2008

From a Bennett Supporter in IL-3

From comments a Bennett supporter writes in:

I’m not trying to write anything bad or untrue, only of what I know and have read myself. I just wish these elections didn’t focuse so much on how much money the candidates raise and more about the experiece they have. So, I will tell you why I’m a Bennett supporter:
Before this election even got started I heard rumors that he was going to run, I knew him as the mayor of Palos Hills and how wonderful he has run that city so of course I was very excited about the news! I’m excited because I know his leadership roles as the president and co-founder of the illinois municipal league, chicago metropolitan agency for planning, southwest conference of mayors and southwest central dispatch, which has helped so many communities besides the one I live in. He is one of the greatest speakers I’ve ever heard and I believe that he will make a differece and change in washington especially now when we need so bad.

I stand beside his views on the increase of minimum wages, making it harder for big corporations to shirk their responsibilites under pension plans, repeal the Bush tax cuts, ensure funding for the state children’s health insurance program and the rights for women.

I know that he has a strong following because he is a strong politican with ideas and plans to get things done. Even if he didn’t raise one dollar I still believe he, by far, is the most experienced and has the better know how to be in congress. It seems like he was born to serve the people. I met him and I think if you did too, you would change your mind and vote for Mr. Bennett! What a great guy. 🙂

And let me make clear, Jerry sounds like a great guy and my effort this primary isn’t meant at all to disparage him.   When I take sides in Democratic primaries where I see the candidates as decent, I try to make sure everyone can talk about them reasonably.

Lorna Brett Howard Responds

From Comments:

A response to Bonnie Grabenhofer, Illinois NOW President, from Lorna Brett Howard:

Bonnie is correct. I was not the president of Chicago NOW when Senator Obama made the “present” votes. I never said I was. Somehow it was reported that way, but you can review the video blog for yourself at www.youtube.com., type in Lorna Brett Howard. Here are the facts: I was president from 1995 – 1999. Barack Obama was elected to the state senate in 1996. He had a 100 percent voting record on choice all the time he was in office and Chicago Now and Illinois NOW endorsed Barack in all his state senate races, as did Planned Parenthood and NARAL. NOW relied on Pam Sutherland, Illinois Planned Parenthood’s lobbyist, to do all our work in the state legislature. She did a great job and it was because of her strategy we defeated many measure designed to restrict a woman’s right to choose. It was with heavy heart that I first went on the record to defend Obama’s record on choice, being a firm Hillary supporter. When the line of attack did not stop but was escalated in a direct mailer in New Hampshire to pro-choice voters from Hillary’s campaign I stopped being sad and got mad. This is bad for the pro-choice movement. It hurts our reputation and credibility. I stand for choice and truth.

In addition, does it not mean something that National NARAL president Nancy Keenan released a statement saying both Hillary and Barack are both 100 percent pro-choice?

Illinois and New York NOW have done serious damage to their organization’s reputation among serious pro-choice men and women. It is really distressing as a feminist to watch.

Glad to set the record straight.

Lorna Brett Howard

Trib Front Pages the Illinois Circular Firing Squad Team

It appears the Illinois GOP (ICFST) is concerned that they might be LaRouched. For those that don’t recall, the Illinois Democratic Party slated two guys with ethnic names in the 1986 election and two LaRouche candidates with names like Fairfield and Hart.  Fairfield and Hart won and so Adlai Stevenson formed a third party ticket to compete leaving the loons to themselves.

So now they have the inexperienced Steve Sauerberg running against two loons who they are terrified might win! Sauerberg is a doctrinaire conservative Republican and family doctor.  Nothing exciting and he has all of $67,000 in the bank.

This time, the GOP primary contest features three contenders who have never held a public office. It has been a below-the-radar race featuring a party-backed candidate against a perennial contender with a controversial past that includes making anti-Semitic remarks and a fringe candidate who has made the elimination of toll roads a top agenda item.

The state Republican Party took the unusual step of issuing a primary endorsement of Steve Sauerberg, a Willowbrook family practice physician, in part to try to marginalize his challengers. But some Republicans have expressed fears that Sauerberg’s low-volume campaign might not be enough to defeat Andy Martin and Mike Psak, a result that would cast further doubt on the GOP’s relevance in Illinois.

Andy Martin is the assclown who started the Obama is a Muslim smear.

One challenger, Martin, has been a frequent candidate in Illinois and Florida in the last three decades. His last appearance on the state’s Republican primary ballot was two years ago, when he received 6,095 votes in finishing last in a five-way race in which more than 729,000 ballots were cast.

In 1973, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to allow Martin admission to the bar, saying he lacked the fitness to be an attorney.

Federal courts have repeatedly sanctioned him for what judges said is his filing of hundreds of largely meritless legal actions.

In early January, a Cook County judge tossed a lawsuit Martin filed against the Tribune alleging the newspaper portrayed him in a false light, contending that his name was not surveyed in a poll of the GOP primary candidates for governor that showed he had less than 1 percent support.

Judge Stuart Palmer ruled Martin’s allegations about the poll appeared to be “simply wrong” in that Martin’s name was included in the survey.

Palmer also rejected the lawsuit, in part, because he said Martin had failed to adhere to a federal court injunction preventing him from initiating lawsuits in state courts without filing a document reciting his litigation history.

In his past, Martin also has expressed anti-Semitic views. When he ran for Congress in Connecticut in 1986, the name of his congressional campaign committee included the phrase “to exterminate Jew power in America,” Federal Election Commission records show.

In a 1983 personal bankruptcy case, he referred to a federal bankruptcy judge as a “crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.” In a related court filing in the case, he also expressed sympathy to the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

And there’s more.

Circle ’em up and fire.  I think after the gift of Keyes I can not ask for Martin to win this, though I’ll be delighted to watch Andy McKenna try and spin that.

Zorn on Obama/Rezko

Eric points out that a big part of the problem of the Rezko-Obama story is self-inflicted.

Rezko’s looming trial date (it’s next month) was bound to exhume any part of the story that had died. The national media was inevitably going to want to take a crack at the tale that places Obama squarely in the skeezy milieu of Illinois politics.

And if he became a top contender, his rivals were bound to look for ways to play the Rezko card and throw him off for at least a few news cycles.

Spring of last year would have been the time for Obama and his advisers to write “The Audacity of Tony,” a meticulous, utterly honest, month-by-month, day-by-day account of all his dealings with Rezko since 1990.

Then to scrub all his political accounts of any donations somehow attributable to Rezko (instead of doing this by conspicuous degrees).

And, finally, to sit with interested reporters until he’d addressed every last question they might still have about the legal work he did for non-profits who worked with Rezko and the granular details of the real estate deal.

His failure to have done this for 15 months doesn’t speak to a guilty conscience so much as it speaks to dubious crisis-management skills.

The real questions left are less to do with the house and more to do with the relationship.  In fact, the house seems somewhat settled by most who have looked into it, but the extent of Rezko’s fundraising is stuck in the fog of campaign finance reports.     As it stands now, everytime anyone with a bit of connection to Rezko surfaces Obama has to account for that person and it’s a never ending cycle.

Those Great Folks at Illinois NOW

Grabenhofer shows up at…Taylor Marsh’s

I thought I’d take a moment to try to add some clarity to the anti-choice Present votes in IL.

Lorna Brett was president of CNOW from 1996-1998. She was not president at the time we were lobbying on these bills. Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. NOW records indicate that she hasn’t been a member since 1999. She was not there when we were lobbying against these bills. She is using her very old affiliation with NOW to try to validate her criticism of Hillary Clinton.

Voting Present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support. We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the awful anti-choice bills being put forth. Voting Present doesn’t provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman’s right to choose and these bills are unacceptable.

The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district; he could have voted No with very little negative consequence in his district.

– Bonnie Grabenhofer
IL NOW State President

So we have Bonnie Grabenhofer of Illinois NOW against

Illinois Planned Parenthood
NARAL
Chicago NOW
Personal PACPerhaps someone could ask why Illinois NOW endorsed Lisa Madigan when she had also voted present on some of the bills. To further make the point NARAL hasn’t endorsed and Chicago NOW has endorsed Clinton.
Illinois NOW backed  Blair Hull over Obama in 2004 even after the domestic violence accusation. Given it wasn’t clear that Hull had a pattern I’m not sure that was so ridiculous, but it’s hard to understand how forgiving Illinois NOW is to Lisa Madigan and Blair Hull, but not Obama.

Then again, the site where the letter is posted seems to think they have the Zapruder film of the snub.