Call It A Comeback
Tim Hundsdorfer is a former Illinois House staffer and a political scientist. More than that, he’s just a great guy with a family. He is also pretty sick and could use some help. I’ll join Rich in asking you to donate a few dollars to Tim as a personal favor. Donate here
I may try and make the fundraiser in Springfield.
Back to regular posting later today.
I’m on vacation in Minnesota so posting is somewhat sporadic.
Brad Cole has a new A-1 out.
| Contributed By | Amount | Received By | Description | Vendor Name | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois Republican Party | $1,378.31 3/30/2007 |
5A Citizens for Cole |
Payroll | Siemer, Jayme | ||
| Illinois Republican Party | $1,529.72 3/30/2007 |
5A Citizens for Cole |
Payroll | Sorenson, Paul | ||
| Illinois Republican Party | $409.83 3/30/2007 |
5A Citizens for Cole |
Mileage | Sorenson, Paul | ||
| Illinois Republican Party | $50.00 3/30/2007 |
5A Citizens for Cole |
Cell Phone | Sprint PCS | ||
| Illinois Republican Party | $428.28 4/2/2007 |
5A Citizens for Cole |
Health Insurance | The Guardian | ||
| Illinois Republican Party | $169.91 4/4/2007 |
5A Citizens for Cole |
Payroll Taxes | Illinois Deparment of Revenue | ||
| Illinois Republican Party | $1,146.40 4/4/2007 | 5A Citizens for Cole | Payroll Taxes | United States Treasury |
These numbers are problematic on several levels.
March 19, 2007 through and including April 16, 2007
Contributions including, IN-KIND and LOANS, received within the 30 day period preceding an election in an aggregate of more than $500 must be filed within covers
The report was filed on April 11th with the initial reporting due by April 2nd. Oops.
I’m sure Cole will insist it was an innocent mistake, but anyone who believes that is probably giving bank numbers to Nigerians. During the period of time is also when Cole used his ideological friends at the Southern to attack Simon for having big name Democrats endorsing Simon while his campaign was a direct operation of the Illinois Republican Party.
Let’s see, the IRP paid $2900 in salaries, but about $1150 in payroll taxes. Take a look at your pay stub and you’ll see the problem there.
Not to mention, these aren’t pimply faced kids working on the campaign–they are reasonably accomplished campaign/political pros–that’s not all they were getting.
IOW, these reports are late and incomplete and there is no way around it.
I have to say I’m impressed with Brad Cole though. It takes a lot to break Illinois campaign finance laws and he just pulled it off. Congratulations Brad!
She does zombie lies.
Apparently back-ups aren’t used at the White House.
I have no idea if Perino knows this is one of the dumbest things ever said in a briefing or if she really is that clueless, but c’mon. No one believes the White House e-mail system isn’t backed up especially in a transition to a new e-mail system.
Added Wonkish and taxtales (Doug Kane) to the blog roll. Take a look at both, they have some excellent discussion of tax issues that doesn’t revolve around the simplistic taxes bad.
Petey LaBarbera is really going beyond parody
Cross posted at Illinois Reason
I’m just enjoying posting Rahm stuff that really hard core netrooters will agree with so they have to sit there and be pissed that they agree with Rahm:
To: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James Clyburn, Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson
From: House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel
Date: April 11, 2007
Re: Status of the Debate over the Iraq Supplemental
As we return from the district work period, the Congress continues to have an historic opportunity to change direction in Iraq, protect and provide for American troops, and pressure Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country.
We find ourselves in a strong position because the American people support our policy objectives and our plan for Iraq, especially as they measure up against the failures of the administration’s policies. As we continue through the process of sending an Iraq spending bill to the President for his approval, we need to go beyond the debate about the funding for the war, and remind the American people of the policies we are recommending — benchmarks for the Iraqis, support for our troops through training and equipment, and a plan for a responsible and strategic redeployment of our troops. It is also important that we remind the country of the policy position of Congressional Republicans on Iraq – their rubberstamping of the President’s Iraq policies, and their refusal to conduct responsible oversight.
This memorandum summarizes the current state of play on the Iraq supplemental, and the steps we must continue to take in the coming weeks to convey our message and position to the American people.
Where We Stand
President Bush has continued to demand Congress provide him with a blank check for an open-ended commitment of American troops in Iraq. Democrats and the American people agree that we must change direction in Iraq by providing our troops with the resources and protection they need, while planning for a strategic and responsible redeployment of US troops. Meanwhile, the President believes his attempts to ratchet up political pressure about funding the troops will persuade members of our caucus to abandon their support for the Democratic bill that changes direction in Iraq.
More after the jump
Hysterical–executive privilege extends to the Republican National Committee.
The documents led to demands from Democrats for testimony from Mr. Rove and others; the White House agreed only to off-the-record interviews, and Democrats responded by threatening subpoenas.
Now that Democrats are also demanding access to the political e-mail, the White House took steps on Thursday to use those latest demands as leverage to force Democrats to accept the White House’s conditions for making Mr. Rove and the others available.
In a letter to Mr. Leahy and Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Fielding, the White House counsel, said the administration was prepared to produce e-mail from the national committee, but only as part of a “carefully and thoughtfully considered package of accommodations” — in other words, only as part of the offer for Mr. Rove and the others to appear in private.
Mr. Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, issued a tart reply: “The White House position seems to be that executive privilege not only applies in the Oval Office, but to the R.N.C. as well. There is absolutely no basis in law or fact for such a claim.”
This literally takes them past Nixon’s claims on Executive Privilege and makes him look restrained. Executive privilege is a very limited concept only including direct communication with the President under usual circumstances. To try and extend it to an illegal e-mail system (government business was discussed on a private system in contravention of the law) run by a political party is not just laughable, but beyond parody.
John Cole has been calling it the most corrupt administration in history which has become clearly true, but the truly amazing aspect of this is they have no shame and are even using Fred Fielding to make ludicrous arguments.
If the press wasn’t filled with poodles in DC, they might point this out.
One so amazingly conservative that the conservative Alabama Supreme Court (engineered by Rove) immediately removed the monument upon Moore’s suspension before he was removed from his position permanently. Bill Pryor, a controversial judicial nominee by the Bush administration, agreed Moore had to go because he was disobeying the rule of law.
Apparently the rule of law isn’t too important around the Illinois Review these days as they approvingly link to Roy Moore disagreeing with Obama’s criticism of Moore during the controversy over the monument.
They seem to think the state should be promoting a state religion and if you read Moore’s silly writings on the subject he argues that the founders disagreed because most of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had state religions.
Which is great, but ignores the 14th Amendment which radically reshaped the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights protections against state government action as well as federal government action. The federal government was clearly prohibited from establishing a state religion in the 1st Amendment and as such, the 14th Amendment extended that prohibition to state governments. Arguing that the restrictions on state action are the same as prior to the passage of the 14th amendment is incredibly obtuse.
Equally silly is the argument that government sponsored faith displays aren’t establishing a religion. A very clear example is the monument Moore created which utilized the Protestant 10 Commandments instead of the Catholic 10 Commandments. It is endorsing a specific faith over others or a lack of faith through the state’s actions.
One might argue, as some of the commentors on Illinois Review did, that Obama’s explanation was incorrect. I am reliably informed his explanation in actual Constitutional Law classes goes into the details of the 14th Amendment, but on town hall meeting, one generally doesn’t put everyone to sleep with long explanation of how the 14th Amendment radically changed the Constitution.
It’s not his fault that high school government classes aren’t teaching such basic concepts very well.
What Fran left out was that Moore and her former employer Alan Keyes are close and Moore is just about as relevant as Keyes–the guy who showed a giant mock-up of the 10 Commandments around the state. Keyes, the Catholic, used the Protestant version as did Moore:
I always wanted someone to ask him why he was showing the Protestant version, but he was so busy exploding, no one got the chance.
Cross posted at Illinois Reason
Everything becomes clear now
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/UgOOu3ha-ks" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
ArchPundit