Just Refuse to Talk
ArchPundit
As I pointed out, Jerry Weller is back and so he can comment on the Tribune investigation on his financial disclosures regarding Nicaraguan properties.
Impressive arrogance.
Giuliani Falling In Polls and One Guy Caught It Early
Many predicted it, but Charles Franklom actually suggested the polling evidence was there:
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Will Giuliani be the next McCain?
Last week I looked at the collapse of the McCain campaign. Not the collapse of money and staff, but the loss of public support that is at the root of the campaign’s failure. Judging by the trend we’ve seen in McCain’s support since November that failure has been clearly coming for some time.
But what about the Republican “front runner”, Rudy Giuliani? While he has consistently remained ahead in polls of Republican voters, and his campaign is in infinitely better financial shape than McCain’s, Giuliani’s trend in support is eerily similar to McCain’s downward trajectory.
Since early March, Giuliani’s support has fallen by an estimated 8 percentage points. McCain’s fell by 10 points since January. And the rate of decline has been a bit steeper for Giuliani than for McCain. The saving grace for Giuliani has been that he started his decline from a higher point, around 33%, while McCain’s slump started down from 25%.
Giuliani’s national slide is also mirrored in the early primary states, as is the case with McCain.
Read the whole thing. Giuliani’s campaign responded, but the continuing problems Giuliani faces in the polls suggests Charles was correct.
A Tale of Two Headlines
Pelosi to Bush: ‘It’s an insult’
IRAQ | President will pull out 30,000 troops, but Democrat scoffs
Swamp TV — Bush embraces Petraeus’ troop cuts
Now, both stories are not so good. Both cover Pelosi’s quotes, but not the fact that there aren’t enough brigades to keep up the level of troops. This has been known for months so reporting this as some sort of drawdown by Bush is silly. He’s exhausted the military
Jerry Weller Has Returned to the House of Representatives
So, perhaps the Tribune can get a response to their investigative reports on his land dealings…
Simple Answers to Simple Questions
I posted a comment over at Capitol Fax that the Governor has a reasonable point about the House not entering vetoes when they met last. To which Rich Miller responded:
He is probably right, Larry. The question is, does he want to sue or does he get something done?
Sue.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
Time for a New Boland Amendment
The Boland Amendment was actually a series of amendments passed in the 1980s that eventually banned any money from the US Government being spent as military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.
We need a new one, only this one should be to ban the spending of any money by the US Government to fight within the territorial limits of Iran. We might stick a two year time limit on it since any other administration wouldn’t be crazy enough to do it barring a real provocation. Right now, it is very plausible that this administration and it’s willing enablers like Lieberman will create a provocation to attack Iran-something that can only result in a complete disaster for the entire region, if not planet:
.[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/ibpyameu5Zc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
The only way to stop this from happening it to make it so military leaders can refuse to follow Bush’s order for an attack, and making it illegal would give them that leverage.
When Kirk-Lipinski Demonstrate How Truly and Utterly Clueless They Are
So much for “conditions.” Under questioning from Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), Gen. Petraeus conceded that his timetable for ending the surge by July 2008 is due to the five extra active-duty Brigade Combat Teams coming to the end of their scheduled deployments and the lack of available units to keep U.S. troop strength at 162,000.
Remember this when President Bush on Thursday unveils his (read: Petraeus’) “drawdown” plan — and, for that matter, any time a politician says that the only “responsible” reduction of forces is one that’s “conditions-based.”
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/eAq08Xu0D_Y" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
The ‘plan’ Kirk and Lipinski are shopping around isn’t a plan. It’s a bunch of suggestions without enforcement and sets a goal that has to be met because the US will be out of forces to maintain 160,000 in country. The ‘plan’ is keeping as many troops as are available and when they try and sell it as a compromise they are stupid or lying.
The Freedom Watch Ad Buy
From the Seals press release:
The following information is publicly available from the local media stations pertaining to the Freedom’s Watch Chicago media market advertising buy.
|
Freedom’s Watch Chicago Buy Info (9/6/07) |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Station |
Flight dates |
Size of buy |
Estimated Points* |
|
TELEVISION |
|
|
|
|
WBBM-TV |
8/27 – 9/23 |
$92,000/20 Share |
153 |
|
WFLD-TV |
8/22 – 9/23 |
$250,000/2 Share/Evening News |
417 |
|
WGN-TV |
8/27 – 9/09 |
$40,000 |
67 |
|
WLS-TV |
8/27 – 9/23 |
$275,000/early morning, early, late, 11am, wheel |
458 |
|
WMAQ-TV |
8/27 – 9/23 |
$74,900/(think their share will be less than usual) |
125 |
|
Comcast Spotlight |
8/29 – 9/23 |
~$50,000/(won’t know share until after the fact) |
83 |
|
Total Television |
|
$781,900 |
1,303 |
|
RADIO |
|
|
|
|
WGN-AM |
Through end of Sept |
$70,500 |
353 |
|
WBBM-AM |
Through end of Sept |
$70,500 |
353 |
|
Total Radio |
|
$141,000 |
706 |
|
Grand Total |
|
$922,900 |
|
|
This information is based on continual outreach to stations. It is subject to change and to interpretation. |
|||
|
*Cost per point for TV estimated at $600 Cost per point for Radio estimated at $200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
One Meeellllionnnn dollars.
Seals: Time To Bring ‘em Home
Seals Calls for an End to War; Criticizes Kirk’s Support for Status Quo and White House Propaganda
Petraeus testimony; Bush Speech; and Freedom Watch Ads All Part of War Supporters’ Campaign to Keep U.S . Troops in Iraq
Wilmette- Calling for Congress to have the courage to end the War in Iraq, Democratic Congressional Candidate Dan Seals criticized Representative Mark Kirk’s continued support of the war, and challenged him to renounce the shameful propaganda ads currently running in the Chicago media market.
“It’s time to bring our troops home. No more delays, no more spin, no more politics. We need a Congressman willing to stand up and tell the truth, not fall for further White House propaganda,” Seals said.
Freedom’s Watch, headed by former White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer is currently running a “stay-the-course” $1 million dollar ad campaign in the Chicago media market defending George Bush’s failed war policy. These ads are running in key congressional races across the country to help those members who have helped the White House on Iraq.
The ad defends Kirk & Bush’s failed war policy in Iraq. “Mark Kirk should call upon the Freedom Watch to pull these ads down in Chicago. Unless he calls for these ads to come down, we can only conclude that he wants them to stay up on his behalf,” stated Dan Seals.
“Mark Kirk has been an architect, supporter and cheerleader over the last six years of the worst foreign policy debacle in a generation. The fact is we deserve elected officials with the courage and judgment to make America safer, not continue to support a disaster,” Seals continued.
Mark Kirk has voted against allowing troops the necessary breaks between their deployments and has continually voted against legislation to bring our troops home including The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. It required a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops beginning within 120 days of enactment and ending by April 1, 2008 and for the President to publicly justify the post-redeployment missions for the US military in Iraq and the minimum number of troops necessary to carry out those missions.
In March of this year, the Daily Herald noted that, “Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk tweaked his position on the Iraq war a half-dozen times since he first voted to authorize the conflict in 2002.”
Seals reaffirmed his strong position by stating that, “I am the only candidate who has opposed the war from the start and the only one who unequivocally supports a responsible timeline for withdraw.”
After narrowly escaping a close re-election in 2006, Representative Kirk has been trying to distance himself from the President by voting for the non-binding resolution against the troop surge. However, when it comes time to vote for a plan to begin the responsible redeployment of our troops, Representative Kirk continually votes against the plan despite his rhetoric.
The Problem of Primaries
My general rule is that primaries are good things and that people should get in them so the Party can decide who is the best choice. Yet, there are times they can be counterproductive.
In IL-10, I wasn’t terribly thrilled with Jay Footlik getting in the race, but after meeting him and the such, I’m comfortable with him though I’m supporting Dan Seals. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to call for no competition. If Jay were to win I could support him in good conscience and I’m okay with that. If Dan is as strong as I think he is, it shouldn’t be a problem. If it is a problem, that would tell us about Dan’s ultimate ability. I don’t have questions in regards to Dan because I’ve seen him in action last cycle, but I don’t see any harm in having the primary. It’s similar to IL-6 where I thought more competition was fine. Footlik is also running his campaign as being against Kirk and not Dan so it heightens the point that Mark Kirk is no moderate and is a rubber stamp for George Bush’s war.
The problem comes in races like IL-3 where it looks like we have a four or five way race in the primary and the problem is that for one of them to come out victorious, they are going up against an incumbent who has a base established by his father. The field has to be whittled down. Assuming one or two of them won’t be a serious candidate means that the real problem comes with two candidates who are getting most of the attention: Mark Pera and Palos Hills Mayor Jerry Bennett.
Pera has put together a good campaign team, has really been a hit with progressives and has an incredibly calm and likeable personality. He seems to be doing his call time and canvasses. Bennett isn’t quite as progressive, but is acceptable and much better than Lipinski. The problem is that the two of them together doom a chance to take out Lipinski and so someone needs to make a choice.
The thing with Lipiniski is that he’s vulnerable on the issue of being handed the seat through nepotism and the shadiness behind that. And that is where Bennett is weaker. From Lipinski’s campaign site:
Gerald Bennett, the Mayor of Palos Hills and a health care executive, said Congressman Lipinski’s proposals were an “excellent approach to helping American families become better health care consumers.”
“The Congressman should be lauded for working with colleagues in both parties to craft initiatives that will not only improve health care availability and delivery, but also have a great chance of being enacted,” Mayor Bennett said.
===
Third District governmental leaders endorsing Congressman Lipinski’s re-election include:
Jim Balcer – Alderman, 11 th Ward
Gerald Bennett – Mayor, City of Palos Hills
And right there is the problem. Bennett’s quote and endorsement from 2006 neutralizes that issue for Bennett, who by all accounts is able. The campaign needs to be one of insider cronyism versus independent challenger and Bennett isn’t able to do that. And it’s why, I hope he doesn’t decide to announce. I don’t blame him for being ambitious, but at this point, he’ll have the weaker message and the Party needs this win. I also happen to like that Pera is more progressive and clear on many key issues, but I’m ultimately a pragmatist and that impulse happens to be the same as my progressive impulse.