You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July, 2007.
For those inside-baseball fans, several names have already popped up in the last 48 hours on the Republican side as potential candidates in the 66th district, being vacated by Rep. Carolyn Krause’s retirement. (I live in the 66th.)
The Trib is reporting a few mayors and others are being discussed: Elk Grove mayor Craig Johnson, Arlington Hts. mayor Arlene Mulder, and Elk Grove Twp GOP Committeewoman and former State Sen. Cheryl Axley.
But the Daily Herald got only a “no comment” from Mayor Johnson and a “no” from Mayor Mulder whose plans right now include running for re-election as mayor in spring of 2009. The Herald indicates House GOP Leader Tom Cross has Mayor Johnson on his “wish list”.
Among those not mentioned by the media to date, it wouldn’t be too surprising if former Rep. Dave Harris also looked into running now that he’s back from Iraq (he’s a former head of the Illinois National Guard). Gen. Harris is the fellow Rep. Krause defeated in a primary back [in the day] to earn the seat in the first place. He had recently vied for the Metra Board seat currently held by Mayor Mulder but was denied.
There are also quite a few school board and village board members (among other local electeds) from the various suburbs represented by this district, and any number of them may yet get up the gumption to run for the office.
I hadn’t had a chance to work all that closely with Rep. Krause over the past few years and only met her on a few occasions (being that we travel in somewhat different circles) but she was a class act all the way; that’s probably why she had neither a primary nor a general opponent in a good long time.
Though her ties obviously were closest to Mt. Prospect (as resident and former mayor), she certainly paid a good deal of attention to the folks here in Arlington Heights. In addition to her routine constituent services and the people of the State of Illinois, her dedication to the communities she served can quite clearly be seen in the hard-work she put in to earn grants for several Arlington Heights Park District facilities and parks. She was instrumental in improvements at North School Park (enjoyed by denizens of Arlington and elsewhere during the many festivals and celebrations held there) and the Administration Center Annex (now a bustling dance studio enjoyed by many an aspiring ballerina and tap dancer).
Usually when legislators or other elected officials announce they’re retiring, outpourings of praise flow like there’s no tomorrow. In the case of Rep. Krause it is well-deserved and hard-earned praise. Good luck and best wishes to her as she and her husband enjoy her retirement.
I’ll have more on the race to replace Rep. Krause a bit later. The news media is hopping with a bunch of different candidate possibilities in their efforts to scoop each other. But, many of those mentioned have either already said no outright or had no comment. Petition circulation for the primary begins in just a few days given the earlier primary date next year.
Full disclosure: I live in this district and I do appreciate the work Rep. Krause did working on not just her side of the aisle, but also across the aisle.
Illinois bloggers are throwing a few jabs at the New York Times today as the Gray Lady proves it’s a company run by humans.
Rich Miller gives us the short version of a NYT Obama bio piece, saying the Times thinks we Prairie Staters are country bumpkins… calling then State Sen. Obama’s fellow legislators “housewives, ex-mayors and [the] occasional soybean farmer”. (This New York Times “reporter” missed the sherriffs, teachers and CPAs — where’s Tribuner-turned-Timeser Jeff Zeleny when you need him?) It’s not as if the New York state legislature doesn’t also have its share of housewives, ex-mayor and farmers — let alone the Congress itself.
If I recall, this is what journalists call ‘adding color’ to a story and the attempt, I think, is to contrast Barack Obama’s exceptional education, background and heritage with the ‘country bumpkins’. But, it’s a pretty weak attempt since, as Jeff Zeleny did indicate in one of his own recent prez race blogposts for the Times, Sen. Obama is the only Dem candidate from flyover country “the Heartland”.
Billy Dennis also jumps on the NYT for being, well, stupid. Keep in mind while reading this that February is the shortest month of the year. Now, while even Pres. Bush has on occasion thought it had 30 days, most of us remember it’s only got 28 days, except in years when the summer Olympics are played and presidents are elected (and even then only 29 days at that).
But not so among the NYT editors, one of whom “corrected” an article which had read simply “February” to read “Feb. 30″… This was apparently done because the journalistic convention to end draft articles with the symbol “-30-” was misinterpreted at the end of an article whose last word was “February”. Thus, “February [ending symbol, -30-]” was changed by the wise editor to read “Feb. 30″.
This is the sort of editor which would quite possibly allow Judith Miller (she of questionable anonymous “sources”) to continue to promote White House talking points and wild speculation as fact.
The New York Times apologized for the “February 30″ error, but not the Judith Miller error.
In recent days, Republican prez candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have taken to saying they won’t participate in the Sept 17th YouTube-CNN debate (now that they saw how the Democratic version played out).
They both suddenly realized they had other events planned for that day … in six weeks … that are more important than answering questions from actual Americans.
‘Fraidy cats.
But maybe that’s their point — they feel they shouldn’t have to answer to the people whose votes they are seeking and instead would rather spend their time kowtowing to special interests.
1980’s conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, an ally of Pres. Reagan to the end, said of him during her eulogy for the Gipper:
” … he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends.”
Compare that to Sen. Barack Obama’s “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” point of view:
“We need a president who’ll have the strength and courage to go toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations, because that’s what it takes to protect our security.
“That’s what I’ll do as your next commander in chief
“I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can’t talk to. We’ve got nothing to fear as long as know who we are and what we stand for and our values.”
The strength and courage to go toe to toe…
Isn’t that what all Americans want in our leaders? It’s what America wanted in FDR, and that Democratic president led us out of the Great Depression and through WWII. (It’s also big part of the reason why FDR’s conservative detractors loathed him so: he was confident, plain and simple.)
Certainly, some have advocated that belligerence and obstinance is some version of “strength and courage” … but shooting first and asking questions later clearly doesn’t always work, as Iraq is demonstrating quite clearly. (What’s that foreign policy theory about “rational players”?)
More than that basic question of courage and strength though, is whether or not America truly wants a new direction (Sen. Obama’s willingness to hit, and hit hard, when challenged and his willingness to come to mutual agreements through policies of moderated engagement). Or, do we Americans want to continue the belligerent “you’re dead to m” attitude of arrogance which has led us to be despised throughout the world and, in essence, led to the sacrifice of thousands of our best, our bravest and our brightest in the Iraqi’s civil war.
And for all those goofs harping about Sen. Obama’s “new politics of hope” … when did he say he would lay down like a lamb and not fight back? What he said was we need to rise above the BS like Hillary calling someone “irresponsible and naive” for saying essentially the same thing she said back in January. He did not say he wouldn’t punch back when blindsided — this is a campaign to be commander-in-chief after all and our nation needs a leader willing to stand up for our values and principles.
(h/t Deborah White)
No word on whether the superheroes of the Illinois Civil Justice League are going to answer the call as the Scales of Justice clang away on this case.
Turns out conservative tort “reform” activist Judge Robert Bork slipped and fell while stepping up to the mic before giving a speech at the Yale Club in Gotham City some time back.
For his black and blue bum he is seeking a cool million in punitive damages. That’s not a lawsuit seeking redress for medical expenses — those icepacks for bruised buncheeks can be rather costly, y’know. That’s $1 million he’s seeking in order to hold the Yale Club responsible for the slipperiness of their stage (in our ‘innocent til proven guilty’ land we must presume it was the fault of the stage, and thus the Yale Club, and not Judge Bork’s worst Chevy Chase impression that led to the slip).
According to the American Constitution Society:
[Judge Bork] alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they “wantonly, willfully, and recklessly” failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.
Wantonly? Maybe it was a wonton he tripped on, instead of a banana peel…
The conservative hypocrite Judge Bork himself has said of cases just like his:
State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress’s power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.
Fellow conservative “reformer” Ted Frank ain’t buying Judge Bork’s hypocrisy:
I sympathize with Judge Bork’s serious injuries, but it’s beyond me what his lawyers are thinking in asking for punitive damages. And if any danger is open and obvious such that there is an assumption of the risk, surely the absence of stairs to reach a lectern on a dais is—especially if the dais is of the “unreasonable” height that the complaint alleges it to be. [emphasis added]
Now, the ACS article does not indicate the actual nature of what Mr. Frank considers to be Judge Bork’s “serious injuries”. All their post says is that the case centers on Judge Bork’s hurt head and left leg so it is left up to the reader to determine how “serious” tripping over air can be. And sadly, no one involved is pulling anyone’s leg. (Mr. Frank writes for a site called Overlawyered… and the superheroes of the Justice League have quoted him on occasion, but not on this occasion.)
So, let’s see, in order for one’s overlawyered frivolous lawsuit be considered non-frivolous, one must either be a Big Business company like the makers of Equal who sued their faux sweetener rival Splenda for tasting too good or you have to be a tort “reforming” reformed reformer who no longer believes in reforming things that affect him.
Apparently, we little people don’t rate and we’re just supposed to deal with it if we ourselves trip on a dais (faulty or not) and end up with “serious” injuries.
Like the American Constitution Society, Illinois Reason blog wishes the two-faced Judge Bork a speedy recovery from his bruises (bruised ego included). We also wish the rest of the tort “reformers” a happy journey as they cherry-pick their own evidence to make their “case”.
Why all those so-called “free” marketers don’t stand up and state the obvious more often is unclear, but the Chicago Tribune this Sunday morning scored one with a “Duh” moment that ought to get more attention:
A la carte pricing would benefit consumers. It would result in more choice and a wider price range to meet different consumer needs. This is a positive development on the radio front and should point the way to more choices in television.
The Trib was editorializing positively about the proposal from the executives who want to merge Sirius and XM satellite radios into one company. Their proposal, to allay FCC and other government agencies’ fears that such a merger would reduce competition, is to allow sat-radio consumers to purchase stations a la carte. You only want games? Get the sports package. You have kids that you don’t want listening to Howard Stern? Go with the kid-friendly block. You gotta have your Martha and your Oprah? It’s the talk package for you.
I agree we ought to have a la carte options for cable tv. So does the current head of the FCC, not that he’s done anything about it. Here in Illinois, we had an opportunity to do just that as our state legislature debated the recent cable bill. If a la carte pricing was even discussed, it likely wasn’t discussed for long. At least, starting next New Year’s, we Illinoisans will have a chance to peruse from a few different cable cos… we hope.
So how about it cable companies? Care to break up your monopolies before someone in some legislature dares to ignore your lobbyists?
And you so-called “free” marketers… care to explain to cable fans how being forced to buy 50 cable channels (45 of which you don’t want) is evidence of any sort of “free” market at work?
Those who can’t stand that Sen. Dan Kotowski would dare try to lessen the scourge of gun violence in our state have taken to hurling preschool epithets like “Dan the Ban” at him. Apparently they don’t realize such a phrase is actually a badge of honor in these parts — the kid- and family-friendly, close-in suburbs.
Those same folks who try to insult his good work also try to claim he’s a one-hit wonder; that somehow his only focus is on gun violence. While his critics may myopically think so simply because they’re projecting (it’s crystal clear their only issue is guns), that hollow whine couldn’t be further from the truth.
Sen. Kotowski has also been hard at work in his freshman term on issues as broad-ranging as ethics (he famously wrote in Dick Devine rather than vote for Rod Blagojevich last autumn), veterans affairs and education.
In fact, it is his focus on education and kids’ safety which prompted this post. Yesterday, a blogger named Steve Dembo posted his thoughts on education policy as it intersects with modern technology. Mr. Dembo apparently opposes the recently defeated DOPA initiative which would have indiscriminately banned social networking and other sites from schools receiving Federal monies. As Mr. Dembo points out, such networking sites are the way of the future for global business and industry (in the last few weeks alone I’ve had a bunch of folks sending me “Linked In” invites to join their business networks).
The impetus behind the Federal “Deleting Online Predators Act” legislation (again, it didn’t pass) was to protect kids against predators who use the Internet. It’s certainly a laudable goal, but DOPA was a ham-handed, shut-everything-down effort that went too far, impeding liberties in the interest of children.
So to whom should Mr. Dembo turn for an example of a better approach at protecting our kids who use the Internet? You guessed it, “Dan the Ban”:
Regarding the plan, I recommend reading Illinois Senator Dan Kotowski’s Internet Safety Education Act. It may not be perfect, but it’s at least a positive place to start. The summary is as follows
Creates the Internet Safety Education Act to inform and protect students from inappropriate or illegal communications and solicitation and to require school districts to provide education about Internet threats and risks. Creates the Internet Safety Education Alliance under the authority of the Office of the Attorney General. Amends the State Finance Act to create the Internet Safety Education Fund. Amends the School Code to mandate the provision by every public school of instruction and discussion on effective methods by which students may recognize and report inappropriate, illegal, or threatening communications on the Internet on or before the start of the 2008-2009 school year.
Maybe those Kotowski critics are too clever by half, considering Sen. Kotowski is trying to “ban” predators too…
Full disclosure (once again): I have volunteered for Sen. Kotowski and I support his work. He’s a good man and a hard-working, responsive, decent legislator.
Dan Curry smacks Tribune political reporter Mark Silva upside the head with a good bit of faux rage over his recent article on Sen. John McCain’s Amazingly Imploding Campaign™. Opineth Mr. Curry:
I have nothing personal against Chicago Tribune national correspondent Mark Silva—I don’t know him. Yet his name keeps appearing on obviously biased or off-base articles.
Today, his “analysis” of why John McCain’s candidacy for president is sinking is nearly 100 percent wrong. In short, Silva said McCain’s support for the Iraq War is killing his candidacy.
[...] Anyone tracking the polling would notice that the immigration debate caused the bottom to fall out of McCain’s already sagging numbers. If Silva had visited any of the big GOP political blogs or listened to any commentators other than liberal ones, he could have figured out McCain’s problem with GOP voters quite easily.
OK… just cuz the guy is too busy to spend all his days at conservative blogs, attending conservatives’ meetings, and chatting it up with the folks in Mr. Curry’s circles doesn’t mean he is “obviously biased”.
Now, I’ve written my fair share of letters directly to Mr. Silva over the years. I highly doubt he’s intentionally biased because he quite often appears (from this perspective) to be carrying water for conservative partisans as well. Heck, Mr. Silva’s reporting of the he said/she said over the recent non-story about Sen. Harry Reid’s fairly accurate opinions about Gen. Peter Pace’s failings are a prime example of my point that Mr. Silva at times sounds quite biased in favor of conservatives.
While Mr. Curry does have a point that the McCain Implosion has occurred most dramatically in concert with the arch-conservatives’ sky-is-falling racist-fest against immigrants (which put them at odds with Sen. McCain) … what on earth would McCain-Feingold (an “old story” at this point) have to do with the dramatic decline in support? And for that matter, the beginnings of the decline actually did appear to coincide with Sen. McCain’s obviously goofy spin about Baghdad’s markets being hunky-dory last spring. That publicity stunt from McCain’s BS Express came after the nation learned of his staunch support, especially right around last winter’s State of the Union address, for actually one-upping Pres. Bush by telling anyone who would listen the regurgitated “surge” plan wasn’t enough. (I wonder what changed in those few weeks, from January to April, that McCain went from calling for a supersized surge to then claiming that bloodied Baghdad marketplaces were perfectly normal, safe places to haggle for a rug.)
But far be it from Mr. Curry to actually consider such possibilities when he’s got some obvious reverse spin to twist like a top; all in the name of hatin’ on a guy who’s just doing his job.
Obviously, indeed.
A former reporter who is now a blogger was removed from a juvenile court room after the judge decided a blogger is not considered a journalist under Illinois law (is there actually a law? or is it more like there’s a lack of a law?). Before having the reporter removed, the judge consulted with four attorneys who were in the courtroom. The two families’ attorneys did not object, but the Asst. State’s Attorney and another lawyer apparently representing DCFS did object. (This strikes me as odd, since the families involved are the ones who ought to be closest to the minors involved in the case. Why would unrelated attorneys want a reporter removed?)
The instance is interesting because the blogger involved is in fact a former reporter and the members of the court knew this from her coverage of prior court cases. Billy Dennis — of Peoria Pundits — reports that the blogger, Elaine Hopkins, was a Peoria Journal-Star reporter for much of her career but left there to pursue independent advocacy journalism … self-publishing through her blog, Peoria Story.
Juvenile court in Illinois is closed to the public to protect the minors involved. Only journalists, attorneys and a select few others are allowed to be present during hearings; many times family members are not even allowed in the courtroom. As reporter Hopkins notes, “But in reality the secrecy also allows these courts to operate without any public oversight.”
Now, to be sure, not every blogger is a journalist just as not every reporter is a blogger. (I don’t consider myself to be a reporter, just a citizen-writer.) But, there are indeed some bloggers who are journalists and some journalists who are bloggers. In the very loosest sense, a blog is just like any other medium used to transfer information just as a newspaper uses paper or cable news channels use TV equipment — and those who use that medium to convey news ought properly to be considered members of the press.
Illinois political reporter and columnist (and blogger) Rich Miller notes that those who consider themselves to be bloggers and legitimate reporters, but are unaffiliated with an established news organization, may wish to join the National Writers Union. Mr. Miller is himself a member. Most of the work he does is as an independent, self-publishing journalist (he publishes his own newsletter and his own blog, in addition to writing a column for a Chicago-area news company).
(Weak attempt at adding humor: For those keeping score at home, as of this writing the So-Called Austin Mayor had not posted about this development on his own so-called blog.)
UPDATE: Rich Miller refers in comments here (as does Yellow Dog Democrat in comments on Rich’s now-updated post on the subject) to relevant portions of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, namely Section 1-2, Purpose and policy (including “liberally construed” interpretations of the Act) and Section 1-5, Rights of parties to proceedings (including the “news media”) which indicate that not only are journalists allowed in the courtroom but also that interpretations of journalists should be “liberally construed” (likely in an effort to make what would otherwise be sealed proceedings somewhat transparent and open).
Based on the reading of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 it appears the Asst. State’s Attorney, the other anonymous lawyer who may or may not have been with DCFS, and (most importantly) the judge himself are in the wrong as the “news media” are to be allowed in the courtroom to observe proceedings and the courts are to “liberally” interpret the provisions of the act (including, one would naturally presume, interpretations of who is or isn’t “news media” since there are no disclaimers in the act defining “news media”).
Let’s hope reporter Hopkins returns to that courtroom to follow her “news media” pursuits, this time armed with this new knowledge of the relevant statute’s sections.
FYI, the definition of “news” is “a report of a recent event; intelligence; information” which is clearly what journalist Elaine Hopkins intended to do had she been allowed to observe the court proceedings (and, again, the families’ attorneys ok’ed her being there). In fact, that is exactly what she did do after being removed from the court.
In this corner: The accused “protestor” … Jessica, concerned citizen.
In the other: Big media … CNN, decider of labels.
I take no sides 
— but you can quite clearly decide for yourself which report is more accurate in the coverage of this Fred Thompson debacle and the ensuing lack of journalistic understanding of the subject matter (reporters covering a presidential quasi-candidate were actually asking what the Council on Foreign Relations is???).
Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
I may not agree with her political philosophy (she sounds a bit more conservative than I) but I agree she ought to have the right to ask a presidential quasi-candidate questions. Maybe the TSA and local police ought to re-read the First Amendment what with its freedom of speech and freedom of the press and all those good things those guys are supposed to be protecting.
The Chicago Tribune this morning picked up on something that’s been brewing for months (perhaps even years), and coming to a boil in recent weeks. For some time now, moderates in the 10th District have been growing more aware that Rep. Kirk’s actions in Congress haven’t always mirrored his image “back home”. His statements and stances on the Iraq War have only made this seeming dichotomy more stark.
Kirk faces war on many fronts
The North Shore, once heavily Republican, has changed. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has taken notice.By Susan Kuczka
Chicago TribuneAs he left a Chamber of Commerce luncheon, U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) ignored the young man filming him as he exited the Hilton Hotel in north suburban Northbrook [actual video here].
“Congressman, please take a stand on the war,” the camera-toting man shouted as Kirk hopped into a waiting sport-utility vehicle for a ride to the airport to catch a plane back to Washington.
He wasn’t the first heckler Kirk had encountered during the recent 4th of July break from Congress.
Throughout the normally tranquil 10th District, groups of Iraq war protesters lined parade routes that Kirk walked to hand out fliers criticizing Kirk for his votes in support of the war effort.
Ellen of the Tenth has of course been covering Cong. Kirk’s fancies and foibles for some time now and ArchPundit has also recently shone a bright beam on his votes and, perhaps more pertinently, actions. And the relatively new group which the Tribune discusses here has their “Iraq Summer” initiative focused on Rep. Kirk (among others) as it seeks to highlight the damage the conservatives’ war in Iraq is wreaking on our nation.
Now, Ms. Kuczka’s article seemed a tad off-kilter at times. For instance, she claims the North Shore was “once heavily Republican”. Yes and no. The clarification needed there is that the North Shore is “John Porter Republican” (aka, Rockefeller Republican) and that the national party has shifted dramatically more conservative in the intervening years since Rep. Porter’s retirement. The voters didn’t necessarily change all that much — the parties did. That Cong. Kirk was able to portray himself as a moderate while voting the arch-conservative Tom DeLay party line for so many years is testament to his ability to define himself in the media.
Indeed, he still is voting the party line when he can even now as the Dems have retaken control of Congress. Rep. Kirk did just that in voting with the Republicans to endlessly continue debating the Iraq timeline resolution a few months back before voting with the Dems in favor of that resolution. In other words, he voted against it before he voted for it … trying to have it both ways. He was one of only a smidgen of Congressmen to split their votes like that on the matter. He has also, despite his statements saying he supports veterans and troops (and the many photo-ops his staff coordinates of same), routinely voted with the Republican Party to deny our active-duty troops the armaments and armor they need to effectively protect themselves in battle.
Reporter Kuczka also lapses into using the generic “anti-war” term to label all opponents together. I realize it’s a minor point, but there are quite a few of us (from Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Howard Dean, MD, on down to us little folk) who are not generally anti-war but are in fact anti-stupid war (aka, anti-lying your country into an inept war).
Finally, Ms. Kuczka completely glossed over the well-publicized but ultimately inconsequential meeting of 11 Republican Congressmen with Pres. Bush over the issue of Iraq. Reporter Kuczka writes that “Kirk led” this group, but fails to mention the key quotes from the time which came from fellow Illinoisan, Rep. Ray LaHood: “It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts …” Indeed, the Tribune’s own May 10th article on that meeting noted that the 11 Republicans went to the White House to “deliver what one participant called a ’strong signal’ about the electoral dangers that ‘war fatigue and war weariness’ pose for Republicans in 2008″ (emphasis added; the original Tribune article is no longer available but this Howard Kurtz WaPo quotation of that article is still up).
She even bolsters Rep. Kirk’s spin on the meeting by repeating his somewhat strange swept-under-the-rug refrain that he’s been hearing much more about immigration in the 10th than he has heard about the war. All that really means is that he isn’t listening to everyone (his constituents), only the people he wants to hear (his Republican supporters).
Ms. Kuczka also failed to note that not just Rep. Kirk, but all eleven ‘waverers in name only’ actually still sided with Pres. Bush’s war when the chips were down and that the Bush Administration called the meeting and Rep. Kirk was admonished for having leaked news of the event to the press.
Between the lines — based on their own quotes and publicity-seeking about the event and their subsequent votes contradicting the much-publicized content of the meeting — it’s clear this gathering wasn’t about changing course in bloody Iraq at all but about saving incumbent hineys in close districts.
These journalistic flubs (minor as they may seem) are exemplary of a failure on the part of the press to fully explain the reality of an event, a seemingly systemic failure which helped draw our nation into this Iraq War in the first place.
Again, as I’ve stated before, I’ve met Cong. Kirk on a few occasions and he seems to be a decent fellow in person. But, bottom line, his votes and actions (unlike his publicity events and public statements) tell a story of a conflicted representative who is perhaps uncomfortable leading the constituents of the district he represents.
On Monday — despite the fact the FEC decided a year ago that the issue is moot — conservative partisan, pundit wannabe, publicity hound, election loser and Champaign-based “academic professional” John Bambenek filed an FEC complaint against Kos Media, LLC, the company operating the Daily Kos blog. Mr. Bambenek claims in his complaint that Kos Media is operating as an extension of the Democratic Party because some of its free press editorials overtly support and raise funds for that party and its candidates.
Unsurprisingly, and perhaps unwittingly, Mr. Bambenek’s friends at the Illinois Review (namely Review editor Fran Eaton) approvingly posted the information about his complaining ways. FYI, Mr. Bambenek is listed among the contributors to Illinois Review blog and has indeed posted his own editorials there.
The same day Mr. Bambenek announced his complaint to the world (why bother announcing it if not to simply seek infamy?), OneMan noted that Illinois Review had posted a “Help Wanted” editorial describing the need for Republican state rep candidates in Illinois since one had switched parties and two have already announced their retirement.
As comments to that thread reveal, this is clearly overt support for the Illinois Republican Party and its potential candidates… which begs the question, will Mr. Bambenek be filing a State Board of Elections complaint against the Illinois Review blog?
In fact, in recent campaign cycles — local, state and Federal — Fran Eaton’s and John Bambenek’s (among other contributors) Illinois Review blog has supported:
- the UIS College Republicans and leader Aakash Raut by promoting their efforts in municipal races;
- Congressional candidate Peter Roskam (R-IL 6th) in a friendly interview;
- U.S. Senate challenger Dr. Steve Sauerberg (R-La Grange, IL) of whom Ill Review editor Fran Eaton says, “We have a viable GOP candidate to run against Dick Durbin in 2008″ (emphasis added for clarification)
The Illinois Review blog has also advocated organizational, promotional and financial interests of Republican candidates and party groups:
- Editor Fran Eaton discussed the organizing of social conservatives and evangelicals, ostensibly to bolster Republican candidacies as noted in comments to that thread;
- Editor Eaton also promotes Republican informational sites such as the new 3B Site criticizing Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), which is paid for by the Illinois Republican Party;
- The Illinois Review maintains a calendar which promotes Republican fundraisers, party meetings and other gatherings
In fact, the Illinois Review blog’s partisanship is so stark and clear they even denounce Republicans who support Democrats as the contributors and commenters did in railing against supporters of Sen. Obama such as Republican strategist Matthew Dowd and State Sen. Kirk Dillard (R) (not to mention their fetish-like braying over recent Repub-turned-Dem State Rep. Paul Froehlich).
So, again, when is Mr. Bambenek going to apply his sense of complaining to his friends at the Illinois Review, a blog which does precisely the same thing as the Daily Kos blog? He clearly has his choice of complaining to the state or Federal elections commissions (or both).
Or maybe he’s just another partisan hypocrite.
Not content to leave the sandbox banter to us wee li’l blogging citizens, the Illinois Republican Party has launched its own effort at raising the level of political discourse in this state with its hard to pronounce (and even more difficult to read in their banner) Bloggin on Blago Blog — complete with cheesy cut-n-paste photos and lame-brained cartoons…
I’m no fan of the guv, but what the heck is this lame-brained hack job?
Congrats on graduating pre-school, Andy McKenna. You’re sure to win even more seats now that you’re following the Illinois Review’s winning record of incorporating kindergarten-style whininess to the debate.
I called for the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales some months ago.
For what is the House of Representatives waiting?
If you would like to join me in contacting our legislators, please look up your Congressman (or search based on your home address) and tell your Representative why you think AG Gonzales has got to go. At this point, you can literally pick from among a bevy of high crimes and misdemeanors, not the least of which is apparently obvious perjury during Congressional testimony (described here and here).
Bill Baar posts a link to a recent YouTube ad for John Edwards in which Sen. Edwards rhetorically asks if there aren’t more important things than hair to be talking about in this country.
Far be it from me to talk about hair, but I’m not certain this ad from the Edward’s campaign does the candidate much good. It just makes me wonder more about the guy. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me.
Apparently Mr. Baar thinks the conservatives’ failures vis a vis Iraq and Katrina aren’t a big deal and anyone who brings it up (instead of talking about hair) is to be wondered about … now I’m not saying Mr. Baar thinks haircuts are more important than policy foreign and domestic, but what is there to wonder about?
We already know the media is fascinated with unimportant things like hair and sweaters (and, apparently, presidential candidates’ breasts and nether regions) and that they pile on Dems on these junior high issues while essentially ignoring the same things among the Repubs.
But, really, what is there to wonder about when a candidate calls the talking heads out for jib-jabbing about non-issues ad nauseum?
It’s unclear why some people are just so clueless… But hey, it takes all kinds to make the world go ’round, no?
John Bambenek is an “academic professional” (is that code for “hippie professor wannabe”?) from Champaign-Urbana. His most recent pursuits have included writing a nonsensical pundit-like column for the Daily Illini (dutifully cross-posting them as a contributor to the Illinois Review blog), taking graduate level classes, writing for his own part-time blog, and running for (and badly losing) a seat on the local school board (apparently Champaign Unit 4 residents don’t think creationism should be taught in public schools as “science”).
He’s apparently also an “assistant politics editor” for something called “BlogCritics.org” an online magazine of critics of everything. From the looks of it, he uses it to echo himself by cross-posting his other posts. And it is in that capacity that he announced he filed a complaint with the FEC against FOX News, RedState.org, The Drudge Report, The Washington Times, Illinois Review blog, Daily Kos for being a political media outlet…
So much for conservatives being against frivolous complaints.
Now, never mind that the FEC already decided this in a year long discussion between 2005-06. Adam Bonin is the attorney for Kos Media, LLC and he comments on Mr. Bambenek’s publicity-seeking BlogCritics.org post (comment #8):
I served as attorney for DailyKos in 2005-06 as the FEC was considering regulation of political activity online.
I strongly, strongly urge you to read FEC Advisory Opinion 2005-16 (”Fired Up”) and the FEC regulations regarding the Internet approved by the FEC in 2006.
In short: the Federal Election Commission has already carefully considered these questions, and has rejected your approach completely, unanimously and unequivocally on facts identical to these. What DailyKos does is exempt from FEC regulation both because of its status as a press entity and because Markos’s voluntary activities neither count as expenditures nor contributions under the law.
Once you review the applicable law, I trust that you will recognize that this complaint has no basis, and withdraw it accordingly.
Mr. Bambenek, wisest of the wise that he is, snarkily responded that Adam could just be “some guy”… Is Mr. Bambenek really this dense?
And never mind that many of Mr. Bambenek’s fellow conservatives strongly disagree with this move, lest it impede their own freedom of speech. RedState says:
Let’s be clear, not only is Bambanek [sic] woefully uninformed about the law (didn’t we go over this for a whole freaking YEAR?) and its application on the internet, he’s even less capable of grasping the concept (and frankly, value) of free speech on the web…. This complaint is a sorry attempt to use government institutions to silence opponents. I’m almost grateful Bambanek apparently slept from March 2005 through the Summer of 2006, because the stunt has zero chance of success.
And never mind that many other of Mr. Bambenek’s conservative comrades ironically strongly loathe the “Fairness Doctrine” which is designed specifically to encourage more honest, free speech using our public airwaves (blogs of course would be exempt since they are not transmitted via publicly-owned airwaves). Mr. Bambenek himself hypocritically stated (read the whole post… it’s classic*):
The “fairness doctrine” is a relic of the past for a reason which will accomplish little more than stifling speech and more accurately stifle only certain ideological forms of speech. In their benevolence, Democrats will allow conservatives to have “free speech” as long as they are not allowed audiences. Unfortunately for them, “free speech” doesn’t work that way. The free market of ideas doesn’t need to be socialized by those who would pre-ordain the ideas that we are to hold.
This strange, hypocritical move simply illustrates Mr. Bambenek’s ignorance of our Constitution and his daft willingness to expose his own compatriots to the exact same charges he levels against a philisophical opponent.
Oh, and of course Illinois Review has cheered this bone-headed, ignorant move by one of their contributors. Way to stick together there in bizarro world. Given the numerous instances of Illinois Review posts supporting conservative and Republican candidates, causes and events … their support for Mr. Bambenek’s complaint against a blog which does the exact same thing seems just a tad short-sighted.
Good-on-ya, mates. Not only are you two-faced (railing against the “Fairness Doctrine” as Mr. Bambenek has done, but also now trying to shut down the very free speech he feigned such concern over) but also astonishingly ignorant of the very laws and regulations you’re attempting to use in this quixotic effort to silence people simply because you disagree with them.
Don’t get me wrong. Even as I think this is just about the dumbest thing since last week’s Bill O’Reilly hatefest railing against Daily Kos by saying they’re like the “KKK” and “Nazis” (wouldn’t that be hatespeech right there, Mr. O’Reilly?), I also support Mr. Bambenek’s right to attempt to make a fool of himself with this myopic complaint.
If he didn’t have the ability to make such a complaint, no one would … even for legit complaints of FEC violations. As it is, I do think Mr. Bambenek should wake up, learn how to read the FEC’s earlier decisions in this area of blogging, and withdraw his complaint. But it’s his right to make the complaint so even though I laugh at him for doing so, he can go right ahead and waste our taxpayer dollars to do it. And if he does go through with it instead of withdrawing it, the FEC should properly throw it out, scold him and advise him to not let the door hit his arse on the way out.
—–
* - Part of Mr. Bambenek’s post railing against the “Fairness Doctrine” included the completely inept complaint that it was aimed solely at talk radio and, if it were to be implemented, should include TV (and the Internet).
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the “Fairness Doctrine” and its original intent (it’s not even a misunderstanding, it’s an utter lack of comprehension).
As I’ve explained previously on this blog, the Fairness Doctrine existed in this country for 50 years (it was implemented before the Cold War, despite Mr. Bambanek’s claims) and was an FCC regulation, though never an actual law. Pres. Reagan ordered the FCC to stop implementing the regulation in 1987 and it literally disappeared from the books immediately thereafter.
It was intended to ensure fair use of the public airwaves. In the test case, Red Lion v FCC, the courts sided with the FCC and declared that Red Lion broadcasting had to allow an author (who had been verbally attacked on air) the opportunity to respond on air since the public owns the airwaves used to do the original attacking.
Now, think about that. It was intended to ensure fair use of public airwaves. Yet Mr. Bambenek complains that it ought to be implemented for TV (which does use public airwaves, so NBC, ABC and CBS would be covered) and for the Internet (which does not use public airwaves, so it would not be covered — though Mr. Bambenek is doing his best to silence an opponent with whom he disagrees).
Oh, and apparently Mr. Bambenek thinks “Wikipedia” is liberally biased… Which is weird because Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia and encyclopedias are based on facts and logic… so that must mean that facts and logic are liberally biased… and the world’s going to end. Or something. (At least Mr. Bambenek can always turn to the fake “facts” at the hilarious Conservapedia to find conservatively biased information. Conservapedia is of course tightly tied to Mr. Bambenek via the Illinois Review since Ill Review editor Fran Eaton is good buddies with Phyllis Schafly and her son is the genius behind Conservapedia.)
UPDATE 1: Apparently, “jbamb” and “JohnBambenek” were been banned from Wikipedia for excessive sockpuppetry and other offenses. No wonder he holds a grudge against an encyclopedia of all things.
UPDATE 2: Bambenek is apparently spelled with two e’s, not two a’s. I fixed it throughout my text, but left it in others’ texts as quoted.
Mitt Romney caught a very tiny amount of flak for posing with a supporter and holding up her sign that said “No to Obama, Osama, and Chelsea’s Moma” [sic]. (Where’s that so-called “liberal” media when you need them?)
Now, can you imagine the maelstrom of indignation and rage from the conservative partisans had he held up a sign saying “No to Bush, Hitler and Samuel David’s Gramps”? (The first photo shows the woman holding her sign; in the second photo Gov. Romney is holding the sign up higher.)
Gov. Romney, already well-known for not knowing where he stands on issues, has done a classic back-pedaling dance on this matter.
His campaign started out by giggling it off as just a supporter’s “alliterative play on words“. (With the laughable conclusion that they “don’t think it was equating or comparing anyone”. Did anyone on his staff read it?)
Now he’s down to defensively telling people who are offended to “Lighten up” and that he doesn’t read everything he’s handed. (After almost seven years, America has clearly grown weary of the current president who also doesn’t read what he’s handed.)
All Romney really needed to say was “Sorry, shoulda read it before I held it up.”
But apparently Mitt “the flipping Pander Bear” Romney doesn’t care about the half of Americans he just equated to “Osama bin Forgotten”, which is odd since he’s always trying to say the right thing to the people he’s talking to (even if he has to contradict himself to do it).
“Dogemperor” — a Daily Kos poster who was a former member of a Dominionist-led “Joel’s Army” group — has begun writing a very well-sourced and highly informative series of posts explaining the parallel economy that Dominionist organizations have set up in America over the last several decades.
For those who are interested in learning more about the “vast right-wing conspiracy” … here ya go. It’s fascinating reading (and the dozens upon dozens of links are the stuff of doctoral theses).
Dominionists’ Parallel Economy, Pt. 1.
Dominionists’ Parallel Economy, Pt. 2.
I’ve always thought that “conspiracy” was a misnomer in that “vast right-wing conspiracy” phrase. The stuff these conservative partisans do is all public knowledge, whether it’s these so-called “‘Christian’ Yellow Pages” or “Shepherd’s Guide” books that dogemperor describes to the funding mechanisms like the “Philanthropy Roundtable” which ‘donate’ to conservative talking point-generators like the Heritage Foundation, Castle Rock Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and more.
But, just because it’s public knowledge doesn’t mean the conservative partisans run around announcing the fact they circulate their money amongst themselves to promote their cockamamey schemes out in the mainstream.
I’m all for free speech and freedom to associate, which on the surface is what such things as a ‘business directory’ and a ‘donor’s roundtable’ are supposed to be. Chambers of Commerce and mainstream churches promote their members all the time, no big deal. Most average conservatives don’t even realize though that these groups are out there promoting a skewed view of the world and calling themselves “conservative” while doing so.
Where that breaks down, though, is when the organizations doing such promotion both exclude groups out of hatred for those groups and then essentially begin to extort members by other means, as dogemperor explains has been happening with these Dominionist organizations.
It also breaks down when those think tanks are allowed by the media to promote their conservative agendas as “neutral observers” and the press never describes what the groups’ biases actually are, let alone when the press doesn’t bother to find an opposing viewpoint for balance.
Last week several conservative partisans mocked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) plan to have the Republican obstructionists actually follow through on their threats to filibuster a sensible strategic extraction from Iraq.
They giggled upon seeing the cots and pillows. They ranted about the overnight debate itself. They snickered over the wee little signs that Senators placed on easels.
Then the next morning, despite a majority voting in favor of ending debate, that majority was not large enough and so the Republicans’ filibuster obstructionism continued (not enough of those so-called maverick, defecting, changing minds Republicans actually sided with our troops to leave our failed president’s side). Thus, the so-called “liberal” media all parrotted the conservatives’ talking point that Leader Reid had failed…
Except … the conservative partisans are still all whiney about the whole thing. In fact, many are downright red-faced over it, even though Reid “failed” according to the talking heads. (A very good rebuttal to that Fred Hiatt silliness is here on Frank’s post. And while much of the elected Republicans’ crankiness is related to Reid’s removal of the entire Iraq bill, cutting off those who would “defect” from Bush by promoting and voting for pussy-footing hollow amendments that mean nothing, the conservative pundits should in theory have no reason to be upset since they got their way.)
So if the press is all repeating the refrain that he “failed” but the conservatives are still mocking and excoriating him … either they enjoy beating a dead horse while he’s down or Leader Reid didn’t actually fail at all.
It’s pretty clear given the level of vitriol pouring forth from the cons, that Leader Reid has not failed, not in the least. In fact, it is again the media which has failed (by regurgitating those tired conservative talking points without a moment’s thought) and the conservatives themselves who have failed to recognize that the nation no longer believes them when it comes to Iraq.
And if we Americans no longer believe their bloviating about how wonderful Iraq is …
… and about how “they” will all follow us home while simultaneously “they” commit chaotic genocide against each other at home (do they ever listen to just how contradictory their own bizarre claims are?) …
… and about how Iraq is the “Central Front in the War on Terror” despite the fact that the guy who masterminded 9/11 is dancing jigs and making movies three countries away in Pakistan (again with the contradictions, considering Pakistan is our “ally” in the “war on terror”) …
… and about how we must next invade Iran (because, well, because there are a lot more Iranians than there are Iraqis which means our military will need to buy more ammo and weaponry from the military-industrial complex that donates so heavily to Republicans …no, wait, just “because”) …
… If we Americans no longer believe these people who have been dead wrong on everything about Iraq and this invasion then that means that these conservative partisans are just plain stupid.
And that makes the people (on the blogs, in the media) even more stupid for falling for their BS, no?
And if the people originating this malarkey are just plain stupid, and the people regurgitating same are even worse, then the rest of us reasonable Americans can feel free to ignore their silly funhouse-mirror ruminations — and that clearly makes them hoppin’ mad.
(Major hat tip to mcjoan, who links to Frank, Atrios, and Oliver Willis.)
Which is it?
Either (a) “the terrorists are going to follow us home if we leave Iraq”…
or, (b) “chaos and genocide will ensue if we leave Iraq”…
Or maybe conservative partisans are going to start claiming that Iraqi civil war insurgents are going to swim around Africa and cross the Atlantic (the long way) in order to “follow us home” and “commit genocide” in, say, Peoria.
Why does anybody still listen to these nattering nabobs? They can’t even make up their mind on which dire, fear-for-fear-itself, Armageddon talking point du jour they want to promote.
UPDATE: The Illinois Review’s Eric Ivers (aka “Buford Gooch”) falls victim to both the “fight them over there, so they don’t shop at Wal*Mart” strawman and the much more sinister listing of alphabet soup media acronyms. Enough! indeed. As Pete Speer asks in comments, when is Mr. Ivers enlisting? (…Let alone requesting duty in Baghdad.) Conservative crybabies have a habit of spouting off these dire-sounding talking points, and then not following up to actually do anything about it, as Max Blumenthal notes when he visits College Republican Chickenhawks.
You know, if you want to talk about why currently illicit drugs should be legal or something…
Have at it friends.
The question is, why do conservatives continue to allow such “clueless” people to speak for them?
Bill O’Reilly is the lead conservative commentator on the leading conservative cable channel. And yet, somehow, the irony is lost on O’Reilly as he himself calls half a million Americans “hatemongerers”, the “KKK” and “Nazis” is in and of itself hate-mongering.
(Watch out IlliniPundit — next thing you know O’Reilly will be calling you a hate-mongering, David Duke-style Nazi too…)
DailyKos is a blog, nothing more, nothing less. It receives roughly half a million hits and is by far the largest blog in the political blogosphere (whether con or lib). Markos “Kos” Moulitsas himself is an Army veteran and a former Republican.
YearlyKos is just a convention (conservatives have meetings and conventions too). Last year it was in Las Vegas. This year it’s in Chicago (which explains why Sens. Durbin and Obama are scheduled to appear, along with most of the Illinois Democratic Congressional delegation).
Since when did a gathering of like-minded Americans become a “David Duke convention”, as O’Reilly called it?
Then again, out of those half million visitors, there are bound to indeed be a few kooks — no news flash there (esp. on the Internets). Some of the most hateful and spiteful folks are taken care of by the DKos community itself as users are able to rate various comments from 0 to 5. Earn enough zeroes and your comment becomes hidden to the general public.
So instead of picking up on the entirety of that blog, Mr. O’Reilly found the random few kooks and emphasized those as if they represented the whole site.
They, of course, don’t, as “conservative progressive” and DKos front-page contributor DarkSyde describes in his post, “Welcome Fox Viewers“:
My Daily Kos (Dkos) handle is Stephen DarkSyde, or DS for short. I’m a moderate conservative, currently registered as an Independent. I’m no lefty, or ultra-liberal, or anything of the sort — although I have very dear friends who could be described as liberals or conservatives. I am a ‘progressive’ conservative’ for lack of a better term. [...]
Despite my background, after an annual vote by the members of Daily Kos, and at the invitation of the owner, Markos Moulitsas, I was honored to be given the opportunity to post directly to the front page. My posts, like all those of my fellow front page contributing editors, (List and bios here) are written and published without passing through an editorial filter of any kind. It’s an astonishing degree of freedom we enjoy, and one I’d wager most newspaper columnists and cable news show anchors would cherish.
More to the point, does a blog which allows someone with my political convictions to post on the front page sound like a place that is some kind of bastion of far left, vicious, hate-mongering fringe freaks? If so, the nation is in big trouble [...] (emphasis is original)
We here at Illinois Reason won’t be holding our breath waiting for a similar O’Reilly report noting the hate-mongering going on at Illinois Review with their posts in which Ill Review editor Fran Eaton distorts an entire church’s teachings and makes up bizarre hidden agendas about cartoons and her fellow Ill Review contributor Jill Stanek claims Chinese people eat babies and compares elected officials to porn stars (complete with rather invasive and demeaning questions) … among other over-the-top comments that are actually worse than those.
That’s to say nothing of the segment O’Reilly could do analyzing his own hateful comments, along with those of his viewers and guests. Think Progress reports:
- Noting the irony, Kos posts some of the hateful email he has received as a result of the O’Reilly segment.
- Jeffery Feldman shows how O’Reilly has hosted “hateful” voices on his show numerous times in the past.
[...]
UPDATE: O’Reilly has previously said that he’d like to “go in” to the blogosphere “with a hand grenade.”
Nice.
I’m all for freedom of speech, but that also includes the right of us reasonable folks to call bullshit on such Bill-shit and the folks who would serve to promote such drivel.
So-Called Austin Mayor has been en fuego all week.
Yesterday, he reported on the Naperville Sun’s coverage of the DuPage Two … upstanding American citizens who have been penalized for excersising their First Amendment rights.
From the Sun (via S-CAM):
We also suspect that had the banner read “Support Bush and Cheney” instead of “Impeach Bush and Cheney - LIARS” the situation would have been viewed a little differently.
As it is, three weeks after the incident in which they were told to take down the banner, the two were initially charged with disorderly conduct. Then, later on, two more charges were added to that - reckless conduct and unauthorized display of a sign in viewing of a highway. [...]
Originally the two had been asked to take down the sign by an Illinois State Police trooper and were doing so when DuPage County sheriff’s police showed up. After some alleged conversation with the officers about the war veteran status of one of the sheriff’s police, Zurawski and Hartfield left not cited. Then, three weeks later they were charged with disorderly conduct, and, in court on Monday, the charges were increased. [...]
OUR VIEW: The charges are overkill and we suspect relate to the nature of the protest.
(emphasis added)
If only the DuPage Two had plea bargained … offering to scoop up elephant dung as community service … maybe they would’ve been let off with just a warning that DuPage is supposed to be Republican Red and that means party first, country and Constitution dead last.
DuPage, of course, has an all Republican county board and is nearly 100% represented by Republicans in state legislative and Congressional districts.
Maybe there’s a reason Republicans like these are represented by “red”…
Diane Sawyer has issued yet another mea culpa. She’s done this before, notably in the wake of the media’s incessant replaying of the 2004 Dean Iowa Scream clip (which some conservatives apparently thought was uncool).
This week, before the nightlong Senate debate over Iraq policy (in which the Republicans actually had to conduct the filibuster they’ve been promising), Ms. Sawyer claimed it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who “vowed to filibuster” — a statement that is patently wrong.
Today, she apologized for her error:
OK, I have a quick correction about something I said earlier this week. I said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was vowing to filibuster on the whole question of the vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq and it would close out other issues. In fact, Senator Reid held the all-night debate to protest the threat of a filibuster from the Republicans on the same proposal. You wrote me. You were right. I was wrong. I apologize.
Good for her for being a grown-up. Can’t wait to see all the conservative partisan outrage about how her recant is a demonstration of “bias”….
Wusses.
Huffington Post recently published a video which details the lengths the Republicans will go to in order to find excuses for why our soldiers need to stay in Iraq but why those same Republicans are too yella-bellied to actually don the uniform and join them.
From Huffington Post’s article on the recent College Republicans conference:
In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called “war on terror” as nothing less than the cause of their time.
Yet when I asked these College Republicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school.
So they’re willing to send other men and women their age (and older, and younger) to further their cause celebre, but they themselves can’t go because of their bum knee they got along with that letter jacket playing high school ball?
Please.
The least they could do is join the Texas Air National Guard and then go AWOL like the “leader” they get their talking points from. Instead they just yak about why other people should do their bidding, and they do it using nothing but regurgitated bullet points and a disturbing ignorance of the facts on the ground.
If they truly think waging the misnamed “war on terror” is the cause of their time, their war-waging and long-range planning skills suck. Maybe they got beaned in the head once too often with those baseballs too.
As for the “discredited cant about ‘fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here’” … Please explain that to Michael Chertoff who has a feeling we’ll be fighting them “over here” any minute and to the Britons and Scots who just did fight them “over here” in the West.
These brave Americans, and many more, sucked up their own varsity injuries and answered the call so that those College Repub goofs could have the freedom to go to keggers and say the wacked things they say.
(h/t So-Called Austin Mayor’s “GOP: War For Thee, But Not For Me” … as S-CAM says, watch that vid — it catches these Republicans’ caught-off-guard hypocrisy to a T.)
That supposedly “liberal” media really seems to be carrying a lot of water for the Galavanting Obstructionists’ Party in the wake of the Iraq War filibuster ostensibly led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Last night I discussed Diane Sawyer’s erroneous comments yesterday on ABC saying Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) wanted to filibuster. Bzzzt. Wrong. It was the Republicans doing the obstructing.
Now today the St. Louis Post-Dispatch chimes in with a bizarrely misleading headline: “Filibuster Fails to Force Iraq Vote.” Bzzzt. Wrong. There actually was a vote.
In fact, the Senate did vote and they voted in spite of the filibuster (filibusters are actions intended to delay a vote). They voted 52-47 to extract our troops from Iraq by April 1, 2008. [UPDATE: Archpundit points out in comments that the vote was for cloture -- and end to debate -- not specifically for troop withdrawal. The cloture vote did obtain a majority, 52-47 as noted, but that is shy of the 60 needed to end debate and vote on the actual bill. Good thing for the Republicans they didn't launch that nuclear option when they had the chance, eh?]
For the people at Fox News, what that means is that a majority of Senators voted to get our military out. [See clarification just above, the vote was to end debate and allow a vote on whether or not to get our military out.]
Fox outright lied in reporting the results by claiming that the results somehow meant 52 Senators voted against withdrawing our troops. Bzzzt. Wrong. Matter of fact, just the opposite.
(h/t McJoan and Talking Points Memo)
Over the last few days, several conservative partisans — including Illinois’ own Backyard Anne and Extreme Bruno — have noted the Democratic Party’s coverage of Fred Thompson’s foibles, usually with the comeback that “They must really be a-skeered of the guy to go after him like that.”
Um, no.
For one thing, that would imply that conservatives and the Republican Party (Karl Rove in particular) were deathly afraid of how well a Howard Dean candidacy would do in 2004 (let alone a Hillary or Barack candidacy in ‘08). To this day, conservative partisans still label Gov. Dean “crazy” because they apparently like beating a dead horse.
For another, the DNC’s “Republican Presidential Candidates” blog is actually covering all the front runners (even Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore have gotten mentions in recent days) and pointing out the many areas in which they are hypocritical, wrong, pandering or otherwise acting goofy. Welcome to politics. If cons have a problem with that then they might as well leave because we have this little thing called Freedom of Speech in this here country. The DNC blog isn’t anything the Repubs and their allies haven’t also done; so quit whining.
And despite some of the cons’ tin-foil rants, there’s nothing secret or conspiratorial about it. Heck, I even linked to it. Look, I’ll link it again just so you can see how out in the open and public it is.
Sidenote: Anyone else noticed how many times this “Dems are focused on Thompson” meme made its way into the supposedly “liberal” press lately? (See London Telegraph — repeated in New York Sun, USA Today, AOL News Blog, and The Politico, among others.)
The guy who helped spy for Nixon during Watergate ain’t all that, but the supposedly “biased” media is happy to give the actor the part of pitiable victim.
As stated, the Dems are also going after McCain, Giuliani, Romney and the other plodding elephants… Just as the Repubs are going after Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc. But the so-called “liberal” mainstream media makes Thompson out to be some sort of martyr… Hmm, must be that “bias” showing.
Former Mass. Gov. Mitt “Ties Dogs to Cars” Romney made a bit of a splash over the past few days as he blamed porn for just about all that is wrong with America… (I hadn’t realized Larry Flynt was involved in cooking the books on Iraq intel.) In fact, while he was pandering to the hard-right at Regent University (that’d be Pat Robertson’s version of college) he blamed porn for the Virginia Tech tragedy. Next he’ll be blaming E’s “The Girls Next Door” for all the contaminated food George Bush’s FDA and USDA ignore.
Problem is, as a member of the board of Marriot Hotels, Mitt Romney made quite the nest egg in part from selling porn to hotel guests on their in-room pay-per-view channels — and as a board member he did nothing to stop the practice. In other words, do as he says, not as he profits. (According to KUTV-Salt Lake City, Gov. Romney earned $25k + stock annually during his 1992-2001 Marriot board tenure.)
As Democrats and others have recently pointed out, even social conservatives like Tony Perkins of the “Family Research Council” and the Mormon-owned Deseret Morning News of Utah is tsk-tsking Romney’s XXX $$$.
It’s bad enough the guy can’t figure out if he’s a moderate or a hard-line conservative but now he’s adding Hypocrite to his resume, right after Pander Bear.
Does the hypocrisy of what’s left of the modern Repub “leadership” know no bounds? And again the rest of America asks, why does anyone continue to promote these so-called “leaders”, let alone vote for them?
(h/t Michael Link at the DNC’s Republican Pres. Candidates blog)
Diane Sawyer was apparently not a nerd in school:
During the July 17 edition of ABC’s Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals.” (emphasis added)
Ms. Sawyer, a filibuster means a legislator wants to avoid voting on something and so they delay it such that it essentially cannot be voted on.
Sen. Reid wants to vote on a strategic plan to sensibly extract our troops from the Iraqi Civil War during a phased redeployment.
Sen. Reid wants to have an up-or-down vote, ergo he does not want to filibuster.
Word from Anne Leary’s backyard is that Ms. Leary agrees with Ms. Sawyer’s patently wrong statement. She tries to quip that Sen. Reid is attempting to hold himself hostage. I cannot fathom how someone could be that blinded by partisanship, but sure enough Ms. Leary is. Like Ms. Sawyer, Ms. Leary is just silly when it comes to actually figuring out facts.
It is the myopic Republicans who cannot understand that the conservatives’ lies about Iraq have placed our brave soldiers and Marines smack dab in the middle of another country’s 1500-year old civil war.
It is the Republicans who want to continue to defy the American public, denying the will of the people.
It is the obstinent Republicans who do not want to vote on changing course; just as the hard-nosed Democrats refused to allow votes on extremist hard-line conservative judicial candidates in recent years.
It is the Republicans who have “vowed to filibuster.”
Sen. Reid is simply making them actually do it.
If the Republicans do not want to end our involvement in the Iraqis’ Civil War, then they should vote against any of the array of amendments and plans any number of Senators have offered — rather than simply stomping their feet in an effort to save face for their highly unpopular president and his war based on lies.
Then again, remember when the Republicans in the Senate were hopping mad that they too wanted up-or-down votes? Indeed, were they not so red-faced and fuming that they vowed to end the “filibuster” itself once and for all with what Sen. Trent Lott termed the “nuclear option”?
It wasn’t that long ago, was it? No, it wasn’t. From Think Progress:
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “[Filibustering] is wrong. It’s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I’m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spokesman: “Senator McConnell always has and continues to fully support the use of what has become known as the ‘[nuclear]’ option in order to restore the norms and traditions of the Senate.”
Of course, filibusters on all sorts of legislation actually are the “norms and traditions of the Senate” but far be it from me to point out another bout of Republican misinfo.
The Republicans’ capitan, Sen. McConnell, and others have recently whined about being forced to actually live up to their threats to filibuster amendments on strategic redeployment.
Well, in the words of the Senior Senator of the Great State of Illinois, Sen. Dick Durbin:
Once again I would ask the minority leader from KY [Sen. Mitch "Nuclear Option" McConnell], please look at the record. What you said earlier on the floor is not accurate….One of the critics of this recently called it a stunt. A stunt! A stunt that we would stay in session. A stunt that we would have a sleepless night for Senators. I don’t think it’s a stunt. I think it reflects the reality of this war. How many sleepless night have our soldiers and their families spent?
From the “not quite grasping the concept” files comes this letter to the editor in the Tribune by Woodridge’s own Mr. Ron Dilger:
Bad shots
I am appalled and fed up with gang members’ inability to hit what they aim at (if they aim at all). The news stories about their inept ability and the resulting deaths of innocent children are sickening. This needs to come to an end.
Chicago has a long history of gang violence, including the era of Al Capone. Back then there were gang wars.
The difference between them and today’s gang members is that they were trained and could hit what they aimed at. In my opinion, today’s gangs are pathetic. Beyond that, they’re in need of being trained.
Maybe they should join the Army if their criminal records are clean enough to qualify. The Army will teach them to hit what they aim at. Then they can kill each other like in Capone’s day instead of killing good people who, if they were to live, could contribute positively to society-instead of taking up prison cells.
Ron Dilger
Woodridge
I leave it up to you, dear reader, to determine whether or not Mr. Dilger is missing the point that these idiots shouldn’t be shooting at each other in the first place. I also leave it up to you to determine whether or not we ought to be doing all that we can on both carrot and stick approaches to detering such lives of crime (while prisons remain near record high capacities, and more are being built, funding for social, educational, and work programs keeps getting cut).
Ironically, given