4th District At-Large – Should we take Annie Presley Seriously?

Annie Presley is a Republican running for city-wide office in a Democratic city. She’s a “Public Relations Professional” who publishes sloppily written right-wing talking points demonstrating an appalling ignorance of basic civics (the President tells Congress what they can vote on, and writes the tax code?). She has a grudge against Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court, and rails against upper class elitists in Kansas City’s most upper class elitist publication, The Independent, “Kansas City’s Journal of Society”.

As ludicrous as all that seems, she might well be the best candidate to replace Beth Gottstein in Kansas City’s Fourth District At-Large seat.

The problem lies with her opponents. John Crawford is the chosen candidate of the TIF pigs – brazenly embracing every major player who helped starve the school district and library of tax funds while lining their own pockets with millions of dollars and ruining the city’s fiscal future. Herb Kohn is on Crawford’s side. Table-hopping Tim Kristl helped sponsor a forum for him. The most fiscally destructive Mayor in Kansas City’s history issued an effusive endorsement. Development attorneys from Husch Blackwell and Lathrop & Gage have hosted events for him. No wonder, because he was Executive Director of the EDC during its most free-spending days. A vote for John Crawford is a vote to turn the money fountain on full blast.

Anne McGregor is also running for the position, but she has a history of ineffectiveness that makes it difficult to envision her as a successful council member. She was a key Obama campaigner in an effort that turned out an underwhelming vote count and allowed Missouri to sink into the “red state” column and lose its bellwether status. More visibly on the local level, she chaired the embarrassing and unsuccessful effort to recall the Mayor, blowing over $30,000 in the process. Neither endeavor appears on her “About Anne McGregor” page, which leads one to wonder about her commitment to transparency.

Finally, we have Jim Glover. At least I think we do. His campaign has been silent except for the “Kiss of Death” endorsement by the Citizens Association, which has a rich history of choosing losers. I cannot even find a website for him, and the MEC doesn’t show any campaign information for him. He has decent name recognition because of prior city council service and a failed mayoral run, but if he’s going to make a go of it, he needs to start working.

The worst result for Kansas City would be having Kristl, Kohn and Kay have their chosen man on the Council. We cannot afford to return to their fiscal irresponsibility and plundering for wealthy friends. We need an alternative.

Would it be better to have a Republican with a penchant for sloppy reasoning and right-wing talking points on the council than a Kay Barnes protege with a penchant for public funding for wealthy contributors? It’s a tough choice, and I honestly think I would vote for Annie Presley in a head-to-head contest in the hopes that her right-wing posturing would render her a nullity on the Council. Better to have someone who will accomplish nothing than someone who will accomplish a return to the trough for the TIF pigs at our expense.

Come on, Jim Glover – save us from that choice . . .

12 Responses to “4th District At-Large – Should we take Annie Presley Seriously?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Kohn, Kristl and Kay – the KKK stealing from KC tax payers.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I wish Beth would reconsider.

  3. les says:

    does the (re)appearance of your favorite target, the TIF pigs, mean we’ll hear more from you for a while? Slim pickin’s–no apps for TIF in the last two years. Brookings Inst. says, comparing KC TIF with St. Louis, that “the Kansas City region shows a pattern more consistent with the revitalization goals of TIF. The vast majority of the districts lie in the region’s center city, though the huge size of the city means many are still geographically far-flung.” Damning with faint praise, I suppose, but…

  4. gonemild says:

    The TIF pigs have been starving during the economic downturn and a more fiscally prudent administration, but I don’t for a second think that they aren’t waiting for a change in leadership to belly up to the trough. Mind you, I’m not saying all economic development projects are bad – and I think that John Crawford can be justifiably proud of what he’s helped accomplish along Brush Creek. But, let’s face it, he’s a pro-whatever vote being funded by people like Tim Kristl. That simply can’t be good, unless you really want to pay for a gold-plated, taxpayer-guaranteed empty convention hotel.

    As for posting, the New Year’s resolution is to write something non work-related every day. Some of that will show up on the blog.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I certainly don’t agree with much of what AP has written. At the same time, however, you lose credibility when you personalize your attacks (“sloppily written”) and overstate things. For example, you write: “…grudge against Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court…” I don’t read her remarks as having a grudge against Catholics and Jews; instead, she just notes the fact that most in this country are Protestants but there are none on the Supremes. I think this is a worthy point to make…although I don’t agree with how heavily she makes it. Regardless, this is yet another example of why white, Protestant, conservative folks view your position as a double-standard. You press for diversity when it suits your politics, but not when in this instance. Could it be that the folks on the Supreme Court are the most qualified?

    wkb

  6. gonemild says:

    WKB -

    Good to hear from you. I hope all is going well.

    Did you read her writing? I was being rather gentle in saying that her posts are “sloppily written”. It’s poorly punctuated, ungrammatical, and incoherent. I’d say that “sloppily written” is an understatement – and I won’t even begin to discuss her wild lapses of logic.

    Let’s look at her attempt to tackle Kagan. Here are her words: “If Elena Kagan is confirmed, six of our Supreme Court Justices will be Roman Catholic and three will be Jewish. I find this absolutely astonishing. What I find further astonishing is that no one is ranting and raving about it.” Maybe “grudge” was too gentle a word – it sounds to me like she’s angry enough to rant and rave about it. It’s hard to read her other silly arguments – it seems that she believes that Midwesterners aren’t allowed to go to Harvard or Yale, and that she’s forgotten that Justice Thomas started his practice right here in Missouri.

    As for the odd concern about too many Catholics and Jews around the Supreme Court, I hope you’re not actually claiming that this is a result of anti-Protestant prejudice. Do you honestly believe that Clarence Thomas was chosen because of his religion? Do you honestly think that Reagan chose Scalia over other rabid right wing legal minds because he’s a Catholic? Really?

    For what it’s worth, I have no objection to Protestants serving on the Supreme Court. In fact, if you want to start an effort to get Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts to resign to make room for some Protestants, I’ll join the effort.

  7. les says:

    Where’s the love for atheist judges? If proportionality is the mantra, we should have at least one godless Supreme. The problem isn’t religious affiliation or ethnicity, it’s callous disregard for individual rights under the Constitution, and results-driven “conservative” rulings. Judicial activism, forsooth.

  8. gonemild says:

    Good points, Les, but WKB is feeling oppressed, and finally embracing the concept of affirmative action, so I felt it necessary to support him. I’m fine with atheists, pagans and agnostics, too, for what its worth.

    One thing Annie comes close to articulating in her rant against elites on the Supreme Court, but doesn’t quite get to – what about the stupid people? 1 out of 9 people in this country are stupider than the other 8. Why don’t they get representation on the Supreme Court? They’re well-represented in the Republican legislative ranks, but the Democrats blatantly discriminate against flamingly stupid people, and even Reagan and W, proud members of the stupid segment of our society, betrayed their roots in nominating well-educated, high-IQ individuals to the Supreme Court.

    Why do we tolerate this lack of diversity on the Supreme Court?

  9. chris says:

    I completely agree with your logic. All of the candidates are flawed to some degree. However, I like the fact that AP has picked up an issue that has been ignored for far too long. Doing business with Kansas City is difficult. Although pathways are cleared for those who can afford to hire development lawyers and eco devo consultants, there are far too many roadblocks in place for your garden variety business owner. At at a time where we need jobs and the competition is fierce, changes need to be made on how the city interacts with businesses and residents. The status quo is unacceptable. Mr. Glover needs to find some other way to occupy his time. My vote is for the Republican in this race.

  10. anonymous says:

    I have read her writings and they leave much to be desired. However, I still believe it is valid to point out there are no Protestants on the Supremes. I don’t think anyone was selected because of his/her religion. Nevertheless, this is something that makes for good discussion. As a Protestant, I don’t care. As a citizen, it makes me think about why this is the case. I don’t like the specific manner in which she raised the issue, but I believe it is worthy of discussion.

    wkb

  11. anonymous says:

    I was equally offended by the not-so-veiled reference to Justice Kagan’s alleged sexual preference in Ms. Presley’s blog. She acts as if it doesn’t matter, but “couldn’t let it go without saying”. Really? Why not?

  12. anonymous says:

    Apparently she doesn’t stand by her blog as it has been removed from the Independent’s site.

Leave a Reply