Category Archive

Fran Eaton, Illinois Review’s editor, picks up on a speculative post by fellow conservative partisan and her “good friend” Joyce Morrison in a feebly attempt to “debunk” global warming.

You see, oceanographers discovered a series of underwater volcanoes 2 1/2 miles below the Arctic Ocean. They are so deep in fact that these cracks in the earth don’t behave like their counterparts on land because the herculean water pressure distorts lava and gas bubbles and even prevents steam from forming.

Now, one who doesn’t know much about vulcanology and oceanography might leave it to scientists to describe the processes at work here. And indeed, the researchers studying these deep-sea volcanoes depict an alien world of oddly shaped stones and shards of glass-like rock.

To her credit, Ms. Eaton does indeed briefly quote the Science Daily article written about the study.

But she and her good friend Ms. Morrison then jump to a completely illogical and unfounded conclusion that isn’t even mentioned in the article at all: that these few volcanoes, 2 1/2 miles under the ocean surface, might have something to do with the melting polar ice cap.

Is carbon dioxide released in a volcanic eruption? Sure. Just as it has been throughout the earth’s history — but the recent global warming temp spike has happened much more quickly than anything found in any geologic record. Thus it is illogical to think that one volcano (or even three, as in this case) would be the cause for the sudden worldwide jump in temperature seen in the past century-plus.

Is lava hot? You bet. Scientists studying volcanoes have died because magma has burned them to death. It’s real hot stuff. But is the lava produced by three volcanoes which are located 2 1/2 miles underwater going to be hot enough to melt polar ice from Russia to Alaska to Canada to Greenland? No, it’s not — for the same reason that the underwater volcanoes near Hawaii don’t raise the air temperature on those tropical islands. It’s just too deep.

Finally, logic would dictate that if these volcanoes were causing the Arctic ice to melt, then the Antarctic ice would not be melting due to a lack of magic volcanoes. Sadly for this myopic partisan duo of conservativedom, the Antarctic ice is also melting quite rapidly — with entire sheets of ice breaking off the southern continent and floating away to melt. (Such vast quantities of freshwater suddenly melting into saltwater are very likely to disrupt ocean patterns which have stabilized the global climate for millenia, mind you, but far be it from this dynamic duo to care about such things when there’s a funky partisan yarn to spin.)

Maybe Fran and Joyce read that creative Science Daily headline (”Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep“) and got all hot and bothered thinking they had found the cure for what ails their fellow partisan ostriches who just need to find that one last miracle shred of infopimping that can be twisted just so in order to convince the rest of the globe that reality isn’t really real…

Sadly, they have failed in that regard.

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.

The Supreme Court recently ruled (in a split decision) that the state of Indiana can require voters to present photo identification in order to cast a ballot.

Conservatives cheered with glee.

The problem with such a stipulation is that it in fact present a barrier, preventing citizens from voting simply because they do not have a picture id.

And that, in fact, is exactly what happened earlier today in Indiana as a group of nuns were unable to cast ballots for lack of an id.

Why didn’t they just go and get an id? They don’t drive and had no means of getting to the nearest state facility to have a photo id made.

Shame on conservatives for refusing these nuns the right to vote. Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton lists the typical “so what/big deal” excuse-making from conservatives:

Most everyone has to have a photo ID for any travel on planes with Homeland Security as it is. They either drive or are able to get an ID at the Secretary of State’s office for less than $10 bucks. You have to have a photo id in many stores now to use a credit card. I’m not sure why voting should be less scrutized.

Actually, no. As this group of now-disenfranchised nuns illustrates, not everyone needs or wants a photo id. And as for the $10 cost, again, not everyone can spare even $10. Indeed, the 24th Amendment declares it illegal to deny the right to vote to persons who are unable to pay a poll tax. That cost of the government-issued photo id amounts to a poll tax by another name. Ms. Eaton would apparently wish that we also disenfranchise the poor. Finally, buying material goods with a credit card is a privilege, not a right enshrined throughout various Sections and Amendments in our Constitution. (Ms. Eaton, of course, is on record as opposing expansion of laws related to firearm owner ID cards … for apparently opposite reasons.)

Then again, maybe the nuns were secretly dead people or illegal immigrants trying to boost vote fraud numbers seeing as how vote fraud was already exceedingly rare even before the recent SCOTUS split decision.

These Indiana rules amount to little more than an intentional disenfranchisement of American citizens who have the legal right to vote, except for wont of a picture — and conservatives applaud such disenfranchisement.

So much for “spreading democracy”…

Didn’t Christ teach us to love one another? Why, yes, He did.

Why then would Illinois Review conservative and former state lege candidate Eric Wallace, PhD, bash Obama with the following snide, anti-Christian remark:

Needless to say, the black community’s first warning should have been after Barack Obama professed his Christian values, and then advocated for gay rights…

Advocating for equal rights is a Christian value, Dr. Wallace. Simple as that.

Why would Dr. Wallace take Christ’s own teachings out of Christianity? Perhaps he ought to change his name to Peter, since he is denying Christ with his self-interested partisan ranting.

You don’t think Dr. Wallace’s was pure, unadulturated self-interest? His own words belie his aims:

Thus we ask, that all our conservative friends support our [Freedom's Journal] magazine. To purchase a subscription click here. To advertise your business, and support our efforts click here.

Who publishes Freedom’s Journal (not the historical 1800s version but the modern conservative version which usurped that proud publication’s name)?

You guessed it.

Seeing as how Dr. Wallace’s denial of Christ’s teachings in his post is related to his pursuit of money, perhaps he’s more like Judas than Peter.

Welcome to kindergarten…

• John “Poopy Head” Ruskin compares a journalist — Rich Miller — who covers Springfield and other Illinois political matters to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Why? Because Miller posted a few facts that put the lie to the spin being promoted by a comrade of Ruskin’s. In his role as a reporter, Miller has gone after Dems, GOPs and even Greens with equal aplomb when they fib, flop or go flakey, as Sen. Steve Rauschenberger has been doing of late in his anti-Obama zeal. This isn’t the first time the pseudonymous Ruskin has flailed around spewing crap instead of keeping his bizarre inanities to himself… (What’s that? There’s a financial stake for the denizens of Illinois Review to prop up the head of the United Republican Fund, an organization that so many of them also help operate? Go figure…)
• Jill “Likes Sex Ed” Stanek once compared an incumbent, duly elected State Senator to a porn star and, when called out for her depravity, upped the ante by continuing to make a fool of herself. Why? Because said State Senator was advocating for a vaccine that former nurse Stanek didn’t like. Instead of rational debate, are porn references really how Jill would rather get her jollies?
• Lee “Wets His Pants” Newcom recently claimed a Democratic candidate for Congress was “aiding terrorists” even though she’s not even in Congress. Why? Because he has nothing better to do at his day job working for the citizens of McLean County, apparently. Or perhaps it’s because he has no valid explanation for why he would choose to trample on our Constitution instead of upholding our rights.

And an honorable dunce cap mention must go to ilgopnet.com’s Warner Todd “Has a Problem Alright” Huston, for comparing a duly elected, incumbent Congresswoman to a brutal African dictator simply because she wants folks to be able to eat their dinner in peace.

Someone calling out your comrades on their lies? Call ‘em a Unabomber!

Upset that a legislator is advocating potentially life-saving medicine? Compare her to a porn star and ask about her sex life.

A legislator running for Congress from the party you oppose? Squeal like a stuck pig that they’re “aiding terrorists” even though they’re not even in office (yet) and they don’t even know any terrorists in the first place … all while trying to hide from the fact that you want to literally rip out parts of the Bill of Rights.

Crabby because a Democratic Congresswoman is sitting in a seat you thought should go to a Republican? Claim that some innocuous legislative proposal is akin to the dictatorial policies of a madman.

Congrats conservative partisans, with each passing day you seem wont to gleefully dig your own vacuous holes of irrelevance that much deeper. It used to be that the conservative philosophy had some meaning. Now that Pres. Bush has implemented many conservative policies and they’re failing miseable, those scales are falling from people’s eyes and all the con partisans have left are their insults and self-pity.

At least you guys are good at comedy, even if unintentionally so.

(And, Ruskin, if it’s Miller time it’s MGD for me — though lately I’ve been reaching for a nice cold Berghoff. …Woof.)

Update: “A Republican Committeeman in Aurora, IL” makes the same points in a much more forgiving manner…

If we spent a lot less time on this sort of stuff and more time on facts and logical arguments I think we would be in better shape. You don’t save too many people preaching the same message to choir.

If you think his facts or analysis is wrong provide reasons not cute little things about ’secret locations’.

By spending “a lot less time on this sort of stuff” I take it to mean OneMan isn’t a fan of calling people “poodles”. I tend to find that sort of dysfunctionally juvenile crap hysterically funny, however, and (obviously) enjoy going toe to toe with that sticks-and-stones crowd. Somebody’s gotta do it or “Ruskin” might get an ego as big as his (poopy) head.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the thin-skinned “Ruskin” up and calls OneMan a Nazi just for pointing out the obvious.

Steve Rauschenberger may be gearing up for another run for statewide office, or a midling spot in a hypothetical McCain administration…

Rauschenberger, the man who helped bring the Alan Keyes Flying Circus to Illinois, has been making the rounds of any ol’ conservative wurlitzer that will have him and our friends at Illinois Review have been dutifully following his trail of breadcrumbs as if he’s actually saying something of note.

His latest quips were printed by the conservative Wall Street Journal, and reveal the sublime irony that is Rauschy, post-State Senate:

“Barack was one of the smartest people I ever worked with, but he was more interested in moving up,” says Republican Steven Rauschenberger, who served with Mr. Obama in the state senate. “I never thought he was very engaged in the state senate, because he didn’t think that much of it.”

First off, that doesn’t explain why State Sen. Barack Obama has so much legislation under his belt and a stint as a committee chair. If he wasn’t “very engaged” why’d he work so hard at it?

Second, this quote is coming from a guy who was otherwise preoccupied in 2004 and 2006 doing … what was it? … ah, yes … running for higher office. Then-State Sen. Rauschenberger ran for that same US Senate seat opening that then-State Sen. Obama ran for and won. (Rauschy lost in the primary, pretty soundly too.) Two years later, Rauschy hadn’t lost that fever and ran for governor. When that was going nowhere, he joined the Ron Gidwitz campaign as the lt. governor add-on. That couple still lost in the primary to Judy Baar Topinka and another fellow who seems to perennially be seeking higher office, Joe Birkett.

Did Rauschy not think that much of the Senate Chambers himself?

What a bunch of hot air.

Update: Rich Miller describes the rantings of Rauschy in more detail, debunking spin after spin. Mr. Miller concludes: “Again, Rauschenberger makes a few very good points, but overall his message seems, well, ‘bitter.’”

Dave Smith of strident gay-hatin’ fame has a post over at Illinois Review whining about tax dollars that are given to Planned Parenthood for women’s health services… In his frothy zest to get his screed against women online, he spins himself into a pretzel:

While Planned Parenthood claims that these funds are not used for abortion, obviously having this constant supply of tax dollars coming in as part of your budget makes all other areas of operation much easier to sustain.

Yes, obviously having this “constant supply of tax dollars” coming to provide the women’s health services for which those tax dollars are being granted would make one’s operation easier to sustain… That’s the point, Mr. “anti-family” Smith.

Not every woman can afford health care for herself — thus as the compassionate society we are we “care for our neighbors as we do ourselves.”

Does Mr. Smith complain about other doctors that receive grants in order to perform routine medical care?

(Yes, some — not all — Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortion services. Such medical procedures, as Planned Parenthood has stated, are funded through a combination of donations and direct fees to medical patients. But as most rational folks know, Planned Parenthood provides many more medical services than just the one Mr. Smith finds offensive including counseling, regular exams, disease treatment and prevention, etc.)

And how about those trillions of Mr. Smith’s tax dollars being spent on “collateral damage” for our president’s lies? Is Mr. Smith just as forcefully seeking to cut off that spigot of money and bring our intrepid, loyal troops home? Or does Mr. Smith somehow excuse and apologize for all that?

The other day political journalist Rich Miller noted that Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton was violating copyright laws by posting subscriber’s only material he had written for Capitol Fax. Today, she does the same by copying + pasting an entire Illinois Times article.

Even more interesting, Ms. Eaton labels the fact-based article about Illinois conservatives’ efforts to demonize Sen. Barack Obama (and, in particular, infopimp crass distortions about his church and his faith) “amazing” and “entertaining” as if it was somehow inaccurate.

In fact, the article has all the stock conserv-o-partisan players — Ms. Eaton, Dave Smith of the Illinois anti-Family Institute, Jill Stanek of “Debby Does…” fame, and a host more. It connects the dots on the history of Obama opposition from these comrades and also points to the many ways they are willing to twist and distort his words and the words of those with whom they like to tar and feather him as they try to advance their conservative agenda while desperately trying tearing him down any way they can.

Did Ms. Eaton forget that she herself wrote a post decrying Sen. Obama’s abiding faith and how she considers his faith dangerous to the conservative agenda? Other times, she has simply called Sen. Obama “dangerous” not because he actually is but because of her partisan-tinged misunderstandings of his church’s tenets. Yet here, in her post copying an article about her repeated partisan attempts at sliming Sen. Obama, she claims to be “humble”.

Humble? Ms. Eaton has been systematically info-pimping her schlock for well over a year.

As we saw with Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, conserv-o-partisans are avoiding the high negatives of their failed policies by attacking the Democratic candidate’s strongest attributes. In 2000, we got lies from George Bush wherein he falsely claimed Al Gore said he invented the Internet, etc. VP Gore of course never said that, but it didn’t stop then-candidate Bush from info-pimping this and similar lies in an effort to undermine Gore’s credibility and whitewash then-Gov. Bush’s own lacking credibility. Same in 2004 in which veterans who never served with Kerry (and even a few who had, despite the fact they sung a different, completely opposite tune before 2004) bald-faced lying about Sen. Kerry’s time in Vietnam.

Now, circa 2008, we have these myopic, hollow attacks on Sen. Obama’s former pastor, the hard truths to which his pastor has borne witnessed, his fellow church congregants and even Obama’s fundamental Christian faith which guides him each and every day…

But hey, at least we’re not talking about the effect of conservatives’ failed policies on the economy, our international standing, and more.

Update: Ill Review commenter “Marriage Defender” exclaims:

The Illinois Times is a left-wing Christian hating rag!

What a coinky-dink! I’ve repeatedly explained how Fran Eaton and other conserv-o-partisans write their own Christian hating screeds at that “right-wing rag” known as Illinois Review, among others. (Of course, one has to rely on those same partisans’ definition of “anti-Christian” in order to discuss such things….)

Ironically, in attempting to make a well-reasoned argument for why people such as yours truly are “totally naked, totally dependent, totally selfish, totally ignorant and totally emotional and irrational,” Illinois Review contributor George Kocan ends up basing his polemic on rationales that are completely dependent on other partisans’ thoughts; absolutely selfish in their self-serving, holier-than-thou attitude; utterly ignorant of reality (though perhaps willfully so); and, clearly, based entirely on irrational and emotional claims rather than facts.

Do I personally think all conservatives are full of such schlock? No. I know a good many very thoughtful, honestly compassionate conservatives who try to ignore the baloney that Ill Review and their brand of conserv-o-partisans regurgitate each day. The sort of crass chicanery Mr. Kocan and his comrades peddle reflects poorly on them and they know it … and they are disgusted by it.

Similarly, despite Mr. Kocan’s baseless, wily claims, I also know numerous liberals who are “responsible adults, knowledgeable, self-controlled, generous, and independent” which is clearly more than one can say for this propaganda-driven charlatan.

(And how truly bizarre that Mr. Kocan would even post such elitist malarkey about his opponents being “emotional” and “irrational” on a blog hosting ads for Dennis Miller’s “rant” of a conservative radio show and whose Publisher Editor has claimed liberals have ‘dripping fangs’ … among other choice sandbox put-downs from Ill Review contributors.)

Ill Review commenter Erasmussimo takes Mr. Kocan to task:

This is truly a preposterous essay! It is based on two huge mistakes: first, the assumption that conservatives are smart, virtuous, mature, and logical, while liberals are stupid, evil, immature, and illogical. This kind of gross generalization, coming from a conservative, is just parochial. If a liberal were to claim that liberals were wise, caring, intelligent, and insightful, while conservatives were foolish, selfish, dumb, and obtuse, I would regard such claims as self-serving claptrap. Gee, George, don’t hurt your arm patting yourself on the back.

The second gross fallacy in this essay is the use of anecdotal evidence. Our author presents us with four case histories of liberals turning into conservatives. [...] But even so, a grand total of four examples doesn’t prove much when you’re talking about millions of people.

Ah, but those partisan blinders Mr. Kocan is wearing prevent him from seeing his own “emotional” and “irrational” hypocrisy.

[Adults Only Warning for these next two links...]

Or, perhaps Mr. Kocan is simply projecting… It wouldn’t be the first time some hypocritical, diaper-wearing conserv-o-partisan did so (no, really, “diaper-wearing”).

Mr. Kocan, most the rest of us graduated kindergarten. Why haven’t you?

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 »

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.

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….

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?

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.

Why do these charletans, who are so clearly lying, continue to promote their baloney? (And yes, they must be lying because they can’t claim ignorance given how often the truth has been pointed out to them.)

Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton gives her mentor of mischief Phyllis Schlafly space at ye ol’ Ill Review to peddle those same tired lies about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the ERA.

Why is it that when conserv-o-partisans don’t have a leg to stand on they resort to lying instead of trying to promote alternatives? Simply having another person repeat the same lie doesn’t somehow magically make it a tiny bit more truthy. It’s just repeats the lie and makes liars out of not one, but now two conservatives.

PS: Is this what conservative-partisans usually refer to as “self-loathing” given that these lionesses of conservativedom are so ardently against equal rights for their own gender that they’d lie about the ERA? Hmmm…

While it’s understandable that the Clinton campaign would be jumping on any little tidbit of Rezko flotsam they can scare up, it’s much less clear why conservatives would play along. As point of fact, Illinois Review wrote up a “new” series on Rezko rehashing a bunch of old info from a conservative partisan perspective. Curiously, in the second post of that series (about Rezko’s political donations) Fran Eaton begins:

Tony Rezko aimed his campaign dollars where he would get the most return on his investments, there’s no doubt.

Perhaps she didn’t realize Mr. Rezko put quite a large investment in her conservative hero, Pres. George Bush.

Mr. Rezko donated $7000 directly to Bush and also helped co-chair a $3.5 million Bush-Cheney04 fundraiser in 2003. Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed called it simply a “megamillion” fundraiser which, at $3.5 mil, it certainly is. Her S-T colleague Lynn Sweet notes that co-chairs for that event were responsible for bundling at least $100,000 in donations to Pres. Bush. In addition to that largesse in support of Bush, Rezko of course also was quite generous to a variety of other Republican pols over the years.

I wonder if Ms. Eaton knows what sort of “return” Rezko was trying to get on his mega Bush “investment.”

Like Tom Roeser and former Pres. Bill Clinton, cranky conservative (and Illinois Review contributing author) Mark Rhoads wants to know where Sen. Obama’s “substance” is as he runs for president.

If only Mark Rhoads had taken 0.21 seconds to bother looking for the “beef” he, like Roeser and Clinton and others apparently too lazy to bother looking, would’ve found plenty to chew on at the Obama for President Issues page.

Strange how often conservative partisans seem to be echoing the Clintons (and vice versa) these days. Birds of a feather?

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

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

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

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

Of note:

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

(h/t Daily Kos)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, there are a few extremists who fall for the “annihiliation” claptrap talking points … facts be damned. But why does anyone still give this sort of over the top baloney a forum, let alone defend it as some Ill Review commenters are so doing.

Ill Review Fran Eaton claims, “[Todd] Stroger betrays his race and encourages black annihilation” because abortions are performed at Stroger Hospital.

If she had thought about it, one could use the same logic to exclaim, ‘Bush betrays his office and encourages troop annihilation…’ E gad.

To the point, whether you believe allegorical evidence provides a reasonable basis for argument or not (silly goose conservative “writer” Dennis Byrne apparently does), many suggest that conservative economic and social policies tend to backfire and actually increase abortion rates.

What’s a conserv-o-partisan to do?

Did you know that if you put unpopped popcorn kernels in the turkey they’ll pop while it’s roasting and you’ll have instant popcorn stuffing?

Hilariously, that apparently was one of the few goofball remarks that Illinois Review contributors failed to post in their Day of Doody.

Archpundit takes the Review gang to task by highlighting such gems as Jill Stanek linking (in all seriousness) to kooky claims that Terry Schiavo was fully aware despite having nearly half her brain literally and sadly being liquified and George Dienhart rambling on about what he believes are qualifications for being considered anti-American, including opposing Pres. Bush’s failing NCLB of all things. (Arch also points out Fran Eaton’s two-faced regurgitation of anti-Bob Creamer points. I’ll have more on that in a bit.)

But while you’re passing the popcorn and cracking up over the Ill Reviewers’ inanities, don’t forget to read their best Alfred E. Neuman impression in  the whiney comments from Ms. Stanek and Mr. Dienhart who, unfortunately for them, don’t read what they write and link to…

These people want to be considered serious? (Worse, anyone actually takes them seriously?)

It’s ok, though. I hear Bill Clinton made them do it… perhaps by using his sax appeal.

(As an aside, good thing Ron Paul fan C-Rock hasn’t tracked down George Dienhart’s anti-Paul squeel. He might find a new blog to enjoy. …I do find it really bizarre that Paul supporters were calling uber-conservative Mr. Dienhart “lefty”. So much in-fighting, so many kilobytes in which to do it.)

What planet is Eunice Conn on? She tells us today that she was:

…a bit saddened when I read that [Illinois Republican Party chair] Andy McKenna endorsed Steve Sauerberg … because Mr. McKenna did not meet with all the candidates running for the U.S. Senate seat.

You see, Eunice apparently knows another Republican candidate, Mike Psak. And I can understand her disappointment to a degree. Dr. Sauerberg hedged on so many questions at his kick-off announcement that news columnists labeled him “slippery“.

But poor, poor Eunice… She must’ve missed all the news about Andy McKenna and IRP specifically recruiting Dr. Sauerberg. Why wouldn’t Mr. McKenna endorse him?

Illinois Review Editor and former worker for Alan Keyes for Senate (Illinois edition) Fran Eaton approvingly posts a Tribune cartoon making light of Sen. Obama’s “Kingdom on Earth” speech.

When did these folks who claim to be Christian suddenly start poking fun at their own faith and others who practice it? Is this some sort of new coolness that these folks who claim to be Christian are attempting to bolster? Or, are they self-doubting Christians — modern day Peters (deniers) and Thomases (doubting) … each distancing themselves from others who hold the faith these folks claim to themselves hold?

It’s clear Ms. Eaton can’t stand Sen. Obama, and that in her revulsion she has stooped so low as to attack his church on several occasions. Could it be that [gasp] partisans like Ms. Eaton are only acting Christian to the extent that they have no use for actual Christians who espouse differing political viewpoints? Gee, ya think.

Composition class teacher and Phyllis Schlafly critic “Evil Bender” lists the ways in which Ms. Schlafly would fail his composition class with her baseless drivel… Ill Review of course offered Ms. Schlafly a guest spot to promote her inane rantings such as declaring English classes akin to a gateway-drug into such horrors as the Virginia Tech massacre.

Way to go, “moral relativism” folks.

(Yes, Phyllis Schlafly sired Andy-boy Schlafly whose grasp of reality is so shakey and uncertain he had to go and create an entire fictional wiki called Conservapedia just to contain all his wanton make-believe fantasies. Runs in the family, it seems.)

Illinois Review contributor Eunice Conn tries to be funny while fibbing about Rush Limbaugh’s latest bout of troop-bashing…

It’s No Wonder

By Eunice Conn

Is it any wonder that some of the same people who are accusing Rush Limbaugh of things he never said [Blogger's Note: this is what he actually said, word for word] are the same people who would approve of Spanish as the second language in America?

It’s obvious as to why. They don’t understand English!

Bet they don’t understand Spanish either!

First, as far back as the 1750s (yes, before the War for Independence) English-speakers have been worried about those who speak other languages; at the time, German. Immigrants since then — as we almost all are, or are descended from — have spoken every language under the sun. Even today I can walk within a few blocks of my suburban house and greet several neighbors whose native tongues are Polish, Russian, Japanese, etc. Some of those folks have learned English well, others not as well, but all are productive citizens and good neighbors. A quick look at Chicago neighborhoods will find those languages plus Greek, Swedish, Czech and, yes, Spanish.

Welcome to America the melting pot, Eunice. What part of Emma Lazarus’ poem engraved at the base of the Statue of Liberty is not clear to Eunice? The poem is printed in English, after all.

Second, what is it that Eunice thinks Rush Limbaugh didn’t say?

The part where he labeled all the soldiers he disagreed with “phony soldiers“? He was talking about soldiers who believe the mission in Iraq is not worth it and would prefer our military redeploy out of that theater (his talk about Jesse MacBeth came about two minutes later).

These men and women that Rush called “phony” have given their lives and limbs so that Rush can disparage them by first labeling them “phony” and then implying they’re like suicide bombers. They’ve also sacrificed themselves so that Eunice can fib in defense her ideological comrade, Rush.

Perhaps Eunice got confused by Rush’s multiple excuses — was he talking about one soldier, many soldiers, this soldier or that? What’s a conserv-o-partisan to do when there’s a gasbag with a boil on his ass in need of a hare-brained defense?

Or maybe Eunice thinks it was the almost two minutes of tape that Rush deleted from that radio broadcast in order to splice together some sort of hackneyed explanation. Just because he hit the erase button on the tape machine doesn’t mean he didn’t say it, Eunice. (FYI Eunice, just because Fox “News” aired that Nixonian spliced tape for their partisan ally also doesn’t mean Rush didn’t say it.)

It’s unclear why Eunice and her fellow “dittohead” conservative partisans don’t understand why having Rush bash our military is a problem. You’d think after the stink these folks raised about a newspaper ad (which told the truth about our commander-in-chief’s use of Enron-style fuzzy math “statistics” for Iraq) that the conservative partisans would be concerned when one of their own puts down literally thousands of troops with one word. But perhaps they’ve convinced themselves if they simply keep repeating the same fairy tale over and over maybe one enchanted day they’ll open their eyes and … bippity-boppity-boo … their fibs will have magically become true!

No, Eunice, the only phony things here are you and Rush and your bizarrely fabricated excuse-making. (Well, that and all of Rush’s phony challenges to have the people telling the truth about him say it to his face — unsurprisingly, the conservative Clear Channel organization is not allowing that to happen. Must be ‘fraidy cats … given Rush’s lame-ass excuse for avoiding service in Vietnam, that could be.)

Self-centered, myopic, callous, ignorance … all are harsh words depending on the context.

I include myself on at least one — myopic — as I hadn’t taken the time to think about the implications of how 9/11 in that one day made all Americans feel the exact same way various segments of American minorities have likely felt their whole lives.

Just before 9/11/07, George Dienhart at Illinois Review posted a stream of consciousness recap of quotes from his various fellow Ill Review contributors. This post covered the mundane everyday actions and the heartfelt seered-into-the-mind reactions of Illinois’ conservative illuminati from throughout the day — when their spouse told them to get out of bed, when they poured their coffee, what traffic was like … their raw emotions as they heard of the news on the car radio, their visceral thoughts as they saw the live coverage and the replays of the video footage.

These are the same day-to-day activities and the same gut feelings we all had that day and ever since.

I too remember exactly where I was and what I was doing that gorgeous, clear day. I had the news on while heading into work on the Kennedy. The announcement of the first plane hitting came on just as I was going through the underpass next the blue line — a few minutes from the office.

We were all just numb that day at work. My wife and my boss’ husband (he worked in the Sears Tower) were let out of work early; we had deadlines at our office. On the way home I remember thinking I hadn’t seen traffic that thin in some years (even 2am traffic is usually heavier than the 5pm traffic was that day). Most of what my wife and I remember in the days immediately afterward was how bizarrely quiet it was. Living under an O’Hare flight path made the no-flight silence deafening — we could sleep with the windows open as that incongruously beautiful weather continued. News analysts in those following days pointed out that

Upon first reading the Illinois Review run-down I was quite incredulous… How could these folks who had the exact same reactions as I did — numbness, trauma, and even fear — let their feelings metastasize into the vitriol and venom they’ve since displayed for people who had nothing to do with that day’s attacks?

Read the rest of this entry »

Illinois Review posts a guest essay by Rudy raver State Rep. Bob Biggins claiming Rudy Giuliani has some sort of conservative values… (Ill Review had trashed Mayor Giuliani a few days back.)

I suppose if you think conservative “values” call for supporting never-ending war by propping it up with Enron-style fuzzy math and cheering for torture…. (Can you imagine James Madison telling the Constitutional delegates we need to torture foreigners?)

Rep. Biggins starts with “While it is true Rudy Giuliani is the strongest candidate on national security…” and the jokes get better from there.
Perhaps Rep. Biggins thinks placing your emergency management center in the one place your top advisers advise you not to put it is “strong”.

Or maybe he thinks crassly making money off a characterized 9/11 image is “strong”.

Could just be that Rep. Biggins believes going AWOL from Iraq Study Group meetings in order to give speeches for money, promoting political friends with troubled histories for Homeland Security Secretary, and dressing up like a woman* over and over is “strong”.

Many other folks, however, disagree with the notion that Giuliania has any national security cred.

Oh, and Rep. Biggins, you can save all those claims of Rudy’s so-called fiscal conservatism for the bottom of bird cages considering one of his top fundraisers decided to stop paying his taxes some time ago, and now owes $100,000+ in back taxes. You and I, Rep. Biggins, have had to make up that difference by responsibly paying our taxes. Then again, Mr. Giuliani’s record of fiscal conservatism as mayor of Gotham are greatly exaggerated as it is. (Much of his spin is based on a huge loan the city took out… does America really need more debt?)

(* - To be fair, I could care less if Mr. Giuliani gets his  kicks wearing stuffed bras, pantyhose and heels. But, it’s a bit disingenuous for Rep. Biggins and other supporters to continue trying to prop him up among social conservatives who clearly do have a problem with cross-dressing and other issues of an even slightly sexual nature.)