Daily Dolt: I Thought Abortion Rights Groups Were Too Divisive?
Laesch and his people attack the Planned Parenthood endorsement of Bill Foster:
Down the thread:
The endorsement that we worked hardest for was the AFL-CIO’s and that means a lot to our campaign.Additionally, I did have words with PP in 2006 that dated back to a 2004 race.
When I worked for Dr. David Gill in 2004, Planned Parenthood endorsed, but was nowhere to be seen when it came to real support.
I couldn’t believe that they didn’t want to fight to get a progressive, single-payer Doc who actually volunteered for Planned Parenthood elected. During my first run, I didn’t feel the need to chase an empty PP endorsement.
Beltway thinking will get you beltway results. Main Street thinking and campaigning will get you results that benefit Main St.
John
But let’s remember this quote:
Laesch is making his own campaign more difficult by depriving it of some of its traditional channels of support. Even though Laesch says he is pro-abortion rights, he refuses to accept donations from pro-abortion rights political action committees.
“It’s too divisive,” he said.
Errr…pissing on someone’s leg and telling them it’s rainiing….
December 7th, 2007 at
Is there any issue that John Laesch won’t take both sides of?
December 7th, 2007 at
Really? I, on the other hand, define the Daily Dolt as someone who can’t distinguish between a gray-haired grandmother and John Laesch.
John Laesch didn’t attack Planned Parenthood for betraying myself, my daughters, my grand-daughters and all the women of IL-14 with this endorsement, I did. And I quit the Laesch campaign in order to do so freely.
I invited you once to take your shots at me, but apparently you find it easier to just attack Laesch for my actions, without bothering to inform your readers of the truth.
Errr…misinforming your readers, now that’s what I call pissing all over someone’s legs and telling them its raining.
Tomorrow, I’ll stop by to give out a Daily Dolt award for the blogger who knows least about what is, actually, oh, transpiring on the, oh, actual ground in IL-14.
December 8th, 2007 at
So let me get this straight. An organization that is “too divisive” for a campaign to take contributions from “betrayed” said campaign by not handing out an endorsement you think said campaign was entitled to.
And you wonder why I think Laesch-heads are schmucks.
Got a third side of the issue that you can take?
December 8th, 2007 at
It is interesting to see Laesch’s fanboys, while crowing about how their candidate is just oh-so-progressive use a fundamentally conservative line of attack against anyone who dares to question the Great John Laesch. Why, it’s because they must be fools.
You can’t get much more in line with true conservatism that that line of attack.
Makes you wonder how committed he really is to progressive values if they’re going to be so conservative in attacking the messenger instead of the message.
December 8th, 2007 at
Betraying you? Uh…no. They decided to back a candidate who wasn’t a flake and supported the values of the organization.
This sort of whining that only John Laesch could possibly be worthy of support is silly and exactly why the campaign is a disgrace.
You accused Planned Parenthood of accepting a bribe and Bill Foster of giving them one. John Laesch shows up and he cannot disavow so a patently ridiculous and offensive statement?
Laesch has, again, demonstrated what a clueless clown he is and you have demonstrated that the core of supporters who claim to be the great silent majority are a bunch of offensive nitwits.
December 8th, 2007 at
Ah, so I see you are not JUST misleading your readers, you really ARE Dunce of the Day, aren’t you? Let me try small words in a numbered list:
1. I, not John Laesch, attacked Planned Parenthood for endorsing a weak candidate who did everything in his power to keep from getting associated with a pro-choice stance during what PP itself called the ground zero battle for choice in Aurora, IL (I know you are several hundred miles, a state border, and a big river away, but because I know you are also considered a “local” blogger it might help you to get a feel for the “ground” you profess to be familiar with here, so as to facilitate your ability to continue to try to pass yourself off as someone who has a clue about the area and what’s going on here, to know that Aurora is, in this context, not the goddess of the Dawn, but in fact a rather large city in Illinois).
2. I really don’t appreciate the concerns of women about the long, long, no really, really long, history of men (particularly politician-type men) paying lip service to women’s rights being characterized as “whiny.” That is the sort of characterization of women standing up for themselves (right up there with “screeching”) that was identified when you were probably in diapers as an attempt to shut women up and at this point is so transparent even to vanishing breed of truly misogynistic cavemen out there that you might want to try an adjective that is somewhat more original – and just a less belittling and offensive to women. Or you could just turn on a little Rush and kick back by the fire while he spews venom about “feminazis” I suppose. Your call.
3. I didn’t accuse Planned Parenthood or Bill Foster of giving or receiving bribes. I speculated that there might indeed be some reason, other than sanity (which PP clearly abandoned in this instance), for PP to support a candidate with no history of public support for women’s reproductive rights, and a strong history of ignoring the “ground zero battle for choice” as defined by Planned Parenthood itself, going on under his nose in the district he wants to represent. You do understand the difference between speculating and accusing, no? I know it’s a big word, but you do such an awful lot of speculating here, that I will go ahead and assume you do.
4. I’m afraid this answer to your comment must pre-empt my ability to give you a Dunce of the Day Award especially for Most Clueless Blogger, as it necessitated me taking the time to award instead the Dunce of the Day award for Most Clueless and Offensive Commenter in One’s Own Blog. So I’ll stop by tomorrow with the award I originally planned.
December 8th, 2007 at
===1. I, not John Laesch, attacked Planned Parenthood for endorsing a weak candidate who did everything in his power to keep from getting associated with a pro-choice stance during what PP itself called the ground zero battle for choice in Aurora, IL (I know you are several hundred miles, a state border, and a big river away, but because I know you are also considered a “local” blogger it might help you to get a feel for the “ground” you profess to be familiar with here, so as to facilitate your ability to continue to try to pass yourself off as someone who has a clue about the area and what’s going on here, to know that Aurora is, in this context, not the goddess of the Dawn, but in fact a rather large city in Illinois).
I did live in IL-14 at one time btw–in Elgin. But let’s be clear about what you did. You lied about Foster bribing Planned Parenthood. The day you quit the campaign apparently. And John Laesch showed up and didn’t point out that the lie was ludicrous and beyond the pale. Now, if he hadn’t posted in the very thread that was based on a lie, he’d have some reasonable distance from the claim. He did, and he didn’t call you out for making up a lie. You can claim all sorts of distance that you want, but it strains credibility.
Let’s see what you said:
A strong probability? And you hope it was an obscenely large check….
IOW, you think it’s most likely that Planned Parenthood was bribed. Or do you read what you write?
Whining is exactly what is going on when you think that an organization that your candidate insulted before and after the endorsement should have endorsed your candidate. It’s silly and stupid. It has nothing to do with your gender or even the issue of abortion. It’s common sense.
December 8th, 2007 at
Note to Lisa Bennett, aka “Downtowner”: just because John panders for an endorsement doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. There ARE grown-ups in this race who are far more qualified to lead AND win.
Why would Planned Parenthood, or any special interest organization for that matter, endorse a guy who they perceive as much less likely to win? If he can’t get elected, he can’t push their issues.
Furthermore, why would they touch him with a ten foot poll when he’s deemed their issues “too divisive” in the past? You seem to refuse to have anything to do with these direct quotes from John. I realize they’re VERY inconvenient to your already flimsy case, but you can’t ignore them!
What changed this time around where John all of a sudden finds it prudent to pander for PP’s support?
I would suspect that John had actually asked you to leave his campaign, except he managed to show up in your thread and not disavow your outrageous, slanderous suggestion that Bill Foster had bribbed PP.
Maybe the truth is closer to the fact that John has no money, can’t raise money, and can’t afford to pay staff?
December 8th, 2007 at
Bridget!
This is a very good place for you: as I noted before, they do understand speculation!
Glad to see you here too. Did you know I was a redhead before I went gray? Liberal thoughout though.
You guys really do work well together – same predictable tactics wherever you may be.
December 8th, 2007 at
Speculation accusing someone of something at a very high probability is an accusation. Whether you have a grasp of the English language well enough to understand this is unclear, but it doesn’t change the fact that you accused Steve Twombley of being bribed by Bill Foster.
December 8th, 2007 at
Lisa, it is incredible to me that you don’t see anything wrong with accusing Bill Foster of bribing Planned Parenthood for an endorsement. Is John’s campaign becoming that desperate already? I thought it would be at least a few weeks before ya’ll really brought the crazy out.
And the “gotcha” tone of the redhead comment is hilarious, by the way, considering I list pretty specifically who I am on my DKos profile. Then again, you come from the Laeschie camp where Google searches and reading blogs constitute opposition research. Yawn.
December 9th, 2007 at
Liberal thoughout though
Doubtful, seeing your attachment to the inherently conservative ad hominems.
Not reading what was written 10 seconds earlier does seem to be a hallmark of the Laesch campaign, though.