By @BGinKC

I have known Mike Sharp for years. I got to know him very well back in the “murder summer” of 2004, and the interactions I had with him back then were enough to earn my support four years ago when he announced his candidacy.

Back when I got to know Mike, I was a shift supervisor at Research Medical Center and he was a homicide detective. When our gunshot traumas didn’t survive, the Medical Examiner and homicide unit would come and collect the labs and forensic evidence that was collected in the trauma bay. It was grim detail and no one got their jollies doing it, but interacting with Mike was what passed for a highlight those nights.

In the four years Mike Sharp has been Sheriff of Jackson County, he has served our community with honor and distinction. He has aggressively kept track of sex offenders and made sure their residencies are known and that they remain in compliance with their post-incarcerations obligations. That is important to the safety of our families and communities.

But more importantly, he has done more than any leader of any law enforcement agency anywhere to foster cooperation between agencies. As a retired KC police detective, he has ties to the largest police department in the county, and those ties go a long ways toward fostering cooperation in and of  themselves, but his cooperative nature isn’t limited to just the KCPD. It extends to the small agencies like Oak Grove and Lone Jack, and the federal agencies as well.

In my job I worked closely with law enforcement agencies at every level, from collecting blood samples from suspected drunk drivers for the police in small municipalities to DNA evidence that ended up as evidence in federal prosecutions. I know first-hand how difficult navigating cooperative relationships between agencies can be, and in over twenty years on the job, I have never witnessed anyone who does that better than Mike Sharp.

Therefore, for the reasons I have listed, and many, many more, I am breaking with tradition here at Show Me Progress and making an endorsement in the primary. When you go to the polls next Tuesday, request a Democratic ballot and vote to retain Mike Sharp as our Sheriff.

The Missouri AFL-CIO has announced that in the primary contest for the 1st Congressional District that is shaping up between Democratic Reps. Russ Carnahan and Lacy Clay Jr., they’re going with Clay – and it seems like a smart move as long as the Union wants to back a winner. As the St. Louis American noted earlier this year, Clay’s support in the district seems seriously solid.

For what it’s worth to the few readers of my posts, I’m going with Clay too. It doesn’t have anything to do with his chances, or his positions. As far as I’m concerned, Clay and Carnahan are six of one and half-dozen of the other. Both have taken positions I approve and both have occasionally disappointed me. I may have sometimes wished that Carnahan wasn’t quite so charisma-challenged, but that’s neither here nor there.  Both are Democrats and Missouri needs more of them in the U.S. House, not fewer. And Carnahan, by his decision to run in the 1st district rather than in the open 2nd, has really tipped the scales in favor of fewer Democrats. And I hold it against him; I don’t really endorse Clay over Carnahan, but I oppose Carnahan out of pure spite.

The same St. Louis American article repeated the story I’ve been hearing from other sources for a few months now. The Democratic party would have given Carnahan almost “unlimited financial support” if he had only agreed to take on Ann Wagner, who will undoubtedly prevail in the GOP primary for the 2nd District seat:

Meanwhile, next door in Missouri’s open 2nd CD, the primary has been held open for Carnahan, national Democratic leaders have offered him lavish money and unlimited support, and the district leans only slightly Republican, about 53 percent. So the math is clear and inescapable – the only congressional run that Carnahan can win in 2012 is in Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District.

Does Carnahan really think that the race in the 1st is going to be easier to win?

I’ve lived out here in what has been (shudder) Todd Akin’s preserve for the past ten years. It’s conservative, sure – but not monolithic. I’ve seen Akin take the district in election after election not because he’s especially beloved (or even respected), but arguably because the challengers have been weak, or disengaged, and the party offered no, nil, nada support, preferring to cede the election to Akin in order to channel resources into more secure races – a strategy I understand when there’s only so much to go around and you don’t have really strong candidates. But it could’ve been different this time.

If Carnahan had been willing to think about the good of the Party rather than the good of Carnahan, he would have run against Wagner and, for once, we would have had, win or loose, a real race, a real chance to send a Democrat from the 2nd district to Washington. There would have been three seats in play as opposed to just two – and there’s no way that’s not better for the Party, the State and the Nation. On a personal level, thanks to Carnahan, while I will no longer be represented in Congress by theocratic Republican Akin, I’ll likely be writing futile constituent letters to the corporatist Republican Wagner. The sad part of the whole story is that it’s not even clear that Carnahan made the best decision for himself.  

It’s time for another round of the Q & A series we’re holding here for the Missouri AG candidates. The answers to the last round can be found here; Rep. Jeff Harris won the first poll of our readers convincingly.

This week’s question: “What job that you’ve held in the past has best prepared you for the job of Attorney General? Why?”

The rules are below the fold.

We’ll be asking the AG candidates every couple of weeks to respond to a question, and when the deadline is up, we’ll post the answers together in the order we received them. You’ll then be able to cast a vote for the best answer, as well as discuss in comments who you believe had the best answer.

The rules are simple:

1) Answers must be 250 words or less.

2) Answers must be received by noon on Wednesday.

We’ll put up a link to each candidate’s ActBlue page every time they respond according to the rules. Feel free to suggest future questions in comments.

The Democratic primary for the Attorney General promises to be a lively race in the coming year, so we decided to take a page from Blue Hampshire with a Straw Poll series. We’ll be asking the AG candidates every couple of weeks to respond to a question, and when the deadline is up, we’ll post the answers together in the order we received them. You’ll then be able to cast a vote for the best answer, as well as discuss in comments who you believe had the best answer.

The rules are simple:

1) Answers must be 250 words or less.

2) Answers must be received by noon on Wednesday.

This week’s question: What would be the first issue you would tackle as Attorney General? Why and how?

Oh, and as an added bonus, we’ll put up a link to each candidate’s ActBlue page every time they respond. Feel free to suggest future questions in comments.