You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February, 2008.
President Bush, saying he was unaware of predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off high prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent. [...]
When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the reporter, “That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.”
So Americans are supposed to pay $4 a gallon to get the kids to and fro, go to the grocey store or do other shopping, visit with family or go sight-seeing, and, of course, get to work … and Bush’s “conservative” suggestion for how to help is to transfer middle class earnings to the wealthy by making permanent his tax cuts for the upper classes?
No wonder conservative policies are failing left and right — they’re unstable and provide “solutions” to the wrong problems.
Instead of those tax cuts, if the President actually cared about $4/gallon gas he would’ve started (in Jan. 2001) investing the money given back in tax cuts into sustainable energy efforts like the Apollo Project.
Alas, modern conservative-partisans could care less about the common good with this me-me-me attitude of theirs and so, like lemmings off a cliff, they drag us all toward ever more costly policies that lead to issues like $4/gallon for Regular Unleaded, billions a month for the Iraq Civil War, spiralling out of control health care costs, etc.
* Note that the quotes attributed to Pres. Bush in that CNNMoney.com article are not in chronological order. In reality, the dumbfounded quote came before the solving-the-wrong-problem quote.
The Clinton campaign schools us on just why the right-wing memes about the Clintons exist in the first place by threatening to sue the Texas Democratic Party over “primacaucus” rules that have been in place for decades…
Way to feed into stereotypes, Camp Hillary:
The campaign in Texas is close. Delegates selected by popular vote out of the 31 Senate districts will probably be split more or less evenly. [...]
The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.
The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election — except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained– but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.
Texas’ hybrid primary/caucus would not be questioned were it not that one candidate appears to have an advantage in caucus settings. Or that in a close race, the popular vote in senate districts will probably translate into an even split of delegates. Consequently, the Clinton campaign finds Texas to be a poor place to build a firewall or mount a comeback. That’s an historical accident. Attacking the state party here would be irresponsible and damaging to Democratic prospects here in both the near and long term.
The overwhelming numbers of Texas who have voted early in the Texas primary is symptomatic of the changing political tide here. Much work has been done rebuilding the progressive movement in the Lone Star State. Attempts to taint the primary, and consequently the primary and caucus decisions of Texas voters, will set this effort back.
(emphasis added)
Precisely. I’m all for going down fighting, but at least fight the good fight and be responsible. Gah.
Kagro X warns us:
Killer terrorist vacuum cleaners. Fucking hell!
Good on Fox Propaganda for keeping the citizenry informed of the dangers of Roomba. We wouldn’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud… or a dust bunny.
And Milk Dud’s own not-quite-with-it campaign manager puts on his Carnac the Magnificent hat to join in the malarkey-making fun!
Archie has the details on Ill Review’s ignorance and Billy the Kid’s silliness, fiction, baloney, hogwash and even his advice for other campaign managerists.
No wonder Bill Foster is actually starting to take a lead against these clowns.
No wunder cosnervative partysans have a problm with publik skools — they seeem to haf had truble lerning the “nashunal langwijj”. And apparently it’s been a problem for constives for a while… a long, long while — full of challanges. No, reallye.
(”pffft… Paging Mr. Racits. Mr. Racits to the front desk please. Mr. Morans would like to see you… pfft.”)
There will be a spelling lesson for conservatives this Saturday, February 30th. First come, first served. 
Turns out folks in Tennessee don’t really like having asses be the face and voice of their state in news media across the nation. And here conserv-o-partisans were complaining about McCain backing away from his friend’s xenophobic introduction the other night. Are they going to whine about the Volunteer State’s embarrassment at the hands of TN-GOP’s spokesman now?
We know Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein but didya know he’s black too? These two otherwise pointless facts are apparently appalling to the partisans running amok in the formerl-grand ol’ party….
Why do these charletans, who are so clearly lying, continue to promote their baloney? (And yes, they must be lying because they can’t claim ignorance given how often the truth has been pointed out to them.)
Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton gives her mentor of mischief Phyllis Schlafly space at ye ol’ Ill Review to peddle those same tired lies about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the ERA.
Why is it that when conserv-o-partisans don’t have a leg to stand on they resort to lying instead of trying to promote alternatives? Simply having another person repeat the same lie doesn’t somehow magically make it a tiny bit more truthy. It’s just repeats the lie and makes liars out of not one, but now two conservatives.
PS: Is this what conservative-partisans usually refer to as “self-loathing” given that these lionesses of conservativedom are so ardently against equal rights for their own gender that they’d lie about the ERA? Hmmm…
Steve “Hector Jebediah Tiberius” Greenberg apparently likes extra names. Taking a tack from Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Greenberg has taken to using Rep. Melissa Bean’s maiden name to declare that she is “un-American”.
How much money is Mr. Greenberg planning to waste on this losing strategy? Because really, he ought to leave some of it for his kids’ college funds so they can enjoy the same silver spoon lifestyle he’s been blessed with that apparently leads one to think a US Congresswoman’s maiden name somehow implies she is un-American.
Gee, where have we seen this strategery of conservatives repeating a candidate’s middle name in order to impugn their patriotism? It seems to me this sort of kindergarten game is part of the cons’ go-to pattern of bs… When you have nothing but failed policies and hot air, apparently you start resorting to make a fool of yourself as Mr. Greenberg and other conservative partisans are more and more frequently doing.
To paraphrase one of Sen. Obama’s strategists, Robert Gibbs: We can’t solve America’s problems with childish quips about people’s middle names…
Greenberg needs to grow up. This is our nation’s future we’re deciding in November, not some hockey game.
(PS: Yes, I made up those middle names for Mr. Greenberg to demonstrate how pointless his attack was… Anyone can make anything up and say boo about it; that’s easy. I’d rather have Congressmen and Congresswomen who deal in truth and reality.)
Why is it that Republican officials and candidates seem to be having so much trouble actually following the rule of law lately?
On the heels of the Republicans’ Congressional committee accounting scandal, we’re learning now that John McCain may be brazenly trying to skirt around the campaign finance law that has his name on it (McCain-Feingold) by pretending he never pledged to sign on to public financing, even though he obviously did according to his own bank’s loan docs.
Dem chairman Howard Dean is calling him out on it and putting his feet to the fire to follow his own law.
On top of that, we’re seeing locally that IL-14 GOP candidate Jim “Milk Dud” Oberweis could also be playing fast and loose with the finance laws by giving his campaign his own money in an end-around which may violate that same McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Of course, Oberweis has a history of FEC violations having been fined a rather small (for a millionaire) sum of $21,000 in 2004 related to the Oberweis Dairy ads which ran simultaneous to one of his failed Senate runs.
Plus, in what appears to be a separate violation of election law, several Chicago-area TV stations have had to pull Oberweis’ ads in recent days because they directly violated disclosure rules.
Of course, there’s also the appalling and ongoing Oberweis problem with blatant lies which, while unethical, is “legal”. In 2004 he lied about the number of illegal immigrants in that infamously (and inadvertently) hilarious helicopter commercial. Then, during his 2006 run for governor, he cooked up false newspaper headlines in his failed attacks against Judy Baar Topinka. Staying true to dishonest form, just this month he decided to lie about mythical troop “withdrawals” from Iraq in one of his TV ads, among other falsehoods over the years.
Recent AP news headline:
Obama fights false link to Islam
Dan Curry doesn’t like that the AP is reporting on the Obama camp’s defense of their candidate’s faith. He thinks that the simple act of reporting on Obama’s actions somehow means the AP is coming to Obama’s “defense” against conservative-partisans’ xenophobic lies against him.
Worse, he compounds the cons’ lies about Obama (the “false link” which he “fights” back against) with a lie of his own about the AP, claiming they didn’t “defend” Mitt Romney of all people (didn’t he drop out about 9 eons ago in campaign time?) which I take to mean he thinks the AP never ran stories about Romney defending himself.
I don’t recall AP jumping this quickly to the defense of Mitt Romney and the many smears of his religion. (link original)
Except that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Ergo, it would not be false to call him a Mormon and there would be no need to defend against false “links” to the Mormon Church.
On the other hand, Barack Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim. Ergo, it would be a lie to call him a Muslim, especially if it is done in an attempt to simultaneously deride Islam and smear Obama. And in this modern political age such fallacies require vigorous, continuous defense with the bright light of truth (whether the lies stem from conservativedom in general vis a vis lying chain emails or one con in particular, say, Mr. Curry).
Shouldn’t the AP (and all media) be reporting the truth? Why does Mr. Curry take issue with reporters reporting actual fact-based news? Simply reporting the truth is not “defending” this or that candidate. It’s just being honest.
What doesn’t Dan Curry get about that? Perhaps he’s just so dizzy from all his frantic spinning that he’s now flipping out … or maybe he’s kept his partisan blinders on so long he’s lost all capacity to actually see reality.
Or is it the case that Mr. Curry would prefer to have the AP stop reporting on Republicans’ defense of their own candidates (seeing as how he doesn’t like it when they report on Dems defending against cons’ lying)? He best start whining about the myth-busters at Snopes.com also seeing as how they’ve also pointed out that cons’ claims of Obama being Muslim are false (big red “false” icon and all).
Now, it could very well be that Mr. Curry is sore that his fellow conservative partisans did indeed attack Gov. Romney’s faith (similar to their lying about Sen. Obama’s Christian faith) with falsehoods, innuendo and downright sectarian bullcrap as this Illinois Review post lays bare.
It’s not the AP’s fault that Mr. Curry’s partisan allies decided to put the “con” in “conservative” and lie about one of their own; though such lying clearly does appear to be par for the course.
Besides, the AP actually did report on Gov. Romney’s defense of his own faith many times over. Again, maybe Mr. Curry is too dizzy from all his spinning to “recall” Romney’s ‘major speech on faith’ in Texas last year but the AP covered it and other instances of “Mormon defense” quite handily here, here and even here in quotes that CNN picked up from an AP reporter’s earlier work… The list of media stories from the AP and others covering Romney’s and other Latter-day Saints’ defense of the Mormon faith are plentiful if Mr. Curry had bothered to deal with the truth instead of spinning his bs.
By the way — following what passes for the conservative-partisans’ own logic — we find that lying about a Christian, smearing his good name and distorting his bedrock faith means that conservatives are themselves anti-Christian. Who knew? [Shrug.]
Let me start by saying that no matter who it is or whatever party banner or independent effort they run under anyone who runs for president must, by default, love their nation. Why else would folks from Ron Paul and Mike Gravel to John McCain and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama subject themselves to years’ worth of bullcrap if not for the chance to convince their fellow Americans they have solid plans to make our nation better.
Yet last week CNN and MSNBC asked readers what they thought of Obama’s patriotism, taking the partisan criticism of him as facts rather than opinions… And AP reporter Nedra Pickler, wife of a FOX News propagandist, told newspaper readers what to think about Obama’s heartfelt loyalty to America…
Essentially, the newsies were simply following up on conservative partisans’ charletan rants and flailing fibs about Sen. Obama’s hands, suit jackets and wife (not necessarily in that order).
Regarding his hands, cons are squawking that he doesn’t hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance which is odd since he does. Even more strange, some cons apparently don’t think that lie is enough of a lie so they’ve exaggerated it into claiming he refuses to even say the Pledge. Again, he actually does say it and has in fact led the Senate’s reciting of the Pledge on occasion, as seen on C-SPAN.
The one (1) photo they are actually referring to comes from last summer’s Tom Harkin Steak Fry event in Iowa in which he stood at attention during the National Anthem. Now, not everyone holds their hand over their heart for the Anthem and there’s no law in this supposedly free country saying citizens must place the palm of their hands X number of inches from their heart muscle. But it’s clear that he sang the song (and it wasn’t even the Jimi Hendrix version) and that he also recites our Pledge.
So, there’s one lie for the conserv-o-partisans regarding Obama’s staunch patriotism.
Regarding his suit jackets, cons complain that Sen. Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel. Hypocritically enough, several of the Republican presidential candidates also do not wear flag pins, including one John McCain.
Why are there no day-long news segments questioning John McCain’s patriotism?
Senator Obama’s response is basically, “Bring it on.” If cons want to question his patriotism while supporting a GOP party that sent our troops into war undermanned and ill-equipped, has handed over billions of taxpayer dollars to war profiteers in no-bid contracts, and has neglected and abandoned our troops once they return … well then these folks are much further gone than we all originally thought.
While that’s not a lie it certainly is a healthy helping of hypocrisy.
Finally, and perhaps most telling in their attempts to smear Sen. Obama’s dedication to our nation, cons are now going after his wife, Michelle. Recently, Mrs. Obama told a rally crowd , “Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.”
Given the context of that rally, and the fact she has said similar (though differently worded) things in the past, it’s abundantly clear that Mrs. Obama was discussing her pride in America’s (little-d) democratic process and in this sense “country” means her fellow voters. And why shouldn’t she be proud of her fellow voters “for the first time in her adult life”? It’s clear that, unlike the past two or three decades, entirely new groups of Americans are now engaged in the process in record-breaking numbers from sea to shining sea.
That is something to be proud of.
But when the cons get a hold of that string of words, they not only remove the context but also highlight the half-quoted portion that they can make sound the most siniste… and so Michelle Obama’s pride in her fellow voting Americans becomes a conservative-partisan smear against her patriotism and, by extension, a smear against the presidential candidate himself.
So now we even have a half-quote that the cons are working on turning into a lie, as evidenced by Rep. Joke Jack Kingston (R-GA) string of fibs and ever-longer nose during his recent Bill Maher appearance (Kingston hit just about every lie on the books while making a complete ass of himself on national TV).
If all the conservatives have against Obama are lies about his love for America, a patriotism that is clearly very deeply woven into the fabric of his being rather than the “last refuge” sort of patriotism eminating from scoundrels like Rep. Kingston and other cons, why isn’t the media explaining the truths these partisans are trying to mask rather than infopimping their attacks?
But no, no. Obama supposedly gets a “free pass” from the “liberal” media… Yet another lie from conserv-o-partisans on top of a stack of lies and daunting doses of double-talk.
It matters not if the media promotes this roll of baloney out of an irrational fear of continually (and erroneously) being labeled “liberal” or because they think these non-issues are somehow legit news stories and they have 24 hours of newstime to fill. The credibility they lose by engaging in these lazy partisan he-said/she-said pissing contests directly affects their bottom line — as ad revenues, readership tallies and viewer ratings all indicate — because Americans are smarter than that.
For weeks (even months) conservative-partisans and other Obama haters have been trying to build up at least two themes against the Senator. The first is this notion that the media is somehow giving him a pass and the second is this bizarre plug-n-play infopimping about Obama’s strong patriotism (they pulled this same plug-n-play move against Kerry and Gore… go figure.)
While certainly both Obama and McCain have enjoyed some deferential treatment from the media, they are also both hit hard on a regular basis.
The current conservative retort to McCain being a “media darling” is to point to the recent stories in the NY Times, Washington Post and elsewhere regarding his coziness with a lobbyist and the favors he tried to pull for her clients. But even griping that the media is somehow turning on McCain isn’t accurate since the Times held off on that story for months — and the actual first-run article was simply a recitation of facts (McCain’s staff did distance him from the lobbyist out of concern about “appearances”, etc.).
But for some reason, cons keep whining that Obama too is getting a “free pass” from the media, a claim that simply isn’t true.
For years, the Trib and Sun-Times have been pouring over Obama’s legislative records, his donor forms, and even the real estate records on his home purchase in the hopes of finding something dire regarding Rod Blagojevich’s friend, Tony Rezko. But there’s no there there (and I’ll be the first to eat crow if something is ever found).
More recently, the tee-vee newsies have been jumping onto the slightest things — and echoing con talking points in doing so — in what conservatives would likely claim would be a concerted effort to tarnish Obama had he been a Republican.
Last week, CNN and MSNBC both gratuitously infopimped the cons’ meme questioning Obama’s staunch patriotism. Even the Associated Press got in on serving up the pig slop with a story doing little more than promote the conservative partisans’ baseless attacks.
And, of course, Tim “Meet the Press” Russert just decided to jump on the Six Degrees of Kevin Farrakhan trolley with a weak game of “gotcha” vis a vis a line of questioning that could best be described as pointless drivel and guilt by association malarkey.
So, conservative partisans, just how is it that playing up these sorts of non-issue, partisan-based stories is a “free pass”?
Dan Curry wants to know if Barack Obama agrees with Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s assertion that the American taxpayers shouldn’t be spending money to keep our troops in the middle of a civil war.
In fact, Mr. Curry seems to think there is no civil war and that somehow “law and order [is] breaking out in Iraq” instead.
Two points: First, it’s unclear which war Mr. Curry is trying to spin, because the one in Iraq is still very much racked with sectarian violence, ie, a “civil war” as citizens kill each other en masse. Second, Mr. Curry can try to wish away the recently cooled Iraqi Civil War between sectarian factions but the fact that our taxpayer-funded bribes to “insurgents” have led them to stop some (not all) of their killing doesn’t mean the desire to kill has subsided — because it hasn’t.
Maybe Mr. Curry is reading the same fiction 4-time candidate Jim Obeweis is reading — seeing as how Mr. Oberweis thinks we’re somehow “gradually withdrawing” troops.
And this is a guy who whines that the media “spins” for liberals? Ha!
The title of this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek. For most folks not out on the far-right partisan fringe, Illinois Review never had credibility to begin with (so how could it crater, right?).
Yet partisan infopimper and Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton is managing to drag the Review to new lows by approvingly linking to her friend Dan Zanoza (he doesn’t like corporate media) and his race-baiting and sectarian divisiveness regarding Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Curiously, Mr. Zanoza declares himself Executive Director for an outfit he calls “Republicans for Fair Media”. In reality, it’s clear he defines “fair” as actually being glowingly biased in favor of Republicans without an ounce of truth that might somehow ding Republicans. (He is also the fellow who most recently claimed Obama was the anti-Christ — and he was serious in his careless blasphemy.)
Arch points out Mr. Zanoza’s latest effort to rationalize his growing-less-subtle closet racism and xenophobia in which he pulls out the ol’ “shedding light” canard. Says Mr. Zanoza:
You see, during a McCain rally in Ohio, a popular radio talk show host, Bill Cunningham (“The Big Show” with Bill Cunningham) was warming up the audience for McCain. While doing so, Cunningham used Obama’s full name, Barack Hussein Obama, three times and pointed to the fact the American mainstream media has given the junior Senator from Illinois a virtual pass on the issues. Cunningham also said the national media needed to “peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama.”
After the event, McCain held a scheduled press conference and issued an apology for Cunningham’s performance even though McCain had not heard Cunningham’s rally warm-up. McCain went on to talk about what an honorable man Obama is and he praised Hillary Rodham Clinton in the process. [...]
I don’t think there’s any problem with using Obama’s middle name. It’s part of his heritage. It’s part of who he is. And, if that heritage, combined with some of the recent comments made by Obama and his wife, Michelle, shed light on this man’s true world view, the American people have a right to know it or hear it.
Is there a problem with saying “Barack Hussein Obama”? No more of a problem that always using “Daniel Tiberius Zanoza” (or whatever the “T” stands for). Normally, it just sounds real stupid to use full names because it’s not common practice.
But in this case, the issue that Sen. McCain has with its use is the attempt to turn a middle name into a xenophobic, anti-Islamic smear. Mr. Zanoza has a problem with McCain being cordial — apparently he’d rather see a Disunited States of America because that is precisely where this continually devolving partisan divisiveness will lead (whether from Illinois Review, Mr. Zanoza, or talking head Mr. Cunningham).
It’s odd that Mr. Zanoza and other conserv-o-partisans would wax angrily about Sen. McCain being gracious to both leading Democratic contenders. Sen. Obama himself routinely pays his respects to Sen. McCain’s service to our nation, and rightly so. There don’t seem to be many (if an) partisan liberals running around squealing about that.
Yet Mr. Zanoza’s us-v-them mentality can brook no compromise whatsoever and that’s just plain sad.
It also belies his rationalization wherein he explains away his loathing for Obama with the stock answer, “And, if that heritage, combined with some of the recent comments made by Obama and his wife, Michelle, shed light on this man’s true world view, the American people have a right to know it or hear it.”
The problem is there is absolutely nothing indicating Sen. Obama has been in any way influenced by his father Muslim faith (other than conservative partisans’ fear-mongering and baseless insinuation). Indeed, his dad walked out when Obama was 2. It was bad enough when Sen. Clinton dug up kindergarten theme papers but this ongoing xenophobic ranting from conservative partisans over something that ended when Obama was 2 is beyond pathetic.
Moreover, Michelle Obama already explained that her comments were about her pride in the current state of America’s political process — a point she has made over and over (and over) in a variety of speeches, albeit with more clear phrasing, and which is directly to related to the hundreds of thousands of voters who are showing a very high interest level in this election.
It’s telling that the cons have to resort to a half-quote anyway in order to make her sound like she’s somehow unpatriotic. (Clearly, this “patriotism” infopimping is the emerging plug-n-play meme of 2008… I’m sure the Republican National Committee has already placed an order for a url along those lines.)
The only reason for someone to use his full name and then to go a step further by trying to claim that his middle name somehow influences his “true world view” is out of pure hatred for someone who may be “other” — and that’s racist and xenophobic.
You can’t “shed light” on something that isn’t there — you can only make up baloney and pass it off as “having a right to know”. No matter how Mr. Zanoza tries to rationalize his closet racism, it’s still shining right through the slats on those closet doors.
–
PS: Did we mention Obama is black? That is also apparently bad according to conservative partisans and their corporate media “gotcha” enablers who promote pointless and weak-kneed guilt-by-association bs.
Conservative partisan and former Alan Keyes for Senate worker Fran Eaton is certainly entitled to her opinions and her version of values, just as much as the rest of us over here in the mainstream are free to point out the failings of her so-called “conservative” values (just look at how well Pres. Bush’s conservatism has “worked” for America).
But, lately Ms. Eaton has decided to simply flat-out lie in order to promote opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (an odd topic to lie about, eh). She’s even dragged Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg into her lies by outright making things up about what Just. Ginsburg said regarding ERA.
And ArchPundit has been calling her out on those lies with gusto. For whatever reason, Ms. Eaton feels it necessary to lie in order to advance her conservative opinions. Sadly, the Southtown Star continues to give her a corporate-media forum in which to do it.
Why does anyone still believe anything Ms. Eaton says? More troubling, why does the Sun Times News Group give her lies a patina of credibility by letting her write in their paper?
Shame on both of them.
I wish I had my computer handy Friday. But I didn’t. And the big news of the day is that my bestest buddy evah, Tim Baldermann, has quit.
He dropped out. And this makes me sad. I really enjoyed writing about Timmeh’s exploits. His awesome background and brilliant character. His carefully considered stances on the issues.
So, yeah, I’m sad. I never got around to writing anything about his connections with GOP treasurer Chris Ward (under investigation for accounting “irregularities”) or his hatred of fundraising.
And now he’s gone. He was my favorite candidate.
Such is life.
Debbie Halvorson should be escaping Springfield on November 6th. Congrats!
So the Times comes out with a story (and WaPo backs it up) about John McCain and an attractive lobbyist many decades his junior being rather cozy back around the time of his 2000 version of the Straight Talk Express — replete with McCain trying to pull bizarre favors for said bombshell lobbyist and McCain later begging the Times to back off the story (and lawyering up against the Gray Lady).
Bottom line is that Sen. McCain admits to “behaving inappropriately” with Vicki-with-an-I.
Illinoisans know full well what happened the last time a Republican candidate running against Barack Obama was found to have ‘behaved inappropriately’…
Alan Keyes is, in fact, running for president (again) and available to perform his civic duty for the good of the value(less) party once more.
Keyes-Huckabee has a nice ring to it, no?
Either conservatives really think this way (I know many… I doubt they do) or someone needs to put a sock in Bill O’Reilly’s piehole. To wit:
CALLER: Well, your representative asked me not to talk about this, but I have a friend who had knowledge of her and said to me months ago, “This is a very angry,” her word was “militant woman.”
O’REILLY: All right. What I want you do then, Maryanne, if — I want you to stay on the line.
CALLER: OK.
O’REILLY: Because it’s not fair to Michelle Obama for you –
CALLER: Oh no, all I’m saying is –
O’REILLY: — because we don’t know who you are, and we don’t know who your friend is, but we want to know. We want to know, OK. But it’s not fair at this point for you to say, “My friend said X and Y,” because we just don’t know. But if you would give us your information, we would like to talk to your friend. And then whatever your friend tells us, we’ll track it down. [...]
You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they’re thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. [...]
That’s wrong. And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.
(emphasis added)
Now, perhaps Tiger Woods will come along and say it’s no big deal for yet another (white) talking head commentator to talk about lynching black people (”unless there’s evidence,” that is)… But I would’ve hoped that we Americans had outgrown the last vestiges of those “peculiar” and evil institutions of slavery, Jim Crow and “putting them in their place”.
Even still, given what Michelle Obama actually said there’s no reason other than complete and utter desperation for conservatives and other Obama Haters to even bother with it. Here’s what Mrs. Obama had to say:
“Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.” - Michelle Obama 2/19/08
For one thing, Obama’s opponents have to wretch up a half-quote to even get it to sound somewhat bad. For another, Mrs. Obama has said virtually the same thing (using slightly different, less twistable phrasing) for quite some time now in speech after speech.
Austin Mayor explains it better than I. Indeed, Michelle Obama gave a speech in Rhode Island today explaining the source of her pride in saying, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process… For the first time in my lifetime, I’m seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven’t seen…”
It’s too bad conservopartisans are only against political correctness until they’re for it.
This is nothing other than a rhetorical lynching as conservative partisans grasp at straws in an attempt to impugn Michelle Obama’s upstanding patriotism (whilst undoubtedly hoping some of their slime rubs off on her husband). Then again, this is also another post-it note for O’Reilly’s racist peg board seeing as how he is the one who thinks blacks in the hood order iced tea with a side of “m’fer” and things.
PS: As several others have noted, if conservatives want to start talking about candidates’ spouses, John McCain’s second wife is no “family values” angel (not that any human being is an angel — we all make mistakes). Are these guys really sure they want to start going there?
Brrr… Sure is cold in the West Wing these days.
The latest ARG poll has the Republicans’ chieftain at 19% approval, the lowest point ever for a sitting president.
No wonder the guy running for Bush’s 3rd term has to send his wife out to disparage his likely opponent’s wife… taking the original quote completely out of context in the process.
The American people are solidly rejecting the failed conservative policies and the weakened Republican party that forced those failings down our throats. Ouch.
Sadly, the Milk Dud has lied in another TV commercial.
Illinoisans may recall his rant-filled helicopter ad from a few years ago in which Oberweis dramatically overstated figures on illegal immigrants in order to rally some sort of xenophobic base to his campaign’s cause. Apparently, his current campaign manager, Bill “30 second spot” Pascoe, has again directed his candidate’s foot straight into his mouth as Jim Oberweis falsely claims that “we’ve already begun a gradual withdrawal” from Iraq in his ad hominem ad attacking scientist Bill Foster, with whom he’s tied in polls.
Someone forgot to tell Pres. Bush and Gen. Patreaus about Chopper Jim’s secret “gradual withdrawal” strategy. Yet there the whopper is in Oberweis’ latest raging ad… at about 23 seconds in.
Between Oberweis lying about Iraq and Aaron Schock wanting to sell nukes to Taiwan and set the stage for WWIII it’s obvious the Republicans have lost any shred of credibility they ever might’ve had on foreign policy.
Oh, and the bull puckey about supporting troops? The obstructionist Republicans are the ones keeping our brave soldiers in harm’s way in order to defend Pres. Bush’s lies about Iraq. The pachyderms are also the ones who’ve decided time and again that our troops and veterans aren’t worth the cost of proper equipment or training, adequate medical and mental health facilities, or even reasonable combat pay and severance. Pres. Bush even threatened to veto a recent funding bill because it included raises for some military personnel.
On the other hand, Bill Foster appears to actually give a hoot about our guys and gals in uniform so Oberweis’ lies about “gradual withdrawal” and “turning his back on troops” aren’t worth the film they wasted producing their “White Flag” ad.
Way to start off the campaign there, Milk Dud. It seems the only one trying to “hide his real position” is a certain dairy magnate who advocates 10 more years of bloodshed and quagmire. Now it seems we can add 10 more years of lying about gradual withdrawals to the list.
Another case of gun violence at another campus as another gunman has gone on another rampage:
Several people injured in NIU shooting
Chicago Tribune
God Bless NIU. Here’s hoping those who’ve been hurt will heal quickly and fully. My thoughts go out to the students, employees, alumni and families…
And no, idiots going on a shooting spree is not cause for arming people to the teeth because no matter how many guns there are, no one could’ve shot the guy in the instant before he opened fire. The only thing that will truly prevent such senseless acts would be removing the weapons before they can be “abused” (as one of this blog’s frequent critics euphemistically puts it) and the only way to do that is through common sense supervision.
Given the gun industry’s flood of profitable weapons across the country, that’ll be a long day coming.
UPDATE: Last night details were revealed which included the fact that several of the gunman’s victims passed on. My deepest, sincere sympathies and prayers to their peers and loved ones.
So I go to www.superdelegates.org, built by still-progressive, former-Illinoisan Rick Klau, a tech-savvy Dean campaign veteran who with a few buddies came up with some web thing-y that was nifty enough that Google bought it for 100 large or so and made Our Man Rick a v. rich veep.
Anyway, there on Google Earth are the Democratic superdelegates in Illinois and…what’s this? Now, I understand Rep. Emanuel being undecided officially. He’s been saying he’s hiding under his desk for months. A lose-lose for him, either way hurts someone he knows and likes.
But Rep. Lipinski? Danny Boy? Yo, dawg, wassup wit DAT?
Just in case anyone out there had any illusions he wasn’t a go-along, get-along back bencher, a wholly owned subsidiary of his Dad whose ties to HillBilly go way back. Not like Danny’s a Congressman from ILLINOIS or anything. I mean, I see Sen. Clinton does OK with the supers from Tennessee, where Danny is really from - where he was when he got the hereditary call to Congress that is.
Talk about a DINO. I can’t WAIT for Mark Pera to get a second crack at this guy. Maybe by then President Obama can come with him on a campaign swing and say thanks for nothin’ to ol’ Danny boy. He’s the one with the yellow push pin instead of the Obama logo.
For those who aren’t aware, the head of the State GOP in Washington recently unilaterally declared Sen. McCain the “winner” of that party’s caucuses even though only 87% of ballots had been counted. McCain was barely edging out Gov. Huckabee at that point and one side of the “no more frivolous lawsuits” party (that’d be the Huckabee side) quickly sent in a gaggle of lawyers.
The interesting thing here is how this Republican malarkey is a microcosm of the larger rips appearing all across the walls in the ‘big tent’ of the elephants’ party. The contest had three main Republican candidates left — McCain, the Establishment guy; Huckabee, the social cons’ guy; and Rep. Ron Paul, the conservative libertarians’ guy. And they are still going at each other as if McCain’s nomination was not an inevitability.
Just as in 1992, those three groups are finding they can’t really live together so nicely after all. Their coalition only works when the individual groups ignore the discongruous aspects of the others. In particular, it’s quite amazing that libertarians would ever even consider aligning themselves with nanny-state social conservatives. Yet align themselves they do. In the case of Washington State it is McCain-backer Luke Esser, the state party chair, pitting Establishment pachyderms against the “true” conservatives along the social conservative spectrum promoting Huck.
Unfortunately for those who choose to volunteer their time and efforts to the (now-formerly) “Grand” Ol’ Party causes, they’re finding they are unwanted if they don’t follow in lockstep with whomever manages to wind up in the big bus’ driver’s seat. The Washington State GOP’s slight of hand is simply the most clear example for dedicated party activists such as libertarian Greg Albert and the general public alike…
And this party still thinks it has the ability lead our nation?
Kiyoshi is reporting over at Illinoize that the extreme conservatives of Westboro Baptist Church are going to protest the funerals of the women who were shot at the Tinley Park Lane Bryant.
Westboro Baptist is better known as the gutter dwellers who protest military funerals because they think the United States is too tolerant of gay folks, and thus (in their sad little minds) soldiers somehow deserve to die in the line of duty. These gay-bashing conservatives are the scum of the earth.
Typically, the Patriot Guard Riders will prevent the Westboro Baptist gang from disrupting military funerals. No word yet on whether or not they’ll be there to counter the Westboro Baptist creeps.
Mr. Pera thanks his supporters, whether they’re punks or not.
Pure class. Illinoisans would be well served if he stays involved in politics at a larger level.
Tribune columnist Eric Zorn is hoping presidential candidate Barack Obama will sit down with some reporters (he even suggests some of his Trib colleagues) for a close-in, free-range, no-holds-barred interview to cover anything and everything with even a hint of Rezko-osity.
Mr. Zorn suggest Sen. Obama do this to “try to make this story go away before it inevitably burbles up again at a less convenient time.”
Problem is that given partisan presidential political history this story will burble up again and again from now til November. It might come from the RNC or the Family Taxpayers Network or Fran Eaton at Illinois Review or Rush Limbaugh on the AM dial or Sean Hannity on the boob tube or the WSJ’s editorial pages or the McCain “I approved this message because Rezko is a bad man” or Panda Express Veterans for Truthiness.
It doesn’t matter how “in-depth” Obama goes into this story — the partisans who oppose him will ignore the explanation (or try to shred them) and pounce anyway.
Not to glare askance at another Democrat but as a good Chicagoan would say, dere’s som’in’ hinky goin’ on here.
The MSM news Wednesday morning was all about how, gee, it’s close on the Dem side, although yes, Senator Clinton did end up with more delegates than Senator Obama.
But then comes this, from Time, pointed out to us by the fine folks at MoveOn (who didn’t, I notice, highlight this fishiness). Seems that by this count that good Chicago Irishman, Barry O’Bama, in fact has the lead in the delegate count AND in the number of states won.
”Things that make ya go ‘Hmm…’ “
This is the joke version of T-ball. Have at it, kids.
The State of Illinois has awarded $100,000 sole sourced to Ducks Unlimited, to help grow more ducks in Saskatchewan, so folks can shoot them when they fly over Illinois, so the state can get more tax and license revenue from their “sporting” endeavors to do so. What a boondoggle.
‘Course I’m sure the downstate and suburban Republicans are all for it. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.
Where’s a Senator Proxmire when we need one? (you have to click the pic to enlarge and read it)
US Rep. Mark Kirk’s father has passed away. May he rest in peace and may their family be comforted.
What the heck happened last night? After the municipal elections in Chicago last year, I thought Chicago might finally be ready for reform. Just look at what’s happened over the past year. Todd Stroger won the County Board Presidency and has been a total disaster. But, we got a relatively astounding seven new aldermen. Then the CTA crisis. The state budget crisis. The longest overtime session ever, as far as I know of. The problems with the Governor. The problems with the electric rates. Huge tax hikes, not just tax hikes, but tax hikes that far exceed the needs of the County.
It looked like a terrible year for old-school machine Democrats. I thought that the voters would be angry and would take that anger out at the ballot box. Plus, we have the general excitement over the Obama candidacy. Sure, Obama crushed in Illinois, and had a fantastic night nationally, overall. But, in elections in Chicago, the machine crushed. Reform Democrats everywhere lost. And lost bad. Daniel Lipinski actually got over 50%. Even if Mark Pera was the only candidate running against Lipinski, he still would have lost.
Jay Paul Deratany, who wasn’t the greatest reform candidate ever, got killed by party chief Joseph Berrios by about 20 points. Ed Smith lost to hack Gene Moore by 20 points. Spyropoulos finished 5th for MWRD. Rickey Hendon took over 60% of the vote in a 3 way primary despite his role in helping block CTA funding. Annazette Collins, despite being virtually invisible in my part of the district, crushed Eddie Winters by about 30 points.
The Machine candidates crushed in Chicago. The reformers got beat down. Rather than face an anti-incumbent backlash, Springfield incumbents won handily.
Elsewhere, Democrats had a pretty good night. Dan Seals kicked Jay Footlik’s butt so hard that he woke up back in Washington. Total Dem turnout in Cook County (warning - PDF) was over 48,000 compared to only 25,000 for Mark Kirk (note – Cook County only, can’t find overall totals for uncontested primaries as of this writing). Bill Foster narrowly won over John Laesch. Hopefully Foster will reach out to Laesch and his supporters. Which would be encouraging as Democrats rang up over 75,000 votes in the 14th, compared to 77,000 votes for Republicans in a strongly Republican district. Party unity could enable Foster to pull off the upset win over the nutty Oberweiss. Debbie Halvorson should face a cakewalk against my BFF, Timmeh Balderman. Daniel Biss won his uncontested primary (Congrats Daniel!!). Newly minted Democrat Paul Froelich won, which will help us retain the seat and keep a solid pro-environment vote around. Jehan Gordon won down in Peoria. Hopefully she can fix her issues before November and join Daniel Biss as parts of what could be a great freshman class. And, throughout suburban Chicagoland, Democratic turnout is way, way up.
So, what happened? Why did reformers lose so bad? In a year that seemed perfect for reforming the State and County party, why did we lose sooooo bad? I know it’s tough to win against incumbents in this state, but 2007 showed that it’s not impossible. What happened? Perhaps Anita Alvarez will turn out to be a force for good in the States Attorney office and give us a silver lining. Or, perhaps, in the immortal words of Paddy Bauler, “Chicago ain’t ready for reform.”
Last summer when State Rep. Carolyn Krause announce her retirement I noted that recent demographic and electoral trends throughout the northwest suburbs (including the 2006 election of Dem State Sen. Dan Kotowski) indicated the growing strength of Dems in the area as it shifted from “red” to “purple”.
Tonight, we have even more hard data to back that up.
I don’t know how the local Republicans can possibly spin away the stark imbalance in ballot totals. Despite the GOP side still having a hotly contested Presidential primary, a US Senate primary and even a State Rep primary local Republican balloting woefully underperformed that of the Dems.
Take a look at ballots pulled in the two most local races in my NW Cook neck of the woods (of the four State Rep and State Senate primaries, only the GOP State Rep race was contested)…
Republican - State Representative, 66th
Precincts Counted: 85 of 91 (93.41%)
Christine K. Prochno 3,996
Laura Bartell 3,288
(# of Republican ballots pulled in the State Rep race with 93% reporting = 7,284)
Democratic - State Representative, 66th
Precincts Counted: 85 of 91 (93.41%)
Mark Walker 9,567
(# of Democratic ballots pulled in the State Rep race with 93% reporting = 9,567)
Republican - State Senator, 33rd
Precincts Counted: 169 of 181 (93.37%)
Michael H. Sweeney 10,515
Democratic - State Senator, 33rd
Precincts Counted: 169 of 181 (93.37%)
Daniel W. Kotowski 20,737
(* I will update those numbers once all precincts are reporting)
I don’t believe either Democrats — incumbent Sen. Kotowski or State Rep candidate Walker — think they have a cakewalk on their hands. They are ready to run a solid, hard-working campaign in order to earn folks’ votes, as I’m sure their Republican opponents also are.
Looking back at 2006, Russ Stewart noted that then primary candidate Dan Kotowski bested Jim Morici for the Dem nomination by 4,436-2,632 (a ballot total of 7,068). This was compared to then-appointed State Sen. Cheryl Axley’s 5,818 primary total (she ran unopposed in the GOP primary). Kotowski went on to defeat Axley by nearly 1,400 votes that November.
This meant that not only had the Dem primary indicated a greater Democratic turnout than that of Republicans, but also that Kotowski was able to expand on this disparity a bit over the course of the summer and fall for an even larger general election win. The result was that he flipped the Senate seat to Dem hands for the first time since the 1800s.
These 2008 primary numbers, in formerly/traditionally “Republican” areas, bolster the notion that this wasn’t a one-time fluke and that something of a Dem revolution may actually be afoot in the northwest suburbs.
In fact, the results can’t be explained away by Barack Obama’s candidacy since Republicans actually had more contested races from which to choose. Put another way, if people who in the past considered themselves Republicans and wanted to continue to identify themselves as such they would’ve pulled GOP ballots to vote in that party’s contested races.
They didn’t. They chose Democratic ballots instead … and in overwhelming numbers. Should make for a lively debate about the future of our communities and our state over the next 9 months.
(Disclosure-a-go-go: I live in the 66th/33rd plus I know Mark Walker and Dan Kotowski and I am happy to volunteer for both of them. They’re good guys.)
Write about your primary day experiences: what number you were and when you voted, what you’re seeing and hearing around town, how many signs are littering neighborhood parkways, etc.
See what others are saying…
- CapFax’s primary day thread
- The Trib’s primary day thread
- and, nationally, a DKos diarist’s primary day thread
C-Rock, if I remember the camera, I’ll upload a pic of an oddly located Ron Paul sign… Made me laugh when I saw where it was.
Update: Here’s that photo… “Stop Ron Paul.” I’m sure that wasn’t the intent of the volunteer who placed this sign on someone else’s property, but leaning any candidate’s sign against a stop sign always adds a bit of a pun.
Polls are open til 7pm tonight. Go vote (if you haven’t already).
In Cook County, David Orr’s office has an interactive voter site call VoterInfoNet in case you need to know where to vote and who’s on the ballot (you have to spell out all the info if you look up your address).
Early Voting returns already indicate a record-breaking pace with more than 60,000 early voters in suburban Cook County alone according to an Orr press release. On top of that, voter registration is at a high as well.
Everyone else is posting a copy of this vid so I figure why not join the fray. Whether or not you’re an Obama fan (or a Hollywood fan), it’s a catchy tune inspired by a certain Senator from the Prairie State who’s running for some big office or something.
…See what happens when the writers’ union goes on strike? All these actors and their singer friends end up with too much time on their hands. 
Multiple Choice Mitt Romney — the guy who ties his family dog to the roof of his car and panders so well he brought on several dozen religious folks to tell him what to think about “faith” — ended up hunting for votes at the College of DuPage today.
Apparently, most of the Chicago area righty bloggerati were there — Jason Bonham of MyManMitt and Illinois Review attended, as did Anne Leary of Backyard fame. In fact, Ms. Leary has a great collection of photos from this relatively small rally (”small” relative to recent Dem rallies for Obama, Clinton, and Edwards).
One of those photos (JPEG) makes great use of irony as we see the former longest-serving Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert standing alongside Mitt Romney.
Behind retired Speaker Hastert is a huge sign in stark, block letters reading “WASHINGTON IS BROKEN”….
Who do these folks think broke it?
The Dems hadn’t been in power for 6 years (but conservative Speaker Hastert was)… Oops.
A new Laurie Bartell (R-Arlington Hts) mailer that hit 66th District homes this weekend calls up the ghost of Sgt. Joe Friday from the depths of “Nick at Nite” in order to promote the Bartell Agenda and denounce the Prochno Agenda with a glossy 8 1/2 x 11 mailer.
Let’s do some due diligence, shall we?
We already know that Ms. Bartell has complained — without any evidence provided — that her opponent has been using negative phone calls in the district. Ms. Bartell has also declared herself the “only true GOP candidate” in response to a newspaper’s endorsement not going her way (I wonder if she would’ve used that line against Rep. Krause before she retired) and claims her opponent apparently “abhors” honesty and competency. It’s clear from these public statements and more that Ms. Bartell is gunning for a fight.
But therein lies the rub… If you decide to engage in a slash and burn nomination strategy in the 66th’s own local version of the Illinois GOP’s circular firing squad pitting moderates versus conservatives, you’ve got to avoid claiming your opponent “apparently finds honesty abhorrent” when you yourself are going to twist words and conflate statements.
The list of accolades is extensive…
Because of my support for a Congressional candidate who believes in little things like, say, the democratic process and listening to your constituents I and my fellow Mark Pera supporters have been labeled political hate groups (can li’l ol’ me really be considered an entire “group”) and a left-wing extremist punk (I love it when folks call me a “punk” — makes my suburban life seem so exciting and exotic).
Oddly, I don’t know if this anti-Democratic praise is coming from Southwest Sider, blogger, and Dan Lipinski supporter Joe Kulys or from Lipinski himself since he put out a flyer lifting Mr. Kulys’ rant verbatim.
Here’s a copy of that Little Lip/Joe Kulys flyer.
.
I’ve never understood why partisans (of either side) think that standing up and fighting for what you believe in is “hate”. Opposing someone because you disagree with their record and their proposals isn’t “hate” — it’s debate, it’s politics, it’s democracy.
Of course, I’d expect this sort of anti-American, their way or the highway name-calling from conservative partisans. But, to see this sort of weak, issue-avoiding malarkey coming from a fellow Democrat (if you can consider someone who aligns with Bush on the big ticket issues to still be a Dem)… All I can say is thanks for the compliments!
Sincerely,
Your local extremist liberal hate group…. or something.
(And, by the way, recall that the Tribune endorsed Rep. Lipinski — despite getting basic facts wrong, like how long he’s been in office — specifically because they despised vitriol coming from bloggers… Oops.)
Update: Other chronic complainers and cranks cry Americans stand up for their principles in the face of immature and pointless mud-slinging…
- Matt Stoller at the (not) radical, extremist, not from Chicago, hate group “Open Left”
- ArchPundit … More. Than. A.