Call It A Comeback
Abortion Rights Money is too divisive according to Laesch
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.
Huh? Endorsed by DAPAC–which has decent criteria:
* Are 100% Pro-Choice.
I’m baffled–any suggestions?
I know the staff probably tells him what to do leaving him with the impression he’s in charge, but it gets kind of embarrassing when he says this:
Lipinski said he has sided with Bush on only two out of 13 Iraq votes. Plenty of other Democrats did too, he said. The 3rd District has a lot of Reagan Democrats more comfortable with his positions on Iraq and abortion than they would be with Pera’s, Lipinski said.
.Not so much:
Lipinski has voted in favor of Iraq war spending bills five times. If you add those five votes — which took place in May 2005, December 2005, December 2006, September 2006 and May 2007 — together, then you get a total $350 billion in Lipinski-approved war funding. Those five war funding bills were Bush war funding bills.
In terms of a timeline for withdrawal, Lipinski, like Bush, has opposed any movement in this direction.
Lipinski has never voted for, sponsored or co-sponsored anything that approaches a timeline bill. On the contrary, Lipinski has voted twice for resolutions that opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
• In June 2006, Lipinski voted for a resolution that stated it was not in the national security interests of the U.S. to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of U.S. Armed Force from Iraq. The resolution (HR 861) also affirmed the U.S. commitment to establishing democracy in Iraq.
• In July 2005, Lipinski voted against withdrawing “prematurely” from Iraq. HR 2601 stated that it was U.S. policy to pursue a transfer of responsibility to Iraq forces and not withdraw U.S. forces prematurely from Iraq.
• In May 2007, Lipinski voted against HR 2237, a piece of legislation that required the withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors in Iraq within 90 days of the bill’s enactment. The withdrawal would have to be completed within 180 days.
• In September 2007, Lipinski voted for HR 2206, an emergency appropriations bill that lacked language mandating a withdrawal or timeline for withdrawal.
Apparently Dan thinks he’s in on the actual politics of his campaign.
But Capparelli, Bennett and Lipinski all angrily deny the two are ghosts running to help Lipinski.
Dan Lipinski is the last person who’d be given that information and perhaps that’s the saddest/funniest thing involved. Dan is a highly educated decent Political Scientist who has no idea he’s a giant tool.
He probably thinks Ryan Chlada was a real candidate.
Fun with the YouTubes
Wingnut law professor wine vlogs about her hair color.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/TlGaba--MPk" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Nuclear Weapons Policy. Let me explain:
One such document is known as OPLAN 8044 Revision 03. That document is an update of the basic nuclear-weapons plan, formerly known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan. It was created by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom), which has responsibility for nuclear-weapons planning, doctrine and maintenance. Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Federation of American Scientists obtained a briefing on how Stratcom’s OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 changed the nuclear-policy paradigm. For the first time in U.S. nuclear history, plans for nuclear attack on regional targets around the world were included in the basic nuclear war planning document.
It’s not entirely easy to tell from the planning document what WMD-desiring countries are listed as targets for a possible U.S. nuclear attack. (See page 11 for all the redactions on this crucial point.) But the FAS hazards an educated guess based on photography included in the briefing document: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria.
The briefing document also references a “target base” for prospective elimination with nuclear weapons. However, the actual document redacts what that target base might be. FAS contends it probably refers to either the stockpiles of WMD themselves or the command center for any state seeking to deploy WMD. And that’s a further sign of specific planning for a full-blown nuclear conflict, the FAS writes: “The creation of a ‘target base’ indicates that the planning went further than simple retaliatory punishment with one or a few weapons, but envisioned actual nuclear warfighting intended to annihilate a wide range of facilities in order to deprive the states the ability to launch and fight with WMD.”
It’s difficult to tell whether OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 is still in place. A further revision of the plan, known as Revision 05, was still in effect as recently as July. “Presumably,” writes FAS, Revision 05 carries with it planning for nuclear strikes on Iran, North Korea and Syria.
The new glimpse of OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 comes at an awkward time for the Bush administration. Just last week, a State Department official at an international arms conference met with rebuke for suggesting that U.S. nuclear forces weren’t on “hair-trigger alert,” even though the U.S. nuclear arsenal is known to experts to be capable of launching within minutes of an order. Certainly Iran, North Korea, and Syria are wondering at whom those weapons are currently aimed.
The guts of the new planning are described in detail here.
What I can add is that it’s somewhat like the moment in Dr. Strangelove when the Russian Ambassador reveals the existence of the doomsday bomb and Strangelove asks him what good is a such a device if you don’t tell anyone about it.
Here is a plan that significantly changes the United States’ nuclear stance while telling everyone the stance isn’t really changed much? If deterrence is your goal, such conflicting messages are largely useless so the only reason to make such plans is if you think you just might use them.
We aren’t just full up on crazy around here, we are overflowing with crazy from this administration.
Obama, as any sane candidate on either side of the aisle has a perfect chance to put Clinton into a box of which she won’t let herself out. All he has to do is point out that the current administration is fucking insane and on a path to create a regional nuclear war that would probably escalate into a worldwide nuclear war and that he supports the US Policy before Bush. Nothing crazy, keeps deterrence in tact, and gets the press in a tizzy as they try and say he is naive and Clinton refuses to answer hypotheticals.
Obama then produces documents used during the Clinton administration on the US nuclear stance then making her look like a crazed warmonger and hopefully pounding into the pundits heads that there was a sane world at one time.
He can even get a new slogan out of it: Obama: The Sane One.
Still has a ways to go, but it’s a good start
It’s a bit more functional than the House Dems that don’t have press releases and the such up on the site.
Because lord knows the County Board needs adult supervision:
I’m not generally a fan of this sort of limitation as it can lead to serious long term problems, but I think the current County Board needs to be limited.
Other interesting things Dan has been up to:
12?October?2007 – Senator Dan Kotowski By: Kotowski Staff SPRINGFIELD, IL – Illinois State Senator Dan Kotowski (D- Park Ridge) says people continue to be priced out of Cook County’s Suburban because of skyrocketing property taxes, but the Park Ridge Senator says help is on the way.The bill extends the 7% property cap for an additional three years. It also increases the maximum exemption from $20,000 in the first year to $33,000, then phases it out over the next two years by reducing it to $26,000, and finally to $20,000.“This law will provide immediate property tax relief for people in our district.” Kotowski added, “It addresses the real and frightening prospect that people are being taxed out of their homes.” Kotowski said, “I voted to override the governor’s veto because of the pressing and serious needs of property owners in my district. This law is a good first step to reduce the burden on homeowners, and to review and improve the property tax assessment process. It also will provide much needed property tax relief to veterans based on the extent of their disability.”
Kotowski concluded, “We need to do a better job of keeping people, families, seniors and veterans in their homes. They ensure that businesses thrive, schools succeed, and communities stay strong. This law keeps us moving forward in that direction.”
Those of you who follow the blog too closely, probably know I have a bit of an obsession with property taxes as I did help on some of the ratio studies done in relation to Missouri’s school funding disputes.
The Governor whined about the bill because it wasn’t permanent, but that misses an important point. In general, you shouldn’t get a permanent cap because market forces should eventually reach an equilibrium. For the last several years a housing bubble has been going up and up and up and, in fact, the ratio studies for the next cycle are likely to show further increases even though property values will be slowing. By capping the rate of increase temporarily, you can make sure the rates don’t go up too fast for owners to effectively plan for the increases.
In the long term, people shouldn’t be shielded from increasing values, but in the short term, market fluctuations are a significant problem and in a setting with incredible rates of default, reducing those increases is good policy. Using the Governor’s strategy of a permanent cap, people would have every incentive not to sell property and slow the housing market over the long term.
There’s no perfect policy, but Kotowski’s solution is a pretty decent way of addressing a pretty unstable market.
It’s true they aren’t going to work many precincts, but this groups is pretty impressive:
Alexei Abrikosov
Peter Agre
James W Cronin
Johann Deisenhofer
Jerome Friedman
Sheldon Glashow
Roy Glauber
David Gross
John Hall
Dudley Herschbach
Roald Hoffmann
Harold Kroto
Leon Lederman
Douglas Osheroff
David Politzer
Norman F. Ramsey
Sherwood Rowland
George Smoot
Frank Wilczek
Smoot was the first name I recognized–he pretty much confirmed expansion with his work in cosmology. The great humor here is that assuming Foster goes to the general election, two off the three Republcians probably don’t accept that the Big Bang occurred, while Foster’s supporters proved them wrong in oh so many ways.
I believe there are only two physicists in Congress right now–Vern Ehlers from Michigan and Rush Holt from New Jersey.
10) Illinois’ 10th District (North and northwest Chicago suburbs — Waukegan)
Challenger: Dan Seals, Democrat ($567,000 raised, $499,000 cash on hand)
Incumbent: Republican Rep. Mark Steven Kirk ($1.8 million raised, $1.5 million cash on hand)
Seals, a marketing executive, made a strong candidate debut as the 2006 Democratic challenger to Kirk, whose 53 percent vote share in the anti-Republican political environment was far less than he received in his two other re-election campaigns in the politically competitive, mainly suburban 10th District north of Chicago.
The Feb. 5 Democratic primary will attract more attention than did the 2006 Democratic primary, a low-profile race that Seals easily won. Seals this time faces a strong primary opponent in Jay Footlik, who as a former aide to President Bill Clinton was chief liaison to the American Jewish constituency. Footlik reported raising $480,000 and had $414,000 left to spend as October began.
Kirk, one of just eight current House Republicans from districts President Bush did not win in 2004, has raised more campaign money than any other House Republican this year.
One of the advantages of a primary is that everyone is pushing for money and it brings headlines too…
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/HlJ7U4uyF5g" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
ArchPundit