Monthly Archive

Dan Proft Juliana Johnson Juliana Johnson posting for Dan Proft yet again published another asinine essay yesterday, this time pooh-poohing the Earth Hour campaign of all things.

Mr. Proft titles his screed, “Don’t Kid Yourself - 1 Hour Won’t Save World”.

Clearly, he’s ready to just throw up his arms and wimp out instead of putting up a good fight to actually ’save the world’. This attitude stems from the pat conserv-o-partisan answer to most of life’s most difficult tasks: life’s not fair so “don’t kid yourself” (or ‘…so why bother’).

Indeed, life isn’t fair and it is difficult at times. But why do we keep hearing from conservative partisans like Mr. Proft that we should stop working to make it more fair and to do what we can — large or small, together or individually — to improve things for all?

Earth Hour is the publicity stunt (yes, let’s name it what it is) which calls for turning off electric devices like lights and other useful but unnecessary items from 8-9pm on March 29. The intent is to raise awareness of just how much electricity we consume and engage regular joes like you and me in understanding that if we all do simple, little things the cumulative effect can be enormous.

Sometimes, to get a given organization’s point across, they engage in a public relations campaign (ie, “publicity stunt”). Even Mr. Proft’s friend John McCain does it — at home and abroad — as he campaigns for a third Bush term.

For whatever reason, Mr. Proft and his jolly partner Ms. Johnson appear to be quite crabby about this effort to raise awareness of just how easy it can be to combat global climate change in small ways. Mr. Proft even tosses mud directly on the very idea of “raising awareness”:

That’s why the explicit mission of these events is routinely the cleverly nebulous and unquantifiable raising of “awareness.”

Apparently Mr. Proft thinks folks are just supposed to use their ESP to know what things — small or large — can be done to protect Creation. Yes, things like going old school, pioneer-style for an hour actually can help and it’s easy to do. (Besides, aren’t conservatives supposedly really concerned about people watching TV? You’d think that an event such as Earth Hour which has the side benefit of encouraging family time would be praised by conservatives. You’d clearly be wrong as partisanship trumps logic for this con.)
But instead of actually offering some alternative ideas on saving whales and the like all Mr. Proft can do is give us some wails of his own. Through and through, his entire rant is chock full of ad hominems about people actually trying to get things done and fight the good fight against global climate change, pollution and other ills that affect us all. Mr. Proft’s whiney conclusion unwittingly reveals his partisan angst:

No one is for capricious destruction of the environment. Truly being “green,” however, demands more than annual self-esteem boosters.

Actually, yes, there are people in favor of “capricious destruction of the environment.” They just hope they don’t get caught and, more often than not, sluff off the bill and the consequences onto the rest of us when they do. Unfortunately for this particular conservative political strategist, these groups also tend to align themselves politically with Mr. Proft and his comrades.

And truly being “green” … well that takes both a raised level of awareness and direct action. And sometimes, as in events like Earth Hour or Clean the Parks Day, both.

(tip o’ the hat to Dan for the title reference)

Yesterday, presidential candidate Barack Obama gave a solid speech on the economy at Cooper Union. Note that both his current opponents, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, have admitted they don’t understand the economy.

After the speech, he answered questions in an interview by NBC’s Wall Street reporter Maria Bartiromo. In that Q+A, Ms. Bartiromo asked Sen. Obama about his two-pronged idea of returning the highest income tax brackets to Clinton-era rates while simultaneously dropping middle and lower income rates and offering those brackets additional tax breaks… Specifically she asked him why he’d look into raising anyone’s taxes, wealthy or not, at all (a fair question):

“Well, look, there’s no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office,” Obama said. “I’m going to be sworn in in January, we don’t know what the economy’s going to look like at that point.

“And, you know, the thing you can… be assured of is that I’m not going to making these decisions based on ideology. I’m not a dogmatist,” Obama said. “I know that some, you know, my opponents to the right would like to paint me as this wooly-eyed, you know, liberal or wild-eyed…”

“You’re not a liberal?” Bartiromo asked.

“My attitude is that I believe in the market, I believe in entrepreneurship, I believe in opportunity, I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works,” the senator replied. ” But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America.” [...]

“And if it turns out — if somebody can make a persuasive argument to me that, you know what, what we need at this juncture, at this particular point in time is a different set of policies than some of the ones that I’ve proposed, I’m always going to listen to people,” he said.

Oddly enough, within seconds of that speech and interview, a herd of Sen. Obama’s opponents to the right did indeed try to paint him as this wooly-eyed, you know, liberal…

From Dan Curry’s spin:

Barack Obama gave another economic address today and then submitted to a rare interview to a non-fawning reporter. His answers on taxes should frighten America even more than the rantings of his racist pastor.

That one was a two-fer … snip out only the parts of Obama’s replies that score some cheap political points and  repeat the partisans’ info-pimped lie about his pastor. Good work for the spinmeister. Later in Mr. Curry’s post, he complains about what he calls a “tired redistribution ideology.”

Odd that Mr. Curry doesn’t think a CEO-to-Average Employee pay imbalance worse than 260:1 is any sort of “redistribution ideology”. It’s not like average joes don’t work 60+ hour weeks or anything. The Robber Barons of the last century liked that sort of “redistribution ideology” also.

But Mr. Curry’s ranting wasn’t the only one. Some guy from GOP HQ took time away from losing White House emails and auditing sham RNCC finances to give us this new way to say the same pointless thing twice in one sentence:

Alex Conant, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, offered this response to Obama’s remarks for reporters after the program: “Barack Obama’s arguments concerning tax increases and economic policy would be laughable if they weren’t so ridiculous.”

These cons are getting too predictable. They ought to try actually listening to what Sen. Obama has to say instead of just blindly pulling the next knee-jerk reaction out of their rhetorical hat.

In particular, those supposedly ‘pro-capitalist’ Obama opponents from the self-proclaimed Party of Big Business and Fat Cat CEOs ought to listen to the presidential front-runner’s nuggets like, “I believe in opportunity, I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works… if somebody can make a persuasive argument to me that … what we need at this juncture … is a different set of policies than some of the ones that I’ve proposed, I’m always going to listen to people.”

Or maybe they’re not really in favor of capitalism after all and simply prefer beating the drum of partisan chicanery and desperately working to ignore what the guy’s actually saying.

At least Sen. Obama will listen, even if his opponents won’t.

“I hate Obama,” “Obama haters” and similar phrases have been — for several weeks now — consistently ranking as among the top search engine terms which lead readers to this blog.

Does this mean that people who hate Obama are looking to rationalize their anti-social behavior or that people who support (or are even neutral toward) the presidential candidate are just wanting to learn more about what is being said of him and the facts which contradict the plethora of partisan smears being circulated about him?

We report, you … do whatever it is you do on the other side of the Internetty tubes.

Swami says a certain Republican Congressional challenger, ex-hockey player, college dropout and overall neophyte political gadfly with money to burn named Steve Greenberg is a mean ignoramus and a real toadstool…

I can’t agree more. From Suburban Chicago News’ Swami political column:

Swami, what’s the ugliest moment so far in the election process in Illinois? Anybody come off as a real toadstool? Signed: Amphibian in Antioch

Ah, where to begin, Am?

For sheer mean ignoramus-osity, we give the nod squarely to 8th District Republican congressional whizbang Steve Greenberg who has stirred up a 1,500 year blood feud by arguing his foe, Melissa Bean, is a secret friend and agent of Serbian Neo-Fascist terrorists.

Hard criticism for a woman who mostly wears pastel business suits.

He’s even gone so far as to begin identifying her with her maiden name, Luburich, which has its origin in Serbia.

As with many misaimed political missiles, this one started with Bean giving Greenbrrg [sic] a small opening with a tactical mistake. Though she opposes the Prez’s support for Kosovar independence (as do many of the globe’s nations), Bean erred in having a fund-raising dinner at the home of the Serbian consul general in Chicago. It was his wife, an American-born lawyer of note, who was actually hosting the soiree but Greenberg leaped at Bean’s throat with all fangs bared.

[Note: That fundraiser was actually canceled and Mr. Greenberg took the credit for the cancelation. The Tribune subsequently reported that Rep. Bean has seen an uptick in unsolicited donations anyway.]

First of all, if you want to run for Congress, there are plenty of current wars over which to have a fist fight rather than sliding back into the goo of the Serbian-Albanian scuffle which Bill Clinton put on hold momentarily with a pre-emptive bombing run.

How ingrained is the argument? One side quotes the unfairness of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia as a pretext for continuing hostility, for crying out loud. WESTPHALIA! (emphasis added)

I might add … 1648! While certainly this matter is not “goofy” for the Kosovars, Serbs and others directly involved over the generations, Mr. Greenberg is in essence making a mockery of their conflict by trying to claim a sitting United States Congresswoman is some sort of traitor to the U.S. simply because she is not siding with the Republican President on the matter… oh, and because she is descended from Serbian immigrants. And, yes, this “mean ignoramus” really has taken to including her maiden name when talking about her to emphasize that she’s of Serb lineage.
Certainly it has become abundantly clear over the past few election cycles that the Republican Party and conservatives in general have chosen to identify themselves as the anti-immigrant party. Mr. Greenberg takes up that unfortunate flag by dissing Serb immigrants, a rather large population of whom lives in the Chicagoland area and are quite familiar with both this issue from the land of their heritage and also, increasingly, with this completely over the top smear Mr. Greenberg has decided to launch against the incumbent Melissa Bean.

Unfortunately for citizens in the 8th district, it is only March and Mr. Greenberg’s blarney has already blown past adjectives like bizarre and ridiculous and is well on its way to record-levels.

Then again, since Mr. Greenberg has decided to crack open the history books, let’s recall that it was Mr. Greenberg’s German predecessors and their allies who, in the early and mid-parts of the last century, invaded and decimated Serb regions. Perhaps the more things change the more they stay the same and Mr. Greenberg is choosing to refight those old battles on a new front. Somehow, though, I doubt this “real toadstool” is even aware of that relatively recent bloody history given his efforts to parody international affairs for his own weak-kneed political gain.

…Commence Mr. Greenberg’s attacks on my own Czech ancestry. Or perhaps he’d prefer to go after the Irish, Swedish, English, or even the German bits (among others — I’m a mutt). Mir!

(h/t Kevin Fanning at CapFax)

While I disagree with quite a lot of Gov. Mike Huckabee’s policies as a movement social conservative, here he hits the nail on the head by recognizing exactly what Sen. Barack Obama was discussing in his historic speech on race relations in modern America:

HUCKABEE: [...] And one other thing I think we’ve gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me. (emphasis added)

That’d be a little thing known as “context” and concisely echoes the thoughts that columnists Derrick Jackson and Bob Herbert, among several other Americans, have laid out…

PS: The Wright sermon on 9/11 (here) is quite clearly discussing the notion that we reap what we sow; something Christ himself instructed in giving us the 11th Commandment (John 13:34).

For conservative partisans like Washington Times’ Diana West Christ’s New Commandment apparently implies “anti-Americanism” which is odd since her fellow conservatives like Rev. Pat Robertson and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 not on America’s past actions at fomenting unrest abroad but on their fellow Americans instead…. Is it not “anti-Americanism” to blame one’s fellow Americans just because they’re gay or a woman? What doesn’t Ms. West understand about that?

(h/t Daily Kos)

Manya Brachear is the Chicago Tribune’s faith issues reporter.

Early last year, just after Sen. Barack Obama announced his presidential bid, Ms. Brachear helped write an article which had the unfortunate effect of promoting a fringe view that completely misrepresented the now-well known Trinity United Church of Christ. In other words, Ms. Brachear unwittingly helped a bunch of partisan Obama opponents info-pimp their misinformation campaign, an effort that (given the amount of explanatory information available with a 0.21 second Google search) can only be described as an intentional attempt at distorting Trinity’s beliefs and deliberately working to foment discord against both Obama and his church.

That article’s title says all that needs be said:

Race is sensitive subtext in campaign
South Side church’s tenets spark criticism of Obama by some conservatives

With articles like that and others the traditional media inadvertantly helped bolster the conservative partisans’ efforts to paint Obama’s church as somehow “other” — illegitimate, racist, anti-American, …simply “wrong” according to their partisan politicking.

Trinity’s tenets didn’t “spark criticism”. Deliberate partisan attempts to misrepresent a theology with which many Americans were unfamiliar manufactured an info-pimped “controversy” where none, when all the facts are on the table, actually exists. But that theology — based on Christ’s own teaching found in Luke 4, Matthew 25, etc. — was in and of itself not at all wrong.

In later weeks and months conservative talker Sean Hannity (among many other conserv-o-partisans) subsequently labeled his church “separatist” and “segregated” while conservative WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush referred to it as a “cult” on Hannity’s FOX show. Whether Ms. Brachear cares to acknowledge it or not, that Trib article helped set the stage for such bullshit by lending the smears an air of legitimacy with the implication being “If the Chicago Tribune is covering some controversy over that church then it must be controversial….”

Read the rest of this entry »

Representative Daniel Lipinski, Congressman from the Third District of Illinois, has finally arisen from the back bench to which his posterior has evidently been welded and made an endorsement in the Democratic Presidential primary.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/

Please note that other than Rep. Emanuel (IL-05), who has a serious issue either way and has been “hiding under his desk” for months now, Rep. Lipinski becomes the last member of the Illinois delegation to declare - including Rep. Foster (IL-14), who has been a Member for,  what, twelve minutes? (Yet another reason, as if we needed one, for progressives to start working Right Now to help keep Bill Foster in his seat)

 Danny Boy - about freakin’ time, dude.

Read this essay from Teacherken discussing two recent newspaper columns which, in turn, discuss Sen. Obama’s landmark speech on race in modern America. This commentary explains the varying perspectives and histories swirling through and around this media-induced and partisan-driven “controversy” which, in a more perfect union, wouldn’t even be a kerfuffle let alone a controversy.

Whether you agree with, oppose or are indifferent to Sen. Obama as a candidate…

Whether you agree with, oppose or are indifferent to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons on the transgressions he sees taking place in America…

Whether you agree with, oppose or are indifferent to very discussions of race in and of itself as an issue…

…Read this essay now.

The connection is obvious, even if it isn’t being aired on CNN every 4 1/2 minutes, 24 hours a day…

The Huffington Post has learned that Bill O’Reilly — who claims to love America — spent Sunday at a “church” run by a former Hitler Youth named Joseph Alois Ratzinger. Ratzinger has gone to elaborate ends to hide this connection, including taking on the absurd pseudonym “Pope Benedict XVI.” Which, even if it doesn’t prove anything, certainly makes you think.

This shocking revelation comes only a week after Barack Obama admitted he attends a church formerly run by Jeremiah Wright, who talks smack about America, although probably less than Goebbels did.

This would all be holy water under the bridge, except for one disturbing and undeniable fact: Bill O’Reilly is a Roman Catholic, and Benedict “Joey Ratz” XVI worked for Hitler, as did Unity Mitford, whose baby sister was Jessica Mitford, who knew Maya Angelou, who knew Betty Shabazz, who was married to Malcolm X, who knew Louis Farrakhan.

Is there any place in our public discourse for men like Bill O’Reilly, who won’t even repudiate their links to Louis Farrakhan? I’ll give you the last word, and then cut you off in the middle of it: No there isn’t.

But at least Mr. “typical white person” O’Reilly knows how to order an iced tea in a civilized manner.
(h/t S-CAM)

–

“I know you’re probably tired of seeing that video of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but here it is again.” - Rick Sanchez, CNN anchor, as paraphrased from last night’s Newsroom

Dear AT&T,

Harry Caray is dead.

Nothing against John Caponera, but please stop those damn commercials. Here I thought ComCast’s racist stereotyped “guru” commercials were bad. Then your ads came out. Yours somehow manage to be worse.

Thank goodness for WOW.

Best, Me

Boston Globe reports:

John McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system, according to spending reports filed last week by the campaign. [...]

McCain’s lawyers contend that the spending cap no longer applies.

Does it no longer apply because of … magic?

McCain’s no Maverick … he’s a Washington Wizard! It’s all so clear now.

The senator was certified to enter the matching-funds program last year when he was starved for cash. But once he started to win, he decided to hold off. On Feb. 6, after his Super Tuesday victories, he wrote to the Federal Election Commission to announce he would withdraw. [...]

But David Mason, chairman of the commission, wrote to McCain’s campaign last month to alert him that the commission had not yet granted that withdrawal request [...]

Oops. Not so magical after all. More like deciding to ignore the law and deal with the consequences later, if caught.

Sounds like another Republican we know and love. One note that the Globe skipped over — even though McCain never took cash from the public funding kitty he did have material gain from his certification for the program by obtaining a bank loan thanks to McCain using the forthcoming public funds as collateral. (This is different than 2003/4 Presidential candidate Gov. Howard Dean who never had any material gain from public funding before withdrawing and being granted permission to withdraw.)

While typically little ironies like Sen. John McCain apparently breaking the spending limits in the McCain-Feingold law would tend to be manna for media mavens’ 24/7 tape loops, those guys are apparently more interested in taking liberal pastors out of context, ignoring conservative pastors who’ve uttered similar or worse, and, most important of all, salivating over thoughts of back massages and specially-seasoned ribs.

So-Called Austin Mayor has the latest scoop on Sinbad’s quest to meet the Commander in Chief threshold.

When is the Keystone primary? …Not soon enough.

Dave Niewart nails it:

It’s one of those things that seems perpetually to mystify Republicans: Why the heck don’t black people vote for them more often? [...]

Folks like Limbaugh and Buchanan and Bridget Johnson like to complain that when blacks vote for liberals en masse, they’re engaging in “identity politics”. As always, they forget that “identity politics” in America was in fact created, and deeply institutionalized, by white people.

And there’s no small irony when the efforts of the historical victims of identity politics to break down those institutions is denounced as merely members of a racial identity group defending their own narrow interests. That’s what we call the “projection strategy.”

As always, this means that Republicans are giving us a warning about their own upcoming strategy. So when they begin accusing Democrats of indulging racism, we can be quite certain that the forthcoming election season will be nothing less than a full-on onslaught of Republican racism — excused, of course, by the claim that “they do it too.”

While, yes, the tired old “they do it too” canard will likely come up (it always does) I don’t recall any Democrats simultaneously claiming McCain is both a Muslim Mancurian Candidate who may actually be Osama bin Laden himself as evidenced by the lack of a flag pin on his lapel and a radical anti-American separatist Black Liberation Christian who hates white people and Americans and American white people who are white and not not-white.

Gah.

Go read the whole Orcinus column by Mr. Niewart. He picks apart the illogical Bizarro-world arguments of the conserv-o-partisans’ leading spokespeople with aplomb.

And recall that these cons yapping non-stop now are the hypocrites who are comfortable with the likes of conservative religious leaders such as the late Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsley etc. alternatively claiming America deserved 9/11 and Katrina and that women, gay people, and even Catholics, etc. are to blame for America’s ills. Say… doesn’t that mean that these pastors of the conservative clan are “anti-American”?!?! Eek.

(h/t Plutonium Page)

My kids had Life this morning. The cereal was pretty much all shaped like Colorado and Wyoming with a few looking more like North Dakota or Utah.

Clearly, one box of Life will cover their tuitions at the U of I. Move over Mikey.

God bless our troops as they faithfully and patriotically execute our Commander in Chief’s orders. May they come home safe, sound and soon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23771735/

I’m of mixed opinions on the blog I’m about to link to. At once it is both a celebration of our nation’s First Amendment rights involving freedom of religion and speech … but the need for such a blog in the first place is also a reminder of just how pathetic the gutter-level politics enjoined by uber-partisans in this modern America are.

Ladies and gentlemen, a congregant from Sen. Barack Obama’s hometown church has seen fit to offer us the Truth about Trinity United Church of Christ. God bless ‘em in their efforts to defend against the out-of-context and ignorant attacks on their Christian church and now-retired pastor.

“Truth Power” indeed. It’s a wonder the cons and their convenient Dem primary bedfellows can even maintain the mental dissonance between their simultaneous fallacies lying that Obama is somehow both a radical Muslim and a radical Christian…. Good for “Truthpower” for launching one more blog to defend against some of that onslaught of tripe.

(h/t Arch)

Why’d John McCain hire this guy? And, better yet, why did he only suspend him after he was caught distributing a highly virulent video mash-up denigrating Sen. Obama after Sen. McCain himself clearly stated the campaigns ought not to play the guilt-by-association game.

Yet another in a growing string of examples in which Sen. McCain puts his tail between his legs and whimpers after one of his supporters gets caught being naughty … but then he never actually has the spine to do anything meaningful about it.

Readers may recall Soren Dayton as the Chicago blogger who completely, and given this event likely deliberately, misrepresented several of Sen. Obama’s statements regarding the conservatives’ war in Iraq. Mr. Dayton apparently can’t even stick to the facts when it comes to his fellow conservatives either.

Takes all kinds I guess…

Matt Gauntt of Illinois Review continues his introspective discussion of race relations from a partisan conservative perspective by offering a first blush reaction (and it’s really so much more “reaction” than response, ticking off a veritable jingoistic bingo list of con talking points) to presidential candidate Barack Obama’s speech on race relations.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gauntt starts off on the wrong foot by completely missing the premise and avoiding the entire context of the speech. Mr. Gauntt writes:

…many have rightly stated that his speech was more political sophistry than a primer on how to solve racial tensions.

The premise Mr. Gauntt missed? Sen. Obama’s speech was clearly not ever intended to be a “primer on how to solve racial tensions.” Mr. Gauntt and his comrades simply use that turn of phrase as a set-up to play weak-kneed gotcha and imply the presidential candidate missed the mark. But as Sen. Obama himself acknowledged, one cannot undo centuries of racial tensions and wrongs in one election cycle (let alone a single speech). Rather, Sen. Obama has very clearly stated that he intended to begin an honest and open discussion about race, and to encourage Americans to enjoin that discussion (something Mr. Gauntt, and I, are now doing through our typing).

And the context that Mr. Gauntt avoided? Well yes, the speech was “political sophistry” — the man is running for President of the United States of America and this, like then-Sen. Kennedy’s speech on Catholicism or more recently Gov. Romney’s speech on Mormonism, was a political speech. (While I wouldn’t have used the word “sophistry” I understand any opponent’s rationale for using that particular word.

(Clarification: I wouldn’t have used the word “sophistry” because nothing in Sen. Obama’s speech was false. Rather, it was heartfelt. Now, for those conserv-o-partisans who want to sling mud by twisting and distorting the speech the word “sophistry” is a convenient tool for trying to score the cheapest of political points. Essentially, I agree with the cons’ point that this was a political speech — it was, along with Kennedy’s and Romney’s as I noted — but I do take issue with the use of the word “sophistry” as a description.)

The reality is Sen. Obama recognized the need to have this landmark discussion and instead of letting some CNN loop-tape define it for him he courageously engaged the discussion head-on with his own words and thoughts (again, Sen. Obama wrote that speech himself). He did not abandon his pastor any more than Sen. McCain has backed away from the incredibly inflammatory and unfortunately routine rhetoric of conservatives such as Revs. Hagee, Parsley, etc. Usually, loyalty in the face of adversity is a trait conservatives say they admire. In this case, Mr. Gauntt and other partisans are using it to rail against their opponent while ignoring any sense of context in their efforts to score political points.

But what Sen. Obama did do was again put Rev. Wright’s sermons into their context. As Sen. Obama put it, he can no more disown the Reverend who married him and his wife and baptised his daughters than he can disown his own caucasian grandmother despite the fact both of these loved ones of his have made divisive comments in their lives (the strong-willed and confident often do).

Those sermons are not “racist” as Mr. Gauntt and other knee-jerk conserv-o-partisans have tried to spin them. They are blunt and angry assessments of actual historic and modern day America from a black man’s perspective — a perspective that Mr. Gauntt, in all his inward reflection, still fails to recognize.

And that is why this conversation needs to be had.

No, not everything discussing racism is in and of itself inherently racist, Mr. Gauntt.

But if you are going to mischaracterize my writing, at least make more of an attempt to actually read what I wrote, or its follow-up, commenting on your original introspective post.

Nowhere did I call you a racist, quite the opposite in fact as I offered you praise for your own internal discoveries — describing them as “interesting” and “enlightening” and saying I respect you for it.

However, I did call you a partisan because your post so clearly revealed such. By that, I meant you have been blinded and biased by your own self-identification as a conservative. Thus, you allude to Democrats (implying all Dems) being racist based on the example of a very few Democrats.

That said, Fluffy Bunny’s response claiming Michelle Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright are somehow racist for simply (even if bluntly) pointing out that many in this nation unfortunately choose to feed off the divisiveness of racism is a part of the problem, not solution, you claim to be discussing. And your ignorance of the Federal government’s role in response to Katrina (ie, the Feds take the lead role and the city and state answer to the Feds’ coordination — it’s all right there plain as day on the documents FEMA approved well before Katrina) among all the other half-true points you raise does not do much for your credibility… but the talking points sure sound good as conservative dog whistles.

Of course, you and Fluffy are certainly well within your rights to ignore facts, dismiss context and regurgitate right-wing talking points. Whatever floats your boat, eh?

Just don’t expect others to just sit back and let you get away with the malarkey when you do so. That’s how we ended up in a 100 years’ war based on lies, spending nearly 7.5 million of our hard-earned tax dollars per hour on corrupt war profiteers… among other misadventures conservatives have wrought on our nation.

Oh, and I spelled your name right this time (it was nothing intentional). My name endures similar snafus from time to time. Cheers.

Update: I have commentary on Mr. Gauntt’s reaction to Sen. Obama’s landmark speech on race of yesterday.

Simply stunning in his patriotism and love for this nation and all it stands for and can be… God Bless America, indeed.

Text here. And yes, fellow Americans, he wrote these thoughts himself.

Holy pachyderms GOPUSA ILLINOIS EDITOR! I literally had to wait to stop laughing before I could type. After last week I needed this fine report of VERY SAD BUT NOT SURPRISING spin news….

David John Diersen is on to the Demoncrats’ evil plan to oust elephant dung from parade routes all across America:

 DIERSEN HEADLINE: VERY SAD BUT NOT SURPRISING: It seems that Democrat Chicago Alderwoman Mary Ann Smith wants to ban elephants, the symbol of the Republican Party, from America. Smith complains about elephant abuse. Because no Republican would ever abuse an elephant, she must be complaining about Democrats.

Yep. Must be. Well, them or those silly John Birchies.

After you’ve stopped ROFLYAO could someone please explain to me how an Alderwoman from one city could possibly ban an animal, any animal, from the entire country?

Even Rep. Dan Lipinski voted to uphold the 4th Amendment today. Thank you to all 213 patriotic Congressmen who believe our 4th Amendment is working just fine.

For those of you not aware of the FISA issue, please be aware that essentially the Republicans seem to think our nation will be crushed by a flood of terrorists and lawyers (can’t forget the lawyers) unless Congress allows the White House to evade the 4th Amendment by wantonly tapping into your steamy phone calls about groceries and hair appointments through AT&T and other Big Telcos…

Oh, and since those Big Telcos (except Qwest, which then magically ran into all sorts of business problems as Administration Departments started to turn screws) already did this illegal activity before the Congress found out about it, the Republicans want to give them retroactive immunity for breaking the law.

As for those 197 Congressmen who voted the wrong way (including, unfortunately, my own Rep. Kirk), please go back and re-read the Fourth Amendment of our United States Constitution. It’s been around since 1791, so it should be rather familiar.

Should be.

If you also believe in our 4th Amendment, please express your gratitude with a phone call to a few of those 213 patriots, esp. those from Illinois…

House switchboard (202) 224-312

You can also donate to help them stave off the spinmeisters who think shredding our Constitution and tossing out red herrings about lawyers is somehow related to national security.

Illinois delegation voting for the Constitution (notice they’re all patriotic Dems):

• Bean, Melissa L., Illinois, 8th
• Costello, Jerry, Illinois, 12th
• Davis, Danny K., Illinois, 7th
• Emanuel, Rahm, Illinois, 5th
• Gutierrez, Luis, Illinois, 4th
• Foster, Bill, Illinois, 14th
• Hare, Phil, Illinois, 17th
• Jackson Jr., Jesse L., Illinois, 2nd
• Lipinski, Daniel, Illinois, 3rd
• Schakowsky, Jan, Illinois, 9th

And go ahead and spank those that voted to trample our Constitution (notice they’re all members of the Grand Old Party, which has clearly lost its way):

• Biggert, Judy, Illinois, 13th
• Johnson, Timothy V., Illinois, 15th
• Kirk, Mark, Illinois, 10th
• Manzullo, Donald, Illinois, 16th
• Roskam, Peter J., Illinois, 6th
• Shimkus, John, Illinois, 19th

(Ray LaHood, Bobby Rush and Jerry Weller did not vote.)

United States Constitution, Amendment IV, 1791:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(Keep in mind that part about “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”)

Arch noted yesterday — with tongue planted firmly in cheek — that according to Illinois Review’s analysis of Congressman Bill Foster’s first vote in Congress we are, apparently, all going to die.

Well, yes, we eventually will all die. But not because of Bill Foster’s vote to uphold the rule of law and honor the Constitution.

The very interesting thing here is that while the final vote on the FISA matter had a comfortable margin, the procedural vote before it passed by a single vote. Rep. Foster provided that margin by replacing a GOP vote (Speaker Hastert’s) against our Constitution with a Dem vote in favor of our founding document.

It’s the least we Americans should expect of our Congressmen.

Curious then that Fran Eaton would get hopping mad that Rep. Foster voted to uphold our 4th Amendment rights… except when you realize that it is Ms. Eaton’s idol, conservative Pres. Bush, who wanted to violate our 4A rights.

Ms. Eaton regurgitates:

Bill Foster is already playing partisan politics with America’s national security. In a weak attempt to distract voters from the Democrats’ negligence to renew the Protect America Act, Foster voted in lock-step with the liberal Democrat leadership to fund duplicitous pet projects over critical human intelligence programs.

Her own Ill Review commenters put her squealing in perspective…

From “GB“:

Remember that Tim Johnson down in the 15th also voted to block this FISA bill. Is he, too, guilty of “partisan votes that compromise America’s national security”? Does he, too aid and abet terror as you are insinuating? No American wants to make this country less safe; stop trying to always assume moral high ground with inflammatory language, a poor reflection of the actual issue at hand, and little room for dissent. When you decry partisan bickering, yet you capitulate to the same, it speaks volumes about your intentions as well.

From “raz60115“:

Gotta disagree with the premise of the post.

The bill had nothing to do with national security. The telecoms have current immunity to cooperate with the nosy feds. The bill had everything to do with retroactive immunity for cooperating with the feds while the feds admittedly broke the FISA law.

Foster’s vote was a vote for the rule of law; the partisans here are trying to put illegal behavior, which the administration admits to, beyond judicial accountability and review.

And, from “TheReallyRightGuy“:

This is a totally ridiculous issue. We’re never going to be trusted by the American people until we get beyond fear mongering and offer concrete principles and benefits.

Precisely. Although, to be sure, the one thing these commenters didn’t point out to Ms. Eaton is that the President’s illegal wiretapping activity originally had nothing to do with combatting terrorism (that was an excuse they came up with after cynically using the Sept. 11th attacks for partisan gain).

You see, this so-called “conservative” Administration approached the telcos with the illegal domestic wiretapping program seven months before Sept. 11th (in other words, only three months after Bush took office). (h/t georgia10)

Why is it illegal? Remember that last part of the 4th Amendment I told you to keep in mind? What the Bush Administration wanted AT&T, Qwest and other Big Telcos to do was simply scoop up any and all communications without warrant, without probable cause, without particular description of elements to be seized, etc. In other words, President Bush literally wants to be a Peeping Tom on every single American citizen.

Only Qwest refused, based wisely on the 4th Amendment, and they now have a very good case suggesting that the Bush Administration retaliated against them by causing hardships for the business enterprise (apparently rank partisanship trumps even loyalty to Big Business).

…And that case (and a few other related court cases) leads to my favorite comment from the lemming side of the Ill Review aisle. It takes a special breed of uber-partisan to roll a few con red herrings all into one, so Pete Speer takes the cake with his rant against the Dems and those evil(-til-you-need-one) trial lawyers:

Bill [Foster] will get his just reward — from the Trial Lawyers Association. As will the Democrat [sic] House Campaign Committee.

Truly strange that the cons would somehow spin their fight to dismantle the 4th Amendment into a battle against not after-the-fact terrorists but instead against … lawyers.

Earlier in the day I noted Illinois Review poster Matt Gaunt’s self-reflective soliloquy in dealing with his own racist tendencies (as it related to his other, apparently less self-aware stereotyping tendencies).

I’m curious to know what he might say about his fellow Ill Reviewer Fran Eaton’s own subtly racist remarks?

Given Mr. Gaunt’s logic (if one member of a group is racist, all members must be racist), does this now mean all of Illinois Review ought to be considered racist? Hmm….

Former State Senator Wendell Jones wanted the northwest arm of Cook County to break away and his buddies wanted the land to be called “Lincoln County“.

His successor in that chamber, friend of the blog Sen. Matt Murphy, has just proposed in the legislature that it be called “Reagan County“.

With that OneMan proposed the tongue-in-cheek “WeHaveLowerTaxesThanCook County“.

As long as they don’t call it “Cu-barri-tine-ing County” I suppose…

I wonder why it is that none of these folks recognize that these rises in local and state taxes are the natural after effect of the President’s so-called “tax cuts”…? It’s like Jell-O. Squeeze it out of one spot and it ends up in another. (That’s not to say there isn’t a lot of fat to be trimmed out of Cook’s budget — there very well likely is — but what goes down often later comes back up somewhere else.)

While conservative talker Matt Gaunt’s self-reflective journey diving into his own racism is a very interesting and enlightening story, and I respect him for expanding his consciousness as he describes, he hasn’t grown nearly as much as he thinks.

Dear, dear Mr. Gaunt. It is not all liberals making racist remarks in the presidential campaign as the tone of your entire post implies. It is some people who claim to be a liberal. In fact, in recent days, it’s been one person who is a lifelong Democrat.

Just as Mr. Gaunt claims to recognize that he felt some sort of superiority complex to black folks, and was subsequently “ashamed” and “tried to continually purge that part of myself” … he fails to recognize that his stereotyping of black people is akin to his stereotyping of “liberals”.

We liberals aren’t cartoon characters, Mr. Gaunt, no matter how much you may subconsciously think it so. We do not act or behave en masse, any more than the past racist statements of David Duke, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly indicate all conservatives are racist blowhards nor the bigoted tones of Bill Cunningham, Debbie Schlussel, or even Mr. Gaunt’s fellow Ill Reviewer Dan Zanoza imply that all conservatives are xenophobic ranters.

…Then again, there are in fact many, many more examples of each of those conservative “types” so perhaps there is a pattern there, eh?

I’m in shock. From the Herald:

Harper College trustee and Wheeling Township Democrat Committeeman Patrick Botterman died of a massive heart attack Monday.

Pat had literally just emailed me yesterday morning about helping him out on a project.

While he could be a bulldog he was a good man; and worked his tail off for the underdogs and the little guys. I’m speechless.

He will be missed, even by those who didn’t know him but were impacted by his hard work, his dedication and above all, his integrity. Whether you agreed with him or not, you always knew he’d be straight as an arrow with you.

God Bless the Botterman family and all of Pat’s many, many friends as we grieve. We lost a true patriot yesterday.

Update: Rich Miller has some info and Rep. John Fritchey offers us this eloquent eulogy.

Update 2: E Man and Yoda recall their colorful experiences with Botter Boy. Both their stories are like so many others’ — there is quite the Botterman Alumni Club out there.

Update 3: I’ve changed the site header for the next few days. Yes, Botterman was that special.

Update 4: The Arlington Heights Post reports:

In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be given to the Harper College Educational Foundation (note Patrick Botterman Scholarship Fund), 1200 W. Algonquin Road, Palatine.

You may also donate directly online at the Harper College Educational Foundation Botterman Scholarship Fund.

No other way to describe out-of-touch campaign managers from the Land of Bizzaro… Arch has the vintage whine, and all the direct rebuttals one needs to know about a certain Mr. Bill Pascoe, the losing manager of the Jim Oberweis campaign.

Misters Pascoe and Oberweis and their brand of crybaby campaigning appear to be so toxic they failed at retaining a historically GOP district which Bush last won at 54%, Speaker Denny Hastert held for two decades and is home to the birthplace of Ronny Reagan.

Mr. Pascoe, Beck has a song for you.

In yesterday’s special election to replace former Speaker Denny Hastert “Democratic scientist” Bill Foster not only beat perennial losing candidate Jim Oberweis, but he crushed him 53% to 47% in an otherwise Republican district.

Maybe negative ads such as the fib-filled Milk Dud clips really are passe… Or maybe Mr. Oberweis really is that unliked given his regular barrage of silly antics over the years and it really is going to be a bad year for Bush fans.

(h/t Rich Miller and ArchPundit; update: linked some existing text to two georgia10 posts to flesh out the content)

–

PS: Perhaps the former Laesch campaign will now drop its quixotic quest to overturn the primary results lest John go the way of the Scheurers from just to the north… but the Magic 8 Ball keeps coming up with “Looks Doubtful.”

Update: Bridget reports word on the street is that John Laesch is withdrawing his recount petition. Good on ya mate. Here’s hoping Mr. Laesch throws his full support behind re-electing Congressman Foster this November and asks his supporters to do the same.

I happily stand corrected.

This blog and other publications (notably the usually conservative Chicago Tribune editorials page) have noted the tendency for Jim Oberweis to cheat, break the rules, and lie (and lie and lie and … you get the idea). Oh, and we ‘little people’ have also noticed that the smug Mr. Oberweis acts like a kid in junior high.

With all that baggage on his shoulders, I guess it’s none too surprising that Congressional Republicans would willingly violate ethics rules in order help Mr. Oberweis join their ranks. The National Republican Congressional Committee itself is in the midst of a forensic audit and contacted the FBI due to “financial irregularites” involving forged spreadsheets and cooked books (kind of like the blocks of $100 bills that “fell off” the back of Halliburton’s trucks in Iraq, all paid for with our tax dollars at work).

Apparently elephants of a feather flock together.

And these United States of America seem to be wanting to choose between the two Democratic Senators duking it out for their party’s nomination.

I noted a few weeks back that in early states primary voting was coming back with significantly higher ballots pulled for Dems than for the Republican nominees. Several races in the Illinois primary also experienced the same phenomenon.

That trend has continued. Sure, some partisan conservative spinsters may pipe up and say that the Republican field was mathematically whittled down to McCain a while ago and that any leaners thus felt free to vote on the Dem side… but that doesn’t explain the fact the trend was going on before McCain wrapped things up.

Ohio has been considered a swing state for several cycles, but after yesterday it’s clear that even red, red Texas deserves that title also.
Brownsox explains Hillary earned more votes than all Republicans combined, with Obama nearly pulling off the same feat. Both Dem candidates had about twice the ballots pulled than did Sen. McCain.

The donkeys are starting to lap the elephants in this primary season… It remains to be seen whether or not this macrotrend can be carried through all the way til November.

Chalk another one up the “liberal” media acting not-so-liberal … and it’s a two-fer since Obama’s “free pass” in the media clearly disappeared as the reporters swooned over a scandal over, get this, the fact that the Canadian government now admits they “may have misrepresented the Obama advisor.” (wmv file)

The major benefactor in all this was of course Sen. Clinton whose stumbling campaign managed to get back on its two feet for a few days.

Give the media a D- for follow-through as they chose to run like lemmings from sensationalist smear to sensationalist smear regarding the Obama advisor’s comments to the Canadian embassy in Chicago. One of the basic facts that was rarely (if ever) reported is that the Canadian government is currently led by the conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper who, like Australia’s conservative PM, apparently has no problem trying to interfere in American politics.

Gee, why would conservative partisans (no matter the country) want to poke their fingers in the eyes of liberals? Hmm…

Now, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that the Canadian Embassy admits they “may have misrepresented the Obama advisor.”

MattW at MyDD explains what launched this silliness by describing the CBC report:

This [CBC news] piece details the sordid affair, that begins not with Obama contacting Canada, but nervous Canadians contacting the campaigns. [Obama economic advisor and Univ. of Chicago professor] Austan Goolsbee agreed to accept an invitation from Canadians, who pressed him for answers about protectionist sentiments emerging in the US Presidential election. He tried to reassure them that Obama did not want to do away with the agreement, but wanted to add labor and environmental protections.

Recall that the original row between Obama and Clinton began with Obama pointing out that Sen. Clinton supported NAFTA and her husband (who’s White House record she tries to claim as her own, but only the good bits) considered it a gem of his Administration.

Both Obama and Clinton have said in this campaign season that they want to refine the agreement to bolster labor and environmental standards within the pact — a reasonable position to improve the current treaty.

The non-flap flap came about after Obama advisor Goolsbee sat down with Canadian embassy officials. Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press then had a print story claiming Canadian officials saying Goolsbee was contradicating Obama’s refrains based on a Maple Leaf memo she “obtained“. (Ms. Pickler is married to a Fox News cameraman, BTW. Normally that wouldn’t mean boo but Ms. Pickler has a history of taking smears against Dems and running with them as well as uncritically using info provided by conservative-provided info near-verbatim. Sen. Obama has said he will not visit Fox studios after the network repeatedly aired lies about his grade school years while he and his mother were living in Indonesia.)

Sen. Obama didn’t yet know that Mr. Goolsbee had informally talked with the Canadians so he denied the gist of Pickler’s report.

Then Sen. Clinton picked up on the broohaha and the press lapped it up like so many kittens at their milk bowl.

And now Canada’s own public broadcasting channel has debunked the entire dang thing….

Go read the rest of MattW’s piece detailing the timeline of the infopimped flimflam and recapping the CBC’s report popping that balloon full of so much hot air.

Congratulations White House press corps wannabes, for better or worse you’re well on your way to proving yourselves to be every bit the “lazy stenographer” stereotype as the current crop.

Sure the Tribune has had out-of-the-blue endorsements for Dems before — notably Melissa Bean over been-in-Congress-longer-than-forever Phil Crane just a few years back.

But this morning’s endorsement was a bit of a surprise. Sure, myself and others have noticed Mr. Jim Oberweis‘ pattern of lying, skirting the law and distorting the facts as he tries to buy himself an elected office, any elected office… But would the “Vote for Rubber Chicken, Republican” Tribune?

Those cows have come home and now the Milk Dud is covered in his own bullpuckey as the Tribune also recognizes (smells?) that pattern of overwhelming BS clear as a barnyard on a hot summer’s day.

For Congress: Bill Foster

[...] This page is closer to Oberweis than Foster on several economic and foreign policy issues. But we watched Oberweis in his races for the U.S. Senate in 2002 and 2004, and for governor in 2006. We’ve watched this race for Congress. His campaign style has consistently been nasty, smug, condescending … and dishonest.

[...] This year, Oberweis’ campaign is based on the notion that his opponent is a big-spending liberal. Oberweis’ TV and radio ads quote Foster saying, “There’s nothing in life that you can’t improve by pouring money at it. …”

Foster did say that, at a League of Women Voters debate. But the transcript makes it clear he was talking about thefederal government’s “poor efforts” to improve air-traffic-control safety. His conclusion: “This is one example of a place I would look to save taxpayer dollars.” (emphasis added)

The Trib didn’t forget Oberweis 2006 incident of using them like a tool, making up headlines about his opponent and attributing those false headlines to ye olde Chicago Daily Tribune.

Here’s hoping the denizens of the fine 14th remember that this Saturday: For Congress: Bill Foster, the one who wants to save taxpayer dollars… Not the one who tries lying his way into office.

–

PS: Typically, the League of Women Voters asks all candidates to sign off on an agreement to not disseminate recordings or transcripts of their debates and fora. The LWV hopes to avoid just what the Milk Dud and the cash-strapped Republican Congressional Committee have done: cast negative ads using a League-hosted event, which puts the LWV in a bad light. Way to go win-at-all-costs pachyderms.