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).
