midtown guy wrote:
I was going to let it go, but I can't.
First of all, read this article from the Pitch on the Citizen's Association. It'll give you a bit of an idea who the people are who are supporting Brooks financially.
http://pitch.com/2007-02-15/news/power-to-some-people/
As for how people vote, one thing this election has taught me is that the majority of people in this city vote based on name recognition, not on what people can actually do. It's too hard for people to find out what candidates actually stand for...how else woud McFaddin-Weaver get through the primary at this point.
As for Funkhouser's funding, he had very little up to this point. I believe he, Henry Klein and DiCapo were the bottom three candidates in terms of funding...I can't find the numbers on KC Buzz Blog any more. But he was completely low-budget on his campaign.
Again, vote for who you want to vote for. But do it knowledgably. Funkhouser doesn't oppose all TIFs. The Citizens associaiton isn't a group of nice neighborhood people. At one point they were, not so much any more.
I won't be voting for Brooks. Given many attempts to say what he say what he stood for, he said he was against crime (which separates him from other candidates how?). He has never given any scenerio of how he planned to actually do something about it. I've tried to find out what his plans are. I can't. He won't say. It leads me to the conclusion that he doesn't. He's left me no option. I posted four times the question, what's he stand for. You still cannot answer me. No one has been able to answer me on it...which is really scary.
It gives me a bit of an idea as to their opinion which is pretty much baseless. By their own admission they don't really have any evidence of any wrongdoing. I think you should reread it. Speculation doesn't equal fact. Given the Pitch's propensity for churning out trash and becoming a borderline tabloid over the last few years, I wouldn't put too much stock in anything they publish.
Personally, I can't see where there's anything wrong with real estate lawyers being involved in these organizations. Citizens are made up of people of all walks of life and of course it makes sense to have people who know something about running a business being in charge of an association. Here's a question for you though. Do you think real estate lawyers would have a lot to gain by declining property values and escalationg crime rates? I really can't see how it does. I think just the opposite is probably true. Even in the article you posted from the Pitch I'm not seeing anything said about any really major amounts of cash being thrown around. Certainly not enough to buy anyone off. So, I guess none of this really adds up to any kind of strong evidence of corruption.
I call bullshit on Funkhouser's campaign funding. Show me some numbers. I know I saw his commercials on television at least as many times if not more than Brooks. In fact, most of the candidates had more air time than Brooks. Nace and Riederer probably the most of all.
Apparently a ton of people must have voted for Funkhouser based on name recognition too then. How many candidates were there? 12? And he beat out 10 of them in the primaries. Doesn't sound like he's at a competitive disadvantage to me in terms of dollars or name recognition. What you're saying doesn't make sense. What the hell happened? Did God miracle Funk through the primaries against insurmountable odds? I don't think so. He's on a level playing field with the other candidates in terms of name recognition and financial support or he wouldn't be in the race today.
If Funkhouser loses then he'll lose because he hasn't proven to the public that he has the right stuff so please, no more excuses. He's in the Star daily for christ sakes. In fact, didn't he get their endorsement? How much more support would a person want than to be backed up by the most widely spread publication in the metro?
You've posted the question four times but since you singled me out and began trying to needle me first I asked you to back up your speculations and unsubstantiated claims with some facts and all you keep doing is responding with no facts. If you're going to jump somebody on here then you're obligated to back your own ass up before you can demand that someone else does. Ask yourself this question. How good is your candidate if you can't back yourself up with anything but diversionary tactics rather than something concrete?
Now, do I think Brooks is the ultimate mayoral candidate? Absolutely not. I voted for Chuck Eddy and I would have picked him and probably 2 or 3 other candidates over the two that we have left. In my mind Brooks is just the best one we have left. The way I see it being a number cruncher isn't as valuable as far as experience on a resume for a mayoral candidate as having spent time on the council, 10 years as a police officer interacting with the community, president of Ad Hoc Group Against Crime, Mayor pro tem, and prior experience as the assistant city manager of Kansas City. You tell me what experience Funkhouser has that trumps all of that. His own website says he's been an auditor and a social worker. That's it? Puhleez!
Anyways, this whole debate seems to be getting a bit redundant doesn't it? I'll finish by saying vote for who you feel is the best candidate. Whether I agree with you or not I'm glad you feel it's important enough to get involved. So many don't care at all. See you at the polls.
