Petey’s Scatting Around

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who finds Peter Labarbera, undercover homosexual investigator, hilarious. Pam’s Blend takes us into Petey’s work at the War On Christian’s Conference. She refers back to this Salon article (weird advertising thingy to get in). Oh, boy, it’s at the Omni Shoreham–I just stayed there on my last trip to DC.

greatest frustration has been our side’s inability to make homosexual behavior an issue in the public’s mind.” In order to inspire the kind of revulsion he wants to see more of, he read from a posting on a gay message board: “Hey guys, I know this is kind of gross and all, but I was wondering if I’m the only one. I’m usually the bottom in my relationship with my boyfriend. After having been the receptive partner in anal sex it’s only a few hours before I start to experience diarrhea … it really stinks, because I really like sex, duh, but it takes the fun out of it when I know I’ll be tied to the bathroom for the next day.”

“I don’t think so-called GLBT teens are told anything like this” by their school counselors, LaBarbera said. “We need to find ways to bring shame back to those who are practicing and advocating homosexual behavior.”

Other geniuses at the conference include Rod Parsley who is the Stupidist Fucking Man on the Planet–yes even dumber than Doug Feith. His organization collects money to buy slaves’ freedom in Africa.

Anyone understand why that’s just sort of a problem?

End of the Fundraising Quarter

If you have a favorite candidate, give what you can.

Let’s go with a good consensus pick here,

John Pavich

I also recommend Bean, Duckworth, and Seals.

If you want to feel subversive, Join the Nedrenaline. It’s not that he’s moderate, it’s not that he supported the war, it’s that the good Senator Lieberman gets a lot more worked up about a blowjob than he does about an administration that routinely ignores the balance of power and the individual rights.

And finally, a guy I think proves that not playing well with others is a good thing, Jim Webb for US Senate in Virginia

Let’s Start the Cattle Call

Blogs never are in good taste so after wishing Congressman Evans well, I’m thinking

John Sullivan (I can recycle some posts–different Sullivan)
Mike Jacobs

Ah hell, that District covers such a weird area, I have a hard time figuring out who is in and who is out of it.

Minor thing–despite crossing over media markets, it’s relatively cheap and the Quad Cities area will now have two targeted races for the DCCC to work with in the area since IA-1 is also a hot race.

First person to say Mangieri, gets ejected. After that Treasurer campaign, he’s pretty much demonstrated he’s not up for a tough race.

Evans Retiring

I’m glad to hear it. Lane has served admirably, but it was clear this winter that he was going to have a hard time keeping up as a Congressman. It’s far better to leave on your own terms. I hope this will also give him time to enjoy himself and his family.

It is odd timing given the primary just passed, but obviously this is a far different situation than Lipinski–in this case it appears that Evans is dropping out after actually hoping to run again. Democrats will be able to appoint a candidate in his place.

There will be a scramble given the weird nature of the District and the areas it covers all along the Western border of Illinois and how it takes in Decatur and Springfield.

The District leans Democratic at about 53% so it leans Democratic, but it is competitive.

Via Rich

I Can’t Believe They Took the Bait

I can’t believe that one worked–the seat belt issue is hysterical because the best way to handle is just to say it is settled instead of actually getting into a debate over the issue.

11th Hour and Abelog cover the issue. Jim gets the political handling correct, but the reason the issue was raised is being missed.

Seat belt laws had very strong opponents when they were passed, but now that they are the law, they are pretty non-controversial. I doubt there would be a strong movement to repeal them because there is no real interest other than angry cranks (who disproportionately make up talk radio). Where the issue fits for the Blagojevich campaign isn’t a full blown debate, but taking a safety issue that suburban women think is a good idea and putting Topinka on the spot. It won’t turn a vote, but it does start a process the Blagojevich camp wants to start–the questioning of her values. People don’t vote on a laundry list for the most part, most vote on a vague sense of who shares their values and by beginning to question whether Topinka’s values match that of most suburban women, the process is started.

Don’t get me wrong, it might not work, but as far as a first salvo, Democrats got the upperhand as Topinka’s press people seem to be in primary mode worrying about the base and not the swing voters.

Not so Funny

Greg points out that hazing in the Lege can go too far. Way tooooo far….

Not funny and damn demeaning. If Dawn Clark Netsch was around she wouldn’t have ruled it just out of order, she’d have kicked Hendon’s ass. Mark Rhoads makes a very good point in Greg’s post. I don’t mind a bit of silliness, but treating women legislators as sex objects is so far over the line of acceptable behavior, I’ll stop trying to complain about it before I end up writing a string of cliches.


Really, I like Meeks in many ways, but don’t make me have that much fun at your expense.

Rich pointed out that Meeks’ views on guns would alienate him from social conservatives. I’m not sure that’s the biggest issue however.

There is a odd, but somewhat possible alliance between James Meeks and many social conservatives on abortion and gay marriage. Progressives all too often give a pass to African-Americans willing to scapegoat gays and lesbians, however, Meeks’ big weakness is on taxes which is the central point of his campaign. He wants to (I believe rightly) pass a tax swap which would raise income taxes and at least temporarily lower property taxes.

While social conservatism has run over the once proud Illinois Republican Party, taxes are still a bedrock issue on which conservatives will not defect. Any ground he might pick up will be lost to the tax position and then to Latinos who will not and should not tolerate Jim Oberweis.

Frankly, It’s Happened in Much Worse Situations

Cegelis refuses to endores Duckworth. If that’s Christine’s take, it’s Christines take (and YDD, I do owe you an apology–I was mistaken)

As I’ve expressed many times, there have been much worse primaries. This isn’t typical, but it’s certainly not uncommon. At this point, anyone who wants to fight over it can…others should find a campaign they can work for whether it’s Duckworth or another campaign.

Stephen Yellin on Melissa Bean

He makes a very simple point. Melissa Bean is a lot better than David McSweeney. I like Bean. I don’t like each of her votes, but she is a moderate in a relatively conservative district. Fortunately, the District isn’t as right wing as David McSweeney.

That said, this guy appears intent on delivering David McSweeney to Congress.

Scheurer is also pro-life. There are many pro-life Democrats who I respect, but arguing he’s the progressive choice for those on the left is kind of tough.

Word is Scheurer is also spreading the meme around that if he can beat Bean this year, he will run in 2008 and win. Not likely.

About the Blog

One of the things I’ve been both surprised and amused by is how many project things upon bloggers–ones people like they tend to think they share almost all the same attitudes and ones they dislike they tend to ascribe all bad things to.

And some of the comments lately bring me back to this. First, in terms of unity, there are times I might try and figure out how to do that, but even though I call myself a partisan blogger, that doesn’t mean I don’t make observations regardless of how uncomfortable they might make some.

Part of what I think has made ArchPundit somewhat interesting to read if you are a complete political dork is that I do more than just argue from a partisan viewpoint. I do race analysis and I attempt to put events in a larger context. Many probably think I do a bad job at that even, but it’s part of the point of ArchPundit to me.

So with that goes criticizing people I like or generally find to be similar to me in viewpoint. It happens a lot, but usually people notice when I’m talking about candidates they are closely tied.

A recent exmple would be my criticism of John Sullivan’s fundraising. I like John and his campaign for several reasons, but his fundraising came up short and I can’t say much more than it was inadequate. I think John understood that too.

But when I make observations about campaigns I don’t think it does any good to not point out the problems (as well as good signs) regardless of whether I like them, hate them or am relatively neutral.

Specifically with the Cegelis campaign if you look at the criticisms I made, it was after the third quarter report came back with high spending. Before then I was relatively positive about the fundraising. In some posts I made clear points about why I thought the spending was problematic and I don’t see the snarkiness many say they saw. I know when I said the toast line it was much later and the pattern wasn’t changing. That was snarky, but that was after pointing out the issue many, many times.

And there’s a good reason to point out these things–one is that if you value grassroots campaigning, pointing out when it’s done well and not done so well allows people to see that grassroots isn’t just a euphemism for no cash and no chance.

One of the criticisms I heard filtered down from donors and from donors in the case of Christine is that the financial plan wasn’t clear and so some were reluctant to donate. I tend to think public reasons for donating are different than real reason. Most of the time donors give because they have a feeling. Not having been in those conversations I can’t say whether it was accurate or not, but from the patterns in the FEC reports, there seems to be evidence that this wasn’t baseless.

None of this says that the hard work done on Christine’s campaign was wasted or dumb or anything of the sort–mistakes belong to candidates and campaign staff–though staff is secondary to the candidate. It doesn’t make Christine dumb or useless either–it just says that there were some serious flaws in that campaign from strategic choices made. And the most recent points were made in conjunction with the Duckworth campaign.

AFSCME and SEIU were heavily involved in Duckworth’s campaign and they are another form of grassroots action, but done differently from the volunteer mode.

The problem as I see it is that the home grown organization and two of the best Illinois unions at organizing voters didn’t reach as many as I’d hope for in an increasingly competitive district. Just as I don’t think that makes SEIU useless, it doesn’t make Christine’s campaign useless, but it does mean Democrats still aren’t getting this right.

Getting back to my main point, if you enjoy it when I criticize or make fun of other candidates, you have to understand your candidate is fair game too.

Finally, while there are a lot of raw nerves, and those who have made it the center of their lives for the last several months, this isn’t the most acrimonius of primaries. No FEC complaints floating about, no personal attacks from the candidates, and no gloating from the winning candidate.

I’ve seen all those in a campaign I was very close with some similar dynamics to this race and I did get over it and even did some postings for Russ Carnahan after that race. That doesn’t mean I think people should run out and jump up and down for Duckworth if they were Cegelis supporters, but give it some time. Some will find it okay, others may not. That’s okay, find a different campaign you do feel good helping out. I will say that if you are a voter in IL-6 there is a tremendous difference between Duckworth and Roskam.

I’m probably cynical enough that I forget people don’t expect to get screwed in a political campaign. I’m also cynical enough to think that whether someone is really screwed over is largely relative. You do much better expecting to get the raw end of the deal and figuring out how to get around it than complaining about it. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t complain or work to change what you don’t like, but it shouldn’t swamp the message or the plan.

I’m excited about the 6th District race. I think we have some real problems figuring out how to effectively reach likely Democratic voters, but this should be a fun one to watch.

New Feature: Iowa Tuesdays

I blog on Missouri and Illinois with some regularity, but there are three important races in Iowa that I will be covering this election as well. While Iowa News may be included on any day, Tuesdays will be the day I do most of it. It won’t be the kind of concentrated coverage on Illinois races and politics as with Illinois and Illinois will still be a topic on Tuesdays, but there will be Iowa material especially on those days starting tomorrow.

The three races I’ll cover primarily are the Congressional Races in IA-1 and IA-2 and the Governor’s race. More tomorrow on why I’m concentrating on those races, but I imagine IA-3 will get some attention since Boswell is considered somewhat vulnerable.

Pharmacy Rule Minus Blagojevich

Even more popular. (pdf)

Lots of worrisome overall results, but the Governor’s rule comes out looking well.

Pharmacists should not be able to refuse 77%
Pharmacists should be able to refuse 19%
Not Sure/No Opinion 3%

Other interesting issues
Tax Dollars for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Approve 50%
Disapprove 40%
No Opinion/Not Sure 10%

Smoking Ban Statewide
Favor 58%
Oppose 38%

Details are in the report for MOE and specific questions.

Via Bill Baar at Illinoize