August 2007

Unfortunate Moments in Eating Your Own Words

Larry Craig on naughtiness and nastiness

Meet the Press January 24, 1999, Sunday 9:00 AM

MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?

SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don’t know where the Senate’s going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s a, “Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy.”

The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughtyboy.

I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

The question issue now is simply this: Did he lie under oath? Did he perjure himself and did he obstruct justice? And that’s where we’re trying to go now in this truth-seeking process. And I hope we can get there. And then I’m going to have the chance to decide and vote up or down on those articles. After we’re through with this impeachment trial, it’s collapsed, it’s gone, then the Senate will make a decision on if it’s a censure or not.

The Bush Dogs

I’ve been a supporter of Melissa Bean since 2003 at least and I certainly wouldn’t say that replacing her would end up with a better Member of Congress from IL-8. Also, most readers know I don’t go much for litmus tests for Democratic candidates, but I have to agree with Matt Stoller that we need to do something about the Democratic Congress Members who are passing things like the bankruptcy bill and more importantly, the expanded authority for wiretapping without a warrant under th FISA law.

In the case of IL-8 we aren’t likely to get a full throated progressive, but it’s a significant problem that Bean has voted for issues trying to appear moderate that do not have the support of the political center even in her district. More than that, the 38 people Matt list are mostly in Republican leaning Districts, but even these votes aren’t in the center of these Districts–they are well to the right.

With Bean this is especially relevant. It’s true that her district is more concerned with taxes and budgetary issues than many others, but neither the bankruptcy bill nor the FISA changes are popular. They do get the attention of the Tribune which Bean uses to demonstrate she is a ‘moderate’ and so she ends up seeking their approval on everything. She’s not going to change the triangulation pattern–it’s a winning strategy in that District, but I think she can be moved towards targeting different issues that aren’t nearly as destructive as these. In other cases, we just need to take people out–like Lipinski who is in a 59% Kerry District and votes horribly on just about everything.

However, in the case of Bean and presumably her consultants, we need her to be a strong voice for basic Constitutional Protections–protections gutted by the new version of FISA. We need her to not be voting for a bill that makes those in financial trouble because of sickness or the loss of a job even more vulnerable. We need her to stand up against torture. We need her to stand up against an incredibly unpopular President who not only got us into an unnecessary war, but continues to epically mismanage the war. When she does support such policies, she undermines the reason for Democratic control of Congress and the Presidency, but also, and more importantly, the country.

In a District like Illinois 8 I would never advocate a Democrat try and be Jan Schakowsky. I’ll give them slack on tax and budgetary issues. I’ll give them some slack on social issues to some degree. I’ll give them slack on trade to some degree. But I won’t give them slack on issues of fundamental fairness and Constitutional Rights. These are winning issues in all, but the very most conservative areas and even IL-8 isn’t that conservative. Warrantless wiretapping of American citizens is not a winning issue with the public.

Go out and prove you are a ‘different’ kind of Democrat on some issue like taxes or business issues, but keep the Constitution safe and the same protections for the poorest amongst us that the better off have.

If you cannot stand for these vital principles, then what’s the point?

Biss Lists Individual PAC Contributors, Can Coulson Follow Suit?

Beth Coulson has tried to make an issue out of Daniel Biss’ receiving money from ACT Blue Illinois, a PAC registered in Illinois, claiming:

“Act Blue” donations are reported in lump sums, but individual contributors through “Act Blue” are not required to be identified “so we don’t know where the money is coming from,” Coulson said. “It’s a (political action committee) that raises money from all around the country. It’s exactly the kind of PAC we’ve tried to address in ethics reform.”

Daniel took the issue to heart and has listed every individual donor to ACT Blue that was for him (It’s a targeted PAC).

Now would Beth Coulson care to list all of the individual donors that contributed to the PACs she receives money from on her site?

 Go to Act Blue and get your name up on Daniel’s site

Schock Far Ahead

IL-18 Numbers from A Public Opinion Strategies poll; conducted 8/15-16 for State Rep. Aaron Schock (R); surveyed 400 LVs; margin of error +/- 4.9% (release, 8/21). Subsample of 300 likely GOP primary voters; margin of error +/- 5.6% Tested: Schock, atty Darin LaHood (R), ex-Peoria councilor John Morris (R), Heartland Partnership pres. Jim McConoughey (R) and 10th Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Richard Grawey (D).

Via The Hotline
Primary Election Matchups (GOPers)
A. Schock 41%
D. LaHood 22
J. Morris 3
J. McConoughey 3
Undec 31

A. Schock 44%
D. LaHood 25
Undec 30

Fav/Unfav
A. Schock 49%/ 1%
D. LaHood 25 / 3
J. Morris 11 / 1
J. McConoughey 7 / 2