Call It A Comeback
The ICFST goes to work with Roeser attacking Judy for being low rent.
Roeser fires back claiming Judy is bad because she brings up flatulence.
My question being whether spewing your verbal flatulence is worse than talking about actual flatulence?
Damn….as I so often like to report the most violent protests in Bloomington/Normal to my memory are the 1984 Cubs winning the Division “celebration” and the fights after new rules on college parties were put into place. But who wants to be that a bunch of people will get their panties in a bunch over peaceful demonstrations that simply call for sanity in our immigration policy?
The reality is that Americans live off the cheap labor of undocumented workers. If you want to put a quick stop to that, punish the people paying them. No? I thought so. Think about it while standing in line after a night of drinking at La Bamba (the only place I’m aware of in Bloomington to ever be cited for hiring undocumented workers)
Then it’s time to think about how to allow them to earn citizenship and attempt to move more of the underground workers above ground and legitimate for their protection and ours. The debate is horribly skewed ignoring basic issues such as how to allow families to stay together when some are working in the United States and dealing with very basic human issues and instead concentrating upon the paranoid fantasies about the brown hordes over at the Eagle Forum.
Making it a felony to be in the country without the proper documents raises all sorts of issues related to the gross incompetence of the immigration services–which many a student and professor have been technically undocumented for a time. Are we ready to make admissions and foreign student office employees felons as well? Are we ready to make Catholic Charities employees felons because they help a family in need?
This is what we are seriously talking about doing. We need labor and they need jobs, let’s create a system that matches the two together and increases our security.
Of course, driving through the Hill here in St. Louis I thought I’d driven into a protest by Latinos the other day, then I realized I just had my colors switched. Those bastards were flying Italian flags. How dare they? Why won’t they just assimilate?
Why did it take the Trib two years to write this:
Last week, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald filed a brief that says Libby also leaked secret information from a CIA report on Iraq. According to this account, Libby says the vice president instructed him to tell a reporter that a key finding of a 2002 intelligence assessment was that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium from Africa. The brief also says Libby was told by Cheney that President Bush had personally authorized the disclosure of this classified material.
The White House has not denied that allegation. In fact, it turns out that the president had ordered the intelligence estimate to be declassified. But whether the facts support what Libby reportedly says–or what Cheney purportedly told him–is yet to be established. A senior administration official told The New York Times that though Bush declassified the report, he did not tell anyone to discuss it with journalists.
So someone is lying. It could be that Libby acted on his own in leaking the information. It could be that Cheney told him to do so without the president’s approval. Or it could be that Bush was behind the leak. Those are questions that the Cheney ought to step forward and answer, along with questions about the unmasking of Plame.
One of the Appeals Court Judges pointed out this plot in his opinion in 2004. Some are applauding the Trib’s editorial today, but in Bob Dole vernacular, where was the outrage during the election?
True, the high comedy of the piece in suggesting Dick Cheney submit himself to the press corps does indicate some cheekiness, but why is Lawrence O’Donnel the guy who keeps getting these stories right while the regular press minus Murray Waas keeps taking the hand fed crap from this administration? Perhaps I’m biting the Editorial Boards’ hands as it finally gets it right, but the utter lack of pressure on this administration to come clean on these issues is astounding.
Let’s start off with the full and clear admission that behind held to 41% below a challenger is a very bad position to start from in a general election. Yet, despite this, there isn’t the smell of death you’d often anticipate for such a situation.
A couple breakdowns really stood out at me. Democrats don’t have to win outstate, but the certainly need to keep their margins ups. In Southern Illinois, a relatively small percentage of the population, Blagojevich is up significantly with 48% of voters compared to Judy’s 34%. That’s surprising. West/Northwest is nearly tied with 35/36–and that is odd given two statewide electeds are producing this many undecideds.
The Governor is getting killed in Central Illinois which fits the primary results, but given the screaming about downstate and how much he’s disliked, the effect seems largely contained with Central Illinois.
Cook County is also strange in that he’s losing it 48 to 31 which is surprising given the increasing Dem tilt, but then again Judy is from the southland area where Dems have made the biggest inroads. The collar counties produce a negative 10 right now which isn’t very surprising. Blagojevich’s Chicago numbers are holding up–he’s at 63% and I’d bet he’ll solidify that as long as Meeks doesn’t get in.
The numbers on women are close, which isn’t what I’d expect given a moderate woman for the GOP side.
In other races, while I think Rutherford is a good guy, I’ll support Jesse any day and 59% of respondents agree. Pretty much everwhere, but Central Illinois Jesse is ahead and over 50% everywhere but Central Illinois and Collar Counties.
Jesse won’t win 102 counties this time, but I bet he wins by as much as 20%.
The Radogno numbers are interesting in that a newcomer is beating her–it’s still very early, but those results are not good for the Republicans. Worse, it doesn’t appear G-Rod really has any negative coattails.
Normally, I’m not on the crusade many bloggers are when it comes to criticizing the traditional media, but the details being left out of the corruption stories are really problematic.
The other day I criticized coverage of Peter Roskam, but let’s look at coverage of Durbin and Schakowksy from last month.
In January, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), a leading spokesman for Democrats on ethics reform, adopted an office policy banning any privately paid travel. The same month, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) adopted the Democratic Party’s proposal as an office policy, limiting trips to those paid for by tax-exempt charities.
Democrats need to do better and the reason should be obvious. I’m assuming 501 (c) 3’s are the charities that can pay for travel under the proposal, but the problem with this is that at the center of the DeLay scandal. DeLay’s trip to Scotland to go golfing was paid for by a tax-exempt 501 (c) 3, The National Center for Public Policy Research. Scroll down to the bottom where you find
The National Center, which officially opened on February 2, 1982, is a 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code. Its tax ID number is 52-1226614. Donations to The National Center and its projects are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
Now, I’m the first to say that the Aspen Institute is a great organization that does interesting events, but by allowing such organizations to continue to sponsor lawmaker trips, we leave the problem in place. Unfortunately the story doesn’t explain why this is so problematic so the exemption seems exceptionally reasonable even though using such an organization is exactly how Abramoff, DeLay and Ney exploited the system.
Democrats need to play cleaner (and yes the Creamer sentencing highlights this as well–same excuse as DeLay–no one personally gained….) for both the ethical reasons and the political strategy.
There was a Municipal election here in Saint Louis and I was on the Citizen Audit Panel for the new machines and process–still catching up on sleep and getting things done.
On the negative side, the school board majority in Saint Louis lost probably meaning Creg Williams will soon be a free agent again. Those looking for a dynamic superintendent should get in line. After working on Saint Louis Public School issues for 8 years, it’s more than a bit depressing to see the keys turned over to people who pretty much want to return to policies that nearly bankrupted the damn district.
If you have some sense of my attitude to get over it in tough election losses, it’s because I’ve seen them all too often.
If you have a favorite candidate, give what you can.
Let’s go with a good consensus pick here,
I also recommend Bean, Duckworth, and Seals.
If you want to feel subversive, Join the Nedrenaline. It’s not that he’s moderate, it’s not that he supported the war, it’s that the good Senator Lieberman gets a lot more worked up about a blowjob than he does about an administration that routinely ignores the balance of power and the individual rights.
And finally, a guy I think proves that not playing well with others is a good thing, Jim Webb for US Senate in Virginia
I can’t believe that one worked–the seat belt issue is hysterical because the best way to handle is just to say it is settled instead of actually getting into a debate over the issue.
11th Hour and Abelog cover the issue. Jim gets the political handling correct, but the reason the issue was raised is being missed.
Seat belt laws had very strong opponents when they were passed, but now that they are the law, they are pretty non-controversial. I doubt there would be a strong movement to repeal them because there is no real interest other than angry cranks (who disproportionately make up talk radio). Where the issue fits for the Blagojevich campaign isn’t a full blown debate, but taking a safety issue that suburban women think is a good idea and putting Topinka on the spot. It won’t turn a vote, but it does start a process the Blagojevich camp wants to start–the questioning of her values. People don’t vote on a laundry list for the most part, most vote on a vague sense of who shares their values and by beginning to question whether Topinka’s values match that of most suburban women, the process is started.
Don’t get me wrong, it might not work, but as far as a first salvo, Democrats got the upperhand as Topinka’s press people seem to be in primary mode worrying about the base and not the swing voters.
Greg points out that hazing in the Lege can go too far. Way tooooo far….
Not funny and damn demeaning. If Dawn Clark Netsch was around she wouldn’t have ruled it just out of order, she’d have kicked Hendon’s ass. Mark Rhoads makes a very good point in Greg’s post. I don’t mind a bit of silliness, but treating women legislators as sex objects is so far over the line of acceptable behavior, I’ll stop trying to complain about it before I end up writing a string of cliches.
Really, I like Meeks in many ways, but don’t make me have that much fun at your expense.
Rich pointed out that Meeks’ views on guns would alienate him from social conservatives. I’m not sure that’s the biggest issue however.
There is a odd, but somewhat possible alliance between James Meeks and many social conservatives on abortion and gay marriage. Progressives all too often give a pass to African-Americans willing to scapegoat gays and lesbians, however, Meeks’ big weakness is on taxes which is the central point of his campaign. He wants to (I believe rightly) pass a tax swap which would raise income taxes and at least temporarily lower property taxes.
While social conservatism has run over the once proud Illinois Republican Party, taxes are still a bedrock issue on which conservatives will not defect. Any ground he might pick up will be lost to the tax position and then to Latinos who will not and should not tolerate Jim Oberweis.
ArchPundit