Call It A Comeback
Okay, Pavich, Seals and Gill are on the ballot, but so is my college advisor David Loebsack in IA-02. Drop your vote. Visit Dave’s site here.
After some initial problems Dave is ironing out his campaign and in a year like this a Dem leaning District should be in play. He’ll need all the help he can get. So do the others and they are all good candidates.
apologies to any innocent Roeser’s out there, but the Tom Roeser post here, is dissected by Austin Mayor
Tom Roeser, proof being caucasion-like doesn’t make you attractive.
Patterson goes off the rails a bit making fun of a Duckworth press release that bothers to note that Representative Jim McCrery of Louisiana who chairs the Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security just said his top priority for 2007 was Social Security privatization.
McCrery is likely to be Chair of Ways and Means if Republicans retain a majority.
Patterson thinks it’s odd because the evidence is that Roskam skipped a vote on privatization in the State House that was largely for Democratic electoral purposes, but also is a serious dilemma for the state if benefits for the elderly are reduced.
He then makes fun of the exercise as being like the game 7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but the really odd thing here is he didn’t get Roskam on record as to what sort of changes he’d support in Social Security. In the public record there isn’t anything directly pinning down Roskam on whether he’d support McCrery’s bill. Why isn’t Roskam’s position the first thing to clarify and report?
It’s not exactly absurd to point out what Roskam’s allies want in relation to Social Security. He’s signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, he’s close to the Eagle Forum, and generally a darling of conservatives. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of this, but those connections sure seem to point out what his position is.
One of the leaders of his party, the man who is likely to have one of the most powerful chairmanships in DC, just said Social Security privatization is a high priority for 2007. Challenging Roskam on that issue is fair game–if Roskam doesn’t agree with his allies, than he can say it.
The shot at the end at Madigan is a bit bizarre given Tom Cross (not really wrong) made fun of him for having a series of workshops designed to target the Social Security privatization plans in Congress.
In this case, Madigan isn’t even close to the same thing as McCrery. Madigan hardly ever gets involved in Congressional Elections unless it is a key ally and is one the reason for the incumbent friendly remap in 2002. He spends his time worrying about the State House seats. He hasn’t given her any money and I don’t think Steve Brown has even done a press release on the race.
The real issue here for someone trying to help voters figure out this race is what the hell is Roskam’s position? I’m as cynical as the next guy when it comes to campaign press releases, but in this case, it makes an important distinction that voters deserve to know.
He’s the guy who reported on 1800 state job clout list in Illinois, but didn’t come close to beating a non-scandal in Nevada.
I don’t think I actually linked to O’Connor’s piece, but largely because I thought it was sufficiently covered in the press as to be redundant here. Perhaps if I attack him next time, it’ll get him better notice from the superiors and better coverage of a real story…
What bothers me about this is the notion that because Solomon got the attention he was doing a good job. In reality, O’Connor was overlooked because he did a good job of actually finding a problem in goverment and pointing it out.
Unfortunately, Chet Culver won the Iowa Democratic nomination for Governor–while I’d still say he’s the favorite over Nussle given the political climate, he’s not nearly as strong as Mike Blouin. Braley won in the 1st CD and will be a good candidate. The real key is more Dems turned out than Republicans in the race which is a reasonable sign of intensity.
In Montana Tester won after Morrison ran into many problems including running a horrible campaign. Either would beat Burns who is the primary Senator tied to Abramoff. Much bigger Dem turnout than four years ago which is a good sign. Unfortunately, Markos still thinks Hull was the establishment candidate in 2004 against Obama. In reality, the establishment candidate was Dan Hynes who is a great guy, but not as good as Obama.
Markos and I have discussed this so the note to him is good natured, but let’s remember what happened in 2004. For the vast majority of the race, Hynes was the presumptive front-runner. Despite favoring Obama, I had to put Hynes as the frontrunner into January of 2004 with only Hull’s media blitz displacing him from my cattle calls. Even then, I’d argue Obama had more momentum than most thought, but few, except SEIU’s political team, thought he’d do as well as he did.
The point being, all the early national expectation was on Hynes, not Hull. Hull actually did a pretty good job of garnering state wide support, but the revelations late in the campaign regarding him and his wife hurt him–though I’m still not sure he would have won.
In California, bad turnout in the Dem Primary for Governor probably kills Busby as it stands now. Given the amount of money the GOP put into the race, it’s still a hell of a run. Billbray only beat his registration numbers by 4 percent.
In Illinois that matters a lot–the 6th District showed a strong Republican self-identification of 24 percent though a high number of leaners with 25 percent. Depending upon how California’s registration number correlate to leaners and strong partisans, it makes IL-06 a tough race. It also makes a race like Kirk’s especially tough in a Democratic District.
In Alabama, both Roy Moore and indicted former Governor Siegelman lost. Both parties showed a minimum of sanity at least.
Mark Warner has bought some space. I’m a huge unabashed fan so click on the ad and take a look at Warner’s Foward Together PAC.
While I’m usually afraid of hitting my candidates this early due to many, many years of heartbreak, Warner is such a good candidate, I’m happy to push him this early. Of course, if Obama were to run, my support would be there, but I would strongly advise against such a run. Warner is a natural, and he is, as the site points out, a Map Changer. He also staked his Governorship on improving education funding from a structural perspective and did it in a red state.
Any chance he’ll head out to Utah to do some of his undercover research?
There’s a small problem with his article:
The endgame of gay activists is to strip the Boy Scouts (and by extension, any other organization that morally opposes gay marriage) of its tax-exempt status under both federal and state law.
Except 501 (c) 3 status isn’t what the Boy Scouts have been prevented from being sponsored by government entities in some places.
Scouts have been prevented from being sponsored by government agencies because of their discrimination policies. Even then they get equal access to government property under federal law that any other group gets, they just don’t get government sponsorship given they have specific religious tenants they require members to hold.
Churches would still have equal access to public facilities as they do now, but just as now, they couldn’t be sponsored by a government agency–the same restriction on the Boy Scouts in some states. Furthermore, churches may choose to marry only who they wish including the ability to discriminate on interracial marriages. No law prohibits churches from discrimination based on race even if they choose 501 (c) 3 status.
Where organizations are discriminated upon based on policies towards race is if they choose to accept federal funding such as Bob Jones University when it banned interracial relationships or if a church wants to carry out a faith based charity that is funded by government funds.
Originally here…OneMan offered the suggestion that it wasn’t unreasonable for Brady to ask for what he did. However, the release with the audio and then the suggestion that the Legislature should be able to act immediately has some rather problematic issues that should be apparent to a Legislator. LMadigan is running at least one grand jury investigation into political friends getting benefits from this administration and from press accounts it certainly would appear that the hiring issues are one area of those investigations.
Now, let’s make this simple, if the there is a Grand Jury investigation, for Lisa to release evidence can be against the rules in some cases and in others it would weaken the case. If the Lege wants to carry out an investigation that’s fine, but doing so will likely either jeopardize the criminal investigation or lead nowhere since anyone with a brain will cite their 5th Amendment rights.
Brady’s release is bullshit theatrics that if carried out could well hurt the case. Beyond that, I’ve seen no evidence that Lisa is unwilling to go after the Governor. Far from what many of us expected when she was first elected, she hasn’t had much fear of crossing anyone.
Dan Curry, who represents a party in the larger press story has an update on some issues surrounding the investigation of a murder in Southern Illinois.
I tried to look into this and it took far too much time to make heads or tails of, “>but take a look at Dan’s posting. From what I can gather, I believe the original conviction was a miscarriage of justice. Beyond that, it’s too hard to follow, but I think the man Dan is representing deserves a fair public accounting and I believe that is what Dan is trying to provide.
Pinney tries to defend herself, but can’t quite bring herself to address the books she tried to ban from the classroom (and if you ban something from the curriculum, you are banning them from the classroom).
District 214 has a controversial issues policy, which the administration has been authorized to establish by the Board of Education. Within the procedures it discusses guidelines in determining whether a controversial issue or material should be presented in the context of an educational experience for a class or an individual student. It directs the educator to answer the question, ?Can the learning outcomes of the lesson be presented differently or with different material of equal quality, but with less controversy?? Also, community customs and attitudes are to be considered.
Perhaps a discussion about how controversy is defined would be in order. I contend that graphic depictions of anal sex, oral/genital sex, explicit sex, and gratuitous violence are controversial. I suppose those who disagree may say anything could be controversial. There certainly is a continuum and we must decide where that acceptable line lies. And we must ask what would be suitable for our community of students and parents as a whole, not just people of conservative faith perspectives or those who simply hold to a higher moral standard, but for all of those involved.
Of course, not all of the books she was arguing against contained gratuitous sex or violence–the Botany of Desire and Freakonomics to begin. Or in the case of gratuitous violence, it’s hard to imagine how violence is gratuitous in Slaughterhouse 5, a book about the horrors of war. One might argue it is graphic and uses graphic imagery and language, but it isn’t gratuitous. It is a fictionalized account by a man who lived through the firebombing of Dresden.
Pinney is trying to spin this as some sort of parent’s rights issue, but the problem is parents can have their kids opt out.
The reality of this whole ordeal is that Pinney is a part of the right wing Wurlitzer trying to raise the heat on school districts that parents are generally happy with in an effort to undermine that support.
ArchPundit