Right now I'm listening to KMBZ debate between the Mayoral candidates and the conclusion I've come to is unquestionably correct (like nearly all of my opinions):
Funkhouser is weak on crime.
John and Ellen did an excellent job posing this question to both candidates in regard to our local gang war.
Brooks answered by noting his involvement in the ad-hoc group against crime, his community contacts and even noting efforts to get illegal guns off the streets.
Funkhouser talked about investment, mentioned "data" and didn't say one word about THE PEOPLE in the center of this conflict.
More than anything, when the lack of police cooperation has been notable and violence has taken a toll on this city far greater than the numbers suggest . . . The issue is not just one of cold hard facts but of perception and the strange motivations that lie in people's hearts (I know, I feel the ghey for writing that too).
Anyway . . .
To (attempt to) be fair, Funkhouser shows how Brooks is out of his depth in regard to issues like TIF but I don't believe that's on the top concern against so many people in this city . . . Believe it or not, I haven't made up my mind and look forward to making fun of both of these guys for the next week or so . . . But it's settled on this issue and the cadre of bloggers who unquestioningly back Funkhouser might want to use some of their pull to put this issue in perspective for their candidate. In my mind there is no greater concern for Kansas City than the topic of crime but to read the propaganda of all of the ultra-liberal, lily white bloggers in Kansas City who may or may not cross Troost . . . The subject is not nearly as important as a six month-old pile of papers.
UPDATE:
Other observations: Funkhouser is too nice . . . Does this work? We'll see . . . He had several chances to stick it to Brooks but backed off . . . Playing nice when it comes to talk radio and mad folks may not be the best strategy . . .
Brooks is way too smooth . . . I could hear his smile as he expertly blew off some angry caller . . . He's been doing that for 20 years so it's naturally his bag (nullus).
Funkhouser wins hands down on "integrity talk" it's a cutting campaign theme that I think could resonate in this town . . . I don't know if a week is long enough to drive this issue home but I just thought when he mentioned it that he struck a chord.
Now Darla Jaye is on radio . . . And I'm gonna listen to her voice and do nasty things.
They're replaying the debate at 7p.m. tonight . . . So you can drink while you listen.
Yes, Brooks helped found MOVE UP, which pays him $71,000 per year for part-time work that includes going to vigils AFTER murders happen and lighting candles with the family. And you say Funk is "soft on crime"? Please! Funk is looking for solutions to improve repsonse times and increase funding to the police department to get more cops on our streets - and Brooks is collecting a big, fat paycheck to light candles and then patting himself on the back for helping to found the group that pays him - oh, and received CITY FUNDING by the way.
ReplyDeleteName one community involvement that Funkhouser has had paid or not. . . You can't because his only service to this city been BEHIND A DESK!!!
ReplyDeleteFACE IT FUNK LOST YET ANOTHER DEBATE AND IS GOING TO LOSE.
ReplyDeleteThey both sounded the same to me. That's why I'm staying home and smoking weed.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you think about Alvin Brooks patting himself on the back for helping to found a group that uses the TAXPAYER MONEY it receives to pay him $71,000 per year to light candles after murders happen?
ReplyDeleteAnd what has Brooks done for crime during his EIGHT YEARS on city council? Our murder rate is abysmal and Brooks has had eight years to do something about it. What, he's going to get elected mayor and magically start doing something besides getting paid a shitload of taxpayer money to light candles?
Wow - maybe I'll found a non-profit group and go begging for city money, then give myself a cush 2-hour-a-week position that pays $71,000 per year and then I'll get on city council and vote to keep funding the group that gives me the big, fat paycheck for doing stuff that the common people think I'm doing out of the goodness of my heart.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad people are finally catching on to the double-dipping at our (taxpayer) expense. Now, they just need to realize Alvin is also getting campaign contributions from predatory lending agencies and that his campaign is being run by Pat Gray. He's not the Mr. Nice Guy he pretends to be.
ReplyDeleteFun to see Funkhouser supporters sling mud now that they are getting desperate.
ReplyDeleteThis whole town knows about Brooks and his involvement against crime paid or not he's done more WORK than anyone while Funkhouser's people get nasty whenever somebody points out that this town needs a mayor that can create a consensus and have experience in the community.
ReplyDeleteMark Funkhouser has NONE OF THAT!!!
I had no idea Funkhouser supporters were so nasty. Just another reason to vote for Mr. Brooks other than the fact that I've not once seen Mark Funkhouser at any community meeting, event or function since he decided to run for Mayor.
ReplyDeleteThe past two days say it all. Let's look at what the candidates SAY vs. what they DO.
ReplyDeleteBrooks SAYS he is a leader. Yet, he stands by quiet as a mouse while his attack dogs, Kay Barnes and Chuck Eddy, slander Funkhouser's character and say nasty things about him. Brooks, who pledged no negative campaigning, stands by saying nothing - and says he hasn't even bothered to read the TIF audit that caused the freak-out. THAT's LEADERSHIP? Our elected official cannot be bothered to read or answer to the public on a public document that the city attorney ruled the public had a right to see?
Brooks says he unites, not divides and that he can build consensus. Funny, the people in his own district seem to have a different opinion as they voted for him in very low numbers in the primary. A "proven leader" should be able to carry his own district. Brooks also said one caustic sentence about his opponent at a recent forum when the candidates were asked to say something nice about each other. Funkhouser, on the other hand, graciously used all of his allotted time to say nice things about Brooks. Will that kind of pettiness help Brooks "build consensus?" Of course, since he has done NOTHING during his eight years on city council except vote fr every TIF, I guess attacking his opponent, or having others do it fo him, is a way to draw attention away from his own poor record. Also, Brooks pays many thousands of dollars to a professional political consultant infamous for dirty tactics and character assassinations and even embarrasing attempts to doctor photos of his clients' opponents to make them look silly - how mature! Do these kinds of tactics sound like a good way to "unite, not divude"? After all, people who lose races often end up having to work with former oppnents in some capacity.
Brooks SAYS he fights crime by founding a group, then uses his seat on city council to fund that group with taxpayer money, and the group in turn pays him $70 G's a year to light candles AFTER crime happens. Double dipping, anyone?
Funkhouser SAYS he'll be smart with our money. And even the people who are now slandering him have publicly credited him with saving KC taxpayers $58 million per year.
Funk SAYS he can build consensus and work with people - and will include regular people in the decision making. His campaign is staffed by dozens of regular volunteers who put in countless hours simply because they believe in Funk and like his message.
If Brooks people want to call putting the facts out there and speaking up "getting desperate," well, let them whine. Bring it on. The proof is in the ACTIONS of the candidates. Karma, anyone?
Sounds like the Funko-blogosphere needs to be a little more careful in distributing their talking points....they're getting repetitive!
ReplyDeleteOMG a city councilman has a job at a nonprofit!
Luckily Black people already know that Funkhouser won't give a crap about anything east of troost, unless he brings home takeout from Go Chicken Go on 55th street.
"OMG a city councilman has a job at a nonprofit!"
ReplyDeleteIt's not a councilman having a "job" at a non-profit. It's a councilman collecting $70 grand per year from a group that he uses his seat on city council to use taxpayer money to fund. Do you see it? It's called a conflict of interest. Also, part of Mr. Brooks' reputation as a "nice guy" comes from the fact that murder victimes' families and TV viewers who see him out there lighting candles think he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart - not because he gets paid 70 Gs. 70G's is a hell of a lot more than many of his constituents get for working full time at actual jobs.
Luckily, Black people who are paying attention can see that Brooks votes all favor robbing their communities in favor of giving TIFs to big developers who build in the mayor's back yard in Briarcliff - not in the actual blighted areas TIFs are meant to help.
Pointing out Brooks pay is the same kind of RACIST tactic that people use against Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
ReplyDeleteWhen you can't attack the man because your man is weak then you attack the money.
All of this assumes that Black people don't already KNOW about the pay Brooks get.
It's just relying on RACISM which is what Funkhouser supporters don't want you to know is their ace in the hole.
Racism? That's really sad that you'd play that card. To say that we should hold black politicans to a lower standard of ethics and integrity than we hold white, or any other, politicians does a grave disservice to all voters. Shame on you.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of racism being an "ace in the hole" for Funk, that's simply not true. Black voters are much more likely to vote based on skin color than white voters, and that has played out in KC and local polls.
Not that it matters at all to anyone, but personally, I was unaware of the fact that Brooks receives over $70,000 annually to help "run" a non-profit. (I say "run" because I have absolutely not idea what he actually does for the group, besides stand in a position of leadership at candlelight vigils. I'm not meaning to mock him for what he does, or anything like that. Just saying that I'm truly unaware of what he does to earn his paycheck he receives from that org.) I'm not a resident of KC, MO so I won't be voting, but I have to agree with the anonymous poster above that believes that Brooks's job at MOVE UP seems like a conflict of interest situation.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, when everyone bickers as "anonymous" posters, it looks like one person is fighting with themselves. Why not at least pick a name?
I have to say that those ads that Brooks has out right now accusing Funk of "mud slinging" are confusing to me. I've never seen the Funkhouser ad that Brooks "quotes" in his ad, outside of the Brooks ad, of course. And I fail to see how it's mud slinging for his opponent to share his opinion of the state of this city via a metaphorical reference like that. Then again, maybe if I'd actually SEEN the entire ad he references, it would make more sense to me. But I haven't. Which I find kind of obnoxious...
Racism once again you all simply assume taht a Black man can't run a non-profit organization based on nothing more than stereotypes. I doubt any of all you white bloggers have ever been across Troost just as Mark Funkhouser never makes the trip.
ReplyDeleteJust sad to see not one white person on the local internet supports Brooks.
All whites for Funk and all Blacks for Brooks. Looks like neither canidate is really gonna change how things work in Killa City.
ReplyDeleteSo to sum up Faith's post, she doesn't live in KCMO, she has no clue what Brooks' group does (yet she still feels the need to put floating quotations around "run") but she does think it is a conflict of interest.
ReplyDeleteShe is "confused" about a campaign ad that is reacting to another ad, yet has not seen the original ad.
Sounds like we might be ready for an English and Grammar lesson soon!
Funk bloggers are sure sounding desperate. Pretty phoney if you ask me, which I wouldn't. However, we do have a Code of Ethics in KC and an Ethics Commission. So there you go. And as far as the TIF over the "thank Gosh for the Sunshine Law and a couple of concerned citizens actions to get the preliminary TIF report released" fiasco. GIVE ME A BREAK. If they really gave a darn AND have b een engaged for at least the last 6 months, why oh why didn't they file this request 2 months ago? Or 4 months ago? or 6 months ago when Funk was still in office? Heck, Funk himself could have filed the request under the Sunshine Law as a private citizen even while still in office if he wanted the public to see it. So, I ask you.."real or not real?" "I think we must protest".
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to take this time to thank you all for reminding me why I hate Kansas City so much.
ReplyDelete...whiners, all of you
Hey Tony, Funk got the endorsement today from The Friends of the Kansas City Police Officer Association
ReplyDeletehttp://friendsofthekcpoa.org
Must not be totally soft on crime.
Speaking as a black voter, I am not more likely to vote for candidates because I am black. My husband, a white voter, says that he is not more likely to vote for white candidates.
ReplyDeleteIf we're going to make generalizations, let's say this--ALL Kansas Citians need and desire the same things: accountability from their elected officials, the oppportunity to have their voices heard and respected, safe, clean neighborhoods, responsive and efficient city services and a stable public education system.
Take race off the table and vote for the candidates that you feel will help provide these things.
Racism once again you all simply assume taht a Black man can't run a non-profit organization based on nothing more than stereotypes. I doubt any of all you white bloggers have ever been across Troost just as Mark Funkhouser never makes the trip.
ReplyDeleteJust sad to see not one white person on the local internet supports Brooks.
---------
well, here's a white girl that has worked on troost and lives on the eastside. your stereotypes are no more racist than the one's you are complaining about. your assumptions about white people crossing the troost border are as nutty as the assumptions people have about Brook's and his work at the non for profit. and i may very well vote for brook's because i think he may be able to do something about the fucking crime in this city; especially on the eastside. 12th street gang is right around the corner from me and for the sake of the entire community, black and white, we need someone who will be tough.