The Story of Bob Dold

I’m mainly amused by Bob Dold running in Illinois 10.  He’s running as a moderate who gets endorsed by really conservative groups and he doesn’t quite know how to answer questions to resolve the issue.  Let’s take for example, abortion.

Dold says he’s pro-choice, but he was endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and Illinois Right to Life. James Warren nails the problem here:

So he calls himself “pro-choice” but gets support from anti-abortion groups, although not Planned Parenthood, which says his Democratic rival, Dan Seals, is the only pro-choice candidate. When Mr. Dold is asked if he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, he doesn’t say no, merely, “I just don’t think that’s realistic at this time.”

It’s a predictable candidacy of winks, nods and deflections, or what passes for pragmatism. A self-proclaimed “conservative choice” in the Republican primary in February, he now morphs into a middle-of-the-road guy whom a Tea Party zealot can still support.

Dold put it best himself:

Bob Dold [Kenilworth, 10th Cong. Dist. Republican Primary Candidate]: I would consider myself to be somewhat in the middle, which I know is not the answer that you’re looking for there, but I’m against partial birth abortion; I am against federal funding [for abortions] and I am for parental notification.

Telling.  But it gets better:

Jeff Berkowitz: Okay, but you would not like to see Roe v. Wade overturned?

Bob Dold: I think, right now, the way it works with the Supreme Court is that Roe v. Wade is precedent at this stage of the game and it would be tough to do so. So, I just don’t think that is realistic at this stage.

Jeff Berkowitz: Philosophically, I know you can’t control it as a House member, but to the extent you could, would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, just … in terms of your philosophy.

Bob Dold: Philosophically, I think it’s kind of a moot point. I go back to what I am saying in terms of—I’m against partial birth abortion; I am against federal funding; I am for parental notification. Those are the issues that I have an effect on or will be able to vote on with regard to Congress.

Now, if he were making an argument like Michael Kinsley that abortion rights should be protected by legislation and not the Courts, we could be having an interesting discussion.  Bob Dold is not doing that however.  It’s quite unclear what the hell he believes, but it is clear he’s worried about giving a clear answer.

The Tribune gave Dold a big fat wet kiss with one of the most sexist ledes I’ve read in years:

Democrat Dan Seals and Republican Robert Dold are selling themselves to suburban voters as candidates who will provide “independent leadership” in Congress.

But a look at their tax returns and economic disclosures shows neither can claim financial independence.

Seals made only about $18,000 last year, and wife Mia provides much of the family income as her husband enters year six of a thus-far unsuccessful, mostly full-time campaign to represent the North Shore and northwest suburbs in Washington.

Dold doesn’t own his home. His parents bought the Kenilworth house that Dold said he rents from them for $10,000 a year, plus property taxes. And Dold’s finances are tied to the fortunes of his parents’ pest control company.

In my marriage I don’t consider my wife to be dependent upon me since it’s a partnership.  She’d kick my butt if I didn’t think so.  I make more money than my wife, but it isn’t being dependent on me, it’s how we deal with our collective finances.  The editor who let Ryan’s lede through should be publicly apologizing.  Being dependent on your parents and being in a partnership with your spouse are very different things.

I don’t begrudge Dold living in his parents’ house.  That’s not an uncommon thing in many immigrant families and I just don’t see it as a problem when a business is involved especially.  However, comparing the two and equating them is absolutely ridiculous.  If a Dan Seals was a woman and his wife were a man, no one would ever write that lede.