Even the Huffington Post can't quite figure this out - Alexi Giannoulias, the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, is pledging to found a 'progressive' (a/k/a ultra-liberal) caucus in the U.S. Senate because, well, folks like those darn Blue Dog Democrats in the House are just too conservative:
The Illinois Democrat's campaign told the Huffington Post that the objective is to provide a philosophical counterweight to the sway that conservative Democratic members often have over legislation.
"Think of this proposal as a sort of 'Blue Line' caucus for the Senate -- a group of progressive leaders who will hold the line and set a minimum threshold of what we think should be at the bargaining table," Giannoulias said in a statement.
As you might expect, the uber-liberal DailyKos blog is in full support of Alexi's strategy.
Is Alexi grossly overestimating just how deep his liberal base in Illinois really is? Democrats in general are running for the hills from the failed Obama policies (especially regarding job creation), and it seems like Alexi is doubling down on a party that looks to be headed for disaster at the polling places this fall.
As we have said before, this race will be won in the middle, not at the poles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
72 comments:
These guys would rather cavort with Blago than talk with pro-Israel folks.
Well thank goodness for that. It's time someone did what needs to be done.
More "cavorting", 7:43?
Seems that's what gotten everyone into this mess in the first place.
I've been saying that Alexi would vote like Burris has been voting from day one.
Now Alexi has come out and basically said exactly that.
Louis G. Atsaves
BEWARE! Someone linked to my Twitter account calling himself/herself "FakeBobDolt."
Now which immature Democrat would do this?
Louis G. Atsaves
TA--
Since when did 'progressive' become a dirty-word? Was that before or after the GOP decided to turn 'liberal' into a smear?
Just a quick history lesson:
Here's a few United States Presidents that would be considered "progressive": Theodore Roosevelt (he was d*@m proud of it), FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Kennedy, LBJ, Polk (and I suppose Clinton and Obama)
What do they all have in common?
1) They are each considered among the greatest presidents we have ever had.
2) Each brought significant change during their presidencies.
3) Products of those presidents: the formation of this country, the Declaration of Independence, ending of slavery and re-forming of our Union, the expansion of the US's hard and soft power, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, victory in WWII.
What do these items have in common? Well, they are the greatest accomplishments of the USA to date. No one looks at George Bush (41 or 43), Reagan, Hoover, Coolidge, Ford, or Nixon and says "wow, they did something ground-breaking", unless it refers to corruption (Nixon), lying (GWB) or starting enormous economic down-turns (Hoover, GWB, Nixon/Reagan). In fact, I'm starting to think that Conservative may just be another word for do-nothing.
Giannoulias should wear the badge of progressivism with pride. It's a belief that we as a country are moving forward instead of looking backwards. It's a belief in new ideas, new technology, and improvement as a society. So, go ahead and attack him for believing that which our greatest leaders also believed in.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
Of course and Alexi is liberal. What do you expect? He is great. I listened to his radio interview yesterday with Dan and Roma and I was very impressed.
Alexi is a much better candidate than Kirk. Importantly, Alexi has NOT been a liar. I can not believe that anyone would still support Kirk after caught lying about his military record.
The good news for conservatives who do not want to vote for Kirk is that there is now a conservative libertarian in the race. Michael Labno. Here is a link to his site:
http://www.labno4senate.com/
Originally I thought that many conservative republicans would simply not vote in November, instead of voting for a socially liberal/moderate republican candidate who lied repeatedly about his military record. At least now they have an option.
Blue Wind, I'm sure Labno is pleased with your endorsement. Hopefully any Republicans thinking of voting for him over Kirk will take note of it as well.
Hmm, if you're a Republican, for whom should you vote? The guy who the liberal Democrats want, or the guy who the liberal Democrats are desperate to defeat?
TA--
For your more conservative then they let on readers, don't forget about Randy Stufflebeam. The tea-party backed Constitution Party candidate for Senate.
I'm sure many of your readers, including Louis, may find his brand of conservative values and honesty more appealing then Kirk's and I'm just fine with that. Randy, unlike Mark, has never lied about his record.
http://runrandyrun.com/
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
I heard Stufflebeam may have some trouble staying on the ballot, but we'll see.
We can add your endorsement to the list of reasons that all Republicans need to get behind Kirk.
How's that Green Party guy, LeAlan what's his name, look to you, CC, since we're playing this game?
TA,
I thought Kirk is socially liberal. Am I wrong? The problem he has with conservatives is that he is liberal socially AND he lied about his military record. The 2nd part really complicates things for him. I dont think he is electable. So, if I were a conservative I would prefer to vote on principle.
If you think I am playing games, you got it wrong. I am very liberal and I totally agree with Gianoulias's positions, so I have no problem voting for him. If he were a blue dog or "conservative" democrat, I would not vote for him. I would probably vote for the green candidate.
Blue, Kirk is socially 'moderate' not liberal.
In any case, the issue when deciding to vote on principle, at least for me, is, is that vote going to be one that has a hope of effectuating your agenda, or will it be 'wasted'?
TA is probably more conservative than Kirk on a lot of issues, but I'm behind him 100% because I know he's going to be a great U.S. Senator, and he's with me on "enough" issues that I can live with it. Many one-issue voters or some others that are a lot more concerned about "principle" for certain issues simply can't do that, and there are as many on the left as on the right that feel that way, probably. But it's rare that I will absolutely refuse to vote for a Republican (Alan Keyes was a notable exception, who I was proud to undervote) because 99 times out of 100, the GOP candidate is the one I think will do a better job than the Dem. The alternative candidates (Constitution party, liberatrian, what-have-you) just don't have the practical ability to win the election. So for me, looking elsewhere is a non-starter.
At the end of the day, you can't effectuate change unless you are in power. And to do that, you simply need to win the election. End of story.
TA,
I dont mean to speak on behalf of conservatives, as I am the wrong person. I am ultra-liberal. But, being someone who respects principled people in general, I can see why they dont like Kirk. It is not just the fact that he is socially liberal (or moderate as you say). The problem is that he lied repeatedly about his military record. I think that would be a major issue for any sincere conservative.
Blue, no one is pleased with Kirk's embellishments over his military career, which were simply unncessary given his strong record of service. But he's apologized for that and we move on.
Bottom line, no matter where you hit on the scale of "conservatism," you have to understand that a vote for anyone but Kirk is a vote for Alexi. And that ought to be all the argument you need, in my book. So if I were you, I wouldn't waste any more of my time trying to puzzle out why the conservatives will still stand up for Kirk. It's really not complicated.
Hey, Blue Wind, isn't your drum tired of all the beating? Kirk has apologized for mis-stating SOME military issues. Nobody likes it. But Nobody is perfect, Blue, and what Kirk did with the silly embellishment of a meritorious military record and 21 year career, pales in comparison to what Alexi has done as an adult. You are more than entitled to your ultra liberalism. When you compare Kirk's intellect and past contributions to our nation, in and out of Congress, he is light years ahead of Alexi. In the end, voters DO know the difference. Conservatives and Independent voters will look at Mark and Alexi, weigh the options, and Mark Kirk will prevail. 70% of the American public is damn angry at your ultra liberal guy in the White House for his lack of leadership. The hope and change crap has worn thin faster than any of us could have predicted. This building of the mosque near Ground Zero is just the last straw. Be ultra liberal. But be fair and be honest. It's as much about the Iman as it is about the mosque. He's some sick dude. The average guy on the street is fed up with the ultra liberal agenda. Let's see what happens all over the US on November 2, especially here in IL.
trying to compare a candidate with a generation of public service to a candidate that gave loans to mobsters involved in prostitution is an absolute joke.
as we can see on the front of this site the 10th dems have great judgement in people-yesterday blago today alexi.
as you defend alexi here, I askmyself if he's so great, why did only 3/10 of you support him in your primary?
because the guy is a loser.
FOKLAEAPS
Anon 12:44,
The fact remains that Kirk lied REPEATEDLY about his military record. Not once or twice, but for MANY YEARS. Voters can forget and forgive many things. But not lying about the military record. That sort of lying is a huge insult to so many Americans who serve honorably this country, but would never-ever think of lying for personal advancement of to make money.
As for Alexi, despite all the efforts of the far right to smear him and destroy him, it does not seem that they have a lot against him. He never committed any illegal activity and most importantly, he has not lied. His bank might have done bad loans, but that's not so surprising. All the banks in this country have made huge errors and mistakes the last several years. Giannoulias is simply a better candidate. At least you can trust what he says. In the case of Kirk, after so many lies, it is impossible to know whether anything he says at this point is true or a new (or old) lie.
There's simply no point in trying to talk to you, Blue Wind. Mark Kirk embellished an already stellar military record. Why can't you even acknowledge that FACT. That's a statement, Blue, not a question. Voters know the difference between embellishing an award and a damn lie. But you can't make that distinction. No, on second thought, YOU WON'T.
The truth remains: Kirk has a brilliant record of achievement that continues to this day. You can say what you will, his Navy achievements are all a matter of public record. To compare the antics of a kid like Alexi to Mark Kirk is simply ridiculous. Loaning money to criminals, LOSING money because of bad judgment, COSTING the government millions of dollars in the FDIC bailout. Do you need more evidence that he's not close to being ready for prime time. He's not.
Kirk has lost the veterans' vote because of his lies about his military service. That's the deal breaker for the real people who honorably serve or have served in the military.
Don't believe me? Go hang out at with them and ask them what they think (like I did).
"The guy who the liberal Democrats want, or the guy who the liberal Democrats are desperate to defeat?"
Or the guy who keeps shooting himself in the foot? We already know about one vote that he's promised to do a flip-flop on after November to appease his "moral compasses".
It's not the vote. It's the--I'll be kind and say "perception" right now--of lack of good judgment and strong character on his part.
We're supposed to be voting a Senator into office for his stand on issues and ability to make decisions--and stick to them.
Not his "women".
3...2...1...
Time for another post from *one* of them?
That nobody reads, supposedly.
"In any case, the issue when deciding to vote on principle, at least for me, is, is that vote going to be one that has a hope of effectuating your agenda, or will it be 'wasted'?"
If an elected official votes one way and then votes the other way the next time, isn't HE negating his vote?
What promise this election holds. (THAT was snark.)
=At the end of the day, you can't effectuate change unless you are in power. And to do that, you simply need to win the election"
And THAT's the problem.
Say anything, do anything (and then have others say the opposite and do the oppossite on your behalf) to win--even at the risk of being painted an unelectable bobble head with major personal issues.
End of story?
"That nobody reads, supposedly."
And if you think the "silence" on the Vertolli-McCracken article is a good sign...think again.
That's one of the most damaging things that's come out of this Campaign so far. It's even worse than the "lies"--and I would have been willing to bet at some point that the "lies" and "fabrications" could have been directly attributed to--and blamed on--the "inner circle" and their role in the Campaign over the past 10 years.
But no more. These now seem to be HIS decisions based on what that "inner circle" want.
Wow, I did not know this, but after the last comment, I searched and found the "Vertolli-McCracken" article. Here is the link:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/mark-kirk-dorothy-mccracken-kimberly-vertolli.html
Wow. This worth reading. I can not believe what Vertolli said in that interview. She essentially said that they divorced because of Kirk's advisor. Unbelievable. And I was under the impression that Vertolli was still supporting Kirk, based on her past posts here. Apparently she is not.
And here is more:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/August-2010/Kimberly-Vertolli-on-Mark-Kirk-and-Dodie-McCracken/
That would make a great story on Daily Kos.
*Seems* to explain alot of the flip-flopping. I can see how some brainiac would have thought that keeping two women with--allgedly--completely opposed ideologies would be an excuse for so many things.
I suppose that after THAT article, however, the Conservatives are supposed to believe that the "conservative" influence is more dominant now--with, of course, the token "he'll change his vote on DADT after November" tossed in for good measure.
No one seems to be falling for it though.
Regardless of whether it's payback from the ex or a brainchild concocted by the three of them to keep everyone guessing, it's only managed to make Kirk look even more ridiculous.
Should have read: "...keeping two women with--allgedly--completely opposed ideologies HAPPY (with one's voting record) would be an excuse for so many things.
I'm confused. Stufflebeam, who had a petition drive to get into office financed in large part by a certain "progressive" labor union?
Now *why* would such a *progressive* union do such a thing? :-)
Ah, politics! Ah, the sanctimonious doublespeak by "progressives" who hate to be called "liberals" while at the same time they sneer at those who call themselves "conservatives" while they run away from the "liberal" label!
The same "progressives" who used to complain that Kirk and Republicans were not holding enough "town hall meetings" and later grew silent when the "progressive" elected officials suddenly stopped having town hall meetings because all these angry people were showing up at them and YELLING at them! Right around the time of those progressive "health care" and "stimulous" bills.
Mercy! How do these things happen in politics? :-)
And when we talk of "embellishments" we should look carefully at Alexi's repeated and shameful "embellishments" of the mob ties to the now failed Chicago *community* bank that was heavily invested in out of state activities by fellows engaged in prostitution named "Jaws." And let's not forget about the Florida casino they were financing where one of the principals of said casino was gunned down in cold blood.
First Alexi knew nothing of it, then he knew a little, then it all happened after he left the bank, then it was discovered it happened while he was still at the bank, and NOW it is coming out that Alexi visited the hotel in Miami Florida that his family "community" bank in Chicago invested in and spent some time with that "Jaws" fellow he nothing of, then a little of, then . . . the casino thing he NEVER wants to talk about.
Issues of Judgment? Character?
To quote Sarah Palin just to aggravate the "progressive" trolls around here: "You Betcha!"
Louis G. Atsaves
HEY! What's going on here?
Alexi blew off a debate about Israel sponsored by some Jewish American groups? A debate he agreed to participate in some four months ago?
The same Alexi who demanded debates with Kirk, then shrieked in indignation when Kirk's campaign suggested SEVEN debates?
What? How can this be?
Perhaps one of those "progressives" who are excited that Alexi will form a "progressive" caucus in the U.S. Senate if elected will explain this odd behavior? REAL "Progressives" like Teddy Roosevelt didn't run away and hide!
Mercy!
Louis G. Atsaves
Atsaves,
Thank you for quoting ingenious Sarah Palin at the end of your post :) That established the quality and intellectual strength of your argument. Brilliant.
"To quote Sarah Palin just to aggravate the "progressive" trolls...."
You're calling me a "progressive troll", Louis? I've been defending, supporting, and "pounding the pavement for" (as it in today's world) Kirk since the "Twitter incident" and that's the way you're going to write my opinon off now?
Should I be surprised?
Either you, TA, or our friend FOLK...--whatever his acronym is today--even commented here once on the patience I had to do "PR" for Kirk on IR, and now I'm a "progressive troll"?
Just because I'm stating an opinion based on the same observations, thought processes, and analyses I used in the past to support Kirk?
It is what it is. And it's not my "behavior" that is--or should be--questioned.
I'm just waiting for someone to call me a "hater" and to tell me to shut up.
I'm sure I have at least 50 posts that I can link where I used Kirk's service and defense of free speech as an argument to vote for him and to even defend HIM--especially during the attack on him while he was in Afghanistan last year.
Go ahead, make my day.
And that's 50 posts on that just that topic alone on IR and, of course, CapFax.
Troll, huh?
Personally, I dont mind the title of "progressive troll". It is kind of cool actually. Especially coming from an apparent Sarah Palin admirer like Atsaves.
TA--
Bingo Bob Dolt's amazing campaign continues to impress??
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=401002&#storycomments
Seems like they can't do anything right. It's a pretty accurate reflection of the candidate: way out of their league.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
concerned,
that's actually hilarious. However seeing as how team america, king louis astaves the alexi ellen and pup slayer and I are the only people that post here that are pro gop with a conservative vet and baxters mom once in awhile I don't see where this battalion of young dold-ites is posting on campaign related blogs.
FOKLAEAPS
TA--
Just an addendum to my last post about what I will dub 'comment-gate'. The Daily Herald editorial board posted an op-ed that called the actions endorsed by Dold mouthpiece Kelly Klopp (the name kind of sounds like a Palin-esq 'Politics Barbie') "fundamentally dishonest and inherently unethical." The Herald further said that "You cannot gain the public's trust by engaging in untrustworthy political practices."
After paying close attention to Mr. More Conservative Then I Let On, the ineptness from the Dolt campaign comes as little surprise. TA, I'm a little disappointed that you didn't highlight this breaking news, especially after your enthralling suare about Seals not living in the district from last week.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
Blue, Colonial -- what do your posts about the ex Mrs. Krik have to do with the Topic, i.e., "Dem US Senate Candidate AG Pledges to Pursue Leftist Agenda"?
TA -- you need to read your own blog more frequently and delete posts that do not pertain to the topic. We've had this discussion in person about banning these dem windbag operatives who do nothing but bash MK and keep posting the same tired comments over and over.
Foklaes - I don't post very often because it's useless when people like BW and CC keep up there usual tirades.
I'm busy volunteering and doing what I can for MK and Bob Dold. Maybe those windbags (since they obviously are going to keep blogging on this site) should keep their mouths closed and go volunteer for their candidates.
Don't you think so too TA?
Baxter and Beau's Mom
B&B's Mom--
Maybe you should try some of Kelly Klopp's pre-approved Dold lines.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=400985&src=
They might be more effective.
Hey TA-- Odds on Klopp keeping her job? I'll start the bidding at 3:1 against.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
=TA -- you need to read your own blog more frequently and delete posts that do not pertain to the topic. We've had this discussion in person about banning these dem windbag operatives who do nothing but bash MK and keep posting the same tired comments over and over.=
Yup. There it is. No clue as to who is who and supporting whom or at what level, but chase them all away and delete their posts.
No wonder Kirk's marching in parades almost alone. With supporters like these in a State race, who needs Dem Operatives?
Dem Operative, huh Clueless. Absolutely clueless.
It's more apparent with every posting lately. This Blog has been driven into the proverbial sewer and is hardly relevant any longer. I agree with B and B's mom who's urging you, TA, to have posters stay on message. CC and Blue Wind bring nothing to the posts, have a tired old negative drum to beat ad nauseum. And by the way, CC, you lack class by persisting in calling Bob Dold by a wrong name. Shame on you. I'm sure that your candidate isn't proud of your antics. Let's hope that TA takes to heart what B and B's mom has requested. Stay on message or stay away from posting.
=Stay on message or stay away from posting.=
Interesting. Most bloggers (and blogs) encourage and appreciate discussion--and, many campaign read blogs to get feedback on topics, issues, and even sometimes what people feel their campaigns are doing well and could do better.
The bloggers here who are *lobbying" TA to delete posts seem afraid of such a discussion and feel that people need to *stay on MESSAGE*.
And what message would that be? And whose message would that be? A bit *controlling*, huh?
To those who want people "deleted", exactly what are you afraid of?
Afraid someone's going to hear something you don't want them to hear--and I'll add, you can't defend?
And, BTW, if you actually LIKE what someone else is saying and want to take credit for it, you can actually try to steal other bloggers' handles...
...Right?
I agree with anon 9:29. In light of Comment-Gate, it would be even worse for TA to limit discussion to "talking points". "Talking points" are the reason Americans tune out politics. The substitution of overly broad, poll tested lines for true debate and dialogue cheapens our politics and keeps us from truly scrutinizing policy decisions and stances.
Anon 7:51 (Dolt minion), your endorsement of talking points only repeats the GOP motto of empty platitudes in replace of true debate. I encourage, go back to 2008 and watch the Dem candidates debate, then, watch the GOP debate. One side discussed issues, including nuanced analysis of healthcare by Dems, and the other spoke in vague, tested platitudes and "talking points".
This is a forum for ideas and to discuss issues relevant to the 10th district and its voters. I'm sorry Dolt Minion, but it's not a place for campaigns to spew the same tired lines, save that for your Dolt website "blog".
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
Hey anonymous,
I think what Mrs. Vertoli said in her interview to the Chicago magazine is highly relevant to this campaign. I think she is a sincerely nice person and, from what I read, I trust her opinion and judgment. After all she made clear that she never voted for Bush and, that alone says a lot (taking into account that she was married to Kirk). She also comes across as highly intelligent and caring. When she makes an accusation like that (that Kirk is heavily influenced by a McCracken and that is the reason Kirk voted against repealing the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy and against unemployment benefits) that says a lot. What is remarkable is her assertion that she would still be married to Kirk if it were not for McCracken. Think about it. What she said in that interview is huge.
Dear Readers - there have been calls lately for me to start aggressively editing/deleting commments, for various reasons, but most of which seem to center around the fact that certain people just don't like what certain other people are saying.
While I try to respect everybody's opinion (especially those who I know personally like Baxter & Beau's Mom), I will not undertake to become the 'comment police,' simply because we have a wide variety of opinions being expressed here.
All you need to do is saunter over to Ellen's and look at the traffic over there. She gets a bare handful of comments, tops, on her posts. We get 50 on posts like this. It's the mark of freedom of expression and not being unafraid to engage in fair debate on the issues that keeps this blog going. Not going to change that now.
I back team america.
FOKLAEAPS
=Think about it. What she said in that interview is huge.=
Sounds to me--and seems to be based on experience with the Kirk Campaign==that both women are doing their darndest to take him down in their own way for whatever reasons they have.
(Yes, B&B's Mom: Many "bloggers" actually DO leave their homes to support Candidates--and even consider "blogging" a "volunteer" activity. Again, clueless and running scared from others' opinions and obervations, it seems.)
At least Jeri knew how to support her ex-husband when he ran for the Senate.
She seemed to believe in "first, no harm"--and didn't see him as a "tool" to promote and advance HER causes. SHE supported the MAN.
Interesting little clan Kirk has there "supporting" him. Must be just like a high-speed roller coaster ride with his head banging in between the padded supports.
Just let him be who HE is.
That's certainly good enough for most Voters.
one other thing. I am not sure if you were around for the keyes debacle, or the al salvi slaughter, but the term leftist does not work in general elections particularly on the north shore where 60 percent of people voted for obama.
There's a guy running against comrade jan who is going to lose by 90 points this fall because he's using the same language in a district that prefers its taxes high and government involved.
FOKLAEAPS
FOKLAEAPS - you may have a point about using "leftist" for shorthand, but I'm not sure what else to say in such a situation. I think most people outside the limousine liberal set still don't like that term or its implications, and most that voted for Obama voted for his hopenchange and not because of his ultra-liberal/socialist agenda, which many of the hoodwinked are just now waking up to.
So if you can give me a better shorthand equivalent to "progressive" that conveys in one word what I need to to convey, I will use it.
TA,
You are right to refuse to listen to people here who ask you to censor posts. If they like censorship, they could learn chinese and start hanging around chinese blogs. On the other hand, you are wrong to call Obama's agenda "ultra-liberal/socialist". Obama is a very moderate centrist politician. Calling him something else can not change what he is.
By the way, what is your opinion about Ms. Vertolli's interview in the Chicago magazine and what she said about the Kirk-McCracken relationship? I am curious to see what you think.
Team,
I agree with baxters mom, you should have deleted any and all posts related to the former mrs. kirk. This is garbage which got zero play in a chicago msm that lives for that sort of smut. There are also attacks this morning on mrs. dold which I suspect we'll see going forward that also need to be deleted. I have no problem with a democrat disagreeing with us, I do have a problem with them using this blog to personally hurt people who are not in the political playing field.
As for leftist, the language needs to be framed better. Next time I would go with extremist job killing tax hiking agenda instead which makes his policies more about hurting families than part of some ideological war which this state has never shown much interest in fighting.
FOKLAEAPS
Number of net job losses for which President Obama can be held accountable: 41,000
Number of net job losses for which Republicans can be held accountable: 7,796,000
(Ezra Klein at The Washington Post)
Pretty strange math over there at the Washington Post. Makes Obama sound like a relief pitcher who comes in with a 12 run lead and gives up 11 runs.
The Cubs would give a pitcher like like a multi-million dollar multi-year contract.
The rest of MLB would act like the rest of the country and be appalled and send him packing back to the minors where he belongs.
(And this comes from a disgusted Cub fan!)
Louis G. Atsaves
Louis--
Please refrain from using comments that are not pre-approved by Kelly Klopp and the Dolt Campaign (or rather attempt at a campaign).
Thanks,
The Management
Anon 3:57 - Ah, excuse me, I'M the Management.
The Management.
What's the matter, Louis? Don't like the facts & stats because they don't fit your bias? Life's not fair, and thank goodness for that.
Sorry for stepping on your feet TA, I forgot to add my usual sign off below.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
P.S. TA, you never weighed in on my question: does Kelly Klopp keep her job?
CC- Klopp will be fine. It's a tempest in a teapot.
If "sockpuppet" or "astroturf" campaign antics (which every candidate is involved with in some form or another - bussing in union employees to events ring a bell?) is the best glove Seals can lay on Dold, he can start measuring the windows now.
TA, I think YOU should insist that when CC posts, he show some maturity. I know it's difficult, if not impossible, but it's more than insulting for him to continue to refer to Bob DolD by any other name. You validate his juvenile behavior. CC is a broken record with the needle stuck in the groove.
Anon--
In light of 'comment-gate' and the many other gaffes, errors and amateur mis-steps by campaign, I think the name Dolt is more than appropriate.
Maybe he should blame daddy for not changing it, after all, daddy gave Bingo Bob everything else in life...
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
YOU, CC, continue to show nothing but immaturity and a total lack of class. The Dold family business is something those of us who value the American way of life do value. Your jealousy is apparent as is your lack of civility towards someone you know nothing about. Why don't you give your tasteless and childish posts on the Dold campaign a long needed rest. People in glass houses should be careful with the stones they carelessly throw at others. Oh yes, by the way, when was the last time Dan Seals held a job?
"I do have a problem with them using this blog to personally hurt people who are not in the political playing field."
Obviously not in the "political playing field" at all. What a surprise a two-part interview with her name plastered all over it must have been.
Just like the DADT "lobbying" article.
So just how did Chicago Magazine "force" that interview--a highly controversial one at that--out of Ms. Vertolli, Mr. FOKLAEAPS?
Or are you claiming that they made it all up after Ms. Vertolli said "no comment".
Hey Team, I know this is somewhat off topic, but we're starting to get some spam commenters (i.e. serenawilliams) here, can you see to it that they're banned?
Thanks
Yes, I know about the spam. If Blogger's filter doesn't catch it, it has to wait until I delete it manually.
Hey Anon 3:49,
You are absolutely correct. Skewed stats designed to float an argument position (i.e. come to a conclusion first, then try to reconfigure the facts to justify the conclusion) is illogical thinking.
Besides, all that "stimulus" money designed to "save" jobs and "create" jobs did not perform as advertised by Obama and the Democrats in charge of federal spending sprees.
UNEMPLOYMENT CONTINUES TO INCREASE!
So the single professor and the single "journalist" come to a conclusion, and in support o this conclusion create a new set of rules, reconfigure the facts and . . .
Then publish hogwash that you immediately subscribe to in your pathetic attempt to justify the failed Obama economic agenda.
Hope? Nope. All hope has been destroyed two years into this administration.
Change? Nope. Loading up his administration with former Clinton staffers and City of Chicago toadies isn't exactly "change you can believe in." Changes in how the House and Senate behave? None made.
Result?
One really angry and upset electorate.
Where are all those Democratic inspired town hall meetings these days? A few years ago, Democrats were sponsoring and holding them. Now they aren't. Too many angry people showing up at them.
Seals and Giannoulias now back away from debates about Israel. No wonder. Attempting to defend the Obama administration's shabby treatment of Israel is impossible. Perhaps Seals and Giannoulias are telling us something though their behavior?
Louis G. Atsaves
"Attempting to defend the Obama administration's shabby treatment of Israel is impossible. "
I have a feeling that that thought is--or will be--a tell.
Baxter and Beau's Mom--
I'm with you; there's a real Gresham's law here on the comments. The blog side is the Republican and the comments are almost entirely Democrat Talking Points.
Post a Comment