September 2007

Fine Moments in Obfuscation

We see that the Fox Valley Families are threatening to sue Steve Twombley of Planned Parenthood for defamation

Your many assertions about the Pro-Life Action League (“the League”) and Joseph Scheidler, its director, are red herrings as they have nothing to do with the Aurora protests. But they too are false and misleading.

It depends on your meaning of nothing to do with the protests. If one thinks financially supporting Fox Valley Families is having something to do with the protests, that would be inacurate.

The efforts of Families Against Planned Parenthood are underwritten by the Pro-Life Action League. Please consider making a donation to the League to help fund this campaign.

Joe Scheidler is the Executive of the non-profit 990 here. You can also see Eric Scheidler is counted as a key personnel and the Communication Director. IOW, Fox Valley Families or Families against Planned Parenthood are a project of Pro-Life Action.

Eric Scheidler, who resides with his family in Aurora and coordinates Fox Valley Families, has never been arrested let alone convicted of any criminal act in connection with pro-life or anti-abortion activity. He has never advocated violence against either persons or property. Nor has he engaged in any such violence in opposing abortion, or otherwise. Nor has any other coordinator or leader of Fox Valley Families. Nor to our knowledge has any violent act been committed, much less condoned, by any participant in the 40-day vigil in opposition to your new facility. Protest against your facility has been entirely peaceable and prayerful.

The trick they are trying to do is move the argument to Eric Scheidler instead of his father who has been arrested many times and has a strange habit of being present when violence breaks out:

It’s important to dispel the myth that PLAN engaged in nothing but peaceful, First Amendment-protected activity. It did not. PLAN’s blockades, invasions and the other RICO violations that the jury found PLAN committed are acts of force and violence. The jury heard testimony from patients and clinic workers who were attacked during PLAN’s blockades, including blockades at which Joseph Scheidler and Randall Terry were personally on the scene. One doctor, Dr. Susan Wicklund, was grabbed and slammed against a car as she tried to get through the blockade and into her office. Patients were tripped and pushed to the ground. One clinic administrator was grabbed by her hair and thrown to the ground by an Operation Rescue leader. Another was viciously choked by Operation Rescue protesters, leaving serious bruises on her neck. One patient, who was trying to enter the clinic — not for an abortion but for post-operative care following cancer surgery — was beaten with an Operation Rescue protester’s sign. The protesters clawed at her and attacked her, causing her sutures to rupture, and she passed out. This is not speech or advocacy.

This case is not about First Amendment activity. My clients have never objected to peaceful picketing, leafletting, or even to hateful, ugly speech by abortion opponents. Calling our clients “murderers,” “whores” and “sluts” is not a RICO violation, and we have never claimed it is. The First Amendment protects speech, even ugly speech. But it does not protect the acts of force and violence on which our suit was based. Our case was not based on speech or advocacy, but on acts and threats of force and violence.


The letter isn’t a serious threat, it’s trying to change the subject. If Pro-Life Action League tried to make the argument that the Fox Valley Families group is independent and thus Joe Scheidler irrelevant, a judge would laugh them out of the courtroom. It’s a diversion, plain and simple to avoid talking about the curious incidents of violence wherever Joe Scheidler shows up.

Go help Planned Parenthood with this effort here

How to Win Friends and Influence People

 Fine moments in campaign strategery


Laesch shrugged off Giannoulias’ endorsement, calling him “just a wealthy guy who bought himself an office.”

“I don’t think it’s a big endorsement of any kind,” he said.

There are two statewide officials not fighting with every other statewide official and one of them is Giannoulias.  Right now he is the best face of the Democratic Party in Illinois of people not running for President and dissing him like this isn’t helpful to anyone.  Especially John.

More than that, it’s a complete waste of a quote.  It has no message and conveys nothing about John’s campaign.

H/T Bridget 

The Plan By Concerned Kirk and Lipinski

Is to do what the military has to do anyway:

Lipinski and Kirk told the private gathering of members of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that they are speaking out together to forge a new path forward in Iraq.

“The best possible outcome for Democrats is to invite in Republicans such as Kirk to join us. I’m aware every Democrat will not support the Iraq Study Group and this bipartisan solution,” Lipinski said. “For the last four months, we’ve maintained the status quo because legislation brought forward could not be passed without a veto from the President.”

Both Lipinski and Kirk have said that the Iraq Study Group’s report, which was released in December, provides the best opportunity for a policy change. The report includes 79 recommendations.

The Lipinski-Kirk plan calls for a phased withdrawal similar to the one that U.S. Gen. David Petraeus outlined on Monday. Under the plan, one troop brigade would return to the U.S. in December and three more would be removed in the spring, without replacement. It would provide for troop levels in July 2008 of about 130,000, which is equal to “pre-surge” troop levels.

We are running out of troops and the surge level of troops can only be maintained through the spring when we have to reduce the forces in Iraq or readiness would suffer even more than it is now.

So these two brain-trusts want to force the President to do something he’s already going to have to do and that’s their idea of a compromise to go forward.

Who wants to break it to them that the bill does nothing?

Concerned Kirk, Still Concerned About Iraq, but Only For Show With an Assist from Lipinski

Kirk and Lipinski have decided to join together in supporting a bill that calls for the Iraq Study Recommendations, but doesn’t actually require anything of the President such as, you know, reducing troops or actually following through on the recommendations so all he has to do is report to Congress every 90 days.

WASHINGTON – A pair of moderate Illinois congressmen, Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Dan Lipinski, will join forces Monday to discuss the “path forward” in Iraq with a focus on the long-shelved recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

Kirk was one of 14 Republican congressmen who told President Bush in May that they worried the war was going poorly and could hurt the GOP in next year’s elections. So far he has opposed Democrats’ attempts to link war funding to timelines for troop withdrawal.

This week, Kirk quietly signed on to a bipartisan bill that would give the Study Group’s recommendations the force of law, including political benchmarks for the Iraqi government and a goal, but no requirement, of U.S. troop withdrawals beginning next year. Lipinski is one of the bill’s four original sponsors.

That depends on what you mean by the force of law.  The only true requirement of the law is that the President reports to Congress every 90 days.  We’ve seen what the President did with the current benchmarks and how GAO measured them–with GAO being the most respected agency in the United States government–the hollowness of this measure becomes clear.
This bill is nothing, but an effort to act concerned, but do nothing to end this war.

Lipinski voted for a withdrawal timeline earlier this year but didn’t like it because he knew Bush would veto the bill. He said he and Kirk — along with 25 other Democratic and 35 Republican co-sponsors — have agreed that “the Iraq Study Group bill is the way to go” to begin to change the course of the war.

“Over the last six months the president has been able to maintain the status quo [in Iraq] largely because Democrats haven’t been able to get Republicans on board” to change the U.S. role in Iraq, Lipinski said. “This is all part of coming together.”

So now Mark Kirk has a twin who wants to be concerned about the war, but not make the decisions to end the war.  And Lipinski only voted to end funding because he knew the President would veto it.  Dandy. Two profiles in courage.

“He needs to have the courage to stand up to the [Bush] administration and bring our soldiers home,” said Dan Seals, who narrowly lost to Kirk last fall. Added Jay Footlik, a former Clinton administration official also gunning for the Democratic nomination, “The fact is Kirk has completely ignored the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations by consistently voting to rubber-stamp George W. Bush and the Republicans’ failed policies in Iraq.”

You might think they support the war given they won’t do anything to end it.

Where in the World is Jerry Weller?

Another interesting tidbit from the Chicago Tribune:

When asked about the discrepancies, Weller’s office first insisted that questions be given to the congressman in writing. After a week passed with no response to the written questions, The Tribune requested to talk to Weller in person. On Thursday afternoon, Weller’s spokesman said he would not answer questions and had no comment.

The congressman missed all recorded House votes in Washington this week. His spokesman said he was out of the city, caring for his 1-year-old daughter.

I’m generally sympathetic to the effort it takes to care for a 1-year-old daughter, but doesn’t he have a cell phone? I’m sure the Trib is happy to talk to him over a little crying and giggling.

That’s Better

Durbin on Iraq:

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin promised today that he would no longer vote to fund the war in Iraq unless the money is tied to a withdrawal strategy.

Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has been a consistent critic of the war in Iraq but is a pragmatic party leader attuned to political reality. The Illinois senator voted against authorization for the war in 2002 but has since voted for the emergency funding packages that have financed the war.

Durbin’s commitment–and a forceful speech he delivered against new funding for Bush’s war strategy–positions an influential Senate leader in favor of a hard line at a moment when some Democrats are signaling a willingness to compromise on war funding.

Congress is preparing for a struggle over continuation of the troop build-up in Iraq following a report on progress to be delivered next week by Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. The White House has indicated it will request a supplemental funding package of approximately $40 billion to pay for continuing the Bush Administration’s “surge” strategy.

Durbin said he would not use his leadership position to lobby fellow senators against funding the war. “Each person has to come to grips with this individually,” he said. But an aide said that Durbin already has met with “five or six” senators to share his view on new funding.

That other Senator could go a long way to wrapping up a lot of primary support by joining Durbin.

IL-18 We have a Candidate

Dick Versace is running for Congress:

Dick Versace, the former Gordon Tech, Bradley and Indiana Pacers basketball coach, has announced that he is running as a Democrat for the vacant seat in the 18th Congressional District in central Illinois, where Republican Ray LaHood is retiring next year. Versace, 67, lives in a rural area outside of Canton.

My only concern is if the sports press took his potential announcement the wrong way, but it looks like the Dems have a candidate to run against Aaron Schock.