Call It A Comeback
- And thus the native hue of resolution
- Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought;
- And enterprises of great pith and moment,
- With this regard, their currents turn awry,
- And lose the name of action.
Rumors suggest he is coming up with a coherent recount strategy for Florida though!
To: Interested Parties
From: Lake Research Partners
Subject: The 2010 Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate in Illinois
Date: April 24, 2009
Findings from a recent survey of likely Democratic Primary voters in Illinois show a wide open race for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Senator Roland Burris, with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky holding a narrow lead over all candidates, including the incumbent Senator. In addition, when voters learn more information (positive and negative) about the candidates, Schakowsky expands her lead over the field.[1] Schakowsky’s message resonates strongly with a Democratic electorate hungry for progressive leadership that will once again provide Illinois families a chance at the American Dream.
· Congresswoman Schakowsky owns a slight lead in a race that is wide open at this early stage. In an initial three-way trial heat, Schakowsky takes nearly a quarter of the vote (24%), narrowly edging out State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (22%). Senator Roland Burris draws just 18% of the vote – a striking indicator of his vulnerability. The intensity of support also narrowly favors Schakowsky (16% strong support), followed by Giannoulias (15%) and Burris (10%). Still, with over one-third (36%) of the Democratic Primary electorate undecided, this seat is up for grabs.
· After voters hear positive statements about the candidates, Schakowsky posts a double-digit lead. Schakowsky’s lead grows from 2 points in the initial ballot to 16 points after voters hear more about the candidates (see text of statements on following page). She leads Giannoulias on the three-way ballot, 38% to 22%, with 21% undecided. C.E.O. Cheryle Jackson attracts 17% of the vote.[2]
· Even after voters hear negative information about Schakowsky and the other candidates, Schakowsky retains a solid lead over the field.
· Even more impressive, Schakowsky’s lead is not a function of superior name recognition, which actually belongs to Giannoulias. Voters have a slightly more informed opinion of Giannoulias, and both candidates are viewed positively. Despite Giannoulias’ advantage in name recognition, however, Schakowsky leads throughout.
· Bottom Line: At this early stage in the race, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is the strongest candidate in a wide open race for the Democratic nomination for Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat. Schakowsky’s lead on the initial ballot against incumbent Senator Roland Burris and several other serious candidates is impressive, and once voters learn more about each of the candidates they coalesce around her candidacy in significant numbers. Even after hearing a strong attack on Schakowsky, the Congresswoman retains her lead.
[1] Lake Research Partners designed and administered this survey of 600 likely February 2010 Democratic Primary voters in Illinois. The survey was conducted from April 19-22, 2009. The margin of error for this poll is +/-4.0%.
[2] On the informed ballot, Cheryle Jackson was substituted for Roland Burris in order to simulate the most competitive scenario with an African-American woman in the race.
++++
Overall, this poll is very good for Schakowsky. It tends to show that Bob Creamer’s conviction won’t matter much in the primary and she does well overall. Between her and Giannoulias the race will be over electability and getting union support. Burris is pretty much an afterthought and will be a fool if he runs. Striket that, he’s a fool anyway. He’ll just be a bigger fool.
The most telling new detail comes from Bob Arya, Blagojevich’s senior adviser from 2006 to early 2008.
Arya, who confirmed Brackett’s account in an interview Monday, said all major speeches needed the OK of a Washington consulting firm that was trying to position Blagojevich for a presidential run.
Arya said it was this consulting firm that inserted disastrously aggressive anti-business rhetoric into Blagojevich’s 2007 budget address. In early drafts, the need for a new tax on gross business receipts was framed as an attempt to close loopholes and make the tax system more progressive, Arya said.
“But the consultants said he should turn the issue into big business against the little guy,” Arya said. “So he tried to make businesses look nefarious when they were just following the law. All this did was inflame a lot of people whose support he needed.”
What’s amazing about this is anyone paying attention knew he was going to prison in 2007. I made that point repeatedly in the 2006 race–so that Rod Blagojevich is delusional now isn’t news. He always has been.
Testing Twitter Feed
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
“I don’t think this defendant in all honesty … fully understands the position he finds himself in,” said U.S. District Judge James Zagel.
He never has, he never has.
There is some good in Chicago:
Many Chicago streets are not designed for cyclists, said Sadowsky, and need engineering changes, such as more lighting, fewer parked cars and lane adjustments to reduce collisions.
And particular intersections present safety issues, Sadowsky said. The one where Fabeck was killed has an overpass.
Another problematic intersection with heavy congestion is Kedzie Boulevard and Armitage Avenue, he said. There were two deaths resulting from bike-car collisions within a year: Amanda Annis, 24, and Blanca Ocasio, 19.
The alliance has worked with the CTA to reduce congestion at that intersection by moving a bus stop from the east side of Kedzie to the west, said Sadowsky.
“We also removed parking on Kedzie,” Sadowsky said. “There was a sign that was too close to the intersection that made it difficult for cars turning to see pedestrians and cyclists,” he said adding that there are ongoing discussions with aldermen to put a bicycle lane on Kedzie Boulevard between North Avenue and Palmer Boulevard.
This level of cooperation never would have happened in years past. It still needs improvement, but one of the most positive aspects is that the alliance is able to provide CTA and the city relatively low cost fixes. The Active Transportation Alliance is doing excellent work. One thing I’d suggest for their web site is some explicit links to road safety courses for cyclists. They are immensely helpful in teaching people who commute safety.
Oh, and they are hiring so those out there looking for a good progressive job–take a look.
CHICAGO (CBS) ? District Judge James B. Zagel said NO to giving former Gov. Rod Blagojevich permission to travel to Costa Rica for TV show.
Blagojevich appeared in court at 11 a.m. Tuesday, asking for permission to travel to Costa Rica to appear on the NBC reality program “I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here,” which will be filmed in June.
Blagojevich was ordered to surrender his passport when he was hit with federal corruption charges, so he asked U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel for permission in which he said no.
That said, Eric Zorn came up with the best arguments to let him go:
1. He’ll make money for his legal defense.
NBC won’t say how much, but every dollar he earns is one we won’t have to pay.
2. He’ll humiliate himself.
Assuming Your Honor did not see the first American version of this program when it aired in 2003 and that your law clerks have better things to do, I took the liberty of researching that sorry moment in broadcast history.
Contestants assembled in an Australian rain forest and had to perform various unpleasant stunts as part of the competition.
For example, Melissa Rivers had to place insects, worms and rats into her transparent clown pants.
Alana Stewart had to use only her teeth to remove tokens from tanks containing such creatures as cockroaches, spiders and an angry opossum.
Downtown Julie Brown had to sit in a tank of leeches, and “Stuttering John” Melendez had to wade through a swamp populated by snakes and eels. (See the entire rundown at What awaits Blago in the jungles of Costa Rica? )
Who wants to see Blagojevich engaged in such grotesque self-abasement? I believe I speak for the vast majority of Illinoisans when I say, we do.
3. He might not come back.
Yes, technically, the infinitesimal risk that he’d flee or try to fight extradition back to the United States is a reason not to let Blagojevich go to Costa Rica.
But come on. How great would it be if he never came back? We’d save millions not having to try and possibly imprison him. And his punishment—permanent exile—would fit his alleged crimes well enough for most of us.
Number 3 is growing on me.
It’s so painful to read this garbage:
Communist dictator Fidel Castro siezed power by force fifty years ago and never faced the voters in an honest election since. He now likes to pretend to be “retired” so that little brother Raul can call himself “El Presidente” de Cuba. Yet that didn’t stop Fidel from recently receiving a delegation of gullible U.S. House members and telling them to please ask President Obama how Fidel can help him. In a typical minimalist and bland nobody is really bad on the Left statement, President Obama wonders aloud if the government of Cuba could please stop stealing a hefty percentage of US currency that is sent to Cubans from their relatives in the US.
Here are some things the Castro brothers could do if they are really interested in improving relations with western democracies. They could release more than 200 political prisoners including more than forty librarians whose only crime was to ask that a wider selection of western books could be displayed on their shelves. Too subversive said Fidel, go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, and we might let you out in ten years if we feel like it. So much for human rights and due process in Cuba.
Actually western democracies generally have formal relations with Cuba. One can see the embassies Cuba keeps in countries around the world and embassies or such in Cuba
Most of the world figured out a long time ago that the US policy towards Cuba didn’t work. The embago has been in place for 47 years and it has accomplished….what?
During the Cold War it made some sense. However, now it is a long failed policy that despite all empirical evidence of its failing, the right wants to continue.
What will destabilize the Castros and the current regime is economic engagement. Instead of an unproductive embargo, the way to bring greater freedom to the Cuban people is to open up economic activity and flood the island with dollars and visitors. It won’t be immediate, but after 47 years of failure, I’m not sure what the rush would be. Showing people freedom and a better way of life will bring about change much faster.
Stupid or lying—who knows at this point.
Now we know what last Friday’s national public school “Day of Silence “ was really all about. It was to get us all prepared for intellectual duct tape over our mouths when it comes to certain topics.
A Congressional vote is expected this week that would eventually silence any and all criticism of sexually-controversial behavior by making the exercise of free speech about the issue a “hate crime”.
A markup vote on the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is expected in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. The measure (H.R. 1913) is sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), and would add 30 sexual orientations (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association) to the list of classes federally- protected from the so-called “hate crimes”.
Criticizing incest, for example, would be a federal crime with the passage of HR 1913. Incest would be added as another federally-protected sexual orientation.
It’s hard to imagine the level of idiocy to write this in relation to this bill.
Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person–
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
IR’s fundamental problem is that they don’t understand the concept of aggravating circumstance in the law. No speech is outlawed by this law, motivation as demonstrated potentially through speech can be an aggravating circumstance to an already existing violation of the law.
The utter stupidity of claiming that this law leads to criminalizing speech is so staggering it’s hard to comprehend.
All that said–go IR, go–circle ’em up and keep firing at your best candidate.
ArchPundit