Donnelly blames “stalking horse” in latest missive to allies
State Rep. Margaret Donnelly, who came within 786 votes of being the state’s Democratic nominee for attorney general, sent out an update Saturday to supporters.
She noted her bittersweet status of being on the losing end of an historic race — “we ended with the closest statewide vote total in Missouri history….”
Then Donnelly pointed out her roadblocks:
The victor, state Sen. Chris Koster “spent 3 times as much money on TV as I did in the last week of the campaign and that we had a ’stalking horse’ candidate who received 23,000 votes after not campaigning at all….”
(Donnelly was referring to Molly Williams of Kansas City, who did no campaigning but snagged about 23,000 votes. Koster has denied his rivals’ accusations that he engineered Williams’ candidacy.)
After thanking supporters and campaign workers, Donnelly explained the legal nitty-gritty:
Under Missouri law we are entitled to a recount if the vote total is less than 1%. Even though the state pays the cost of the official recount we would still have some expenses if the recount proceeds. We are weighing the costs and practical considerations before deciding the next step to take. The recount cannot begin until the vote totals are certified, approximately 2 weeks after the election.
“I will keep you posted on what we decide to do about the recount,” she continued. “Meanwhile, we can look ahead to the November elections and electing Democrats from the president down to the legislative seats.”
This is exactly why partisan races for offices which should not be politically driven should stop. The Attorney General should enforce whatever laws are on the books, not just the ones put there by his/her party or the ones that s/he likes. The job shouldn’t be hobbled by worries about political affiliations.
I support Margaret Donnelly and still do, but I will say that Koster ads appealed to me in that they did not discuss positions or politics, but discussed his credentials and how he viewed the job. That is what should matter. Nixon has been political with the office. I can’t imagine Gibbons being anything but political after watching him in action in the legislature. It would be really nice to have an AG who did the job because he wanted it, not because it was a stepping stone in a political chess match in which you have to align with a team even if you don’t really wholly believe as they do, because no one else gets to play.
I’m so glad to live in one of the areas that does not have partisan races for judges for this very reason.
no disrespect or condescension intended, but I wish people would use “stalking horse” correctly; tho it’s come to mean colloquially what Jo uses it to mean, that is a misnomer and comes from misuse; a stalking horse, if one would care to look it up, and I forget it’s original derivation, is someone who gets in a race to test the waters for someone else, not to someone who gets in to take votes away from someone else; perhaps no other term that easily fits, but still; I know this just seems pedantry on my part, but I believe I’m correct. and btw, if it’s ever proved that this is what happened, a crime, I believe, and people should do time!
ps now that I’ve said that the word is not appropriately used, I must admit I know of no more suitable word for that meaning, tho there must be one; if not, maybe that’s why stalking horse assumed this new meaning, to fill the void.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Aug/20080812Comm002.asp
From Columbia tribune
“If Koster wins the general against Republican Michael Gibbons, he will be well set for higher office later on. ” [CDT]
Exactly. That’s why I would rather vote for Mike Gibbons.