Well, no one can accuse The Star of making “safe” endorsements in the Kansas City mayor’s race.
I was fairly astounded to go to The Star’s website today and see the paper was endorsing Phil Glynn and Alissia Canady in Monday’s primary election.
Neither of those candidates would be on just about anyone’s betting list of which two mayoral candidates will emerge from the primary and go on to the June 18 general election.
The endorsements are puzzling partly because Canady and Glynn both appear to be regional — and by regional I mean almost limited to a few neighborhoods — rather than city-wide candidates.
Glynn’s base is Visitation Catholic Church and, to a somewhat larger extent, the Ward Parkway corridor, although he’s got plenty of competition there from Steve Miller and Jolie Justus.
As for Canady, the 5th District City Council representative the last four years, her name does not resonate with many voters beyond the East Side.
Canady and Glynn both appear to be fine people, and I think both of them can have successful political futures. I just don’t think either is ready for the responsibilities that go along with being mayor of a city with nearly half a million people.
The Star’s rationale for selecting Canady and Glynn is that it would like to see a “change agent” in the mayor’s office. This strikes me as something of a slap at Mayor Sly James, who has had a very successful eight years in office, and also at Justus, the 4th District councilwoman, who is my even-money favorite to be Kansas City’s next mayor and is running with James’ support.
The editorial endorsing Canady and Glynn took a fairly strong swipe at Justus, pegging her as something of a go-along-get-along type of politician. The editorial said in part that “in her endorsement meeting with us, she repeatedly used the term ‘half a loaf’ as if that were the goal instead of the fallback position.”
That’s thin reasoning, if you ask me, and I’d like to know more about the context of those “half-a-loaf” comments…If I were Jolie, I’d be mighty pissed off.
**
The endorsements of Canady and Glynn represent a big risk by The Star. At a time when circulation is at all-time low (except for when the paper was getting started) and people’s confidence in The Star as a community weather vane has dimmed considerably, the editorial board is asking readers to make a great leap of faith in entrusting the reins of government to either of two relatively unknown and unproven candidates.
While I don’t think The Star should necessarily go with candidates who have the most money or are waging the most prominent and aggressive campaigns, I do believe it would be in the paper’s best interest to back a winner.
I can tell you this: I want a winner!
I’ve backed two losers in the mayor’s races that have been held since I retired — Jim Glover in 2007 and Mike Burke in 2011 — and being on the losing side is lousy. That’s one reason I’ve contributed to five mayoral candidates: Councilman Scott Taylor, Councilman Scott Wagner, Councilman Quinton Lucas and Justus and Glynn.
As I’ve written before, however, I think there are only two really “live” candidates in the race: Justus and Lucas.
Who knows. Maybe The Star will pull off the biggest surprise in modern mayoral politics and get one of its “change agents” into the general election. But I seriously doubt it. Like a lot of metropolitan dailies, The Star has been charting a different, downward course the last decade or so, and people just aren’t reading the paper or following its guidance like they used to.
In addition, of course, a lot of young people don’t even remember when The Star was a community beacon. That’s the real change that’s been going on.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
I was also quite surprised by The Star’s endorsement as they usually are all about going with the flow and established power movers. In my opinion, Glynn and Canady are the only two independent thinkers in the race. I hope at least one makes it to the runoff.
Phil Glynn has an outstanding, national reputation for AUTHENTIC economic and community development. He’s proven he’s got grit by standing up to well-heeled corporations seeking tax incentives in the prosperous Crossroads District. Glynn will represent the interests of all Kansas Citians fairly — not just the wealthy “developers.” Check out his campaign donations. He has more “small contributors” than any other candidate. He isn’t owned by the self-interest groups throwing about $660,000 (builders and unions) behind Justus and $550,000 behind Miller.
I think it’s time we stop trying to back winners and make winners out of leaders.
See my response to Vern Barnet’s comment…Ditto here.
Without detailing my four main objections to Justus, this is what I wrote The Star editorial board this morning —
Thank you for carefully examining the mayoral field and presenting your observations.
First, the two you have selected are fully worthy of your endorsement in my opinion. Watching Alissia Canady on the Council has been a refreshing surprise. She is forthright and has the City, not her bank account, in mind. Phil Glynn is easily the best qualified outsider with values and experience the City needs to move forward.
Second, thanks for seeing through the hoax that is Jolie Justus. She neglects our communities even as she hypocritically advertises a dedication to them. He back-room dealing is her way of building power without being responsible. Her support for the foolish, regressive sales tax is another example of being Sly’s baby, not the thoughtful leader we need.
You were also right in my opinion to mention Quinton Lucas who had a lot to contribute in the future. I really liked the way he handled the DUI. I like the fact that he can change his mind given more information.
I’m writing with such gratitude because I have thought only The Star might be able to save us from the disaster of the developers’ money — that is Jolie Justus. I want to make clear I am a strong LGBT supporter, and my many reasons to be concerned about her overcome my natural disposition to support her. I campaigned for her four years ago.
Vern
That’s an excellent letter, Vern. I know you are a close follower of city politics and know what you’re talking about. If we’re lucky, this editorial will prompt a surge of interest in the mayor’s race.
This is a question that I have never thought of before. Who at the newspaper makes the decision that “The Star endorses so-and-so?” Publisher? Editors? A group of writers? Is the decision process about the same at all newspapers?
Yes, John, it is about the same at all papers.
The “editorial board” collectively makes the endorsements. At The Star, the editorial board consists of Publisher Tony Berg; Editorial Page Editor Colleen McCain Nelson; editorial writers Dave Helling, Melinda Henneberger and Toriano Porter; and Derek Donovan, who edits the “letters to the editor.”
Customarily in big elections, like this one, most or all board members interview all the candidates separately. Then, the board gets together and talks about who they believe should be endorsed. Decisions could be arrived at by consensus or vote. In my experience, the publisher (not just Berg but those in the past) tends to defer to the majority, and the editorial page editor’s opinion is disproportionately influential.
However, the publisher can supersede the majority, and once in a while that happens. I recall a case many years ago when then-Publisher Jim Hale ordered the endorsement of the late Bill Waris, I believe it was for re-election as Jackson County executive. Yael Abouhalkah, who wrote most of the political editorials, had to take up pen and write an endorsement editorial about a man he loathed. As I recall, Waris won.
My favorite was when Barbara Shelly had to write the endorsement for a conservative JOCO Senator who had signed on to the latest establishment scam of raising money for a research institute (which was scandal ridden from day 1). Her column read something like “For a fat girl she doesn’t sweat much..” and you could sense her throwing up in her mouth as she wrote each word. Priceless.
There was another time when a reporter went to the editorial board knowing they would endorse the liberal in the race (also a woman) and told them flat out that the woman was nuts. After much bloodletting, rending of garments and teeth gnashing they endorsed her conservative male opponent.