Here's the deal: I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just like punching bullies in the nose

by: Blue Girl

Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 06:00:00 AM CDT

Throw in the fact that my bio makes my wheelhouse more in the vein of national security, military issues and foreign policy...but I wade into the local and state stuff sometimes, and that is why Clark and Hotflash asked me to come aboard when Show Me Progress was an idea and a domain that they had the foresight to purchase.

When I went aboard, Clark became my partner - therefore, getting pissy with him, is the same as getting pissy with me...and we can go there all day if anyone wants to take that leap. I literally have nothing better to do than spend my days fucking with someone who, apparently, needed their ass whooped as a child and didn't get it.

That's the set-up...here's the payoff.

A candidate for the state Senate took exception to something that Clark posted, and not only responded in a hysterical manner, apparently she believes her own bullshit, because if she doesn't she is suffering from the delusion that bloggers are easily intimidated.

Here's a nickles worth of free advice...we ain't.

Here, in it's entirety, is the post that started it all:

Maria is lying

Maria, there's another candidate in your race who is free from the taint of Rex Sinquefield donations, and his name is Joe Adams. He was actually your mayor for several years, if you can recall.

Maria Chappelle-Nadal, outgoing representative of the 72nd House District is running in a 4-way race for state senator of the 14th Senate District. She just sent out mailers to her prospective constituents that mangle a quote from the St. Louis American (and that's being generous) to claim that Maria is the only candidate who hasn't received money from Rex Sinquefield. Joe Adams, the former mayor of University City, has not received any contributions from Sinquefield, and the original quote from the American in no way resembles Maria's claim.

The quote on the front of the mailer says, "I'm proud to be the only candidate in this race that has not been bought by billionaire Rex Sinquefield who is trying to own state government." The quote on the back appears to directly cite the St. Louis American: "Her youthful energy gives her the edge [and she is] the only candidate in this race who is free from the taint of major funding by Rex Sinquefield."

In fact, the quote from the American explicitly states that Joe Adams has not taken money from Sinquefield. In other words, Maria's mailer "quotes" the opposite of what the American said, and one can't draw any other conclusion than that the quote was deliberately altered. Maria is flat out lying.

Now, Maria didn't take too kindly to being called out as a liar. Of course, there is a simple way to avoid that fate...don't lie. Maria, apparently, opted to skip over that choice on the menu and inflate her endorsement and...wait for it...lie...about her primary opponent while simultaneously casting herself in a better light than the endorsement - that was made with reservations, apparently because she has a reputation as a hystrionic drama queen - actually, you know, implied. In fact, the endorsement specifically states that the editorial board had concerns about her propensity to pick fights that didn't need to be fought.

You know...like threatening one of the top political blogs in the state. Silly shit like that, that just proves their point and justifies the reservations expressed in the endorsement.

But Clark wasn't done...He had more arrows in his quiver.

The full text of the St. Louis American endorsement of Maria Chappelle-Nadal reads as follows:

Maria Chappelle-Nadal has six years of experience in Jefferson City and is a proven, stalwart progressive battler. Her youthful energy also gives her the edge over Joe Adams, the only other candidate in this race who is free of the taint of major funding by Rex Sinquefield. While we have some concern for her, at times, brash behavior and penchant for picking fights she doesn't need, we feel she has learned some painful lessons in this regard. It is with raised expectations that we endorse MARIA CHAPPELLE-NADAL IN THE 14TH DISTRICT.

It's amusing that the St. Louis American would qualify their endorsement with a note of concern, because that concern is well-warranted.

I pointed out in my most recent diary, Rep. Chappelle-Nadal completely altered the American's endorsement to say that she was the only person in the race who had not received contributions from Rex Sinquefield. Even if that were true, that's not what the newspaper's endorsement said. The endorsement expressly stated that Joe Adams also has not received contributions from Sinquefield. And Chappelle-Nadal's claim in the mailer, independent of the fact that she falsely attributed the claim to the St. Louis American, is simply not true as far as I can tell. Sinquefield didn't contribute to Adams in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010. So naturally I felt pretty comfortable calling someone who completely misrepresented facts a liar.

Understandably, Maria Chappelle-Nadal was not happy to be called out for lying. I received a number of e-mails from Chappelle-Nadal expressing her disappointment and telling me that I was incorrect, but when I requested evidence to the contrary, she was not forthcoming in specifics. The only thing she was willing to say was that Sinquefield money paid for an Adams mailer back in 2006 (I'm assuming during his last re-election campaign for University City mayor), but when I requested a copy of the mailer in question, or contact info for a person who had a copy, I was told only that she wasn't going to do my research for me. The last e-mail I got from her stated that a formal announcement from the AFT concerning the mailpiece would be forthcoming, and that I should expect to hear from her attorney.

Back to that St. Louis American endorsement. Can anyone have confidence that Chappelle-Nadal has learned "painful lessons" in regards to her "brash behavior" and "picking needless fights"? The easiest thing for her to do would have been to send me a scan of mailer that allegedly was paid for by Sinquefield along with some evidence that it was indeed paid for with Sinquefield money, or put me in touch with someone who could provide that information, and I would have gladly posted an update.  Instead, I got the threat of legal action.

Now, as a state senator, it's not enough to be right on the issues. It's not enough to make a nice red meat progressive speech, as I've seen Chappelle-Nadal do on more than one occasion. These are all well and good, but you've got to cobble together coalitions with allies who have been with you for a long time as well as allies that might only be with you on that day, or else you're not going to get much done. This is doubly true in the State Senate, which is much smaller than the General Assembly. Given this personal interaction with Chappelle-Nadal, I have a hard time believing she's going to be an effective legislator for the citizens in the Missouri's 14th Senate District.

Now, children, you know what comes next...it's time for the lawyers!

We get letters

I've received the following e-mail from an attorney representing Maria Chappelle-Nadal:

I represent Maria Chappelle-Nadal.  The purpose of this message is to address
various statements you have published about my client.  You have
repeatedly slandered and
libeled her by calling her a liar and falsely claiming that she misstated
facts
about financial support you have received from Mr. Sinquefield.  All of
Ms. Chappelle-Nadal's statements are verifiable facts; yours are
intentional lies designed to tarnish her reputation.

Neither Ms. Chappelle-Nadal nor I wish to pursue civil litigation against
you.  We
will not do so if you immediately issue retractions of your statements of
Facebook, showmeprogress.com and all other mediums you have used to
unlawfully assault her reputation.  Your retractions must specifically
state that my client did not lie about the
contributions you have received.

If you comply with this request by 9:00am on 8/1/2010, we will refrain
from filing suit
against you on 8/2/2010.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.  Please do not
hesitate to
contact me with any questions or concerns.

I responded with the following e-mail:

Can you specifically cite which claims that I have made that you believe to be false, and can you please provide evidence to substantiate those claims? As I've previously stated, I would gladly retract any statements which are proven to be false, but I will not retract a statement without compelling evidence that it is false.

UPDATE: ArchPundit gets involved on Blog Saint Louis.

[...]So Maria and her lawyer, please add me to the any lawsuit.   If you notice the about page, my address is there if you wish to serve me.

Eric is right here-Maria is blatantly lying by modifying a quote from the St. Louis American.  There's simply no question there. If she wants a retraction, she needs to provide the evidence that Sinquefeld did pay for a pro-Adams flyer.So far, she has refused to do any such thing.  If she can provide the evidence, she also can request the American make a correction, but that does not absolve her of passing along a fake quote regardless.  Of course, no evidence of such a flyer exists and it should be available in the Missouri campaign finance reports.

Oh, one thing Maria-I will seek to recover all legal costs from you and your attorney and seek full penalties for spurious litigation if you do try it.  Cheers!

Something in me just can't pass up the opportunity to kick someone's ass when they go begging for it like that.

I'm not brain damaged. I have a reading comprehension level that tops the fourth grade. She lied in her flier. Period. Full stop. Then when called out on it, huffed, and puffed and tried to blow our house down. When that didn't work, she took the last refuge of a charlatan and /or scoundrel: she went squealing like a little piggie to the big bad wolf her lawyer.

Well guess what, Sweet Pea? You ain't the only one represented by counsel, and you are a public person. I can say that you eat puppies and serve them with kitten sauce if I want to, and so can Clark.

So sue me,too. But know this...I will recoup every penny I spend fighting your little nuisance suit, and my attorney starts at five hundred bucks an hour, plus travel time from Phoenix - so think real fucking hard about starting a fight that I guaran-god-damn-tee you that I will finish.

See ya in court.