Update 7/30/10:

Somebody’s been messing with the Project Vote Smart page to which I originally linked as evidence of Dold’s endorsement by Eagle Forum (now highlighted with red below). Dold’s name was removed from the non-partisan Vote Smart’s page listing “Eagle Forum Endorsements” sometime between 7:30pm on 7/29/10 when I originally wrote this post and 10pm on 7/30/10 when I’m updating the post now.

Regardless, Bob Dold is still clearly listed as being endorsed by Eagle Forum on several other sites also. I’ll keep an eye on those other sites to see if the magic eraser hits them too. (Truth be told, it’s not as if Mr. Dold hasn’t ever tried to hit the delete key on embarrassing revelations of his true conservative self… further evidence that Bob Dold really is more conservative than he lets on.)

* * * * *

As a follow-up to a story Illinois Reason covered a few days back, national Democratic leaders are now calling on Republicans across the U.S. to renounce arch-conservative and anti-Equal Rights leader Phyllis Schlafly after she claimed that women were kicking their husbands out because, as Schlafly’s bizarre theory goes, they “know” Pres. Obama plans to dole out subsidies if they have more children. She claims Pres. Obama will do this because he knows they’ll then vote for Democrats.

While she made those ill-advised comments at a Michigan fundraiser, the local connection is that Ms. Schlafly’s right-wing Eagle Forum liked Bob Dold and his brand of conservatism enough to endorse him.

I and others have pointed out the myriad flaws in Ms. Schlafly’s radical right-wing rant. Her errors ran from ignoring the fact that more white people voted for Obama than did African-Americans to how it is actually Republicans like radical conservative Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) (with whom Bob Dold agrees) that want to raise taxes on the Middle Class and add $2 Trillion to the national debt to provide for income redistributing subsidies not for blacks or fatherless children, as Schlafly claimed, but for the aristocratic elite.

Given that Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum endorsed Bob Dold in the 10th CD [original link disabled, see update above], it’s not a question of if but when will he rebuke her race-baiting and patently absurd remarks?

It’s not like Bob Dold doesn’t backtrack on a regular basis. Just this week Mr. Dold tried to erase his support for Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap to Destroy America” (mentioned above) as if folks wouldn’t notice. And, there’s nary a peep out of him about that Eagle Forum endorsement anyway — maybe he thinks they’re too right-wing a group for him to let the voters know about their support. A search for ‘Eagle Forum’ at his site and his Endorsements webpage turns up zilch.

In fact, the Dold team clearly has a penchant for walking things back so why is it taking him so long to come out against his endorser’s race-baiting bunk? He’s waited so long the story has now gone national.

Besides, coming out against his endorser here will help him burnish that moderate mask he keeps having to pull down so we voters won’t notice that Bob Dold is more conservative than he lets on.

OK lurkers, I know you’re out there … you keep emailing me off-blog :)

It’s your turn. Use the comments field or shoot me an email at illinoisreason@gmail.com to suggest a charity that is a worthy cause. I’ll do some research to put together a post about them.

In the meantime, with the massive but hard-to-detect BP oil plumes still bobbing their way throughout the Gulf of Mexico please consider donating to the Greater New Orleans Foundation. This group has a variety of programs underway, including work specifically to deal with the impact of BP’s unprecedented man-made disaster.

GNOF itself receives very favorable marks from Charity Navigator and is one of the best rated ‘regional’ charities in the country, so you know your contribution will be doing some good.

Go help out our fellow Americans on the Gulf Coast.

The other day I reported that Bob Dold let his “more conservative” side show when he announced he agreed with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who introduced the radical “Roadmap for America”. For some reason, instead of standing by this conservative plan that he thinks we should study, Mr. Dold quickly tried to delete the Facebook post — something the campaign has rarely, if ever, done on other Facebook posts.

As a follow-up, and in light of the Bill Brady campaign’s bizarre wikipedia war, Illinois political journalist Rich Miller took note of Bob Dold’s on-again, off-again Internet post supporting the Republicans’ “Roadmap” plan and asked the campaign two simple questions:

[Miller:] Anyway, I asked Dold’s campaign why the candidate posted that item to Facebook. The response…

[Dold Spokesperson:] Robert believes we should analyze any serious proposal –Republican or Democratic – that discusses how to get control of spending in Washington and ensure the viability of Medicare and Social Security. Paul Ryan’s proposal has opened an important debate about how to do that. Robert didn’t endorse the proposal but encouraged people to study it.

Let’s be clear. Doing nothing is a disaster, because analysis of our Medicare and Social Security programs shows they are on a path toward insolvency. Dan Seals only attacks any proposal and then ducks from providing any solutions of his own.

[Miller:] The Seals campaign responded to the crack on not having solutions by providing this link.

And why did he [Dold] delete it?…

[Dold Spokesperson:] It’s Facebook. We put things up and take things down all the time. We’re not announcing policy on Facebook. Seals seems pretty desperate already, probably because Bob outraised him last quarter and is outworking him in the District.

Beyond the Seals camp’s rebuttal pointing out where Dan Seals actually has been offering solutions (solutions grounded in reality, no less), just about none of the Dold campaign’s responses make sense.

Team Dold starts out saying we should analyze any serious proposal regarding the longevity of Social Security and Medicare. Yet, as has been pointed out by several non-partisan groups, the Ryan plan that Dold supports actually weakens Social Security and Medicare. Moreover, the claim that Mr. Dold is interested in controlling spending in DC is laughable since the Republican “Roadmap” increases taxes on the bottom 90% of Americans in order to cut taxes for the richest 1% while simultaneously dumping another $2 Trillion in debt on our backs.

Reading on, some semantic gymnastics come into play with the line, “Robert didn’t endorse the proposal but encouraged people to study it.”

Yes, he did encourage people to study the radical Ryan “Roadmap.” In fact, “study” is the actual word used in the Facebook post. But, while the Facebook entry doesn’t use the word “endorse” (as in, Dold “endorses” Paul Ryan’s ideas) the post does make it very clear that Bob Dold agrees with Paul Ryan with Dold telling us quite plainly “I agree with him.”

“Potatoe, po-tah-toe,” as Bob Dold’s internship mentor VP Dan Quayle might have once said.

As for their response on why the campaign deleted it… Yes, Mr. Dold’s staff certainly does put things up on the Internet and take them down All. The. Time. — especially after they get caught doing something they probably should have been doing. While this string of words the spokesperson put together completely dodged Rich Miller’s question, it’s pretty easy to see that “getting caught” is a likely scenario, even if it is something Dold can’t publicly admit to (like his “I’m more conservative than I let on” admission at his Palatine Tea Party event).

Finally, regarding their goofy claim that Bob Dold “outraised” Dan Seals in Q2, I’ve already pointed out that Dan Seals’ net take in Q2 was higher than Dold’s since the Republican had to give back more than $9,000 from Goldman Sachs and other interests.

Perhaps math just isn’t Mr. Dold’s strong suit. A lack of basic math skills certainly would explain why Dold says he “agrees with” Paul Ryan to “reduce the national debt and create a sustainable fiscal policy” even though Rep. Ryan’s extremist plan (which Dold tells us to study) has been shown to literally do the exact opposite.

Here is that Dold Facebook post once more:

And, here is a link summarizing what the Congressional Budget Office and others have deduced about the Republicans’ short-sighted, destructive proposals.

Update 7/30/10:

Somebody’s been messing with the Project Vote Smart page to which I originally linked as evidence of Dold’s endorsement by Eagle Forum (now highlighted with red below). Dold’s name was removed from the non-partisan Vote Smart’s page listing “Eagle Forum Endorsements” sometime between when I originally wrote this post and 10pm on 7/30/10 when I’m updating the post now.

Regardless, Bob Dold is still clearly listed as being endorsed by Eagle Forum on several other sites also. I’ll keep an eye on those other sites to see if the magic eraser hits them too. (Truth be told, it’s not as if Mr. Dold hasn’t ever tried to hit the delete key on embarrassing revelations of his true conservative self… further evidence that Bob Dold really is more conservative than he lets on.)

* * * * *

At a conservative fundraiser in Michigan the other evening Phyllis Schlafly “called unmarried mothers a bunch of welfare sponges who kicked their husbands out of the house so they could get on the gummint dole,” as blogger Eric B. puts it.

Folks like this are the types of crazed hardline cons who are comfortable enough with his behind-closed-doors conservatism that they endorsed Republican Bob Dold in the race for the open 10th district.

Michigan Liberal quotes Schlafly:

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government…For example, do you know what was the second biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? Obviously the blacks were the biggest demographic, yall know what was the second biggest?  Unmarried women.  70% of unmarried women voted for Obama.  And this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother Government to be your provider.  And they know that. They’ve admitted it.  And they have all kinds of bills to continue to subsidize illegitimacy, which is now nationwide, running at 41%.  1.7 million babies were born in our country illegitimately last year. The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes.  Republicans never could have given the amount of money they are going to get. And as Ronald Reagan said, if you subsidize something you are going to get more of it, and if you tax it you’re going to get less of it.  [Applause]

Schlafly ended her fiery speech by saying “Republicans never could have given the amount of money they are going to get”. Of course, Republicans already have given that amount, and much more, in so much corporate welfare and aristocratic subsidies that Pres. Bush was able to run up our national debt to unheard of numbers.

In using this “biggest demographic” rhetorical flourish to rile up her audience Schlafly wrongly conflates percentages with quantities. You can slice and dice demographic percentages any way you want but by sheer numbers there were nearly 6x more white voters (74% of the electorate) than black voters (only 13% of the electorate) in 2008. Even at 43% of the white vote to 95% of the black vote, Obama got more actual “white” votes than “black” votes so his biggest demographic was really caucasians like Schlafly. (Well, not like her.)

The bottom line is that despite Schlafly’s illogical, divisive rhetoric President Obama clearly won with a broad coalition of Americans — diverse not just in racial heritage but also education, age, income, region  and more — so why this caucasian conservative woman felt it necessary to single out “the blacks” and “unmarried women” is questionable.

But… applause?

These folks applauded Schlafly’s racially-tinged, ad hominem rant?

This is the woman who fought to stop the Equal Rights Amendment dead in its tracks decades ago.

This is the conservative leader of the Eagle Forum which endorsed Bob Dold, a fellow who admits “I’m more conservative than I let on.”

This, unfortunately, is your hardline 2010 GOP … nearly indistinguishable from the 1960s’ John Birch Society.

And they want your vote because they fear that “the blacks” and “the unmarried women” are coming for your wallet even though it is Bob Dold and his chum Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who support RAISING taxes on the middle class with their conservative Roadmap scheme.

Not that Dold and Ryan want to redistribute that middle class money to “the blacks” or unmarried women, mind you.

No, they want to hike your taxes up in order to cut taxes and dole out even more aristocratic subsidies and corporate welfare to the richest 1% of American gazillionaires. (Just ignore the fact that this plan from these “fiscally conservative” and “fiscally responsible” Republicans has the nasty side effect of sticking us another $2 Trillion-with-a-T deeper in the hole.)

I wonder how loud the conservative applause is for this Robin Hood-in-reverse scheme that Schlafly says could “never” happen (even though Pres. Bush already did it).

Thanks to some conservative folks and others comment moderation has been turned on for the time being.

Go ahead and post as you like but be forewarned that comments may not immediately appear. Thanks.

Have I been tough on Republican 10th CD candidate Bob Dold these past few weeks? I suppose. Certainly during the primary he ran on a much more conservative platform than the core common sense principles and values I support. That’s certainly his right, as it is mine to question the planks he says he backs.

Now I’m sure he’s a nice fellow, but he tells right-wingers he’s more conservative than he can publicly display on the one hand while turning around around with a radio ad declaring to the public at large that he’s some sort of social moderate on the other hand. Then he swings back less than a few days after that ad airs to publicly support one of the most radical conservative plans yet produced this year, a plan to drastically change America in John Birch’s image, and almost as quickly deletes his comment as if nobody would notice…

Again, will the real Bob Dold please stand up?! Pick a platform and stick with it, instead of sticking your finger to the wind and pandering to the audience at hand.

As I’ve discussed at Illinois Reason before, GOP Congressional newcomer Bob Dold let it slip that “I’m more conservative than I let on” during an Arlington Heights teabagger event which the local Tea Party group held specifically for him back in March.

More recently, he launched a radio spot which seemed to fit right into that mold of trying to cover up his “more conservative” side. A great many Illinois conservatives — from Illinois Review’s Mark Rhoads to Warner Todd Huston, aka Publius — were disappointed in his use of the phrase “social moderate” in that ad. It’s not clear why they were disappointed given that it doesn’t seem to mean very much anyway since Mr. Dold didn’t pass muster with real-life socially moderate groups as it is.

Likely, they were disappointed by his use of the hollow phrase “social moderate” because it was a turnabout after Bob Dold had previously been endorsed by such far-right organizations as the highly charged Eagle Forum. (Eagle Forum’s founder, herself a woman, led the charge against the Equal Rights Amendment back in the day. And this is a group that felt comfortable enough with Bob Dold to endorse him this year.)

Today, however, Mr. Dold swung the pendulum back hard toward the “more conservative” end of things by proclaiming on his Facebook page that he agrees with hardline conservative Rep. Paul Ryan and his loony-tunes “Roadmap for America’s Future.”

When Rep. Ryan first introduced his right-wing “Roadmap” several months ago even conservative chiefs like Minority Leader John Boehner and others backpedaled away from its radical notions of destroying Social Security as we know it and slashing Medicare to the point where seniors would be forced to choose between medicine, half a can of cat food or a roof over their heads. You see, President George W. Bush already tried foisting such conservative pipedreams on us. Even W’s own party balked at him when we ‘small people’ rose up in arms over these failed conservative ideas that would utterly desecrate our nation’s highly efficient, not to mention highly popular, social safety net.

To put the cherry on top of Republican Ryan’s steaming pile of regurgitated elephant dung, this conservative fellow even proposed to increase taxes on the middle class AND use the savings reaped by bulldozing Social Security and Medicare in order to give super-rich American aristocrats like Paris Hilton yet another tax cut so she can go get ever more bikini waxes or whatever it is that she does with all her moolah.

All that and this deadly-crazy con plan wouldn’t even create a “sustainable fiscal policy” like Mr. Dold claims because it fails to balance our budget.

Yet there was Bob Dold, being more conservative than he lets on, telling everyone in the 10th that he’d rather snuff out their Social Security and Medicare relief AND raise their taxes so that the richest 1% of Americans can struggle to get by on, say, $850-million instead of a paltry $800-million or so.

…What’s that you say?

You just checked out Bob Dold’s Facebook page and you don’t see this offensive post supporting crackpot conservative ideas?

Yep. That’s right. While he leaves up posts criticizing average Americans just because they use their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, Bob Dold was too chicken to actually leave up his public support for this radical “roadmap” to bulldoze America as we know it.

The Dold camp deleted the Facebook post (as he’s done with other online gaffes) pretty quickly after making it public.

Archpundit quotes a Dan Seals press release on some facts related to Congressman Paul Ryan’s Radical Roadmap to Destroy America that Bob Dold not-so-secretly supports:

Ryan’s proposal would:

  • Raise taxes on the middle class in order to slash taxes for multi-millionaires
  • Privatize Medicare and Medicaid and gradually eliminate both programs
  • Eliminate Children’s Health Insurance Program and replace it with vouchers that decline in value
    (author’s note: Bob Dold has previously said he disagrees with and could not support the current healthcare reforms put in place by Congress and the White House which eliminate insurance company tricks like rescission, pre-existing conditions, and more)
  • Privatize Social Security
    (author’s note: think about that in light of the roller coaster Wall Street has taken investors on these past few years)
  • Institutionalize the federal government bailout of private investment account if the stock market crashes
    (author’s note: Bob Dold has previously and repeatedly said that he, like Mark Kirk, supports George Bush’s corporate welfare TARP bailout of too-big-to-fail banks, even knowing that these banks used the billions in taxpayer funds to dole out six- and seven-figure bonuses to reward glass tower execs for their failures)
  • Even with all these drastic cuts to essential programs, the plan actually fails to control the debt.

Under the Republican budget plan, “about three-quarters of Americans — those with incomes between $20,000 and $200,000 — would face tax increases” according to the fiscally-conservative Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.  CBPP concluded “The Ryan Proposal would abolish Medicare in its current form” and “would cut in half the taxes of the richest 1 percent of Americans.”

Bob Dold tells us, “I’m more conservative than I let on.”

Indeed.

Why John Porter endorsed Bob “more conservative” Dold after having endorsed a real moderate like Beth Coulson in the primary is anybody’s guess.

(h/t Archpundit)

Til now, the “worthy causes” I’ve highlighted here at the blog have been mostly based in the US.

I’m publicizing St. Joseph’s in Haiti because my dad flew down there last week (during the six-month anniversary of the devastating earthquake) in order to help rebuild this charity’s home for boys. Since retiring my dad has been helping with various Habitat for Humanity projects around the country not to mention countless handyman projects for elderly neighbors and others.

Helping with a rebuilding project like this is right up his alley and he’ll be spending the better part of a month and a half at the charity’s various projects there. He and a group of volunteers are literally doing back-breaking work. Currently, he and his fellow volunteers are removing a 150+ square foot slab of concrete that used to be under the now-demolished Home for Boys. Once that’s done, the architect planning the new building wants the soft dirt removed another 10 feet below the previous grade.

This is being done almost exclusively by hand — one bucket at a time — due to the lack of resources and intermittent electricity.

The Hearts for Haiti charity’s website says this about their mission:

St. Joseph’s Home for Boys was Michael Geilenfeld’s dream that became a reality in 1985, bringing boys off the streets of Port-au-Prince to provide them with a Christian home and family. Since that time it has grown from five boys in a very small rental house to approximately 20 boys in a wonderful home with guest facilities, a chapel, and an art center.

My dad emailed this about the state of affairs in Haiti on his first day there:

As for Port Au Prince itself, the TV news does not really hit you until you see it in person. The destruction was widespread, but yet there are areas that weren’t affected. St. Joseph bought the house next door to its old property that was destroyed because it wasn’t damaged. [...] As for the tent cities, you have no idea how large they are until you see them.

The parent charity group is called Hearts with Haiti and their three main projects include: St. Joseph’s Home for Boys in Port-au-Prince, Wings of Hope in Fermathe, and Trinity House in Jacmel. And while the charity’s things and buildings were devastated by the earthquake, those can slowly but surely be replaced and rebuilt through donations and volunteer efforts. Unfortunately, Hearts for Haiti also lost volunteers and friends during the earthquake and their souls are now at rest.

If you’d like to help Hearts with Haiti with a contribution, please donate as much or as little as you can afford. Every bit helps.

And, if you’d like to join my dad and many others in volunteering directly in Haiti on the group’s various projects, please visit their “Visiting Haiti” webpage.

photo by Renee Dietrich from the Hearts with Haiti website

Now you see, now you don’t.

Really, just make up your mind — either you want to try to fool voters over an endorsement or you don’t.

I wrote about this newspaper endorsement malarkey back in June. To recap, at the time I noted the hypocrisy of an ardent Seals-hater whining that Team Seals had a Daily Herald primary endorsement still up on their website even as Bob Dold’s camp was doing the exact same thing with an old Tribune endorsement displayed on their homepage.

The Dold campaign removed the Trib logo a day after I pointed this out. Dold then put the Trib splash back up a few days later, albeit with a big “Primary” and “Jan. 18th, 2010″ in the headline — clear indications that it was from the primary.

Apparently at some point in the last few days they decided to hide that “January 18, 2010″ caveat again by making it much less noticeable.

Seems kinda like a microcosm of Bob Dold’s overall duplicity, eh?

Why can’t the guy just pick a path to follow and stick to it? And worse, why has the local media so far been willing to let Mr. Dold’s duplicity slide under the radar?

Update 7/30/10:

Somebody’s been messing with the Project Vote Smart page to which I originally linked as evidence of Dold’s endorsement by Eagle Forum (now highlighted with red below). Dold’s name was removed from the non-partisan Vote Smart’s page listing “Eagle Forum Endorsements” sometime between when I originally wrote this post and 10pm on 7/30/10 when I’m updating the post now.

Regardless, Bob Dold is still clearly listed as being endorsed by Eagle Forum on several other sites also. I’ll keep an eye on those other sites to see if the magic eraser hits them too. (Truth be told, it’s not as if Mr. Dold hasn’t ever tried to hit the delete key on embarrassing revelations of his true conservative self… further evidence that Bob Dold really is more conservative than he lets on.)

* * * * *

Bob Dold released an ambiguous radio-only ad Tuesday and bizarrely claimed he was some sort of “social moderate.” (transcript below)

Really?

The national conservative site Surge USA calls him quite plainly “conservative”. Even his pastor, Dr. Gil Bowen, says right on Mr. Dold’s own campaign website that “He communicates conservative principles with an awareness of current challenges.” Perhaps these folks were talking about conservative principles related to fiscal policy (while foregoing conservative social policy), as Mr. Dold’s radio ad claims.

But before the February primary Mr. Dold also earned endorsements from several of the more conservative-leaning (social and fiscal) Republican Township organizations throughout the 10th, from Wheeling Township in the southwest corner of the district all the way up to northern Lake County and over to Lake Michigan.

Perhaps they all bought into his slogan for the GOP primary that “conservative change can happen in Illinois” but they simply didn’t bother to ask “social conservative, fiscal conservative or both?”

Then again, Mr. Dold is apparently so wholly conservative that even six months after the primary he is one of only three local red party candidates (out of scores running for local and Federal offices) to be featured on the local Tea Party website. That would be the tea party which has gotten into quite a bit of hot water nationally for some rampant racism boiling amongst its ranks. Of course, Mr. Dold backed the Tea Party during an interview on Fox News some months, saying he thought the tea partiers were “a great voice out there.”

Indeed, since the primary he’s not only sent his campaign staff out to speak at the uber-conservative local Tea Party’s April 15th Rally but they actually held a 10th District Meet-N-Greet for Bob Dold in Arlington Heights last March. (Apparently, the irony of hosting a “Taxed Enough Already” candidate event at a taxpayer-funded public library was lost on our fellow tea partying citizens.)

At that Tea Party event held just for him, Mr. Dold famously told one of the gathered teabagger attendees “I’m more conservative than I let on.”

Really?

While the conservative fellow he said that to wasn’t buying it, perhaps it actually is true since Mr. Dold earned endorsements from renowned “social conservatives” like the Illinois Federation for Right to Life, Lake County Right to Life (PDF) and even the radical right-wing Eagle Forum, led by infamous conservative Phyllis “Kill the Equal Rights Amendment” Schlafly.

But Mr. Dold keeps this stuff on the down-low and doesn’t really go around promoting these right-wing endorsements to the general public. There’s nary a mention of this backing on his campaign site. Press releases about these endorsements are also few and far between, unlike the recent splash the campaign made over John Porter’s recent support.

(Former 10th CD Congressman John Porter originally endorsed the actual moderate running in the GOP primary, State Rep. Beth Coulson. Former Gov. Jim Edgar also endorsed Ms. Coulson.)

None of this would probably be that big of an issue if the current 10th CD Representative, Mark Kirk, hadn’t spent the past decade trying to convince area voters he was a social moderate/fiscal conservative. And he did that because Mr. Porter before him actually fit that mold and was able to hold onto the liberal-leaning 10th because of it.

Clearly, Bob Dold is making every attempt to now shoehorn that self-proclaimed Porter/Kirk mold onto his campaign persona, nevermind whether or not “he’s more conservative than he lets on” or any of that other stuff from the primary and the months since.

But if Mr. Dold is truly trying to emulate Mr. Kirk, then why’d he tell a March meeting of the conservative Chicago Young Republicans “I am not Mark Kirk”?

Either he’s lying to the teabaggers (saying he’s “more conservative than he lets on” just to pander to them) or he’s lying to us regular folks, the joe and jane moderates out there, and he actually is more conservative than he’s pretending to be. And, if it’s the latter, why is Mr. Dold running from his conservatism rather than embracing it?

Read the rest of this entry »

Several newspapers and local bloggers highlighted the close money race in the 10th district last week. Most described it as a tie with a slight advantage to Bob Dold.

Here is Lynn Sweet’s take at the Sun-Times:

In the open seat north suburban Illinois 10th congressional district, second quarter fund-raising ending June 30 puts Democrat Dan Seals and Republican Robert Dold in about a tie, with Dold having the edge

Even infamous Seals-hater Larry “Team America” Falbe admitted the two candidates were “neck and neck” and in a “virtual dead heat”. Oddly, Mr. Falbe still somehow called the quarter “a win” for Mr. Dold out of apparently purely partisan reasons.

Regardless, Mr. Falbe’s declared “win” for Mr. Dold appears to actually be a loss which the not-so-in-depth media completely blew.

Once you take the candidates’ refunds into account Mr. Seals actually had a larger net contribution haul than Mr. Dold. The Seals net was just over $555,300 and Mr. Dold’s lower overall take was $554,900.

Is it a huge difference? No. But it’s clearly not a “win” for Mr. Dold by any accurate measure.

And while there were apparently some completely inept and ill-conceived Dold events during the quarter (if the GOP can’t manage their own marquee fundraisers how do they expect us to believe they’ve learned how to manage our national economy???) the Dold shortfall happened because Mr. Dold was forced to return $9,300 in contributions. In fact his largest return, a $4800 giveback to a Winnetka resident, accounted for more than half of the total contribution refunds.

Oops.

No wonder the Dold camp didn’t make nearly as big a splash as one would expect if they truly had bested Mr. Seals in Q2 fundraising. Team Dold didn’t even note the quarter’s efforts in the “News” section of their website or highlight their haul through Facebook or Twitter.

PS: Bob “Big Oil” Dold still hasn’t spoken out against the BP apologists in the Republican leadership, including Misters Boehner and Cantor who helped raise money for his campaign, let alone divested his financial portfolio of all that BP stock he owns. Maybe Mr. Dold should liquidate his BP stock and donate the proceeds to victims of the Gulf Gusher who are now out of work and still fighting off the toxic crude onslaught even after the defective well has been capped. That would show at least an iota of support for the people he claims he wants to “get back to work” (at what jobs he never explains).

I’ve previously discussed how GO(B)P Bob Dold‘s campaign for the open seat in the 10th has benefited from and allied itself with other Republicans who side with BP rather than we the people. In recent weeks the elephants’ leaders:
- Republican Leader John Boehner laimed the Federal government (ie, taxpayers) ought to be responsible for cleaning up the Gulf (Mr. Boehner is first in line to become Speaker of the House if the Republicans take over)
- The lead Republican on the Energy Committee, Rep. Ray Barton, infamously apologized to BP for having to go through the dreaded horror of having President Obama hold them accountable for their big pollution (Rep. Barton would take over the Energy Committee, including oversight of Big Oil, if the GOP wins control of the House)
- The #2 House Republican Eric Cantor declared that Pres. Obama should stop “demonizing” BP (Rep. Cantor is another ultra-conservative Republican who could skip over Rep. Boehner to become Speaker of the House if the GOP gets a majority)

In fact, literally days after Republican Leader Boehner talked about having we the people be responsible (as if we’re somehow at fault for Big Oil’s disaster) Bob Dold was yukking it up with BP apologists Boehner and Cantor at a secretive big-dollar fundraiser they held for him at the tony Chicago Club downtown.

Given all that, plus Bob Dold’s direct ties as an owner of BP stock, Democrat Dan Seals is fighting on behalf of we the people against Big Oil’s corporate welfare and catastrophic pollution by calling out Mr. Dold for his clear and present conflict of interest:

SEALS CALLS ON DOLD TO DIVEST PERSONAL FUNDS FROM BP

Cites conflict of interest, blasts opponent for protecting profits and tax breaks for company while collecting dividends

DEERFIELD, IL – Following reports that Transocean and BP reaped sizable tax benefits by basing their operations in tax shelters outside the United States, Democratic Congressional Candidate Dan Seals today called on his opponent, a BP stockholder, to divest his personal funds from the company and explain the clear conflict of interest created by his pledge to protect the big oil tax breaks that have cost American taxpayers billions while earning him dividends.

“Even though Bob Dold continues to be silent on the largest environmental catastrophe in U.S. history, money talks,” said Seals Campaign Communications Director Aviva Gibbs. “Not only is he making money from the company responsible for this disaster, he has also taken a pledge to protect BP’s high prices and tax breaks as they exploit loopholes underwritten by hard-working Americans. Bob Dold owes Illinois taxpayers an explanation.” 

According to recent reports, Transocean, owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig that caught fire and sank in the Gulf of Mexico in April, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands and finally to Switzerland, allowing the company to skirt U.S. tax obligations since 1999.  Due to oil industry tax breaks, BP–which leased the Deepwater Horizon rig–has been able to write off 70% of their rent for the rig, a tax benefit of more than $225,000 each day.

In December 2009, Dold signed the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection pledge, which includes a vow to protect special big oil tax breaks like the ones enjoyed by BP. ATR also opposes making the company contribute their fair share to a spill damages fund.

“When you hold BP stock with one hand and sign a public pledge to bolster their profits with the other, you define conflict-of-interest,” added Gibbs. “Dold needs to prove that he cares more about 10th district families than he does about big oil by divesting from BP and committing to a policy that makes them pay for the destruction they caused.”

Seals has donated all campaign contributions from big oil employees to the United Way Worldwide Disaster Fund for gulf region clean-up efforts.

Think about that. Thanks to the conservatives’ “profits first” policies of the previous Administration we middle class taxpayers have literally been paying BP (a foreign company, no less) nearly a quarter million bucks a day for the privilege of having them drill for our oil…

But that’s just on one rig. BP has scads more throughout American waters.

And Bob Dold not only owns stock in this company but Mr. Dold has literally signed a pledge to help foreign-based BP and other Big Oil Cos. continue to rip off us taxpayers with their corporate welfare.

Brilliant.

Still rings true… By the by, that “Right of the People to alter or to abolish” our government?

Our nation’s first soldiers fought, and a great many died, so that we would inherit the ability to do so through the ballot box, not any ammo box. Our Founding Fathers specifically placed “first and second articles remedies” — namely, voting — in our Constitution. There is no such thing as a “second amendment remedy” to changing our government. Nowadays that’s known as terrorism or, more plainly, murder.

Just ask that right-wing “militia” group out of Michigan that was plotting a “second American revolution” with plans to murder police officers. You can also ask the widows and children of cops from Oregon to Ohio who’ve lost their loved ones to crazed right-wingers intent on fomenting some kind of crazed conservative “9/12″ attitude.

I’d rather be a proud “7/4ther” than any lunatic 9/12er.

———-

Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

State Rep. Mark Walker (D-Arlington Heights) just sent this out to his constituents:

Today is a good day for the people of Cook County. For months, people have been trying to get a message through to their elected leaders: The Cook County sales tax is killing businesses, and making it harder for families to make ends meet. Last fall, I was able to make your voice heard in Springfield, and – despite the protests of Todd Stroger and his allies, and the opposition of powerful Chicago legislators – I was able to pass a bill which allowed the sales tax to be reduced.
 
My bill enabled the Cook County Board of Commissioners to override the veto of Board President Todd Stroger, and last fall they did that, rolling back half of Stroger’s tax increase.
 
Today, that reduction finally goes into effect, promising some relief to the business owners who are tired of watching helplessly as their customers flock across the county line, and the families whose household budgets are being stretched thin by the nation’s highest sales tax, just so Todd Stroger’s friends and relatives can earn big government salaries. 
 
This tax represents everything that is deplorable about politics: the belief by politicians that taxpayer money is their piggy bank, to spend as they wish; the attitude that makes them feel as though they are entitled to dole out patronage jobs to friends and relatives; and the misguided and destructive notion that bad management can be sustained by forcing hard working people to pay more in taxes.
 
Putting half of this tax behind us makes today a good day. When the board repeals the tax entirely, that will be a great day. 
 
Sincerely,
Mark Walker
State Representative, 66th District

———-

Hear, hear.

Now, compare Rep. Walker’s work to fight Todd Stroger to the hare-brained lies that Tom Cross’ House Republican Organization have been peddling about Walker’s opposition to Stroger

Why are the Republicans lying about Mark Walker?

Is he just that good of a representative for his constituents that the GOP simply feels it must lie? Clearly so.

This is another in an occasional series looking at the upcoming campaign between State Rep. Mark Walker (D-Arlington Hts.) and ex-State Rep. Dave Harris (R-Arlington Hts.).

November 2, 2010
Luck of the Draw

In recent months incumbent State Representatives from Kathy Ryg to Julie Hamos have resigned their seats leaving appointed State Reps in their wake. Given the number of incumbent legislators who have left the House, especially those in swing districts, the appointed replacements and elected freshmen like Rep. Walker may benefit as the Speaker fights to keep targeted incumbents while possibly letting a few vulnerable Republican seats go by the wayside.

The Democrats are currently one seat shy of a supermajority and with Gov. Blagojevich removed there is less reason to aim for a veto-proof caucus when a simple majority may suffice. That means rather than try to build the Democratic majority the Dems’ overall goal may simply be as much retention of the current seats as possible.

A Brief History of Moderates vs Conservatives in the Northwest Suburbs
If Past Were Present

In the northwest suburbs David Harris’ social conservatism may not serve him well among the 66th’s electorate.

Republican moderates have consistently beaten more conservative candidates in area primaries over the years from Carolyn Krause’s first win over Harris (and Rosemary Mulligan’s primary win over incumbent Penney Pullen that same year) to moderate GOP Christine Prochno’s win over Laura Bartell in 2008 when Rep. Krause retired. That moderation turned ever so slightly more “blue” as social moderate and fiscal conservative Democrat Mark Walker in turn defeated social moderate and fiscal conservative Republican Chris Prochno in November 2008 and essentially moved the 66th, on paper at least, from an inch right of center to an inch left.

Neighboring districts have seen a similar pattern of moderates routinely surpassing conservatives, especially in Republican primaries. For instance, State Rep. Sid Mathias’ strongest competition would often come from his right during primaries as candidates more conservative than he tried to overtake him during the spring contests.

Mr. Harris, like Rep. Walker, had no competition in the primary this past February so GOP voters did not have a choice between a moderate or a conservative.

But, in 2008 when there was a GOP choice between a conservative candidate (Ms. Bartell) and a moderate (Ms. Prochno) the area’s Republican voters nominated the moderate while Mr. Harris bucked the Republican mainstream and endorsed conservative Laura Bartell (who lost) for the same seat he now seeks.

Along those lines, I haven’t been able to determine through news media whether or not Dave Harris attended the recent Illinois GOP fundraiser headlined by Sarah Palin in Rosemont. Regardless, according to most local political analysts Mr. Harris’ views fall on the conservative side of things (Russ Stewart refers David Harris as a “social conservative“, etc.) and would appear closer to half-term Gov. Palin’s right-wing stands and those of the tea partiers than any Republican on the district’s ballot since he himself lost to the moderate Carolyn Krause in 1992.

And as the campaign heats up that may spell trouble in the moderate 66th for Mr. Harris unless he’s able to somehow mitigate or, as he’s been able to do so far, ignore his social conservatism.

While most folks, including some who are now among his strongest backers, realized before the primary that Bob Dold was too conservative to truly emulate Mark Kirk in the 10th District… Is Mr. Dold trying to follow in Mr. Kirk’s “embellished” footsteps?

A week ago, one of Bob Dold’s biggest supporters got a story planted in the Daily Herald about Dan Seals having a Herald logo up on his website in reference to the primary endorsement. That Herald logo linked to a page on Mr. Seals’ website called “Primary Endorsements.” While to most average citizens that would be clear enough, the Seals campaign did remove the Herald‘s logo from both their homepage and their primary endorsements page. In fact, as part of an overall website update they’ve converted the latter to show only their growing list of general election endorsements.

Despite the Dold side’s hew and cry, it turns out the Dold campaign was doing the exact same thing by displaying a Tribune logo and quoting that paper’s primary endorsement of Mr. Dold. Following Mr. Seals’ lead, the Dold camp also took their own Trib endorsement splash offline the next day.

Unlike Mr. Seals, Mr. Dold then put the Trib logo back on his homepage a mere two days later, this time with the January date and a caveat noting the endorsement was from the primary.

Lo and behold, simultaneous to all of this happening in the virtual world Mr. Dold had boxes and boxes full of flyers printed up in the real world showing the exact same Trib logo with the same endorsement quote as he had on his site, then removed from his site, then put back on his site albeit with caveats.

Problem is he’s using these Tribune-laden flyers for the general election — handing them out at train stations, ice cream shops, etc. in recent days — and the print-version Trib “endorsement” quote does not clarify that their nod came back in January during the primary:

While I didn’t have an issue with either Seals or Dold using their primary endorsements online (both were clear enough for those interested in clicking the links), this Flyer-gate issue is clearly a flagrant foul given that Mr. Dold’s own most vocal supporters first made an issue of it (saying such an endorsement “does not apply today”).

Heck, Mr. Dold’s own campaign staff as much as admitted they saw a problem with using a 6-month-old endorsement since they took the original, un-annotated Trib logo offline for two days  only to replace it with more details about its timing.

But, like Mr. Dold’s penchant for ignoring parking laws, trying to trick voters over petty stuff and lying about basic things that he himself used to work on even on this issue where they are the ones setting the rules — declaring that 6-month-old endorsements “do not apply” — this latest flap is yet another example of Mr. Dold’s unfortunate “better than the small people” M.O.

Perhaps Mr. Dold thinks regular joes and janes won’t notice this elitist attitude.

Unfortunately for him, we do.

PS: Mark Kirk’s ringing endorsement is just above the “outdated” Trib quote… Mr. Kirk saying the 10th District needs someone “with honesty” and “integrity” is, sadly, laugh out loud hilarious in light of the recent revelations about his own lack thereof.

a