Category Archive

Unfortunately for Mark Kirk, when he makes statements over the airwaves they get heard by the public at large. Yesterday, he appeared on conservative radio’s WLS-AM and got caught telling a few whoppers, while apparently being caught up in the partisan vapors.

Progress Illinois recorded the conversation for posterity and noted that Rep. Kirk was infopimping the already debunked “China is drilling off the coast of Cuba” lie that was all the conservative-partisans’ rage last week as the cons tried to push for drilling off the coast of the tourist-dependent Sunshine State. (They ought to talk to the president’s younger brother about why he, smartly, wouldn’t let the rigs drill off his state’s sun-filled shores).

This Cuba lie was so easily and so quickly debunked that even Vice President and former Big Oil CEO Dick Cheney had to eat his words within days. Apparently, Congressman Kirk didn’t get the memo to stop lying.

Now, why a guy who claims to believe in a clean environment and went to town for photo op after photo op when BP Amoco wanted to dump poison in our Lake Michigan drinking water would be advocating for drilling off Florida’s beaches is unclear and not the least bit hypocritical. If he can work to find Federal dollars for solar panels at schools, he ought to also be able to work for alternative fuels instead of mimicking the drill-drill-drill lemmings.

A bit later in that same radio program, Progress Illinois also noted that Mark Kirk repeated the oft-heard ‘mistake’ that seems to plague conservative-partisans: swapping the names of “Osama” and “Obama”.

Rep. Kirk did rightly apologize publicly and to Sen. Obama as soon as the ‘error’ was pointed out, but even worse is the fact that he was bald-faced lying while talking about Obama’s stated positions on Osama bin Laden. To wit (via PI):

DON WADE: In fact, yesterday in a conference call, Barack Obama’s advisers were asked, “If Osama bin Laden were caught, should he get to challenge his detention in U.S. courts?” And the advisers said that — should that right to challenge detention that they get at Gitmo based on the Supreme Court ruling, should that be applied to bin Laden? — and Obama’s advisers said, “Yes.”

KIRK: Yeah, and I would much rather have a policy where if we see Obama there’s a shoot-on-sight order.

That, unfortunately, was only half of what the Obama camp has discussed regarding bin Laden.

The rest of the story actually comes pretty close to precisely what Kirk was advocating. From Nedra Pickler of the AP:

“First of all, I think there is an executive order out on Osama bin Laden’s head,” the Illinois senator said at a news conference. “And if I’m president, and we have the opportunity to capture him, we may not be able to capture him alive.”

Obama’s campaign said he was referring to a classified Memorandum of Notification that President Clinton approved in 1998 - revealed in the 9/11 Commission report - that would allow the CIA to kill bin Laden if capture weren’t feasible.

Obama said he wouldn’t discuss what approach he would take to bring bin Laden to justice if he were apprehended. But he said the Nuremberg trials for the prosecution of Nazi leaders are an inspiration because the victors acted to advance universal principles and set a tone for the creation of an international order.

“What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism,” Obama said.

It’s unfortunate that the WLS hosts were so ill-informed but hopefully this is clear enough for Rep. Kirk and he’ll stop repeating his fibs and half-truths.

Or does Mark Kirk not believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way?

Adam over at Progress Illinois catches Rep. Mark Kirk bending facts, and toeing the Republican line, while trying to explain his vote against unemployed folks.

Bottom line, Rep. Kirk (and his chief, minority leader John Boehner) are claiming that somebody could subvert the intent of this legislation to try and collect unemployment checks after only working for two weeks. While technically that’s possible, as Adam explains such a person would also have to subsist for nearly 9 months on “income” far below the poverty level.

In other words, they’d have to work at not working, and live off literally a few dollars a month to do it. Yet this is Rep. Kirk’s excuse for voting against unemployed Americans. That’s not what I call being a moderate or standing up for Main Street.

–

Full disclosure: I’ve met Rep. Kirk on occasion. He’s a nice enough fellow but I clearly disagree with several of his positions and his record in Congress. I have volunteered for his challenger Dan Seals in the past and may do so again in the future.

Daily Herald reporter John Patterson writes that he just received a robocall targeting Melissa Bean, but it was with a 217 area code number.

Nevermind that the call apparently tried to mislead citizens by tsk-tsking the Congressional recess before a vote on military pay (implying our soldiers would somehow have to go unpaid in the interim — wholly untrue, the vote is for future pay).

Mr. Patterson’s surprise wasn’t over the implied fallacy, it was over the 217 area code since it covers central Illinois and doesn’t even come close to Melissa Bean’s 8th district…

Oddly enough, Melissa Bean is sponsoring legislation that would require full disclosure listing exactly who is calling on Caller ID. If it were law, Mr. Patterson would know [who] that someone that called him is.

In light of that sponsorship conservative partisans, who typically claim they favor responsibility and honesty, have been railing against her ever since … replete with slimey over-the-top essays comparing this soccer mom Member of Congress to a brutal dictator in their feigned rage. (And with crackers like that poisoning the well it’s little wonder the American people by and large are rejecting such venomous rhetoric.)

(Disclosure: I’ve done some work for past Bean campaigns. Who knows if I will again this cycle. She’s a great person and seems to be coming into her own as a legislator.)

A good thing to see this week of Remembrance Day…

US Rep. Bill Foster on remembering our GIs and their families. He wants to take Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois program national.

Living up to our responsibility and debt to those who defend our rights and our nation is walking the walk, not just talking the talk, when it comes to “supporting our troops” … something those opposed to the Modern GI Bill would do well to remember.

To borrow a phrase from a friend who spoke yesterday during one of the nation’s countless Memorial Day ceremonies: our vets don’t want to be held up as heroes, they want to be held tight as family and friends.

All these humble men and women ask is that we remember them in our prayers and thoughts, not idly lionize them with jingoism and cliches.

The other post was getting too long to keep updating but there are two more interesting developments.

First, for those who enjoy Inside Baseball, Prairie State Blue blogger ‘bored now’ notes the manner in which the Kirk campaign went “ballistic” over Dan Seals’ overly successful gas station PR event and analyzes why this may be so (O-b-a-m-a…). It’s as good a breakdown of the raw numbers as any to date.

Second, in an irony of ironies, the Lincolnshire police chief tells the Pioneer Press that the last car to pull up for the discounted gas during the Seals event was full of (drumroll please) … Mark Kirk staffers.

Obviously this means that not all Kirk supporters thought it was a “stupid” idea or were so concerned about this legal activity being somehow portrayed as “illegal” (some of the more tame epithets Kirk’s partisans have used to smear Dan Seals).

No word on whether or not they were in a clown car.

…Couldn’t resist.

Check out Team America and friends carrying water (or should I say “carrying gas”) over at Rich’s place while trying to spin his best baloney about Dan Seals gas price promo at a Lincolnshire station the 10th district.

Two points while TA and Co try to come up with more hollow rants opposing Seals..

- First, despite TA’s willful, partisan-induced ignorance, Mark Kirk also “gives away” things of value and material benefit to voters. There are plenty of Kirk for Congress shirts and caps on parade routes, and folks who go to his events are treated to free goodies like cookies, pop, etc.

All politicians give away items of value.

All.

- Second, a Republican in neighboring Indiana gave away gas for free — yes, for free — just last month.

Republican Luke Puckett, also a challenger just like Dan Seals, pumped free gas a month ago in South Bend while bending drivers’ ears about his plans to drill for oil in pristine natural areas of California and Alaska. (Wouldn’t weening our nation off what Pres. Bush calls an “addiction” to oil be smarter in the long run? Even if we destroyed God’s Creation to get at a few more barrels of oil, even those rigs will eventually run dry — and then what?)

Read the rest of this entry »

There must’ve been a run on coo-coo puffs lately…

Despite the fact the bottom is pretty far down on that side of the pool, desperate con partisans are still managing to bonk their beans as they jump off the deep end to wallow in their mucky, vile hatred of Sen. Obama.

If you scroll down at that post, you’ll notice frequent critics of reality and reason such as Citizen Wells and Pat Hickey make an appearance with comments supporting the tripe.

Remember the good ol’ days of oddball but cute/fuzzy presidential sideshows? Why do the conservatives feel the need to act so blatantly desperate?

While it’s fun to joke about this sort of tinfoil hat tripe, we also have to realize that this tripe is precisely why rational people have to be just as engaged and take their right and responsibility to vote just as seriously as these wackos.

If wackos like these are the only ones talking and voting… we all end up living in the same hateful, wacko world in which they appear to be ensnared.

Markos notes that conservative partisans pushed the Rev. Wright (manufactured) controversy hot and heavy in the deep red, Deep South Mississippi 1st Congressional District special election, with the NRCC spending $1.3 million it can barely afford and other conservative 527s and PACs spending gobs more.

The conservatives’ hypocritical, borderline-racist and anti-Christian efforts to demonize a black Christian pastor had no effect.

Dem Travis Childers won the special election by a healthy margin in a Republican district that is normally R+10 and that Bush won in 2004 with 63%. That makes the Dems 3 for 3 in red seat special elections this year. The wave began with now-Cong. Bill Foster picking up former GOP Speaker Denny Hastert’s seat right here in Illinois and was followed by strongly-R open districts in Louisiana and now Mississippi also switching to Democratic hands.

As the saying goes, a lot can happen between now and November … but wow … and ouch.

Sun-Times News Group columnist Kristen McQueary, generally regarding as hard-nosed but fair-minded, dives into Martin Ozinga III’s “lucrative” contracts with the city of Chicago and other government agencies. She also takes a gander at his and his company’s big bucks donations to Democratic candidates and groups.

Given his donor history it is a bit surprising that Mr. Ozinga is the Republican candidate for Congress in the open Illinois 11th, not the Dem:

…Ozinga has given Gov. Rod Blagojevich at least $20,000, including a $10,000 donation in 2005 during a fundraising luncheon.

Ozinga has opened his checkbook for gubernatorial candidates, Chicago aldermen, Mayor Richard Daley, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District officials and city ward organizations.

His company, Ozinga Bros., holds a lucrative and powerful position as the sole provider of concrete for city of Chicago projects.

McQueary asks the question on many folks’ minds regarding this replacement candidate…

Can a person with those ties, landing those deals, floating in that stratosphere, stay clean?

And then offers us her take as someone reporting day in and day out on those insiders…

After 40 minutes, I wasn’t entirely convinced. For railing against the system, Ozinga is doing pretty well within it [...]

But I wasn’t unconvinced either. [...]

(emphasis added)

After being represented by Congressman Jerry “Most Corrupt” Weller and subsequently being abandoned by him as he retires to spend more time with his family (and perhaps his Central American land deals), Illinoisans in the 11th district are likely weary of anyone with a whiff of corruption near them. This is likely why Republicans are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to tie Sen. Debbie Halvorson (the actual Dem candidate) to Gov. Rod Blagojevich. In light of Mr. Ozinga’s past support for Blago, that spin doesn’t quite wash.

Ms. McQueary spent 40 minutes talking with Mr. Ozinga about his ties to the Machine. Voters now have 6 months…

(h/t Poodle Walker)

The Illinois Republican Party’s too-cute-by-half Bloggin on Blago Blog declares that “Voters won’t forget that Halvorson chose Blagojevich over them.”

Perhaps voters will also not forget that Sen. Halvorson’s hand-picked GOP opponent Martin Ozinga III has given nearly $25 grand to Blago, generous donations he now apparently regrets.

Will IRP also blog on Blago-backer Ozinga’s choice to support Blagojevich?

While they’re at it they can explain just how he may have gotten some of that money that he donated to Democrats.

…And maybe then they can also blog on Ozinga’s Obama-like logo.

How does Cong. Peter Roskam “support” our troops? By insinuating they’re a bunch of sex-crazed horndogs who must be nannied over lest they give in to temptations of the X-rated variety.

And there’s something in it for you too, dear taxpayers: a complete waste of the Pentagon’s time and our tax dollars as military brass are commanded to search and destroy pin-ups and videos instead of, oh say, our enemies.

What’s next? Banning government-issue condoms? Mandating abstinence for unmarried troops and the calendar method for those who are married?

What’s the difference between Cong. “Porno Pete” Roskam’s nanny-state attitude and the House of Saud’s regulations for US troops manning bases in Saudi Arabia in the 90s? At least King Saud let the guys have Victoria Secret catalogs (though not much else).

Can you imagine Rep. Roskam walking in to give a pep talk at the local armory before the next National Guard deployment? …”Don’t go fight yon terrorists, men. Fight the nudie rags instead. It’s not Hezbollah we’re after — it’s Hollywood! You just might get warts on your hands if you don’t listen to my dire warnings to avoid the girlie magazines.”

Perhaps instead of being so worried about oversexed troops, Porno Pete Roskam ought to be quite a bit more concerned about the rapists staffing the war profiteering contractors hired by the White House. So much for any Republican claims of “family values” given that they continue to let those atrocities go on.

Say, aren’t there more important things going on? Something about a recession? And exorbitant gas costs? And what’s this war thingy we keep hearing about? And healthcare for uninsured kids? And the White House spying on Americans … what’s that all about?

Oh, wait. Raunchy Roskam apparently couldn’t give two shakes about work-a-day folks, agrees in principle with Sen. McCain on keeping our troops in Iraq for 100 years in spite of reality on the ground, has voted against our children multiple times (and lied about why), and he favors shredding our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Nevermind.

Then again, the media seems to have recently discovered that black folks have … preachers! Maybe Rep. Roskam will take care of that “problem” too.

Not a good way to start a campaign, before the campaign really even gets started…

And this after all but stealing the Obama’08 look for Ozinga’08. No wonder this candidate hyped as a “self-funder” wants to cut his losses to just $350k.

The 11th district is currently open as incumbent Republican Jerry “Most Corrupt Politicians” Weller is retiring at the end of his term. The GOP nomination is also open after primary winner Tim Baldermann decided he didn’t want to raise any money. Conservative partisans have been peeing in their pants fretting that Democratic State Senator Debbie Halvorson may have a free pass at the Congressional seat.

–

Update: Rich Miller posts from his secret location that the comments to ArchPundit blog which came from “ozmail.ozinga.com” were from Mr. Ozinga’s business. A quick Google search did not find any official “Ozinga’08″ webite yet.

Federal regulations, as I understand them, do not allow a business to provide in-kind help to candidates so “Brian,” the commenter at ArchPundit, ought to be careful about those FEC laws. (I’m not a lawyer so I could be wrong on the rules regarding in-kind donations from businesses.)

The way I read “Brian’s” comment, he may simply be interested in defending the business’ reputation against the allegations of shenanigans the media has been reporting.

But if his intent was to promote or defend Ozinga the presumptive candidate … well, another Republican candidate, dairy and ice cream magnate Jim Oberweis in his US Senate run, found out the hard way all about the FEC’s strict rules barring use of corporate assets to assist a Federal campaign.

First this week we had McLean County Recorder and myopic hyperpartisan Lee Newcom ranting and wailing over at the increasingly shrill (if that’s possible) Illinois Review about terrorism related to Republican County Chairs in the 11th district who have yet to slate an opponent for the open seat against Dem State Senator Debbie Halvorson. Mr. Newcom’s worry was that if Sen. Halvorson gets a free pass to the seat then there will be one less vote in favor of shredding the Constitution (Mr. Newcom is apparently appalled by our Constitution’s 4th Amendment).

His screed was literally oozing with outright lies about Sen. Halvorson and excuse-making for actions our conservative President took to compel telephone companies to break the law. Of Mr. Newcom I wrote, “Whereas Mr. Newcom odiously and otiosely yelps that candidate Halvorson ‘aids the terrorists’ with absolutely no evidence that this person who isn’t even in Congress yet actually is somehow helping terrorists, it’s telling that his rant (and the rants of those like him) actually does in fact help our conservative president trample our own Constitution just that much more.”

Today, we have another screeching rant from a different conservative partisan. This time it’s Warner Todd Huston writing at ilgopnet.com that Congresswoman Melissa Bean is somehow “against free speech” because she is advocating for regulation of those contemptible and annoying political robocalls. Rep. Bean’s legislation is likely in response to the allegedly illegal massive robocalling operation that the failed Republican National Congressional Campaign put into practice in 2006 in an effort to bamboozle millions of voters across the country.

All Rep. Bean wants to do is regulate the hours those calls can be made, limit how many times in a row the automated calls can be made to the same phone number and try to ensure veracity and honesty in what is said in those calls by having the callers be clearly identitified on both caller id and also at the start of the message. Hers is simply an effort at instilling some modicum of decency to political robocalling discourse.

This is what irks an uber-partisan like Mr. Huston?

Why would Mr. Huston be against common courtesy, truth and openness? What is he afraid of?

But, like Mr. Newcom’s non sequitor filled waterworks about terrorists, Mr. Huston’s vacuous claptrap compares Rep. Bean’s efforts to — get this — brutal Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

And he’s proud of his idiocy: “Yes, you heard me right. I just said that US Congressman Melissa Bean is beginning to act like the murdering tyrant, Robert Mugabe.”

Whether or not her legislation will be effective (if it’s even passed and signed) remains to be seen — but there’s hardly anything sinister about wanting to raise the bar of political debate in this country. And, if anything, Mr. Huston’s nonsensical BS provides spot-on evidence of the need to take a national chill pill, robocalls and unhinged comparisons to dictators included.

Lee Newcom wails that Republican County Chairs in the 11th District are complicit in aiding and abetting terrorists because they’ve neglected to replace dropout Tim Balderman for the seat Rep. “Most Corrupt Politicians” Weller is vacating.

Apparently in Mr. Newcom’s bizarro mind, giving 11th District Democratic candidate and current State Senator Debbie Halvorson a free pass is akin to funding al Quaida (something Ronald Reagan did all through the 80s as it was, so perhaps aiding and abetting terrorists really is par for the GOP course).

But what on earth does the lack of candidate slating from Republican County Chairs in north-central Illinois have to do with … terrorists?!

According to Mr. Newcom, if State Sen. Halvorson is elected to Congress, she may be one more vote for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s progressive agenda.

That agenda currently includes not giving the likes of AT&T and other big telcos a free pass since we now know they broke the law and allowed Pres. George “Peeping Tom” to illegally wiretap domestic phones without warrants and without so much as even probable cause. They literally scooped up every single phone call they could without regard to your privacy or mine (or Mr. Newcom’s, for that matter).

This is what’s become known as the FISA Fight in Washington. FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the key word being “foreign”. FISA has many parts, but in the main it (1) allows US spy agencies to tap into foreign phones, data, etc. but (2) forbids US spy agencies from tapping into domestic phones, data, etc. unless they obtain specific warrants based on probable cause (remember that underlined phrase, it’s an oldy but a goody from the year 1791).

You may have heard of a panel of judges in DC called the FISA Court. This is the court that decides whether or not there is probable cause to wiretap domestic calls for suspected terrorist activity, etc. Over the 30 or so years this court has been in existence, it had been approving warrants at an incredibly high rate (99%) and spies even had the opportunity to retroactively seek a warrant within a few days if the need was urgent (libertarians can’t stand the FISA Court).

Why the Bush Administration felt a need to ignore this Constitutionally-based court, which clearly bends over backwards to give great latitude to our spies, is unclear. And why Mr. Newcom and other Republican partisans are churning out so many excuses, apologies, and distractions in this fight for the very integrity of our Constitution is really unclear.

The Republican partisans, instead of actually being worried about our country and her citizens, are up in arms because they want to give AT&T and the like retroactive immunity because they broke the law (because Pres. Bush told them to). Republicans are throwing the kitchen sink into this fight squealing that Dems are in league with terrorists, trial lawyers, etc. It’s really quite bizarre to see them flail around so. (I previously wrote on FISA a few weeks ago, so consider that post a bit of a primer if you are unfamiliar.)

Now, Mr. Newcom is the elected Recorder in McLean County, Illinois. I’d venture to guess that when he was sworn into office he raised his right hand and swore (or affirmed) to uphold, among other things, the Constitution of the United States of America.

One of the parts of that Constitution is the 4th Amendment. It’s a short amendment, written over 200 years ago as part of the Bill of Rights, so maybe — just maybe — Mr. Newcom overlooked it.

Let me repeat it for him:

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.

(emphasis added)

It’s not too difficult to understand, but apparently those partisan blinders Mr. Newcom is wearing have kept him from actually reading that sentence in our Constitution.

If he had, he’d know what an ass he’s making of himself by complaining that Republicans are giving comfort to terrorists because they’re possibly giving a Dem candidate a free pass which might give the Congressional Democratic majority one more vote toward … upholding our Constitution (gasp!).

Upholding our Constitution? Yes, by not allowing this current conservative administration or any future administration to continue to violate the 4th Amendment’s demand for probable cause and warrants based on such.

I will say that if Mr. Newcom is truly concerned about terrorists, the US Government can still tap terrorists that are overseas. That never changed.

I wonder if Mr. Newcom knows how to tie his shoes… or if instead he blames velcro on, say, Pinochet perhaps. Makes as much sense as his latest spin-cycle rant against … well, against, something.

Get a grip, Mr. Newcom.

PS: Whereas Mr. Newcom odiously and otiosely yelps that candidate Halvorson “aids the terrorists” with absolutely no evidence that this person who isn’t even in Congress yet actually is somehow helping terrorists, it’s telling that his rant (and the rants of those like him) actually does in fact help our conservative president trample our own Constitution just that much more.

It has famously been said that liberty in exchange for security offers neither…. Placing partisan fealty ahead of citizenship to nation and loyalty to our Constitution, as Mr. Newcom does, is even worse.

Shame on you, Lee “Constitution Shredder” Newcom. Try pledging allegiance to our flag instead of a herd of elephants.

Must be nice to be born with a silver hockey stick in your mouth…

Rich Miller noted over at CapFax this morning that Steve ‘the Toadstool‘ Greenberg toes the ever-shrinking-minority Republican line on Iraq:

“The Islamic people, the Iraqi people, are just like us,” Greenberg said. “And it’s our job to lift them up.”

Well, actually, we don’t generally have Catholics and Lutherans and Baptists setting up roadside bombs and shooting at each other unlike, say, Sunnis and Shia in Iraq.

And whatever happened to Republicans being against welfare? Why is it ok to “lift up” Iraqis (to the tune of $340+ million a day) but looking out for actual Americans isn’t?

What’s that you say? College-dropout Steve Greenberg didn’t mention “lifting up Americans”?

Actually, he did as commenters at CapFax pointed out:

One [student] asked whether the government should help small businesses compete against super-sized retail chains such as Wal-Mart. Small business owners need to “suck it up,” Greenberg said, and create niches for themselves …

Iraqis? We have to lift them up instead of taking off those million-dollar training wheels.

Ma and Pa down the street, who have to shutter their shop and lay off a handful of local neighbors? They can suck it… (up).

First, he couldn’t decide if he wanted to waste his millions trying to buy a seat for Senate or Congress.

Then, Mr. Greenberg couldn’t stop worrying about Kosovo and Serbia instead of Johnsburg and Roselle.

Later, he rails against a fundraiser hosted by an American woman and her foreign-born husband (an ambassador, no less) with an anti-immigrant screed beyond the pale of even modern raucous campaigning.

Now, he’s telling us we have to take care of Iraqis (already a heckuva mess thanks to failed conservative policy) rather than looking out for our own neighbors who have to close their stores as a result of other failed conservative policies protecting Big Biz on the backs of the largest employer in America — small businesses.

Good luck with that.

… Say, how did honest conservatives allow their values and philosophy to become so twisted and contorted by these partisan parrots?

On her blog, Anne Leary describes herself in part with “Graduate of Harvard, MBA University of Chicago.”

We’ve already learned that, if one practices her comrade Team America’s “logic”, no one is allowed to actually describe themselves by their job or other commonly accepted descriptors. This means that TA is no longer allowed to call himself a “lawyer”. It also clearly implies that the guy he and Ms. Leary support for reelection to Congress is not supposed to call himself “Representative” because of this new rule they’ve made up.

Now we find out that, based on what passes for Ms. Leary’s own version of “logic”, alumni of a given school are supposed to call their alma mater to attack anyone who is associated with that school but has fallen out of favor with some random gaggle of partisans.

In other words: Alumni of Harvard and the University of Chicago… call your alumni office. There’s a partisan whiner using your good name to promote her propaganda…

Sound ridiculous? No more ridiculous than the bizarre catfight GOP partisans are trying to info-pimp over Dan Seals’ position as an adjunct professor at Northwestern University.

For some reason, Ms. Leary and her friend TA think it’s a lie to tell people that you are an adjunct professor when, in fact, you actually are an adjunct professor.

You would think that, by their own descriptions of themselves, these would be smart people. TA is a lawyer. Ms. Leary is an Ivy League grad with experience in the banking industry.

Yet, when it comes to partisanship, they throw all logic out the window in their efforts to be base and petty. Refusing to acknowledge that a professorship is actually a professorship they instead attack the candidate (because he dares to oppose ‘their guy’) and anyone who points out little things like “facts” and “reality”.

Mark Kirk is a nice enough fellow and clearly very bright. Why he tolerates having a bunch of weak-kneed Tanya Harding imitators who rely on fibs and twisted tales as ’supporters’ is unclear.

For the record, Ms. Leary thought she was calling me and others out in one of her posts by declaring that the Repub partisans’ whining about their own manufactured controversy is “damaging” to Prof. Dan Seals and that any efforts to point out those partisans’ own lack of logic are somehow ad hominem attacks.

Since she at times has an affinity for the delete key, I’ll repeat my reply here:

How is pointing out the Republican partisans’ fallacies about Prof. Dan Seals “damaging” to him?

While you’re at it, Ms. Leary, you may wish to look up the definition of “ad hominem” as it fits your own “hysterical ranting” much better than any of the other actual posts discussing this topic (right or left) to date.

Unlike Ms. Leary, TA usually has the decency to acknowledge his errors. (Except, quite obviously, in this ongoing embarrassment to himself.)

Given how regularly Ms. Leary decries theocratic fascism and its harsh punishments (and often rightly so), one would think she would oppose such partisan-based ‘rhetorical stoning’ of her fellow Americans. One would be wrong.

Apparently, in Ms. Leary’s backyard and TA’s version of America, they (and only they) get to declare what is kosher for everyone else to say and they (and only they) can decide what is “true” or not, even if their partisan decrees are clearly false in and of themselves.

Update: Ms. Leary attempts to respond. It’s unclear what she still doesn’t understand but in her response she “sqeals” about that Dan Seals…

Ms. Leary: “Hey, I earned my degrees fair and square.”

That’s nice. Nobody said she didn’t.

Rather, I pointed out (above) that her fellow members of the Crimson and Maroon nations might disagree with her “sqeals” and “hysterical rantings” and want to call their respective alumni offices to complain that she lists Harvard and the University of Chicago in her blog’s bio. That is, after all, what she wants Northwestern alumni to do with regards to Dan Seals.

Ms. Leary: “Nobody’s paying me to teach some part-time class”

I’m sure if Ms. Leary wanted to teach a class and was accepted by whatever institution she applied at (or was recruited by) they would, in fact, pay her.

Or, in her partisan zealotry, is she suggesting professors and teachers are not supposed to be paid?

Ms. Leary: “I’m not using some phony title”

Who is? Dan Seals, whether Ms. Leary and her colleagues like it or not, is a Visiting Lecturer at Northwestern University. Another commonly accepted word for “visiting lecturer” is … “professor.” Nothing phony there — but there sure is a lot of made-up outrage coming from one side of the political aisle.

Ms. Leary: “To try to get a real job”

No one else involved in this discussion, including the candidates, is doing that either.

Ms. Leary: “I don’t mindlessly recite Dem talking points to desperately try to change the subject”

Nor do I.

It is rather obvious though, that Ms. Leary, tends to recite conservative talking points to desperately distort a given subject.

Besides, who’s changing “the subject”? The subject is the conserv-o-partisan Kirk supporters’ manufactured and info-pimped non-story about Dan Seals job as a visiting lecturer at Northwestern University. Is that not the topic of this blogpost?

Or is pointing out that this non-controversy is, in and of itself, a transparent effort to avoid actually discussing issues that matter. (Apparently simply mentioning words like economy, health care, or, gasp, Iraq is now defined as “hysterical ranting” per the most recent Dictionary of Standard English, Anne Leary Hyperpartisan Edition.)

And finally, Ms. Leary concludes her prose with some “hysterical ranting” about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. (Yes, that’s a joke friends.)

…And the incumbent for whom he toils so — Mark Kirk — must stop referring to himself as a Congressman, let alone the incumbent United States Representative from Illinois’ 10th District. (It would seem that big glossy mailer about the VA clinic named after [can't-call-him-an-astronaut] Jim Lovell that was printed and franked at taxpayer expense was a really big no-no in TA’s mind.)

…And Senators John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must stop referring to themselves by their job titles. (And [can't-say-Senator] Obama and the news media reporting on his campaign must stop referring to his role as a professor at the University of Chicago or his position as president of the Harvard Law Review.)

Team America’s latest myopic, illogical rant about [can't-say-Rep.] Kirk’s opponent Dan Seals highlights a political stunt done by partisan students at Northwestern University to complain that Adjunct Professor Dan Seals is calling himself an Adjunct Professor. It’s fine for conservative Wildcats to bemoan the fact that Seals is a professor at their school, just as I’m sure some Stanford students aren’t happy with cracker-jack historian Victor David Hanson being associated with their university.

But this hollow, purple-faced whining over Prof. Seals calling himself by his title is based on a lack of reason and rationality that is just sad. Kindergarteners could make better arguments.

Are Republican partisans really this lathered up over the fact that Dan Seals is referring to his job (whether they like the fact he has a job or not), or are they simply recognizing the very real threat that Northwestern University Adjunct Professor Dan Seals poses as he makes his second run to return Democratic leadership to the 10th District?

Apparently, even a cornered elephant will lash out in whatever way it can when cornered — logical or not.

But hey, at least we’re not talking about the looming recession, the housing collapse, the health care crisis, the quagmire in Iraq, the lack of progress in finding Osama bin Forgotten, or anything of any actual importance to the 10th district and America.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.