When Will Sauerberg Denounce Illinois Review

Sauerberg wants Durbin to denounce Kos.  Fricken’ Hillarious–the Kos postings were by diarists, not anyone on the front page.  However, Sauerberg has ties to the Illinois Review front pagers, let’s review some greatest hits he’ll need to be denouncing:

1) Accusing State Representative John Fritchey of Genocide

2) He could condemn the gay baiting of Democrats as Swishy Dems

This is especially relevant given the homophobic attacks on Sauerberg’s communications guy

3) He could condemn the idea that someone should beat their wives if they want to get an abortion

4)  He could condemn them for passing along false stories like the Chinese Eating Babies

5) He could condemn them for attacking the sexual orientation of those who held a bar crawl for John McCain

6) Condemn them for attacking his spokesperson’s sexual orientation

7) Condemn them for comparing a good journalist to the UnaBomber

8) You could condemn them for their associations with Pharmacists for Life that has compared Obama to Osama and Blagojevich to Milosevich.

9) Condemn the Illinois Review for calling women with HPV sluts.  Like the Illinois Senate President

Get cracking on those and perhaps Durbin might think about Kos.  Of course, all of the above were written by the management of Illinois Review and the diaries on Kos were all random diarists.  Who else is a diarist over at Kos?  Dan Proft.  They have low standards you might say.

Daily Dolt: Jerome Corsi

Not for what you think either:

As ultra-deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico continues to validate abiotic, deep-Earth theories, we should also consider exploring oil deeper in the continental United States, to find the basement fractures beneath the huge surface oil fields we now consider depleted. If the oil in Texas and Pennsylvania did not come from dinosaurs or decaying ancient plants, maybe we could find the deeper “source revenues” where that oil seeped up from fractures in the bedrock crystalline basement below.

The crazy bastard thinks oil is not created from organic material.

How is our discourse this stupid?

Daily Dolt: Roeser’s Psychoanalysis

Someone really should take the keyboard away:

We all know the emotional stress that settles on a child when one father abandons the child. What happens when TWO fathers abandon the same child, as happened with Obama? I mean Obama’s mother who took husband number two, Lolo Soetoro when Obama was six. He was an Indonesian student with whom she moved to Jakarta. Obama relates in his autobiography that she was shocked to discover Soetoro was a male chauvinist. So she divorced him and sent 10-year-old Barack, Jr. to live with her parents in Honolulu while she and his half sister stayed in Indonesia. All the while Obama’s polygamous natural father takes up again with his first wife, then marries another white American woman and adds a mistress, eventually fathering eight kids by four women.

Spider-web complications for genealogists and psychologists to work on for the prospective 44th president. Not exactly like George Washington marrying the widow Martha Custis, is it?

============

Odds are even my bringing up this chaotic background will be assailed as “unfair” even “racist.” That’s standard operating procedure for Obama’s aficionados. You can’t criticize anything about him…his wife, his religion, the size of his ears, his announcing that he has traveled to all 57 states in the Union, his statement that Israel is Israel’s best friend (which had McCain said this would be written widely as an example of a senior moment). Now they will howl it’s unfair to report his murky, very murky, familial past.

But the question remains: How much emotional stability can accrue when you come from a mad house non-family background like his? When two fathers have abandoned you? This hasn’t been reported very much.

Well I just did.

I believe the end needs some heavy dark classical music playing to signal how ominous it is to have a family situation that isn’t simply a nuclear family.

It doesn’t make Roeser a racist, it makes him a twit.  By his standards my Republican sister who attends  Willowbrook is dangerously unstable because my mother had three husbands at different times while she was growing up.  He would be the first and only person to make such a suggestion about her.  The American family seldom was the nuclear family that conservatives pretend existed other than in a short period of time after World War II.  Families always were messy and while divorce wasn’t as common, simply taking off occurred frequently.  Two of my grand parents had nuclear families, two did not.  I would argue that the two who did not were the strongest and most committed to their families.  Both of my parents were raised in nuclear families and yet, not so good at the nuclear family.  My sister and I were brought up in non-nuclear families and amongst our cousins on my Mom’s side, we are the only ones married with children.  Funny thing about psychoanalysis–it often tells more about the person trying it instead of who is being analyzed.

The Stupid Discourse Goes Stupider

 

Ultimately, the latest right wing blog attempt at fact checking rests upon the notion that there is no possible way that genealogy records could be wrong. 

I’ll let those who have ever done such research stop laughing.  The proof that Obama must be wrong was that the genealogy records were for Charles W.  Payne, not Charles T. Payne. 

Oops. 

Although we were not able to reach Payne directly, Payne’s son, Richard Payne, said his father "definitely served in the 89th Infantry Division" and confirmed that Obama’s account was substantially accurate, except for identifying the wrong concentration camp. Richard Payne declined to say anything further.

Mark Kitchell, who maintains a Web site dedicated to the 89th Infantry Division, said he was able to locate a list of servicemen that includes a Pfc. C. T. Payne who served in the K Company of the 355th Infantry Regiment of the 89th Infantry Division. The list included only the initials for first names.

The 355th Infantry Regimen was the one that liberated Ohrdruf, Kitchell said. Kitchell, the son of 89th veteran Raymond E. Kitchell, obtained the list from the official Division History book, written shortly after the war.

Finally, the National Personnel Records Center, an operation of the federal government’s National Archives and Records Administration, put this question to rest.

Researchers confirmed to PolitiFact that Army personnel records for Payne would have been destroyed in a 1973 fire that consumed many such archives, but they dug up a "Morning Report" dated April 11, 1945, showing Pfc. Charles T. Payne was assigned to the 355th Regiment Infantry, Company K. The Records Center provided a copy of the report. A faxed copy provided to PolitiFact was legible enough for us to make out Payne’s information, but the faxed photocopy of the record is too grainy to be of use if posted here.

There’s no question Obama misspoke when he said his uncle helped to liberate the concentration camp in Auschwitz.

But even with this error in locations, Obama’s statement was substantially correct in that he had an uncle — albeit a great uncle — who served with troops who helped to liberate the Ohrdruf concentration/work camp and saw, firsthand, the horrors of the Holocaust. We rate the statement Mostly True.

Charles Payne is 83, lives in Chicago and apparently never talks about the liberation of the camp.  It’s too bad it had to be brought up again because of a bunch of slobbering children who think they’ve found a conspiracy afoot because a wrong initial in records. 

Daily Dolt: Yes, Fox News, A Black Man Ran For US Senate in Illinois in 1858

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kjw2Qccc1hE" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

And argued to allow new territories to include slavery. He was not the Douglass who born a slave, escaped to New York and then became an abolitionist leader.

But they hosts insist they have read the debates. Sure. I haven’t read the full debates. I doubt they even know what topics they covered.  Small historical irony–Stephen Douglass used Frederick Douglass’ approving comments of Lincoln against Lincoln.

Daily Dolt: Illinois Review

I’m starting to like Steve Sauerberg even if I’ll never endorse him. The Illinois Review continues its attacks on his campaign staffer because the staffer is gay.

Mr. Barron’s history as the former National Political Director of Log Cabin Republicans concerned us a few weeks ago, and we wrote about it on Illinois Review. Dr. Sauerberg was aware of the controversy, and chose to back Mr. Barron despite his political baggage problematic to conservatives.

Mr. Barron was obviously emboldened by his boss’ loyalty and evidently now has time to spend promoting himself online as a Republican gay political consultant. Must be nice work, if you can get it.

Sauerberg is ignoring calls to fire Barron because Barron is gay. Good for him.

Daily Dolt: Illinois Review and Porno Pete

Both are very upset about Steve Sauerberg hiring Teh GAY!

One suspects there is another thing at play though when this is said:

The LCR ad was designed to embarrass Bush by purposely pitting the President’s position in support of the marriage amendment directly against his VP Dick Cheney’s 2000 debate comments . . .

Now, Petey is pretty much against all things teh Gay, but there is one major thing worse than being gay, it’s embarrassing the child king.

Daily Dolt: Fran Eaton

She labels the following hate speech:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/iPjVp3PLnVs" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

The question is what is hateful about the sermon. It isn’t attacking anyone in the clip above (he does attack Bill Clinton personally in another part of the sermon and that was out of line).  He’s pointing out that there is a rich white culture that is dominant and that African-Americans feel the racism that comes from that structure uniquely.  I’m no thrilled with the notion of one minority (African-American) being more oppresed than another (women), but only because those lines cross a lot and individual experiences make such comparisons difficult and somewhat fruitless.

But what is controversial about pointing out that an African-American man feels the impact of a rich white culture that historically discriminates against African-Americans?

One can guess it isn’t what Wright said, but that the method of him saying it and the color of his skin frightens a whole lot of people.

Daily Dolt: Phyllis Schafly

Lying twice wasn’t enough over at Illinois Review, they pulled in Phyllis Schlafly to lie a third time about the ERA and Social Security.

The passage Eaton and Schlafly are lying about is on page 206 in Sex Bias in the U.S. Code

Here is what they claim supports them on page 206:

“Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes – independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle.”

This, of course, is out of context given directly following this passage is:

Underlying the recommendations made in this report is the fundamental point that allocation of responsibilities within the family is a matter properly determined solely by the individuals involved.  Government should not steer individual decisions concerning household or breadwinning roles by casting the law’s weight on the side of (or against) a particular method of ordering private relationships.  Rather, a policy of strict neutrality should be pursued.  That policy should accomodate both traditional and innovative patterns.  At the same time, it should assure removal of artificial constraints so that women and men willing to explore their full potential as human beings may create new traditions by their actions.

I also cited page 45 and since Eaton and Schlafly continue their lie, let’s cut and paste pages 45 and 46 of the report.

1. Revise social security law to provide father’s benefits in all cases where mother’s benefits are provided under present law;

2. Eliminate the dependency requirement for husband’s or widower’s benefits;

3. Provide derivative social security benefits to divorced husbands;

4. Make the age 62 computation point applicable for men born prior to 1913;

5. Eliminate the 20-of-4O quarter work test required now to qualify for disability
benefits;

6. Establish an occupational definition of disability for workers 55 years and older;

7. Make eligibility for benefits available all disabled widows and disabled surviving divorced wives regardless of age, and make the benefits not subject to actuarial
reduction;

8. Provide benefits to disabled spouses of beneficiaries;

9. Define dependents to include relatives live in the home;

10. Reduce the duration of marriage requirement from 20 to 5 or 10 years for a divorced spouse to qualify for benefits on the basis of the wage-earner spouse’s earnings record, and remove the requirement of consecutive years of marriage. In the alternative, divorced wife’s right to receive benefits should be based on the economic relationship between the parties and not the length marriage;

11. Allow additional dropout years to relate benefits more to current earnings;

 12. Compute primary benefits and spoused benefits to increase the primary benefits for workers by approximately one-eighth, and reduce the spouse’s proportion from one-half to one-third, maintaining thereby the current total benefit of 15 percent for a couple while at the same time improving the protection for single workers, working couples, and surviving spouses; and

13. Amend the Social Security Act to eliminate separate references to men and women.

Phyllis Schlafley is lying and doing it badly.  When the report (it wasn’t a book by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was a report to The United States Commission on Civil Rights) was issued men did not receive the same survivor benefits women did.  That was changed not long after the report actually and as such, the lie at the center of this scare tactic was made moot nearly 30 years ago.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t arguing that survivor and spouse benefits should be eliminated to make individuals more equal, she was arguing that men should receive the same benefits in the same situation.  The reason for this is that families should decide upon the proper roles within the family, not the government. The point was to increase liberty while still providing the same level of benefits–which is what the system has done over this time.

That Eaton and Schlafly would so boldly lie isn’t terribly surprising.  Schlafly is still touting unisex bathrooms. The issue is why does anyone give them any attention or space to print this crap other than on wingnut blogs.  Eaton took her lie to the Southtown Star and got it pubished presumably because it was an opinion piece. It was an opinion piece, it just had several facts supporting the claims wrong.  And not just wrong, but the opposite of her claims.

Daily Dolt: Bill Hobbs

For those who were around when this blog started, the blogosphere was a very different place where liberal and conservative blogs tended to talk amongst each other and link accordingly.  That changed as the wingnutosphere went batshit insane.

One of those early bloggers who I remember having relatively interesting exchanges with is Bill Hobbs. Now the press guy for the Tennessee Republican Party who just attacked Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

He tries to defend himself on two points:

One of Obama’s foreign policy advisers, Robert Malley, is anti-Israel and pro-Hamas. Hamas is an Iranian-funded Islamist terror organization dedicated to the eradication of Israel. Malley thinks we should do support Hamas. Malley is advising Obama on Middle East policy.

Did the media cover that? Ask about that? No. They fixated on Obama’s middle name. Apparently, a story post at NashvillePost.com sparked the calls. The story is headlinedMcCain apology raises questions about state GOP, but NashvillePost.com didn’t bother to actually pose those questions to the Tennessee Republican Party. No, they went and interviewed Democrats.

What makes one pro-Hamas?  Thinking that there might have to be some sort of diplomacy with them.  Yeah.  Friggen genius.

Then he tries to defend the use of the Obama’s middle name by saying:

 Silly, of course. Run a Lexis-Nexis search for the number of times the media has used Hillary Rodham Clinton’s middle name, often to underscore her feminist leanings and independence from her husband. Do a search for how many times during the 1988 and 1992 campaigns the media called the first George Bush “George Herbert Walker Bush,” to underscore the media’s protrayal of Bush as a preppie elitist. Ditto the media’s reference to Dan Quayle as “J. Danforth Quayle.”

Actually dumbass, her middle name is Diane.  Rodham is her maiden name.

Not satisfied with being sort of a dumbass, he approvingly links to Josh Marshall’s satirical piece on Obama and Libya as if Josh were serious.

Daily Dolt: Fran Eaton, Lying Liar

Eaton tries to lie herself out yesterday’s lie. She claims the below proves that Ginsburg thought the ERA would eliminate survivor benefits for women who choose to stay home.

“Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes – independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle.”

Of course, this is directly contradicted by the text of page 45 in which the recommendations for Social Security changes include making the language gender neutral so that men and women have equal access to survivor benefits regardless who who works and who might stay at home.

But what is even more telling is how she uses the quote above that doesn’t even make the argument she claims it makes.  It talks about making the code gender neutral, not eliminating benefits for women who didn’t work outside the home.

What Fran cannot do is cite the next paragraph that demonstrates just how much of a liar Fran is:

Underlying the recommendations made in this report is the fundamental point that allocation of responsibilities within the family is a matter properly determined solely by the individuals involved.  Government should not steer individual decisions concerning household or breadwinning roles by casting the law’s weight on the side of (or against) a particular method of ordering private relationships.  Rather, a policy of strict neutrality should be pursued.  That policy should accomodate both traditional and innovative patterns.  At the same time, it should assure removal of artificial constraints so that women and men willing to explore their full potential as human beings may create new traditions by their actions.

Combine this with the recommendations on page 45 and what is clear is that Ginsburg argued for expanding benefits to widowers as well as widows, not to eliminate benefits to widows.

Why Eaton feels the need to lie about the report is beyond me, but she clearly did.  And the Southtown Star helped her in that endeavor.

Daily Dolt: Illinois Review

Entertainingly Silly 

Earth to Ted, Caroline, Patrick and others who are marketing Sen. Barack Obama as the new JFK.  Kennedy family, get over yourselves.  If you really think Sen. Barack Obama is the new JFK, then maybe you didn’t know the record of the real JFK from 1947 to 1963. Let’s review the bidding.

If you live in Illinois and voted for JFK or Nixon in the 1960 election, I am sorry to be the one to do the math but even if that was your first vote you have at least passed your 68th birthday and are on your way to the “gettin up there” stage of life. So what? So that’s a very long time to hold on to a myth that was never real to start with and expect that it will impress people whose only knowledge of JFK comes from fawning historians and aging journalists.

During 1962, Jack Kennedy was alive and well. Everyone called him Jack.  No one ever called him “John Fitzgerald” in that mournful patter until after he was murdered by a communist in 1963.  If you still doubt that and are an honest person, read Gerald Posner’s book, Case Closed, and set aside your doubts for all time.

Yes, the Kennedy family doesn’t know anything about the history of their own family.  But Illinois Review will correct that for them.  And throw in a Assassination Conspiracy theory to boot.

Daily Dolt: Bob Kerrey

WTF:

After the event, he mused about her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

“The fact that he’s African American is a big deal. I do expect and hope that Hillary is the nominee of the party. But I hope he’s used in some way. If he happens to be the nominee of the party and ends up being president, I think his capacity to influence in a positive way . . . the behavior of a lot of underperforming black youth today is very important, and he’s the only one who can reach them.”

Kerrey continued: “It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal.”

He returned to Clinton: “She does inspire my confidence. She can do the job. In my view, she’s the complete package.”

Now, Kerrey says dumb things all the time, but what’s really weird out of this quote:

Kerrey continued: “It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal.”

Not something that appeals to him? WTF?

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….