Monthly Archive

Perhaps Taylor Marsh’s hair product is interfering with her ability to reason. This is the problem with party purists — they come up with ridiculously over-the-top crap like Chinese People Eat Babies (Jill Stanek) or Barack Obama is a Progressive Cannibal (Taylor Marsh).

Ms. Marsh ought to stop to consider that some people appreciate the fact that Sen. Obama realizes no one person or even one particular party has all the answer[s].

She laments:

Mr. Obama’s ability to cannibalize the very essence of progressive policy by going to the right of our Democratic party foundation knows no bounds. From a DailyKos diary in 2005:

Too often, the “centrist” label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

“Market-based ideas,” hmmm, wonder what Mr. Obama is talking about? It’s obvious. It’s also a warning. Putting Social Security on the table, especially after progressives won that battle during the Bush era, is something no Democrat should swallow. It goes beyond not being an ideologue. It reveals that Obama doesn’t care at all about anything Democratic, including one of the most important aspects of what makes us Democrats, Social Security.

Hmmm, indeed.

If Ms. Marsh had actually been following his career (and in particular his presidential and “pre-”presidential interviews) she’d know that Senator Obama has said market-based Social Security alterations should be off the table. Social Security and Privatization are separate things because “privatized” Social Security is no longer Social Security as we know it (it cannot be given how Social Security actually works). It’s more like a 401k or IRA, already existing “market-based” tools, and Sen. Obama recognizes that.

Her transparently partisan anti-Obama whining is not well-served by making assumptions which are demonstrably false.

What’s next? Did he write a 2nd grade term paper about global warming and cow farts?

(h/t to Mark Warner is God’s hilarious Barack Obama will eat your children, updated with photographic proof.)

Merry Christmas everybody. Had it not been for Gen. George Washington’s sneak attack — crossing the Delaware — on this day in 1776 we might all be celebrating a very British Christmas.

More on who’s been naughty or nice (or plainly hypocritical) a bit later in the week.

Be safe…

Yet another attempt to point out that what some on the conserv-o-partisan side of things claim is the “truth” is actually so much hokum when you scratch off the paint job… Today we learn that Bruno Behrend is all excited that Christmas came early for him and his prideful “global warming denier” allies.

You see, in his bizarre, head-in-the-sand rant Mr. Behrend links to a conservative newspaper (Washington Times) which discusses a minority “report” from a single Senator, himself a conservative (Sen. James Inhofe, R-Big Oil), about a quite faulty report from a group of conservative-allied pseudo-scientists…

And Bruno alludes that all this biased information is somehow proof that Al Gore is pure evil and everything he touches turns to crap. (I guess VP Gore’s appearance on Saturday Night Live a few seasons back explains the current writer’s strike, eh?)

Doesn’t Bruno have anything better to do with his time on the weekend before Christmas than copy and paste some propaganda and complain about a former vice president? What’s even more strange is that him and his fellow “deniers” have to now resort to referencing layer after layer of biased propaganda as if piling enough layers onto their malarkey will hide the fact it’s malarkey in the first place. (Such propaganda itself is of course based on often speculative, incorrectly referenced contrarian for contrarian’s sake reports in a journal which does not meet modern scientific review standards.)

It’s as if all they have left is stomping their feet and repeating “global warming isn’t happening … (as long as you ignore all the evidence)”.

Just what is so wrong with the head-in-the-sand position, you ask? For one thing, their tactics are reliant on measures aimed at distracting people rather than actually informing us.

Bruno’s post is a perfect example — carry on about a conservative paper’s article about a conservative Senator’s one-man brief about a group of conservative-influenced researchers and their “findings” (which turn out to actually be faulty). This is the same as the folks who run around crying that government research thermometers are too close to asphalt or concrete (which influences the readings) or that it’s simply a natural, long-term event (which completely ignores just how fast temps are rising globally compared to the prehistoric events deniers cite).

Sure, there’s a kernel of truth in their yelping (ie, yes, some thermometers are near built-up environments and yes the Earth has gone through hot/cold cycles), but it all tends to ignore the reality of what’s actually happening around the world with extreme weather, changing ice patterns at the poles, slowly rising sea levels, etc.

For another, much of their “research” (which usually sounds more like, “Nah, nah — told you so!”) is based on faulty conclusions. The report that Mr. Behrend and Sen. Inhofe rely on for their head-in-the-sand conclusions is chock full of unfounded speculative statements, misreadings and ignorance of available data and misrepresentation of their cited sources.

Even some of these folks’ “So what?” attitude turns out to be based on false premises. For instance, many “deniers” claim that as atmospheric CO2 rises plants will begin working overtime to convert the gas. Turns out they’re wrong on that bit of “conventional wisdom” too. Increasing CO2 levels actually harm plants instead of helping them.

Essentially, if they want to run around looking like fools by touting erroneous information as gospel that is certainly their right in this the Land of the Free… but basing their opinions on falsehoods and faulty info (and, worse, constantly carping against their opponents because of it) is hardly worthy of the Home of the Brave.

Sidenote: Is any group — the Nobel Prize “cabal” as Mr. Behrend calls it — really to be considered “politically extreme” when they award their prizes to people ranging from Yassir Arafat to Milton Friedman? That hand Mr. Behrend is using to point a finger has several more pointing right back at himself.

Mr. Behrend ought to relax and let go of all that pent-up hatred he’s got brewing in his mind, it’s clearly affecting his ability to be rational. (OTOH, it has perhaps been affecting his ability to reason for quite some time now, as his blog of rants demonstrates.)

(h/t Grist and A Seigel, both of whom dive into more detailed info than my bird’s eye view post)

Food pantries nationwide are noticing a severe shortage — to the lowest levels some have seen in decades — as more and more families find themselves unable to afford higher-priced food (plus gas, shelter and other necessities of daily life) and as fewer donations are coming in (with grocers cutting back on their giving in an effort to squeeze more profits out of “not quite perfect” foodstuffs).

Take, for example, this section from a round up of national food pantry shortage stories posted at Daily Kos (read the whole thing for perspective on how wide-spread the issue is):

Dramatic price increases in food, gasoline, heating oil and other basics is resulting in a “perfect storm,” making this already the worst winter Tom Gifford, executive director of Beverly Bootstraps, has seen in 15 years. People have to cut back on food, making pantries a necessity, he said.

“Those economic factors are really grinding families down,” he said.

In Illinois, you can donate food at many local township and village offices, as well as churches and other places of worship. Or, you can find a local foodban, soup kitchen or shelter through the regional Second Harvest depositories located throughout the Prairie State. Canned veggies and fruits plus powdered milk and other staples are vital.

And while most people think of the holidays as good times to give the need is year round. Tummies don’t magically stay full just because giving spikes around Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Finally, next summer, consider “growing an extra row” — plant some extra vegetables in your garden (or for the first time if you haven’t gardened before) then donate the fresh veggies to your local pantry for distribution.

Robert Greenwald explains to Fox “News” anchor why Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards don’t bother going on Fox…

And here we thought conservatives liked the whole ‘Just ignore your enemies … don’t evah talk to them!’ strategery. Congrats to Fox for turning themselves into complete parodies of their own joke of a Goebbels network — and God Bless America that our First Amendment gives them the right to do just that and the rest of us the right to point it out to them.

(h/t Kagro X)

I didn’t know her all that well and had only just met her in recent years but Joy Fisher, a fixture in northwest suburban civics, recently passed away after bravely battling illness. Despite her busy professional career, Joy made time to mentor law students in order to ease their transition into the profession and she also was very active in promoting women — of all political stripes — for local leadership roles as one of the founders of the Women’s Leadership Council. She enjoyed participating in local politics and was seemingly omnipresent at various meetings and certainly at parades throughout the area. Exemplifying dedication to our shared community, Joy was also elected to a term as a Wheeling Township trustee and had served equally well on the District 21 school board.

As her name implies, despite the seriousness of some of the debates in which she stood her ground, she was always a pleasure and a true joy to be near and to know. Her soulful passion and unbending compassion made our little neck of the woods all the better. She will be dearly missed by her family, friends and colleagues alike.

Her family has asked that in lieu of flowers we offer donations to the Robert H. Lurie Cancer Center, 847-255-3520. Please consider doing so in this season of giving.

(h/t Pat)

For as much as the conserv-o-partisans hate the guy, he sure know how to hit the nail on the head. Sen. Ted Kennedy from the floor of the Senate this morning:

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA.  But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity.  No immunity, no FISA bill.  So if we take the President at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.

Sen. Kennedy said this in support of Sen. Chris Dodd’s filibuster of the deeply flawed telecom immunity version of the FISA bill. Senate Majority Leader called that version (aka, the Intelligence Committee version) to the floor instead of virtually the same FISA bill from the Judicial Committee, sans get out of jail free cards for telcos that may have broken the law at the President’s “request.” Sen. Reid has said he actually supports the Judicial Cmte. version so why he called the un-Constitutional Intelligence version for a vote is anybody’s guess.

Regardless, Sen. Dodd is now filibustering the bad version. You can learn more about Sen. Dodd’s vital filibuster here. It’s an effort everyone who supports our Constitution and the American tradition of the Rule of Law ought to back 110%.

What’s Santa putting in your stocking this Christmas, a heap o’ happy or a lump o’ coal?

UPDATE: Since C-Rock Carl blindly thinks people taking out mortgages are to blame for the foreclosure mess — rather than the oft-unscrupulous companies which cajoled them into taking out knowingly bad loans and piling on fee after fee in predatory fashion — here are two instances of some kids being naughty…

ABC News Nightline: Playing the Odds: Lawyer Max Gardner Says Some Mortgage Servicers May Be Taking Homeowners for a Ride

Chicago Tribune: Illinois probing top home lender

The Obama-Coburn inspired Federal spending tracker USAspending.gov came online earlier this week, allowing we citizens to see firsthand what our government is spending money on….

Several folks are already noting that one of the fastest growing expenses is document shredding — up a whopping 600% since Pres. Bush first sat down in the Oval Office.

What’re they trying to hide with those millions of dollars dedicated to erasing their record? Gee, I wonder.

Given the re-definition of anti-Semitism conserv-o-partisans like Anne Leary and others have come up with (if you oppose a Jewish person’s politics, you are anti-Semitic)… it’s becoming clear that whiners like Fran Eaton at Illinois Review and Braig Gernliver of Broken Liver are, in fact, anti-Semitic because they’re ranting against Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s vote against a recent House resolution.

For pointing out this bit of logical conclusion-making I’m sure the affable, laughable Pat Hickey will use his eponymous blog to call me a “knuckle gnawer” or some such (as he did earlier in the week) when, in reality, he ought to be calling Ms. Leary and others who hope to pervert the definition of “anti-Semitism” such silly kindergarten names.

(And Mr. Hickey, the song writers you note weren’t wasting time on bizarrely partisan non-issues in Congress… They were trying to write popular songs in an effort to live the American Dream of making a decent buck. And here we thought conservatives whined about the overcommercialization of Christmas.)

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told The Hill:

“They like this war,” she said. “They want this war to continue. That was a revelation to me. I had thought they would listen to their constituents and change their position.”

Just why would Speaker Pelosi say such a thing? Let us count the ways…

1. “General Petraeus is coming back, not just as (a) guy who’s going to give us his take on the Iraq situation, but as the leader of more than 160,000 American personnel in uniform in Iraq. And they’re not only watching his testimony, but they’re also watching our testimony. They’re watching how we treat him. They’re watching this Congress to see if we give credibility to what people in uniform say.” - Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. (Petraeus-Crocker hearing on Iraq status)
2. “As Congress prepares to take our next steps in support of our troops, we are faced with a critical choice. Will we ignore the progress we’ve made and play politics with the security of our nation, or will we finally listen to the generals?” - House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio (Petraeus-Crocker hearing on Iraq status)
3. “With respect to the GAO report, their data cut off - the answer is the data cut-off. At the very least, their data cut-off was five weeks ago. And in some cases, I think - might check this - but in some case I think it was nine weeks ago. But at the very least, these last five weeks, as we showed you on the slides, have actually been very significant. ” - [Gen. David] Petraeus in response to questioning about the differences between the data he presented and that contained in the recent Government Accountability Office report (Petraeus-Crocker hearing on Iraq status)
4. “If the commanders of America’s Armed Services on the ground in Iraq determine that a temporary troop increase is critical to complete our mission, we should have a bipartisan discussion about how best to proceed and support our troops. … My hope is that the president’s plan will be accompanied by specifics, and I’m confident it will be.” - House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio (orig. to Cincinnati Enquirer, 1/10/07)
5. “As for myself, I intend to support this new effort to quiet Baghdad and to give us a chance to succeed. I think that’s what the American people would like to have. … I think it is inappropriate for the Congress to try to micromanage, in effect, the tactics in a military conflict. I don’t think Congress has the authority to do it. I don’t think it would be good at it. You can’t run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate.” - Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) (press conference, 1/9)
6. “You know, I think that it’s a mistake for members of Congress to think that they can fight about whether the right number of troops is 20,000 more or 40,000 more or 20,000 less. I’ve been to Iraq a couple of times. I’ve never come back thinking I knew the exact right number of troops.
   “I think the president and military leaders — and I know we hear that the military leaders may not be on board. I have a feeling they’re much more on board than we know.
   “… Ultimately, our foreign policy has to be about us. And at some point, you can’t secure the future for a people who don’t want to secure their own future. I see this as one of the last chances for the Iraqi people to secure their future with us as a principal partner.” - Minority Whip Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) (orig. to “Late Edition” CNN, 1/7)
7. “… I do think we need to continue to look at our goal. If redeployment is another word for just let’s get out of there, I’d have to question about how you do that. We do want to still have a success as we leave Iraq. And we, in my opinion, should leave Iraq in a responsible period of time. But how you change the dynamics, how you set it up where you don’t leave total chaos, and that all of our effort is for naught, that is a critical question.” - Minority Whip Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) (orig. to “Late Edition,” CNN, 1/7)
8. “The mission of these troops would be to implement the thus-far-elusive “hold” element of the military’s “clear, hold, build” strategy: to maintain security in cleared areas, to protect the population, and to impose the government’s authority. Our troops would work in cooperation with Iraqi forces, and stay in place until the completion of their mission. The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We have tried small surges in the past, and they have been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared. A short surge would have all the drawbacks associated with greater deployments without giving our troops the time they need to be effective.” - GOP Pres. candidate and Sen. John McCain (R-Az) (orig. to Powerline blog, 1/10)
9. “The president is very committed to what he’s doing. I, based on what he told me today, I would support his proposal. This is different from what he’s done in the past. He’s going to have a new commander in General Petraeus, and these 20,000 additional troops are going to go in and root out the insurgents, root out the terrorists, and stay there until we know those neighborhoods are secure, unlike in the past, where they swept the neighborhoods, but then left because we didn’t want to leave a big imprint. We have to leave an imprint, we have to stay there, and at the same time be training the Iraqi army.” - Rep. Peter King (Ranking Republican, Homeland Security Cmte.) (orig. to Fox News, 1/9)
10. “So I think we need a new footprint there, a different way to continue the war on terror. And Somalia just showed us a good example how to do that [with special operations forces].” - Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore) (orig. to Fox News, 1/9)

Want to know where the Republican prez candidates stand with regards to the Iraq War? Only Rep. Ron Paul favors ending it asap, the rest hope to continue and perhaps even expand it (with what magical batch of troops they don’t ever seem to say). And it’s not just Iraq… There has been plenty of rhetoric about bombing Iran in recent weeks (including Sen. McCain’s exciting rendition of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann” … “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran!”), up until the National Intelligence Estimate revealed America’s spy agencies don’t think the Iranians are pursuing nukes.
Need a few more choice GOP quotes on war and other matters? Head here.

The truly bizarre thing?! Talking head conserv-o-partisans have lost their marbles and are harping on Speaker Pelosi for stating the obvious. What? Malkin, Limbaugh and the like suddenly think Republicans stopped promoting Pres. Bush’s never-ending war in Iraq?

Yesterday, the same week archconservative Republican Rep. Steve King (Iowa) had his resolution on Christmas pass the House … and conserv-o-partisans at the Illinois Review chose to rant against a Jewish Congresswoman for not voting in favor of the non-issue (even while ignoring the fact Illinois GOP Rep. Tim Johnson also didn’t vote in favor of it) …

We see yet another actual case of the War on Christmas flair up, this time in the New York subway of all places. Essentially, gang of hooligans yelled “Merry Christmas” on a subway car and a fellow also riding in that car called back with “Happy Hannukah.” The punks proceeded to beat the guy and one of his friends. In the true spirit of Christmas, a Muslim foreigner came to the Jewish guys’ aid against the “Merry Christmas Muckrakers.”

This begs the question, if conservatives keep saying they want to see tolerance for Christianity in public … what about tolerance for Judaism, let alone Muslim Good Samaritans? (Or is all their cackling about “Judeo-Christian heritage” so much meaningless partisan spin?)

This week, the conservative, “free-market” promoters at the Illinois Policy Institute used a grant from the conservative, anti-public school Friedman Foundation to — Ta Da! — prove that Illinoisans prefer private schooling. In reality, they didn’t prove a thing.

None of the following is to say the folks at Illinois Policy Institute are off their rocker. Every time I’ve dealt with them they’ve been gentlemen, if a bit cherry-pickerish (as my comments below will demonstrate).

In their survey, a plurality of 39% of respondents did indeed indicate a preference for private schools. The question was, “If it was your decision and you could select any type of school, what type of school would you select in order to obtain the best education for your child?” (How is IPI planning to move all of us to this perfect world?)

Oddly, only 23% of respondents to that question indicated a preference for charter schools. Charter schools are the “free marketers” answer to what would replace our current public school system if they could have their way with our children’s education. That’s not even 1/4th of the folks in the survey. In fact, with 19% of respondents saying they prefer public schools, charter and public schools are in a statistical tie given the margin of error.

Even more insteresting is the response to the follow-up question of why parents would choose the type of schooling they indicated. 35% of respondents indicated “academic quality” and 28% noted “school curriculum” as the top two rationales from the provided list (seems to me those two things are closely related). Other Q+As in the poll also show similar results about “quality.”

In reality, public schools are equal to, if not better than, the academic quality of private (non-voter controlled) schools. And, school curricula are set by state and local standards anyway. Sometimes conventional wisdom is just wrong, even if that erroneous CW does help further the IPI’s spin.

Basically, folks responded on their gut instincts based on conventional wisdom about ‘private schools being better’. The reality is that public schools are either on par or above their private counterparts. I wonder why IPI doesn’t highlight this information? Honesty is a virtue…

In fact, the IPI is touting several numbers simultaneously to try and spin their biased poll results even more favorably. The IPI’s homepage blurb about the poll reads, “4 out of 5 Illinois parents would pull their children from public schools if they could, a new poll reveals” and their press release specifies the number at precisely 81%. This is far higher than the combined 62% reported for private or charter schools which are often the go-to “answer” free marketers like IPI and the Friedman Foundation promote.

So where did 81% come from? Only by tossing in the preferences for homeschooling (17%) and virtual schooling (2%) with those of private and charter schooling does the total come to 81%. Essentially, the IPI asked what school format parents would prefer in a perfect world and then gave them five choices. Lo and behold, 4 out of 5 choices total … 81%. You’d expect 4 in 5 choices to average 20% each; in the world of statistics it was sheer luck that it actually came out to 81%.

And the IPI’s language infopimping the overall results doesn’t quite match with reality. Again, IPI wrote, “4 out of 5 Illinois parents would pull their children from public schools if they could” yet actual statistics don’t bear that out.

For example, 17% of respondents indicated they would prefer homeschooling in a perfect world. Yet, nowhere near that number of Illinois children are homeschooled even though the laws are flexible enough that almost anyone can do it. (There were about 2.3 million total schoolchildren, K-12, in Illinois in 2005 according to the Census Bureau. 17% would amount to almost 400,000 and statistically there are not that many kids being homeschooled in Illinois…)

All that means is that ours, as we know, is not a perfect world and even if we radically alter our education system to remove funds from existing public schools and give them to parents in the form of vouchers it still wouldn’t be perfect.

We don’t pay parents to stay at home with their kids to homeschool and otherwise raise them. Would the IPI suggest we do, through vouchers? No offense, but I don’t want my tax investment going to pay white supremacists to teach their kids the swastika dance. While I understand everyone, even white supremacists, have a right to raise their children as they wish there’s no legit reason for my tax investment to go toward a propagation of hatred and bigotry.

Likewise, not every region of the state can support private or charter schools. There just aren’t enough kids in some areas to make them viable (especially charter schools which can be for-profit enterprises, though Illinois currently allows only non-profit charters).

Also, the survey has a number of poignant questions on it that aren’t addressed in the IPI’s spin — perhaps because the replies do not further their “free market” cause.

For instance, the survey asked, “How would you rate Illinois’ public school system?”* Curiously, IPI is choosing to promote their meme that 57% of respondents rated the state’s public school system (which doesn’t exist*) as “fair” to “poor” while only 25% rate it as “good” to “excellent”. But that’s just having fun with the numbers which, in reality, are:

How would you rate Illinois’ public school system?

• 07% - Excellent
• 18% - Good
• 38% - Fair
• 19% - Poor
• 18% - Undecided

Sure, one can disingenuously spin that as “only 25% of the public rated Illinois’ public schools as ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’” (And note that the actual question was about the non-existent* “Illinois public school system” not “Illinois’ public schools”.)

If you didn’t hate public schools and the teachers’ unions that teach in them, you could just as easily say that 63% rate Illinois’ public school system* as fair to excellent, while only 19% think it’s poor. Not bad. It’s also interesting that “Undecided” is statistically tied with both “Poor” and “Good” yet IPI doesn’t even mention in their press release that “Undecided” was an option.

Even more disconcerting for the IPI’s political point of view, the respondents overwhelmingly don’t vote on these issues. You have to dig their report’s pie charts to learn that 59% of voters aren’t interested in seeing their state legislators actively debate a universal school choice policy (question 18). And the very last pie chart reveals that a full 64% of voters are either less likely (20%) or indifferent (44%, the plurality) to candidates who may support school vouchers. Only one-fourth of voters indicate they are more likely to vote for a pro-voucher candidate and 11% are undecided. It’s a non-issue.

Finally, the IPI completely ignored the public budget implications of their survey’s results. Perhaps they didn’t like the fact that 75% of respondents think school funding is either too low (37%) or just right (38%) in the first place.

That stat jives with IPI’s oddly parsed question and answer set on “What do you see as the biggest problem confronting Illinois’ public school system?” 14% said lack of funding, while 48% said overcrowded schools (26%) and overcrowded classrooms (22%). It’s unclear why IPI thought overcrowded schools are different than overcrowded classes, nor why they didn’t realize that both problems would require additional funding for extra teachers, materials and building space to alleviate.

Maybe IPI also didn’t appreciate the fact that 72% of respondents think our public school teachers are either underpaid (32%) or paid just right (40%). Curiously, survey participants were asked that teacher salary question (and also asked to guess the average salary ranges) but from what I can find no actual information about average salaries was given to the respondents such that they could base their answers on real data instead of gut feelings and fancy whims. (The averages are indicated in callouts within their final report, but there is no indication from the raw data that it was included in the questioning.)

Of course, all of this talk of salaries, spending, vouchering, etc. boils down to money — who gets it, who gives it and how much for/from each. “Free markets” have little to do with it, as you’ll soon read.

Speaking of salaries though, the Friedman Foundation which, again, paid for this survey of 1500 voting age Illinoisans (no info on how many of them actually had kids in school) lists its CEO’s 2006 salary at $326,149, more than 9% of that “charity’s” total annual budget. Yowza. Apparently advocating for the conservatives’ radical education agenda is quite lucrative.

That eponymous foundation was launched in 1996 by the University of Chicago’s Nobel laureate economist and his economist wife. Despite the IPI’s claims of looking out for the best interests of our state’s children, the Friedman Foundation promotes school vouchering schemes because:

Milton Friedman, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on monetary theory, is credited with laying the original academic framework for voucher theory in the 1950’s. Friedman’s academic work focuses more on the financial profits school privatization could reap rather than the purported assistance it could offer low-income students in failing schools [...] (emphasis added)

Now, if we take the lump sum of all public moneys devoted to public schools in Illinois (through state taxes, local property taxes and, potentially, certain sales taxes), the only way for theoretical charter- or voucher-based private schools to make these profits the late Prof. Friedman envisioned would be to either raise net taxes (not something the conservative IPI seems to advocate) or cut costs by reducing the educational experience from current public school standards.

Either way, we the people (and our kids especially) get shafted in the name of the Almighty Dollar. Profits before people has never worked in the long term.

That’s hardly what I’d consider a “free market” and is a good reason why any such charter schools in Illinois ought to remain not-for-profit — though a lack of electoral oversight is also a concern should the number of charters be increased from its current level of 60 total statewide.

It’s clear from the many results which IPI is not promoting that their report doesn’t actually indicate what they’re suggesting it does; not by a long shot. In fact, given the Friedman Foundation’s ulterior motives (profit for private companies) we ought to read this report with a dump truckload of salt.

–

Sidenote: All these problems with the survey and yet the Peoria Journal Star bought the IPI’s spin hook, line and sinker with nary a third party comment, let alone an opposing viewpoint, to be found.

Say… Where’d that liberal media go? I’m sure it’s around here somewhere….

The public expects such unquestioning and one-sided biased “reporting” from the likes of IPI’s friends at the conservative blog Illinois Review (here and here). Why the PJ Star followed suit with verbatim press release stenography is unclear. Then again the PJ Star is also known for coddling its local hardline conservative homie, Congressional candidate Aaron Schock, so biased reportage is apparently nothing new for them.

In fact, it’s curious that neither the Ill Review nor the PJ Star nor even IPI itself bothered to actually made the complete list of questions, methodology and response rates easily available online. The hard data is not available anywhere without having to request it. Given the points I made above, it’s not hard to figure out why…

Contact info for PJ Star and State Journal Register reporter Dana Heupel is provided at the online version of that story. You may ask why such spin was printed in a major daily without any opportunity for comments or response from others.

(To be fair, I did request the report from IPI and was provided with both the raw data in Word format and the massaged and spun PDF format report. See below.)

–

* About that asterisk: The IPI used an odd phrase to describe Illinois’ hodge-podge of public school districts, describing it as “Illinois’ public school system.” There is no such thing as an overarching public school “system” in Illinois. The State Board of Education does set policies, etc. but each school district — with all their respective elected officials — is its own individual system.

–

The report is provided courtesy of Illinois Policy Institute: Friedman Foundation Illinois Poll Report

How else to explain this steaming pile of low-budget crapitude from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (they could’ve at least made it intentionally funny):

Maybe the Republicans should be spending their time figuring out ways to stop obstructing everything the Dems try to do instead. (They, of course, then turn around and complain Dems are somehow “not accomplishing anything” when they’re the ones filibustering left and right.)

If there’s one thing the conserv-o-partisans are good at it’s whining. They’ve clearly shown they cannot govern. (And they’re really high on life if they think they’ll pick even one net Senate seat next year, let alone two.)

(h/t ArchPundit)

CNN’s Political Ticker blog has a headline reading, “Clinton official says Obama’s past drug use could hurt him.” That Clinton official would be New Hampshire’s Bill Shaheen, husband of former Governor and current Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen (clearly not a political newbie).

Said Mr. Shaheen:

…he expects Republicans will “jump on” Obama’s remarks should he become the nominee.

“The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight … and one of the things they’re certainly going to jump on is his drug use,” Shaheen said. “It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’”

(So he needs to do the Republicans’ partisan fighting for them? Bizarre.)

Sen. Obama disclosed that he tried cocaine in a 5th grade term paper his memoir many, many moons ago. That hasn’t stopped the apparently anti-Obama Washington Post from treating the rather old news as a this-just-in front page story nearly a year ago. And now, with Sen. Clinton’s numbers sliding everywhere we look, one of her surrogates is trotting it out yet again in as prime an example of concern trolling as ever there was.

The Obama camp has been straightforward about the incident and is calling the Clintons’ latest move “desperate.” Obama tried drugs, realized it was moronic and has been warning kids to stay away ever since.

Compare that to then-Gov. Bill Clinton saying he put pot in his mouth but didn’t inhale. How could he be in a room full of pot smoke and not inhale? (Isn’t ‘not breathing’ fatal…? Unless he’s some sort of record-breaking breath holder.) Compare also to our current president who has reportedly tried a number of illicit “recreational” drugs, but refuses to even talk about it for fear of somehow promoting drug use among children. (Huh?)

So the question remains, how does talking about his mistakes openly and honestly “hurt” his election chances? He’s not lying (as opposed to, “didn’t inhale”) and he’s frank about it (as opposed to, “no comment”)… Sounds like a breath of fresh air rather than more of the same.

Realizing how stupid the statements sounded, the Clinton camp immediately but only sorta distanced themselves from Mr. Shaheen’s comments with a generic “the comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way.” Notice though that they didn’t bother to condemn the use of conserv-o-partisan talking points.

Also notice that in these waning days of the campaign they’re not talking about actual issues that matter like the economy, health care, Iraq, etc.

UPDATE: According to Mark “unnecessarily self-abbreviated” Halperin, Sen. Clinton personally apologized to Sen. Obama for the baloney while the two were waiting together at Reagan National Airport. Someone from Team HRC must’ve also slapped Mr. Shaheen but good: he apologized too.

Leave that sort of malarkey to the partisan opponents, folks.

UPDATE 2: Billy Shaheen has resigned as co-chair of the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire. (h/t RaisingPaine and IcerbergSlim)

Don’t rush out to buy it now. I’m sure there will be plenty of wasted paper left after Boxing Day:

God’s Gift to Women: Discovering the Lost Greatness of Masculinity

No word on whether it comes with instruction manuals on how to get yer woman to scrub floors on her hands and knees and generally treat her like dirt.

Pathetic… Why must hardline conservatives constantly seek out people to lord over and tear asunder?

(h/t Elizabeth’s Little Blog)

State Sen. Chris “Not Allowed to Say CPA” Lauzen wrote a weak-kneed passive aggressive missive to retiring former Speaker Denny Hastert a few days back, simultaneously putting him down and asking that he keep his two cents out of the race to replace him.

Hastert’s reply is expected to come shortly. He is anticipated to be endorsing Sen. Lauzen’s main competition in the primary, Jim “4th time may not yet be the charm” Oberweis.

Meanwhile, ArchPundit is still waiting to pop some popcorn for the potential litigious fireworks between the Lauzen and Oberweis camps. Perhaps the shortened primary schedule and extra workload of a special election will put a damper on any sparks.

At least the Oberweis Dairy commercials that just happen to be advertising ice cream during this quite wintry election season aren’t crassly showing candidate Jim, opting to go with his less politically quixotic brother family member instead.

Oprah Winfrey, media tycoon and prime example of the American Dream, has famously come out very strongly in favor of Sen. Barack Obama for president. She hosted a fundraiser for him a few weeks back and hit the campaign trail for a series of well-publicized speeches this past weekend.

Part and parcel with that has been a rash of truly pathetic and bizarre smears against Ms. Winfrey, perhaps in an attempt to muddy up some of the shine from the media spotlights. Most of that muck seems to be centering on a truly odd attempt to claim Ms. Winfrey (and her media empire) is — wait for it — “virulently anti-union.” The attacks are clearly aimed at engendering reactions from a key Democratic constituency, Labor.

But given the attention Wal*Mart, ClearChannel and other companies have received for truly being virulently anti-union, you’d think we would have heard about Harpo Productions by now too. Yet this is the first time such accusations are apparently coming to light…

Why, you ask? Likely because the wild-eyed claims seem to be completely unfounded — and are being propagated by a relatively few people to boot.

Bob Johnson has written up a very detailed, very thoroughly researched, very complete debunking of this smear being tossed at Ms. Winfrey from outta left field.

ArchPundit follows that post up with a request for “better liars please” and includes some more information and examples of Ms. Winfrey’s positive working relationship with one union in particular (AFTRA).

And absolutely none of this ought to discourage any American from speaking up for their preferred candidate, whether it be Oprah Winfrey, Chuck Norris, you or I.

Quick update: Some of the anti-Winfrey crowd (or at least the “Harpo Productions should use union labor if she doesn’t” crowd) are offering up mea culpas and apologies. 1A rights at work there….

Illinois Review whines about their fake “war” on Christmas in order to beat their partisan drums…

Of note:

• They didn’t bother complaining about Republican Cong. Tim Johnson on this vote
• They didn’t bother to tell folks Rep. Schakowsky is Jewish and doesn’t celebrate Christmas
• And they’ve completely ignored Pres. Bush’s role in propogating the real war on Christmas (and Christians)…..

(h/t Daily Kos)

The Trib ran a front page story on the fact the Republican prez candidates have not been to first-in-the-nation Iowa nearly as often as their Dem colleagues.  This paragraph jumped off the page:

Through Sunday, the six major Democratic contenders had been in Iowa more than 380 times this year, while the five major Republican candidates had been in Iowa on about 175 occasions, according to the Iowa Democratic Party’s tracking of all candidate visits. Romney and Huckabee account for all but about 65 of those GOP trips to Iowa.

Now, the Repubs offered up plenty of excuses but they’ve been to the Hawkeye State less than half as often as the Dems, yet both parties have their caucuses on the same day. (And the Dems aren’t trying to jive us with those excuses in making twice as many trips to the Midwest in the first place.)

Perhaps the fact these guys aren’t talking with real, live Joe and Jane Americans also helps explain why the top tier Dems are polling better than the lot of them in head-to-head match-ups … and why the GOP candidates are not raising nearly the amount of money their Dem counterparts are.

If the Republicans can’t be bothered to even talk with we the people, why would they ask us to elect them our leader?

Ack.

I wrote about White House spokesperson (and University of Illinois at Springfield grad) Dana Perino the other day after she revealed she had no clue what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about, though she thought it might have involved ‘Such as, Cuba… And, umm, missiles? … Maybe?’

In explaining the conservative administration’s views on the illegality of torture she shows us yet again why the Heckuvajob Administration keeps her on staff:

Q Did the questioning of al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah conform with the interrogation program approved by President Bush?  [...]

MS. PERINO: I will say that all interrogations — all interrogations have been done within the legal framework that was set out after September 11th…All of the — the entire program has been legal.

Q Are you saying that whatever was done in this case was not torture?

MS. PERINO: I am saying that the United States does not torture. The President has been —   [...]

Q But when you have a former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, now saying that waterboarding was used — since you’re saying the interrogations were legal; he’s saying on the record now, waterboarding was used in at least one case. You’re saying waterboarding is legal?

MS. PERINO: Ed, I’m saying I’m not commenting on any specific technique. I’m not commenting on that gentleman’s characteristics of any possible technique. I’ve given you a very general statement about interrogations being legal, limited and –

Q You just said it was legal.

MS. PERINO: I’m sorry?

Q You said it was within the legal framework.

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q Everything that was done.

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q So waterboarding is legal.

MS. PERINO: I’m not commenting on any specific techniques.

Even for a Bush Admin spinmeister that’s pathetic semantic gymnastics.

Can UIS revoke her degree?

(h/t BarbinMD)

Salon’s War Room reports on White House spokesperson Dana Perino being apparently little more than a bobblehead… Rich Miller adds a little extra identifying info that leaves me embarrassed for UIUC’s sister school to the southwest.

At a White House press briefing on Oct. 26, a reporter asked [UIS Public Affairs Reporting grad] Dana Perino about Vladimir Putin’s suggestion that a U.S. plan to base parts of a missile shield in Europe was similar to the events that led to the Cuban missile crisis.

Perino’s response: “Well, I think that the historical comparison is not — does not exactly work. What I can say is what President Putin went on to say, which is that the president and President Putin have said that we can work together on this.” […]

Appearing on NPR’s “Wait, Wait … Don’t Tell Me” over the weekend, Perino said she “panicked” when she got the Cuban missile crisis question because she wasn’t exactly sure what the Cuban missile crisis was. “I really know nothing about the Cuban missile crisis,” Perino said. “It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I’m pretty sure.”

Perino said she went home that night and asked her husband, “‘Wasn’t that, like, the Bay of Pigs thing?’ And he said, ‘Oh, Dana.’”

(emphasis added to Mr. Miller’s identifier)

Like, duh. Y’know?

And here we thought conservatives were concerned about Cuban exiles and their proud history, let alone ousting the only remaining Communist dictator in the Western Hemisphere…. Apparently not so much.

UIS needs to start adding basic recent history as a prereq.

Someone needs to help McLean County Recorder Lee Newcom learn how to think reasonably and come back from the Bizarro world he’s been tripping to.

First off, anyone who considers the belligerent and controversial John Bolton to be “brilliant” is well outside the mainstream from the get-go. The man has been involved in everything from blocking investigations to drug smuggling to undermining the very rule of law, simply out of his own partisan bias. And here we’ve been led to believe conservatives are the “moral values” crowd. Drug running and skirting the law ain’t “moral” and it ain’t “values” either.

Second, the National Intelligence Estimate is the document that Bush ignored in the run-up to the Iraq War. Did the intel community hypothesize that Iraq had weapons programs throughout the late 90s? Yes, mistakenly so. There are many reasons for that, most of which have to do with a lack of humint inside Iraq. But it was the Bush administration which clearly cherrypicked even that off-the-mark intel in order to set things even more askew, and lie our country into a war of distraction.

It is for those reasons that folks are now treating this latest NIE more carefully. That a myopic partisan like Mr. Bolton would discount the work of our nation’s intelligence community (which has been systematically working to improve human-intelligence gathering in the region) is predictable enough given that their assessment runs counter to his political interests. But, there’s no reason we American citizens have to follow along, unless one lacks the basic reasoning skills to figure this out.

Mr. Newcom, of course, comes from a highly partisan background himself, having overseen the squandering of moneys at the United Republican Fund (though he blames it all on some bookkeeper whom was fired) and being a frequent guest for various conserv-o-partisan radio yakfests. Whether or not McLean County Recorder Mr. Newcom is posting his bizarre diatribes while on the taxpayers’ dime is something he’s never fully explained and his It’s OK If You’re a Republican psyche may not allow him to.

Dan Curry (of the perhaps intentionally revealing “Reverse Spin” blog) has yet another post up railing against Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of donations from International Profit Associates’ John Burgess, this time in response to her endorsement by the Illinois chapter of NOW. Mr. Curry’s complaint is that Mr. Burgess has been accused of sexual harassment and, as such, a woman candidate should not (in his opinion) be accepting his donations, nor should a woman’s organization be condoning the acceptance of said donations by offering their endorsement for that candidate… It’s textbook example of weak-kneed, partisan-influenced ‘guilt by association’ spin.

Interestingly, Mr. Curry — over the course of about 20+ posts this year — has continuously and regularly ranted about IPA, its owner and the politicians which receive donations from same. Oddly enough, Mr. “Reverse Spin” himself has simply been spinning on this issue all along. (Notice he admits his writings are still spin, though he tries to claim it’s somehow “reverse”…)

How do we know he’s just spinning on and on incessantly about IPA? You have to look hard, may even need a magnifying glass, but Mr. Curry actually told us he’s just spinning.

In only one (1) of those 20+ posts this year do we learn exactly why Mr. Curry is so obsessed with IPA: he is “assisting” IPA’s business opponents. Is he being paid to “assist” those anti-IPA forces? Or is he doing it because he likes the way they smell? We don’t know because Mr. Curry is more than vague when it comes to those he is “assisting” in his attacks against IPA and those who receive donations from the company and its colleagues.

Now, it’s all well and good for bloggers to write about folks they like and want to help (I sure do enough of that). It’s even ok for them to go ahead and get paid to write favorable or unfavorable opinions. But, typically such ‘influenced’ writing (whether voluntary or compensated) is regularly disclosed so readers can judge for ourselves the writings’ worth which is why I and others make a point of routinely noting our own disclosures.

Mr. Curry is running at less than 1 in 20 on that count. Why doesn’t he care to disclose his relationship with IPA’s opponents more often? What’s he hiding behind that curtain? Is it because he’s just trying to gloss over his biased spin opposing the candidates he so clearly despises?

Writing, “Small business owners across the country, who I’m assisting,” once inside of a year doesn’t cut it by any reasonable measure of honesty. Instead, it renders Mr. Curry’s own rants about IPA’s alleged dishonesty all the more hypocritical.

Is IPA bad news? Allegedly so, given the many ongoing investigations of the company, its leadership and its associates. But that doesn’t excuse Mr. Curry’s own lack of forthrightness in his many continued discussions of the matter.

Ralf Seiffe has a shrill post up over Illinois Review denouncing the President’s half-hearted plan to stave off the coming mortgage/foreclosure crisis. Writes he:

The Bush Administration continues to amaze its friends and thrill its enemies with news that it is considering bailing-out sub-prime mortgagors which market conditions have now embarrassed.  Should this come about, regular folks who manage to pay their own mortgage will be rewarded with the obligations their neighbors are unable to meet.  This is a bad idea but if the Administration abandons principle and frustrates the market, it should extract a price from those it bails because no deliverance comes without some strings involved.

I agree that folks need to take responsibility for their actions, but curiously the conservative Mr. Seiffe blames his fellow Americans rather than considering the fact that many of these folks appear to have been swindled by unscrupulous mortgage cos who simply wanted to make a buck, whether folks could afford the payments or not.

Why is Mr. Seiffe blaming people who got snookered instead of the ethically-challenged fat cat businesses that gave them the untenable loans? (Need I ask? Mr. Seiffe is a conservative, after all.)

He even mentions, “An aggravating factor in the sub-prime ordeal is that many borrowers closed their loans with very little proof of their ability to pay even the initial payments, let alone the reset, higher interest rates those teaser rates always imply.” But, he doesn’t make the logical conclusion that the creditors should have never agreed to loan these folks money in the first place. If these businesses had gotten control of their greed (say, where’d Mr. Seiffe’s claims of personal responsibility go???) then folks wouldn’t be in the position they’re in.

No wonder cons are often considered heartless and mean-spirited. Mr. Seiffe could’ve saved a few pixels and just written “Bah humbug!” instead.

The idiocy continues, thanks to the Republican News Channel’s enabling.

Gay-hatin’ Dave “claims to be Christian, but doesn’t act like it” Smith of the misnamed Illinois “Family” Institute has a post over at Illinois Review mocking what he calls “San Fransicko Values” (pun likely intended) because he, like gay researcher Petey LaBarbera, don’t like gay Americans being, y’know, gay.

Two points on this. First, “far-left, liberalest San Francisco liberalis” Markos Moulitsas recently pointed out to the NRSC (which has itself also recently mocked “San Francisco Values”) the many contributions that “San Francisco Values” add to our nation, namely the Internet Economy:

I’m sure the NRSC’s computers use components made by San Francisco Liberals, use search engines run by San Francisco Liberals, utilize networking gear manufactured by San Francisco Liberals, run software applications written by San Francisco liberals, and maybe even phones (iPhones and Treos) and operating systems created and built by San Francisco Liberals. I’m sure NRSC staffers wear jeans invented by San Francisco liberals,  use services such as Netflix, TiVo, eBay and Intuit created by San Francisco liberals, and if they’re blogging, they’re likely using tools built by San Francisco liberals.

I went over to their website to see if any of it was designed or built by San Francisco liberals, and — gasp! — it was! In their code I found snippets from San Diego-based Webside Story, which also has an office in the San Francisco Bay Area. They use del.icio.us, a service owned by the San Francisco liberals at Yahoo. They use Twitter on the site, which quite tragically is based in San Francisco (full of San Francisco liberals, I bet). Then there’s Google Analytics. Google, of course, is just FULL of San Francisco liberals being yet another Bay Area company that dabbles in innovation, entrepreneurship, tolerance, and creativity — you know, “San Francisco values”. Guess who else Google owns? Yup — YouTube — which the NRSC ALSO uses on their site.

The damn thing is just LOADED with San Francisco-created widgets and tools! And it’s not just their website. Did you know that the NRSC has a Facebook page? I bet they didn’t even know that Facebook is HQ’d in the SF Bay Area! But apparently, we’re still supposed to fear San Francisco liberals.

Now, Illinois Review is a blog hosted by Typepad, a service of the company Six Apart. Guess where Six Apart’s American HQ is… Hypocrites like Dave Smith and the like don’t even realize those “values” they’re railing against are the very values of innovation, progress, democracy and liberty that allow them to blog their hate-filled rants in the first place.

San Francisco, California is just as much an American city as Boulder, Colorado or Omaha, Nebraska or Wheaton, Illinois whether Davey and his gay watching pal Petey care to acknowledge it or not.

The second point is that, as an Ill Review commenter noted, gay folks aren’t the only Americans who sometimes pursue their happiness to the nth degree. But far be it from hypocritical America-haters like Dave Smith to realize that our nation was founded as an experiment in acceptance (not just tolerance), equality and liberty — real American values that Mr. Smith, Petey the Gay Researcher and their ilk profess to despise as they rake in their enmity-inspired monetary donations.

We have real problems in this country — the housing market is imploding, millions lack healthcare, the economy is shakey and (oh yeah) we’re fighting two wars. What Americans do in celebration of their liberty should not be considered a problem worthy of so much angst and hate, let alone prompt more discussion than any of those real problems.

It’s as if these conservative gay researchers needed to make their Q4 budget goals and so they went ahead and infopimped a bunch of porn photos and video in order to goad a few more folks into parting with their “donations” in exchange for more bashing on their fellow Americans.

…Or at least you’d think so given your GOPUSA ILLINOIS editor Dave Diersen’s way over the top headline in today’s news with a bias round-up. Now sure, Mr. Diersen is as conservative a partisan as you can get. He’s constantly railing against Republicans who don’t follow (to a T) his version of things… And, it is Congressman Hyde’s arch-conservative successor Rep. Peter Roskam who introduced some language honoring the late Congressman’s life and legacy.

But really, is it “historic” legislation that Rep. Roskam introduced? No one has ever passed away and been honored by Congress in the past 231 years? From Mr. Diersen’s hyperbole:

Roskam introduces historic legislation honoring the life and legacy of Congressman Henry J. Hyde

Read the rest of the claptrap if you’re feeling blue and need a good laugh…

In the latest installment of right-wing prurience and porno pimping, we find gay researcher Petey LaBarbera doing what he does best — watching gay men be, well, gay.

Most folks who’ve followed Illinois politics for long enough know that Petey LaBarbera loves to follow gay men around to watch what they do for his “research”. He also enjoys reading through gay magazines and the like, in theory so you and I don’t have to (why anyone who isn’t gay would even care what’s in a gay magazine is unclear).

So it comes as little surprise that gay researcher Petey LaBarbera was a guest on the Republican news channel’s Hannity and Colmes show.

Curiously, conserv-o-partisan Fran Eaton promoted the appearance by proclaiming that the “ick factor” of Petey’s photos “is off the charts” in her post called “Sex in the City Streets”. Why was the dude even taking pictures of other gay people? What does he do with those gay pictures when he’s not posting them on the World Wide Web for everyone else?

Seems to me that it’s more like the gay-curious conservative partisans are off the charts… or is it off the hook … maybe just off their rocker.

Why these folks need to keep everyone one else with their gay hate in some bizarre fetish for masking over their own proclivities is unclear. Using gay bashing to gin up support for a political party is beyond bonkers.

Those Americans who are gay don’t appreciate these people’s gay curious yet acidly spiteful malarkey and those of us who aren’t gay find it highly annoying and pointless. We have troops dying in Iraq and a president who is (again!) ignoring intelligence in order to cherrypick his way through his final year. But two men kissing in public is more important?! Bull puckey.

Unless he wants to run off and find a wide-stance stallmate of his own, Petey ought to just live and let live and find something better to do with his time. Then again, how will he earn a living if not off his deep well of dark hate and gay curious research dissemination.

Sidenote: Go figure. Petey’s gay research and gay photography in a West Coast city gets more attention at Illinois Review than Tier 1 GOP prez candidate Rudy Giuliani’s illicit affair and simultaneous raking of taxpayers. NYC media are calling that affair “Sex on the City” since denizens of the Big Apple paid for Rudy’s afternoon delight… Maybe having adulterous affairs and charging taxpayers for the associated bills are ok if you’re heterosexual, but heaven forfend the gays do something “icky”.

….The hilarity over Hillary’s dig ‘em deep oppo research continues. This (snarky) blog was just launched by enterprising kindergarten graduates:

Classmates For Truth

 

A Blog that will point out various things Sen. Obama did during school that we think the voters should know!

Perhaps you’d like to describe rumors and innuendo you’ve heard about the Senator’s kindergarten and preschool days…. Who needs those striking entertainment writers when the comedy practically writes itself.

(h/t Archpundit Veterans for Swing Sets)

Those odd ducks over at Illinois Review aren’t quite sure what they think, are they?

First, they post a video promoting the conservative group Move America Forward (they like the war the President bungled in Iraq)… What are they promoting? MAF’s “Honoring Heroes at the Holidays” effort to remember our troops deployed overseas.

Did you catch it? To most folks, including the word “holidays” in their campaign’s name is fine enough — all those H’s go together even if one of ‘em is silent.

But, in just a matter of a few posts later, Ill Review itself cranks up the old conserv-o-partisan crock about the non-existent “War” on Christmas by publishing a little diddy including such rhythmic lines as:

Why the Politically Correct Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people’s feelings, the teacher’s would say
December 25th is just a ” Holiday “.

What? You expected these folks to be consistent? After all, it’s most assuredly still ok for partisans — as long as they’re conservative — to refer to Christmas as “just a Holiday.”

So, it’s little wonder all those chain emails and Fox News “reports” about Move America Forward’s “War on Christmas” have yet to start…

(And what’s with conserv-o-partisans always needing to get their war on? War on Christmas, Culture Wars… Reasonable folks just roll their eyes at this baloney.)

Already under the gun for appearing so desperate as to attack Sen. Obama’s kindergarten record, we’re also learning Sen. Clinton is skipping a few facts in another line of attack she’s using. It’s bad enough when conservatives twist facts and ignore context in order to infopimp an attack. But does Sen. Clinton also need to do it?

The Clinton campaign has been hounding Sen. Obama for a series of votes on abortion issues during his time in the Illinois State Senate. Their gripe is that he voted “present” rather than for or against the Republican-sponsored bills.

What the Clinton camp fails to explain (either out of ignorance or an intentional attempt at misleading voters) is that the strategy of voting “present” on those bills was a caucus strategy designed to blunt then-Sen. President Pate Phillips’ (R) divisive ploys in which he tried to wedge Democrats apart from each other.

And, in fact, according to Rich Miller it wasn’t just a caucus strategy but a strategy devise by Planned Parenthood, which opposed Pres. Phillips’ divisive measures. Sayeth local PP head Pam Sutherland, “The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did.” Rich has much more on the history of that time in the Illinois State Senate — including updates to his original post noting that Sen. Obama has been routinely attacked by conservatives like Jill Stanek, Fran Eaton and a Marylander named Alan Keyes for blocking similar anti-abortion bills in later years.

Sen. Clinton might want to read up on it, as should the Chicago Tribune’s veteran political reporters Rick Pearson and Mike Dorning after they bought her talking points hook, line and sinker in a story they ran this morning.

If she wants to harp on him for voting present instead of yeah or nay then she should do so; no need to ignore the context of the situation. Keep it clean.

Swiftboating meets the Class of 2008…

Clearly, sometimes it’s best to leave that quip you think is a really hot zinger stuck with the lint in your backpocket. Over the weekend the Clinton campaign began comically attacking Sen. Obama by referencing an essay he wrote … in kindergarten.

Zip. Zap. Zowee.

Dem activists have, of course, been having fun with it. Can you imagine the jokes if the entertainment writers weren’t on strike and late-night tv were fresh?!

dmsilev channels Gary Gnu:

Kindergarten Classmates For Truth
Kindergarten Kiddies For Truth

Senator Obama has claimed to be for a “new type of politics”, but a careful look at his record, and extensive interviews with his colleagues has revealed the Real Barack Obama:

• On eight separate occasions, Barack Obama was observed eating paste intended for classroom activities. America does not need a President who exhibits such wanton disregard for the property of others. Nor is America ready for a President who regularly consumed common adhesives. Indeed, we must ask whether Senator Obama is still a closet paste-eater.
• According to classmate Susie Smith, Barack Obama repeatedly refused to sit next to her because she “had cooties”. Senator Obama, will you disavow your sexist past?
• A careful review of Barack Obama’s schoolwork from this period has revealed a systematic inability to stay within the lines while