It’s well-known that the partisan conservatives over at Illinois Review despise Sen. Barack Obama. They’ve made up silly sandbox epithets for him like “big ears” and “donkey ears” and “he who walks on water.” I’m surprised they don’t just call him “Sen. Poopy Head”.
So it’s clear that when it comes to the Senator, they don’t have much maturity but do have a bunch o’ hate.
Enter John Ruskin. Mr. Ruskin wants to paint Sen. Obama as a liar. He’s using every little flub and, indeed, every little word to do so — whether they’re actually lies or not. (”Not” being the operative word there.)
I’ve pointed out before where other conservatives have used the same rhetorical technique — take whatever words they can to create what looks to them like a lie rather than actually calling out a real lie — just so they can jump on their trampoline of partisanship and yell “Liar … Liar … Liar … Liar” every time they bounce up and down.
I’ve also pointed out where the Republicans were found to have pre-determined that, no matter who the 2004 Democratic candidate would be, the RNC strategy was going to be to paint them as a flip-flopper — just add the name of whoever got the nomination (John Kerry in that case).
To an extent, Gov. Blagojevich did the same thing against Judy Baar Topinka last year with “What is she thinking?” — everything she did, no matter how innocent, was plugged into that mold and hammered over and over (and over).
Mr. Ruskin is certainly no Rod Blagojevich or Karl Rove. Yet he continues to lie about Senator Obama today with his latest post in which he picks a nit so tiny that a gnat would have a hard time seeing it.
Mr. Ruskin, a condo ain’t a house. You might own everything inside the four walls of a condo, but there’s no yard for the little ones and any maintenance on that hole in the roof or the matted down carpeting in the hallway is shared. But just so long as Mr. Ruskin can lie in the process of calling someone he hates a liar, he’s apparently happy as a clam.
Why Illinois Review continues to give that clam any space is not clear.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 17, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Darla
I have some Republican friends who tell me that Illinois Review thing is a big joke on their side. They say it’s well known that a lot of those “writers” are just using phony names, and playing other conservatives for big fools.
So how pathetic they would go after Obama and say he’s not honest. Some of these wingnut “pots” really like calling the kettle black.
May 17, 2007 at 2:59 pm
robnesvacil
Darla,
I agree that Illinois Review is a joke — even some Illinois Review contributors admit it’s a joke. Problem is, I mentioned on an earlier Ruskin-related post, if common sense folks just ignore such jokes they seep into the subconscious of the electorate — and the press will turn to folks like Fran Eaton and Jill Stanek as if they’re rational sources on a given topic (as they do now in their attempts to achieve “balance” by giving even extremists and very small minorities a say on matters that affect everyone).
“John Ruskin” is the only one of the Illinois Review contributors that I’ve ever been asked about (from both sides of the aisle) in terms of whether or not it’s a pseudonym. The other contributors all have readily identifiable and verifiable ‘real’ names.
I’ve explained the following to some degree before in a comment on this blog.
The name “John Ruskin” appears in no other conservative blogs that anyone has been able to find (to date). Several people have noted that they’ve never met “John Ruskin” in person, at conservative functions or elsewhere. Etc.
Now, several of the partisan conservatives’ clique members all frequent Illinois Review under their real names — Dennis LaComb (publisher), Fran Eaton (editor), and contributors Curt Mercadente, Mark Rhoads, Cal Skinner, George Dienhart, etc. Many of those folks also posted at the now-defunct “Illinois Leader” (run by Dan Proft and edited by Fran Eaton, as I recall).
#1. It could be that “John Ruskin” is the real name of a real person whose entire existence is spent in his basement pecking away at his computer posting material only to the Illinois Review blog — never venturing out to any conservative shindigs or bothering to post material to other blogs.
#2. It could be that “John Ruskin” is a pen name used by one of the other Illinois Review contributors who also posts separately under their real name. Or, #3, it could be that “John Ruskin” is really a pseudonym of someone who doesn’t post at Ill. Review under any other names at all.
Again, this wouldn’t be the first time that Illinois conservatives (included those very closely linked to the Illinois Review leadership duo of Dennis LaComb and Fran Eaton) turned to English arts and entertainment to find a name.
My guess is it’s #3 and I have a short list of who I think it is.
It’s a fun parlor game, but to me I could care less if the guy (or gal) wants to post under a pen name or not. The Internet does provide some measure of security in anonymity. (I quickly found that out when I chose to stop being anonymous while blogging. An obsessed “fan” at Illinois Review soon posted the name of the company I work for plus the fact I was on vacation at the time, for all the world to see. This “fan” has apparently never heard of assassins like Eric Rudolph.)
May 18, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Sam
There’s a goof over there who goes by “Robert Shirtliffe” who has to be phony too. That’s the name of a famous cross dresser from the Revolutionary War. She dressed as a man to get around the ban on women fighting for the colonies. Google it an there’s tons of stuff.
May 18, 2007 at 3:11 pm
robnesvacil
Interesting hypothesis Sam.
June 13, 2007 at 8:37 am
That Crystal Ball Must be Shiney « Illinois Reason
[...] June 13th, 2007 in John Ruskin by robnesvacil Way back on May 17th I noted that given the vitriol, hatred and childishness the cons like John Ruskin display regarding Sen. [...]