have become more soundbite, more tactical and more disingenuous. Everyone expects the last day mailer.

When did taking a last minute swipe b/c your opponent can't respond become respectable?

Everyone uses committees to funnel in soft money. But when did it become fashionable to create committees in order to attack opponents anonymously? When did it become standard operating procedure to file forms with the maiden names of spouses? When did a slur become a valid point of judgment for a voter?

And that's what this boils down to - we all have a duty to remind our friends, the voters that more is expected of them. Ignore the one sentence answers. A candidate that goes negative is not worthy of elected office. We all have the ability to help people understand the process. We all have that in common - jolie supporters, jason supporters, republicans, democrats.

In the end, it's analagous to TV - if you don't like what's on, turn it off. We don't need to keep casting aspersions at one another. When the voters demand candidates of substance - that's what they'll get. But it is *my* responsibility to show my family and friends that they have a duty to listen to candidates past a soundbite, past a blog, past an ad, and past a headline.

Or maybe better - don't hate the player, hate the game. (I've used that line myself once or twice). It is *my* responsibility to tell my friends to raise their game. Don't accept the old rules - demand more.


I think the Brookside Democractic club is a Victor Callahan creation thats needs a probe . We need to stop people like him who use dirty tricks to win close campaigns. Someone needs to foward to ethics commission .

Shades of Callahan. Can you imagine a political mailing that supported someone othere than who the Southsied liberals wanted? Must be a Callahan creation. Dirty tricks - dirty tricks -tricks. There I said it three times. It must be true. Actually it was probably illegal. It is against the law to disagree with liberals isnt it?

Greg Logan

On Jolie Justus one more time. I'll say up front I supported Mike Flaherty. I thought he best represented the people in the 10th District. That being said, it is my contention that Jolie Justus does not represent the people in the 10th District. When far left liberals such as Justus are elected, it reinforces the image of the Democratic party as a collection of people far outside the mainstream. This drives more voters over to the Republican side. Several weaknesses in our political system show up during low voter turn out and crowded fields. It occurred in this race and allowed a fringe candidate to "slip in." Consider this. Jolie Justus received 5,669 votes (KCMO and JACO combined). This was 5% of registered voters, 3.5% of the population in the 10th District, and 33% of the Democratic Primary vote. Hardly what I would call a strong reflection of the 10th. And while I realize this process applies to many other candidates as well, the point is -- if every person in the 10th "had" to vote, Jolie Justus would not be our senator. Not by a long shot.

Mr. Logan:

What exactly about Justus is "fringe"? As far as I can tell, the key areas where Justus and Flaherty disagreed involved Justus's (1) support for embryonic stem cell research, (2) opposition to vouchers / tax credits, (3) support for the minimum wage, and (4) support for reproductive freedom (pro-choice). These are all important issues, and hardly outside of the mainstream.


Dear 10:38
Bitter? Why? The process worked. Justus will lead the 10th District Dems into victory. That is called an election. I was in a quandary between Flaherty and Justus. I voted for Flaherty. I received the full compliment of mailers directed at the Catholic vote from the Flaherty supporters. I assume that my church's roster was culled for likely targets. The tipping point was my need to be represented as an average middle class citizen. My volunteer service has been with the public schools. I have witnessed first hand the miracles of learning and the quagmire of the KCMSD Board. I have helped to get needed services and supplies for our teachers and social services for our families. I have helped structure outreach programs for families struggling with ever changing winds due to TANF fall offs. I have assisted in acquiring in- school health clinics and helped the process of getting outside agencies such as Samuel Rodgers, Swope Park Health to invest some of their dwindling dollars into school site or neighborhood targeted sites. This is a small portion of my volunteer activities. My faith contains a missionary component. I find the need right here in our neighborhoods and our area families.
I am far too busy to be bitter.


Greg Logan:

If you want to say the Jolie Justus is a 'fringe' candidate for the Democratic party then you must also say that Mike Flaherty is a 'fringe' candidate for this party. If you believe her platform represents the far left of the party then you cannot deny that Flaherty's position represents the far right of the party (anti-choice, etc.) or the middle of the Republican party.

Many portions of your argument appear flawed:

With more candidates wouldn't it logically follow that more people would be interested and involved considering the amount of information disseminated (think of all the mailings!)

Jason Klumb was a moderate candidate with a lot of money, a moderate platform, a sturdy resume and deep party connections. Based on conventional wisdom, Jason Klumb was the best representation of the Democratic Party as it currently exists. The 10th consists of a majority of Democratic voters. Why didn't Democrats in the 10th District nominate Klumb? He was not a 'fringe' candidate, or outside of the mainstream, as you say.

Democratic voters had their choice of four candidates with different platforms. They also had the choice of the Republican ballot, and will again in November. If the Democratic nomination of Jolie Justus as the 10th District Senator
drives people to vote for Jerry "The Pressure" Mounts, I venture to guess that a majority of 10th District Democrats would be fine with that.

Greg, every citizen of legal age in the 10th District has the right to vote (regardless of what Matt Blunt would want). 5% of registered voters chose to vote on August 8 and they chose Jolie Justus. 5,669 fringe voters. 5,669 of your friends and neighbors. 5,669 laborers, teachers, students, mothers and fathers, elderly, disabled, rich and poor felt that Jolie Justus best represents them. Don't attempt to make yourself feel better by diminishinsh their choice by comparing it to the assumed will of those who do not care enough to vote.

More people voted for the last American Idol than they did in the last presidential election. By your logic Taylor Hicks better reflects the interests and values of the United States than John Kerry of George Bush.


A few quick points. 1) Justus will not have the opportunity to get anything done due to the fact that she will be in the minority and that many of her views are out of the mainstream of most in the legislature. 2) Flaherty at least could have worked with the majority on issues important to the 10th.
3) Where will Klumb now move to in order to run in two years?

Personally, I'd be ashamed if I lived in a progressive district and sent a legislature to Jeff City who could "work with the majority" when the majority is so closely aligned with rabid bigots, religious zealots and extreme right idealogues.

Face it, Flaherty just didn't fit the 10th District. Jolie Justus does.


The majority will doll out the money for public work projects, roads, buildings etc. and I would like to see the 10th get its fair share of the work. With Justus we will once again be shut out of the process. I may not like the majority but until they are replaced you have to work with them if you want to do what is right for all the citzens of the 10th.

The comments to this entry are closed.