“Saying that Jolie’s — or any candidate’s — sex or orientation affects their ability to build coalitions or craft compromises or stand up for her constituents is bizarre.” Then the “logical conclusion to your argument” is we do not need organizations that promote a sex/preference based agenda. By your arguments counselor we’re all equal. No difference whatsoever.

“How’s the view from that high horse?” And you say I’m taking things personally? I just like yanking your chain! It’s too much fun to mess with someone on the politically correct bandwagon.

I don’t claim moral or ethical or any kind of superiority. I just challenge people’s premise’s. If you tell me I should vote for your candidate you better have a damn good reason other than “he or she is really great.”

Let’s look at the facts here. WPC and FFDC do not impose any litmus tests on their candidates. WPC endorses and contributes to men; FF endorses and contributes to hetero candidates. How do they have gender or orientation litmus tests? These two organizations certainly strive to get more female and LGBT candidates in office, which is a worthy goal. But this is a far cry from a “litmus test” regarding gender or orientation, because these organizations support candidates off ANY gender or orientation. Nice try, but your analogy doesn’t quite hold.

I don’t presume to speak for Ms. Justus, so you’ll have to ask her about her stance on endorsements, etc., and I’m sure she would be more than happy to share them.

You should explain that to the Women’s Political Caucus whose primary agenda is to get women elected to office (using sex as a litmus test) and the Four Freedoms Democratic Club whose primary agenda is to get GLBT candidates elected to office (using orientation as a litmus test). Read their policies on candidate endorsement. I didn’t make them up. They did. At least they’re up front about it.

I might also add that I believe Justus has both those endorsements. If she shares the same belief as you about sex and orientation, she should have refused to even be screened by those organizations, let alone flaunt their discriminatory endorsements.

From all the comments on this blog I’m pretty discouraged with all the choices. Is there a candidate called “none of the above?”

Add this to his reprehensible support of the Defense of Marriage Act. (And, might I add, Klumb has NO defense for co-sponsoring that bill. Additionally it’s absurd to suggest Klumb is sympathetic to the LGBT community because he has a gay man canvassing for him. There are also thousands of self-loathing Log Cabin Republicans across this great country.)

Does this voting record represent Kansas City’s values?

Stephen Bough said he fought for our issues when he was a State representative. Klumb sponsored two pieces of legislation in 1996. One revises provisions on probate law, and the other allows directors of non-profits to serve longer. I’m not sure whose issues those are. Are they ‘our’ issues? Someone fill me in.

A previous commentator said it best when they inferred Klumb would not even have an ass groove in his Jeff City Senate office chair before enlisting to run for a higher office. He has already established himself as a career politician with very little interest in whom he serves, but what looks best on his resume. It’s been said that he greatly disappointed many constituents in the Butler MO area when, after enlisting to run for their district Senate seat, he saw that the state Auditor nomination might be winnable. He then allegedly shifted dumped the Senate campaign, taking funds raised for the Senate seat to his state Auditor campaign. Oh and then had his ass handed to him in the primary by the Mayor of Arnold MO despite raising more money than all of the other candidates combined (which sounds quite similar to his current boasting about the size of his 10th District war chest)

Klumb has been in Kansas City less than two years. What makes him think he can represent this area? I’m guessing he’d have a hard time finding his way around the 10th District without mapquest, much less understanding the convictions and needs of its citizens.

Certainly his resume is impressive, but wouldn’t you prefer a candidate who knows the constituency of the district he wants to represent? This Senate seat is merely the next step in Klumb’s ambitious career trajectory.

lmfao. She was an RIAA lawyer man… they don’t get any worse than that. She is a corporate shill ready to suck dick for money all day. Fuck the RIAA and fuck it’s lawyers.

Jolie does work at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Simply because others at her firm represent Big Tobacco, mega-drug companies and other corporations that some find distasteful, it is simply not fair to cast the lawyer in the same light as the client. There are many wonderful people (who happen to be lawyers) at Shook and Jolie is one of best. When Ashcroft was in our state trying to keep families from being able to end Nancy Cruzan’s needless suffering under life support, Shook Hardy lawyers represented the Cruzan family for free, all the way to the Supreme Court. Several Shook lawyers are currently working for free on a death penalty case. I don’t like some of Shook’s client’s, but most of the lawyers are smart, decent people (including Jolie). Jolie is talented, smart and compassionate. Because she is employed at Shook or because she is a lesbian are irrelevant – she’s a great person.

Jason Klumb is one of the finest Democrats we have in our party. When he worked for Carnahan, he was great. When he was a state representative, he fought for our issues. He got his law degree at MU and has a masters in economics from the London School of Economics. He currently serves as a JAG Officer in the Army Reserves. Jason has previously recieved endorsements from GLBT organizations and has several gay and lesbian supporters (one gentleman knocks on doors with Jason every week). It’s easy to say that he supported the defense of marriage act over a decade ago, but without talking to Jason (as the GLBT groups did prior to endorsing him), the logic for passing a bill that was ruled unconstitional never comes out. Jason is a great human, does not discriminate and is a passionate advocate for Democratic values. He is more than a great fundraiser (he’s raised more than all the other candidates COMBINED), but he’s also knocked on more doors than the others and has 100 X more experience in Jefferson City, too. We are supporting Jason and trust that we will have a bright, energetic State Senator who we can be proud of his experience and abilities.

Ingrid Burnett has little self-direction. Name one effort she will be remembered for on the School Board? Could you identify her in a room of strangers? If she could win, she will be driven by her husband, John Burnett, a state representative, and his very close friend, Senator Victor Callahan.

Mike Flaherty’s campaign is openly directed by Victor Callahan’s legislative aid, Tom Hoppe. Hoppe was an ineffective menace during his tenure in Jeff City. When Hoppe was termed out, he couldn’t find real work, until Larry Sells picked him up. Now Hoppe works for Victor, jumps for Sells, and stumps for Flaherty. If Flaherty wins, he won’t know whether to answer to Hoppe or Victor – fun choices…

My vote is with Klumb. He may not be perfect, but at least he understands Jefferson City, thinks independently, and has dedicated himself to service.

Next time the seat is open, maybe the incumbent will be a little less selfish and give the party some time to plan and we can find better suited candidates all around.