Uncategorized

Duckworth Pledges No Earmarks

ArchPundit May 12, 2006 No Comments

It’s a good stance for swing voters

Stuart Rothenberg took on the race: (paid subscription)

Finally, Democrats have been acting for months as if they already have Hyde?s Illinois open seat in their hip pocket. Their nominee, Tammy Duckworth, faces Republican state Sen. Peter Roskam, whom they portray as a prot?g? of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and a conservative firebrand. Roskam worked briefly on Capitol Hill for DeLay (during the Congressman?s first term), as well as for Hyde.

Hyde?s open seat isn?t as Republican as you might think. Bush won it with 53 percent both when he first ran for the White House and four years later when he ran for re-election. Moreover, virtually all of the state legislators from the area are Republicans. But Democrats argue that the suburban Chicago district seems to be inching their way.

Republicans will not let even one of these districts slip away without a blood bath of a fight, and Democratic rhetoric about the Republican nominees in these four districts may not sell well among voters who actually have met the GOP candidates.

I?ve met three of the four Republican nominees in these districts ? all but Meier ? and, after hearing the Democrats describe Bachmann, Gard and Roskam as knuckle-dragging, fire-breathing, right-wing bomb throwers, I was more than a little surprised to find all three personable and reasonable-sounding.

I certainly understand why Democrats hate the Republican trio. All three are politically savvy, unapologetically conservative and results-oriented. In short, they?d likely be formidable adversaries on Capitol Hill.

But expectations are an important part of politics, and Democrats have spent so much time portraying Bachmann, Gard and Roskam as scary ideologues that when voters meet the Republicans, they may not only like them, they may also wonder about future Democratic charges and attacks. (Roskam was recently endorsed by local Teamsters and Operating Engineers unions.)

Of course, Democrats have various sorts of ammunition to use against each of the four Republicans, and if the Democratic tide is big enough, all four seats could turn Democratic. But Democratic strategists would be wise to treat the quartet of Republican nominees in these districts as serious, politically attractive candidates, not as crackpots.

This race is probably going to produce the most press releases with the word extreme in them from both sides. The point is important, Roskam is very conservative, but he comes off as very mild in person and it’s a point I’ve made a few times now.

Most important for Duckworth:

Duckworth is ramping up her November bid by replacing Joe Shafer with Jon Carson, who is charged with developing a more aggressive field organization

I don’t have any opinion on Shafer, but moving towards a more aggressive field operation is essential—the primary showed a very low turnout for a hotly contested race–reaching out to potential voters is essential.

And Remember Death is Not an Option

ArchPundit May 12, 2006 No Comments

Todd Stroger or Danny Davis

How’s the Messiah Danny?

That Sure is Some Turfwar There

ArchPundit May 12, 2006 No Comments

Foggo’s house searched by FBI

Press continues story that Porter Goss was about turf.

Strategery

ArchPundit May 12, 2006 No Comments

Atrios got the same ad I did. And ran it. As he said, do as you wish, but check out this for some background

The basic argument to end net neutrality centers around whether or not telcos can differentiate between types of information flowing over the networks. Their argument is somehow this gives them more ability to allow the internet to grow.

The problem with that is that there is not an open market in this case–the players are pretty much set and the barriers to entry are huge. Instead, giving telcos the ability to differentiate gives them the power to shape the internet of the future. They can pick and choose what applications and sites to allow or give preferential treatment and thus will be making decisions on what gets promoted and what does not instead of individual consumers.

Net neutrality simply means that the cost of internet service is paid for by end users who then can choose what to do on the internet only limited by their service level. Thus, individual users are allowed to utilize networks up to their level of service promoting true competition over the internet in terms content providers.

Without net neutrality, content providers could enter into agreements to promote their service over other services meaning the system would create barriers of entry to new content providers or simply content providers that don’t make the right agreements with telcos.

Ultimately, if you want to provide the most open access and allow individuals to choose content based upon their wishes and not telco agreements with certain content providers, net neutrality is the best way to go and the cost of such service is paid for by the person with the internet connection.

Consider this an open thread to point out the bogus points in the telco’s ad.

The Thing About Advertising

ArchPundit May 12, 2006 No Comments

Is that if I don’t agree with you, your advertisement reminds me to point out the side I do agree with in excruciating detail.

Ed Markey is doing great work to promote net neutrality. To figure out how to help fight for net neutrality, go here.

To hear the other side, the paid sponsor on the right hand side has material.

And, of course, Bobby Rush is a wanker again.

Saying Your Piece

ArchPundit May 10, 2006 No Comments

Apparently means not having to tell the truth:

Another Democrat, Michele Rosenfeld, called on Smith to resign.

“You apologized, but you never came clean about what happened. It’s been lie after lie,” she said.

Smith has said the $1,462 bill at VIP’s Chicago strip club was for a bachelor party where those attending didn’t have enough cash to cover the bill, and he paid for it with the village credit card. Smith has declined to name any of those attending the party.

The Star learned also this week that a $1,300 charge on the village card to Chicago Food and Beverage, on the same night as the supposed bachelor party, was for lap dances at the strip club. Smith said earlier that he could not recall the purpose of the $1,300 charge.

When Rosenfeld asked the mayor Tuesday night what that charge was for, he said, “None of it was paid for with village funds. I said my piece, and I will leave it at that.”

Good reporting by Susan DeMar Lafferty.

For Smith, actually it was paid for by Village funds and then reimbursed. At that point, it’s public record and as a public official, you don’t get off that easy.

And let me say, I don’t blame reporters for this–I assume it’s the editors who decide not to credit other forums, but this has also happened on Rich’s site. When a blog gets something right and that information ultimately comes from the blog, it’s appropriate to cite the writer of the blog at least. Much like if the Tribune had uncovered something, it’s appropriate to cite them. When I write for local newspapers, I do it.

The Smith Money Trail

ArchPundit May 6, 2006 No Comments

Kudos to the most complete article yet on the subject of Smith’s intermingling of campaign funds with city funds and the reporting of those funds to Susan DeMarr Lafferty at the Herald News

The question I couldn’t figure out was where those expenses were reported–as I mentioned previously, one cannot just list credit card payments, but most list specific expenses. Lafferty tracks down the expenses and spot compares them to the credit card bills and I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to report the expenses don’t match the credit card bill details.

What seems obvious to me is that campaign funds generally have to be spent on political expenses. It is questionable that many of these are political expenses. Some are, others appear to be personal expenses. I believe that is a violation, but I don’t know the intricacies of the law.

But what I do know, you don’t get to charge political expenses to the town and then reimburse. That is a clear violation of the law. Using public funds for political purposes even if reimbursed is illegal. Jeff Trigg claims any personal use is illegal also—I simply don’t know the law well enough to fully understand that issue.

I also want to remember, it isn’t a mystery where the $1300 charge is from labeled Chicago Food and Beverage. It was the VIP Club also.

Master of Ceremonies

ArchPundit May 6, 2006 No Comments

LOL

Weller?s campaign manager, Steve Shearer, said Thursday Smith may have served as the congressman?s campaign chairman during Weller?s re-election announcement in Joliet on Dec. 8, 2005.

?But, I think Mr. Weller may have just said Smith was the campaign chairman,? Shearer noted. ?He hasn?t said anything about it since then, and Mr. Smith has not had a role in the congressman?s campaign.?

Shearer said Smith was master of ceremonies at Weller?s announcement event.

?Mr. Weller had a couple of mayors there. Mayor Art Schultz of Joliet couldn?t speak well, and so the congressman needed another local mayor and Mr. Smith was there,? said Shearer.

Good For Kennedy

ArchPundit May 5, 2006 No Comments

Driving while under the influence is a crime whether one is addicted or not, so I imagine there will be further legal consequences, but I wish him good luck in rehab.

That said, part of the point about him is based on very odd behavior reported to me on his last visit to Saint Louis. It appears we have a pretty good explanation now. On top of his current problems, he reportedly was diagnosed as being bi-polar and frankly, he’s not doing bad given all that.

I assume Rush will say something stupid about it.

In other good news, Pelosi stuck her elbow into Jefferson’s side as she sees the bus coming toward him.

Friday Afternoon’s News

ArchPundit May 5, 2006 No Comments

Porter Goss wishes to spend more time with his family.

Suddenly.

Sort of like when the other shoe drops, it happens suddenly.

Sort of strange that his number 3 that he handpicked is under investigation in a Hookers and Bribery Case and yet, it’s really about the ongoing changes in the administration by Josh Bolten.

Hey, how about that Patrick Kennedy….