Libertarian officeholder switches to GOP in Missouri

Mike Ferguson, a member of the Grandview, Missouri, Board of Aldermen and the Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor of that state in 2004, announced on his website that he has switched to the Republican Party. He said in part, “My principles and beliefs have not changed. I am for cutting unneeded government spending. I am a fiscal conservative who believes that government should stay out of the private sector as much as possible. I am pro life. I am a believer in the common-sense truth that protecting personal freedom should be the goal of government at all levels. I don’t want to just talk about better, smaller government for Missouri; I want to be part of creating a better, smaller government in our state.”

The AP reports Ferguson also endorsed Republican Roy Blunt for a U.S. Senate seat that will be open in 2010. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch says on its website that while “Ferguson’s switch is not likely to reap a bounty of Libertarian votes for Blunt,” it “could bolster Blunt’s credentials as a fiscal conservative.” Ferguson’s announcement came as another candidate entered the Republican primary race touting fiscal conservative positions.

Ferguson received 53,770 votes for lieutenant governor in 2004, more than twice the showing for the Libertarian U.S. Senate and gubernatorial candidates, and 10 times the showing for the Libertarian national ticket, in the state that year.

52 thoughts on “Libertarian officeholder switches to GOP in Missouri

  1. Donald Raymond Lake

    As a former Hickman’s Mill/ Ruskin Heights [south western KCMO] native I fully understand Mike Ferguson’s slide to the DR main stream. If the stumble, bumble local third rate weekly and homes association throw away, the Jackson County Advocate, has yet survived to tease and bore another day, may be Mike can amble down to Main Street to smooze with the natives and get some print!

    In the Heart Land, especially Kansas and Misery, it is Dems and GOP and ‘others’ ———– in a UFO style of existence.
    [Some of us have heard of them, but hardly any one with any street cred is acknowledged with a legitimate sighting!]

  2. morey

    This is sad news… for Wayne Root, who has almost certainly lost a vote at convention.

    But seriously, going to the majors is the smart (only) move for those whose primary motivation is winning partisan elections.

  3. Gary

    FACT CHECK

    God Bless Mike for running, but I checked the election results. He got a huge 2.02% of the vote for Lt. Gov.

    Let’s face it. When a 3rd party gets under say 3% of the vote then why bother? Still I guess you have to try.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gary,

    “When a 3rd party gets under say 3% of the vote then why bother?”

    For one thing, in Missouri getting 2% of the vote in a statewide race extends a party’s “automatic” ballot access for another four years.

    For another, even a small vote can change the outcome of the race. In 2006, Missouri LP Senate candidate Frank Gilmour also got a little over 2%, more than covering the gap between incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill. In part because of Frank in Missouri and Stan Jones in Montana, the US Senate changed majority parties.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    Oh, and another thing:

    Yes, Mike Ferguson got 2.02% for lieutenant governor in 2004, BUT that was part of a bigger picture. In 2003, he was appointed to a state board. In 2005, he was appointed to a local board. This year, he was elected to a city council.

    There were certain respects in which that run for lieutenant governor enabled the other things. It increased his name recognition, it gave him a chance to mix with other political types outside his own party, etc.

    One factoid in isolation is just a factoid. Put in context, it can be more meaningful.

  6. Gene Berkman

    There has long been a two-way street between The Libertarian Party and The Republican Party. Sometimes disgruntled Republicans join the LP in protest against Bush or something, and don’t find out what the party stands for til after they join.

    At the same time, all third parties that elect people to office face this issue. Since a victory for a third party candidate is considered a “fluke” the successful office-holder often defects to a major party before the next election.

  7. Donald Raymond Lake

    Well he totally ignored the stumblings and bumblings of the worst big town mayor since Jerry Springer! KCMO’s Mark Funkhouser had two recall efforts, the second one coming under one percent of the grossly inflated petitioning totals!

    I gave Markie all kinds of info on local corruption and scandal. NOT ONE WORD IN HIS BLOG OR HIS PR! Total disregard for the basics of ‘Loyal Opposition’!

    But hey, he was on a lot of nifty panels and committees!

    [Too bad the Dems and GOP are no better!]

  8. JT

    Tom Knapp, I don’t intend to be rude, but I have to take issue with your post here.

    Knapp: “For one thing, in Missouri getting 2% of the vote in a statewide race extends a party’s “automatic” ballot access for another four years.”

    I hate when Libertarians say this. What good is perpetual party ballot access if the party’s candidates never even come close to winning partisan races? When Libertarians use this as a marker–and they do it a lot–it seems like all they care about is that they can keep on playing the electoral game but never winning it.

    Knapp: “For another, even a small vote can change the outcome of the race. In 2006, Missouri LP Senate candidate Frank Gilmour also got a little over 2%, more than covering the gap between incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill. In part because of Frank in Missouri and Stan Jones in Montana, the US Senate changed majority parties.”

    I hate when Libertarians say this also. Why? Because it reinforces the false notion that Libertarians are just extreme Republicans. What evidence is there at all that if not for the Libertarian candidate most of those votes would have gone to the GOP candidate? I’ve never seen any objective evidence whatsoever that most Libertarian votes would otherwise go Republican. I think the most likely outcome is that most of them would go to another third party candidate–or to no one at all.

  9. Richard Winger

    It’s factually erroneous for anyone to say Libertarians never come close to winning partisan elections. Libertarians have won partisan elections in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

  10. mdh

    To hell with the guy. We don’t need conservatives in the LP, we need libertarians in the LP. Anyone who would join with either of the pack of swine parties is most likely swine themselves.

  11. Erik Geib

    JT:

    Sadly, there is evidence to support. Look up David Boaz and David Kirby’s study of ‘The Libertarian Vote.’ In 2000, 72% of libertarians voted for the GOP. In 2004, it was still 59% despite the very anti-libertarian policies of Bush.

    This isn’t to say libertarians have much in common with Republicans (it’s an even split in terms of left-right ideological roots), but they certainly represent a swing that can hurt Republicans dearly (both via LP votes and/or swinging to Democrats).

    Just because you haven’t seen the studies doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

  12. Mik Robertson

    @10
    If a third candidate can cover the spread between the top two, it gives the perception that the third candidate affected the outcome, and in politics perception is 90% of reality. If enough people perceive a third party to be viable, it will be.

    It will take more that a couple candidates for any party to get that credibility, though. But the two majors have realized it works out too well to actually be in opposition.

    It is better for them to give the perception of opposition and in the mean time work together to utilize as much of other people’s money as they can to gain as much power as they can.

    There is no alternative voice in American politics anymore, which is why it is imperative that some group crash the one Party party that has become politics in the United States.

    Certain laws may be relaxed a little in one area while others are tightened in another to give the perception the two majors are concerned for the citizens. In reality, the overall movement is toward government control, and not in a good way.

    You can’t change the system by joining the duopoly (as Nader calls it). If you don’t give people the chance to vote for someone else, nothing will substantially change. It doesn’t matter where the vote would have gone, or if the votes would have been cast if the third candidate wasn’t there. The fact that there was another candidate there who did get votes is another chink in the armor.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What good is perpetual party ballot access if the party’s candidates never even come close to winning partisan races?”

    Ballot access is necessary to have a CHANCE of winning partisan races.

    Every extension of “automatic” ballot access means another period of time in which the party can work on figuring out HOW to win partisan races.

    And finally, it’s generally cheaper and easier to get over that 2% hurdle to extend “automatic” ballot access than it is to petition, meaning that more money and time is left available to try to win partisan races.

  14. d.eris

    Ferguson: “I don’t want to just talk about better, smaller government for Missouri; I want to be part of creating a better, smaller government in our state.”

    You really have to wonder why he joined the Republican Party then, since they only talk about better and smaller government.

  15. mdh

    My silly notions that the GOP was worth anything died when they rejected Ron Paul as their presidential nominee.

  16. paulie

    I had the same experience with the Democratic Party in 1992 based on their selection of a candidate born after WW2 who supported keeping and expanding the military-industrial complex and the drug war.

  17. Scott Lieberman

    “The Medicare Modernization Act and the New Politics of Medicare – Andrea Louise Campbell and Kimberly Morgan

    (aka: Medicare Part D – Prescription Drugs)

    In the Senate, many Democrats changed their mind and opposed the final law, although it still passed 55 to 44, with 11 Democrats voting for and nine Republicans voting against.

    In the House, by contrast, the
    Republican leadership could count on only a handful of Democratic supporters, and thus had to hold onto as many Republicans as they could. At one point, Democrats had an absolute majority of votes against the bill, but the House leadership kept the vote open for several more hours while they and the Bush administration tried to persuade enough Republicans to switch their nay vote to a yea. This was the longest electronic vote tally – two hours and 53 minutes – since the use of electronic voting, and Republican leaders almost literally had to twist arms to get enough Republicans to support the bill (Martinez 2003). One Republican congresswoman hid behind a
    banister on the Democratic side of the House, hoping not to be found, while others turned off
    their cell phones or stood in a large group that could fend off attempts by the leadership to pick
    off vulnerable individuals (Koszczuk and Allen 2003). At 5:51 in the morning, the MMA
    passed, 220-215, with 25 Republicans voting against, and 16 Democrats voting in favor.”

    *********************************

    In other words, over 85% of Republican Congressmen voted in favor of Medicare Part D, and 80% of Republican Senators voted in favor of it.

    If Mr. Ferguson thinks he can swim upstream in the Republican Party cesspool against those odds, good luck.

    However, I think it is much more likely that either Mr. Ferguson will “go native” so he can move up the Republican food chain, or he will be essentially neutered by the Republican leadership, as has happened to Ron Paul. In other words – all bark, no bite.

    The reason the Libertarian Party exists is to provide a party leadership that SUPPORTS legislators who move public policy in a libertarian direction, as opposed to the Democrat-lite leadership of the Republican Party.

  18. Northern Exposure

    Yet another sad case of Post Republican Stress Disorder (PRSD) or is it simply political necrophilia?

  19. Gene Trosper

    @18 Took you that long, huh? I’m 43, but my realization was George Herbert Walker Bush.

  20. John Famularo

    Scott Lieberman wrote,

    “The reason the Libertarian Party exists is to provide a party leadership that SUPPORTS legislators who move public policy in a libertarian direction.”.

    This may be what “you” think, but it is not clear exactly what is the official mission of the LP. The LNC has refused to directly address the issue since the inception of the LP. Even the “founder” of the LP couldn’t get a hearing on it at a recent LNC meeting.

  21. Geoffrey

    Good lord,

    I was putting the little ones (my puppies of course) to bed when I came across the posting by John Famularo above. As I have mentioned in these spaces previously, your very own LP Bylaws say the following:

    moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office

    https://www.lp.org/files/Libertarian%20Party%20Bylaws%20and%20Convention%20Rules%202008-05-26.pdf

    I do get tired of seeing ignorant posts and urge your USLP to make this very clear on their front page so others might readily see it. Oh yes, now I see — it is on their front page at the bottom left. Well — perhaps it should be on the very top!

    The Libertarian Party is America’s third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. Our vision is for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives, liberty and property by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office, and moving public policy in a libertarian direction.

    Anyhow, many other LP’s across the world including ours here in the UK conform to these ideals, after all — your own Webster’s describes a political party as one that runs candidates to hold public office correct? For that is what a Political Party is.

    Good evening,

    Geoffrey

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    Geoffrey,

    The “mission” you cite is one of a number of subsidiary goals listed pursuant to an overall purpose. It is NOT the “mission statement” of the LP, and no amount of wishing it was and selectively quoting to make it seem like it is will change that.

  23. Geoffrey

    Oh so sorry, I always though “ARTICLE 3: PURPOSES” entitles the “mission” or ultimate “goal” or “end.”

    Thus, let me check my handy Queens English Thesaurus: “Mission” – Third definition = “calling(n)” = third synonym listed is….. “Purpose”

    Yes, at least over hear in the good ole UK, Purpose = Mission. Therefor, no matter how many of you want to believe the “mission” of a “political party” should NOT be “running people for office” obviously those that have written your Bylaws think otherwise (and apparently are capable of reading Webster’s to understand what the goal/purpose or mission of any political party should be).

    Good evening

  24. Mik Robertson

    Free Scotland!

    The purpose/aim/mission of the LP of moving public policy in a libertarian direction can be accomplished in a number of ways. Public education and outreach is one, and it should be part of our arsenal.

    It also means working with those in government who formulate policy. It would be better if we had our own elected officials to work on legislation or execution of laws directly. That is the big advantage a political party has over other interest groups or public policy think tanks.

    If we don’t include a prominent role for electing candidates to office, then what is the point of maintaining political party status? I have heard some say that this is for the rare occasion when it is necessary to run a candidate as the other two would move policy away from libertarianism.

    I think that is far from a rare circumstance, and in fact it is rare when real libertarian candidates do run in the old parties. They may campaign as such, but the special interests get them in line pretty fast.

    We need to break that special interest hold on government. If the LP cannot win big elections now, it should go small and build. If the LP gives up on that option just because it is difficult, then it doesn’t really make sense to remain a political party.

  25. JT

    Eric: “Look up David Boaz and David Kirby’s study of ‘The Libertarian Vote.’”

    Actually, I’ve already seen that study.

    Does that study prove that most people who vote Libertarian would otherwise vote Republican? No. But if most people who vote Libertarian would NOT vote Republican otherwise–likely opting instead to vote for another third party candidate or simply not vote at all–then there’s no “spoiler” effect from the Libertarian candidate whatsoever.

    Moreover, saying that Libertarians spoil races for Republicans is the same as saying that Libertarians are closer to conservatives ideologically, which I think is a terrible idea to perpetuate just to seem relevant (just as I think saying that Libertarians are closer to liberals is a terrible thing to perpetuate just to seem relevant).

    Richard: “It’s factually erroneous for anyone to say Libertarians never come close to winning partisan elections.”

    Okay, Richard, I’ll amend that to 99 percent of Libertarians don’t come close to winning state or federal elections, unless they’ve also run under a major party banner.

    Tom: “Ballot access is necessary to have a CHANCE of winning partisan races.

    “Every extension of “automatic” ballot access means another period of time in which the party can work on figuring out HOW to win partisan races.”

    That’s true. But what I’ve observed in the LP is that maintaining ballot status seems to be an end in itself. When a Libertarian candidate surpasses the legal threshold, other Libertarians rejoice as if that person had just won the election! Now, when that happens every four years or so for decades, it’s just sad. Maintaining ballot status is only valuable if it results in victory in the near future.

  26. tab

    in most ways i think of partyloyalty as a bad thing</i.

    I guesss I could see that. Political parties are really a means to an end. The end goal being a small federal government (or none at all to appease the others). When you start having extreme loyalty to a party you end up like the Republicrat sheeple.

    If Ferguson believes this is the best way to meet his goal then so be it.

  27. Erik Geib

    JT:

    Did you not comprehend the study? In 2000, 97% of libertarians voted for the Republicans or Democrats. Factoring in the high percentage who vote GOP [*shudder*], it’s pretty obvious that a large number of people who do not wind up voting for the LP would have likely voted GOP otherwise.

    The entire analysis is about the ‘swing’ potential of libertarian voters.

  28. Erik Geib

    And I don’t believe that perpetuates any particular myths about the libertarian-conservative connection, as many Cato studies point out it’s a rather even split from ideological bases on the traditional spectrum. It just shows that too many libertarians (even ‘left-leaners’) wind up voting their wallets in times of peace. Look at the swing away from the RNC (though still overwhelmingly, sadly, supportive) in 2004.

  29. Donald Raymond Lake

    Michael A. Ferguson – Alderman (Ward III)
    Mike Ferguson/
    Michael A. Ferguson
    6201 E. 149th St.
    (816) 695-1425
    mike@mikefergusononline.com

    • Elected to office April 7, 2009.

    • B.S. Degree from Charter Oak State College (Communications) CSP (Certified Staffing Professional) certificate earned from the American Staffing Association in 2006.

    • Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation (2005-2009, Chair from 2006-2009), Jackson County Public Water Supply District #1 Board of Directors (2007-2009), Grandview Planning & Tax Increment Financing Commissions (2008-2009), Missouri State Plan Committee (2003).

    • Other Community Service: Advisory Board – Women’s Employment Network, Advisory Board – Brown Mackie College, active member of Southland Baptist Church.

    Alderman Ferguson is a self-employed media consultant who has been a resident of Grandview for 11 years with his two children, Austin and Amber.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    Geoffrey,

    You write:

    “Oh so sorry, I always though ‘ARTICLE 3: PURPOSES’ entitles the ‘mission’ or ultimate ‘goal’ or ‘end.”

    You’re right. It does. And “ARTICLE 3: PURPOSES” reads:

    The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by …

    Everything before the word “by” is the party’s “purpose” or “mission.”

    Everything after the word “by” is one of a set of strategies for accomplishing the “purpose” or “mission.” There are six of them. Winning elections is certainly in there, but one of six strategies is not a mission or purpose, let alone the mission or purpose.

    Thanks for playing.

  31. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT,

    You write:

    “what I’ve observed in the LP is that maintaining ballot status seems to be an end in itself. When a Libertarian candidate surpasses the legal threshold, other Libertarians rejoice as if that person had just won the election!”

    Your observations vary from my own in significant respects, then. I’ve seen the reaction when a candidate does well enough to maintain ballot access, and that reaction is indeed enthusiastic …

    … but nowhere near as enthusiastic as when a candidate is actually elected or appointed to office (I’m an appointed public official myself and my wife is a former elected public official, so I’ve seen those reactions firsthand).

  32. John Famularo

    Tom Knapp wrote,
    “Winning elections is … one of six strategies [it]is not …. the mission or purpose. [of the LP]”

    I agree with Tom’s analysis of the purpose paragraph in the LP bylaws. Where I disagree is that I believe that the purpose of the LP should read:
    “The mission of the Libertarian Party is to recruit and train candidates and candidate support teams for election and appointment to public office who will reduce the size, scope, and centralization of government while securing the individual rights to life, liberty, and property.”

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    John,

    I’m always happy to entertain arguments as to what the purpose(s) or mission(s) of the LP should be.

    I do get tired of arguing about what the purpose of the LP is, though. It’s just not that fucking hard to find or read.

    Regards,
    Tom

  34. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yes, tedious.

    Am I correct in assuming that the purposes we’re organized to do are not mutually exclusive? Might they even be mutually supportive?

    So, for ex., “building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office” may well support “entering into public information activities”?

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Let me rephrase that for you:

    “Am I correct in assuming that the strategies listed for achieving the purposes we’re organized for are not mutually exclusive? Might they even be mutually supportive?”

    I believe you are correct, if that’s what you mean.

    “building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office” and “entering into public information activities” are not purposes of the LP, they’re activities listed as ways of achieving the purposes of the LP.

    The purposes of the LP, per the bylaws, are to “implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles.”

  36. JT

    Eric: “Factoring in the high percentage who vote GOP [*shudder*], it’s pretty obvious that a large number of people who do not wind up voting for the LP would have likely voted GOP otherwise.”

    It’s likely that a large number of people who do NOT wind up voting LP would have voted GOP otherwise? The issue is whether large numbers of people who DO vote LP would have voted GOP otherwise (if Libertarians didn’t run). That’s what you have to prove to validly demonstrate a Libertarian spoiler effect on Republicans, which was the point I was making. And that claim hasn’t been proven at all.

    Tom: “Your observations vary from my own in significant respects, then. I’ve seen the reaction when a candidate does well enough to maintain ballot access, and that reaction is indeed enthusiastic …

    … but nowhere near as enthusiastic as when a candidate is actually elected or appointed to office (I’m an appointed public official myself and my wife is a former elected public official, so I’ve seen those reactions firsthand).”

    Congrats to you and your wife. But maintaining ballot status should NOT get an “enthusiastic” reaction when for decades Libertarians haven’t capitalized on it by being truly competitive in state-level or federal-level partisan races. The reaction now should be, “That’s nice, now let’s see if we can achieve something notable within the next four years.”

  37. libertariangirl

    DRL_libertariangirl: and Dems or GOP spouting reform upon occasion ??????

    I guess , id have voted for RP had he been on the ballot , but thats one in a million.

    I voted for Bob Barr , I guess one could consider that voting for the GOP 🙁

  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT,

    You write:

    “The issue is whether large numbers of people who DO vote LP would have voted GOP otherwise (if Libertarians didn’t run). That’s what you have to prove to validly demonstrate a Libertarian spoiler effect on Republicans, which was the point I was making. And that claim hasn’t been proven at all.”

    Actually it has been both “proven” and “disproven” — with exit polling. “Second preference if my preferred candidate/party was not on the ballot” varies from race to race and candidate to candidate.

    You’re correct that it is not safe to assume that Libertarian voters will vote GOP if the LP doesn’t have a candidate on the ballot.

    I agree with you that ballot access for the sake of ballot access is stupid. I also agree with you that the LP should be doing more to turn ballot access into stronger election results.

    That said, I still think it is laudable for a candidate to give the LP the chance to do so, by getting over the ballot access barrier, whether the LP takes advantage of that chance or not. Throwing a life preserver to a drowning man is a laudable act even if he ultimately declines to, or is unable to, grab it.

  39. JT

    Tom: “Actually it has been both “proven” and “disproven” — with exit polling. “Second preference if my preferred candidate/party was not on the ballot” varies from race to race and candidate to candidate.”

    I know some people have taken informal exit polls to try to discern who the second choices of voters were. But I don’t know of any studies with large samples regarding those who voted Libertarian. I’m open to finding one.

    Tom: “That said, I still think it is laudable for a candidate to give the LP the chance to do so, by getting over the ballot access barrier, whether the LP takes advantage of that chance or not. ”

    Yes, it is. But that doesn’t warrant an ecstatic response. It warrants a “good, now let’s see if it turns out to mean something” response. And by mean something, I mean that in the next cycle some of the Libertarian candidates in that state come close to winning state or federal offices (say, 25 percent of the vote in a 3-way race, or 45 percent in a two-way race).

  40. Donald Raymond Lake

    May be that is true JT, but lots and lots of folks [whom use to answer questionnaires every where including from the back of cereal boxes to] purposely lying on post voting exit polls.

    “My vote, my business ………..”

  41. JT

    Donald, I don’t know why people would purposely lie on exit polls as against simply not cooperating at all, nor do I think you have any clue as to how many people happen to do that. In any event, I don’t see how that relates to the point I was making, which the nonexistent evidence for Libertarian candidates “spoiling” races for Republican candidates.

  42. Donald Raymond Lake

    Since 1952 and the UNIVAC pre -election prediction of the race, lots of folks, and plenty that I have personally discussed [often sober and straight] the matter with, think that exit polls in that manner is evil, Unamerican, and should be banned or sabotaged………

  43. Keith L. Rodgers

    “You really have to wonder why he joined the Republican Party then, since they only talk about better and smaller government.”

    True enough, but note that Ferguson did not join the Democrat Party, which is worse at “better and smaller government” when they gain unstoppable power like the GOP had a while back.

    Michael Cloud pulled about twenty percent against John Kerry in a Senate matchup. But CNN’s Candy Crowley said Kerry “ran unopposed” that year – because there wasn’t a Republican candidate.

    And there’s no such thing as liberal media bias.

  44. Third Party Revolution

    And speaking of people switching, according to Ballot Access News, a County Commissioner in Colorado just switched her affiliation from Democratic Party to Independent. And what is most interesting is that she used to be chairman of the Democratic Party of La Plata County. With former party officials leaving the party, it shows that the Democratic Party is dying as well. http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/08/22/colorado-county-commissioner-switches-from-democrat-to-independent/

  45. Donald R. Lake

    Will the Show Me State Libs even want a guy whom has completely ignored a squander fest of a quarter of a million dollar ART FENCE around a failing local high school [my alma mater, so proud, so proud] —- and not one word of complaining.

    Will the Show Me State Libs even want a guy whom has failed to rail against the worst big town mayor [Mark Funkhouse, KCMO]! A recall missed it’s artificially difficult barrier by less than one per cent and in all that time Mister Financially Responsible never said a word!

    Mister Ferguson is [see above] an elected official a town in South East Jackson County. Want to know more about the little berg that can’t ???? Look at Forbes magazine under ‘Ten Worst Cities in the Nation’ [or words to that affect….

    I am not making this stuff up, I can’t, I just do not do enuf drugs ………..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *