EXACTLY, Ung! Like Thurgood Marshall's reference to some of the Rehnquist Supreme Court's lesser decisions, "this too shall pass."

One day you'll stop misconstruing posts here. I never said it was a \"bad\" thing that she's a lesbian from my perspective. From conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats, that would be a \"bad\" thing.

I never said I didn't agree with such \"beliefs.\" I don't know why you keep accusing me of such. You know what they say about the word \"assume.\"


Sorry, you're wrong there. Fitzgerald is in no way a country club Republican. In order to be one in Illinois, you have to be an accepted member of the \"old guard\" or the \"good ole boy network.\" Fitzgerald is not. In fact, he's disliked by most of the Illinois GOP establishment. Topinka, George Ryan, and many others simply do not like him. Why? Because he refuses to toe the absolute party line, especially with respect to political appointments. You should have heard the uproar here when he recommended to the president that Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) be named the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Pat was an outsider who, as we now know, has indicted and/or convicted dozens and dozens of corrupt politicians--many Republicans, too. The state GOP was livid over this appointment, as they had demanded Peter recommend a party insider.

Do you think Governor Ryan would have been indicted had one of his own cronies been appointed U.S. Attorney? I think not. Peter Fitzgerald has been one of the best senators this state has ever had. Conservative at times, liberal at times, but fiercely independent all the time, his replacement, whoever it will be, won't come close.


Because they're being dishonest, inauthentic. If I want to vote for a real Democrat, I will, not someone masquerading as a Republican, and vice versa.

Last time I checked, Illinois Attorney General was, indeed, a statewide election. I'm sure you didn't realize this. Jim Ryan was a very popular statewide official. He ran a shitty campaign.

[ August 15, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Obama and Keyes going toe-to-toe in Chicago.

Obama's Book: What's Real, What's Not

And from a letter writer in today's paper:

WGN-TV just had a story on this. The reporter said Obama shoved Keyes. Obama must be taking Teresa Heinz Ketchup's words too literally.

The Illinois circus continues, and I've got front row tickets. Wahoo!!

If Obama is going to allow himself to be drawn into shouting matches about the unborn rather than discussions about helping kids suffering from asthma in school all day, then he deserves to lose.

I saw Keyes on several different news programs this weekend, this guy is even nuttier than I thought. He thinks senators should be appointed, not elected. As far as I can tell this guy has never won one political race, and yet "the people of Illinios" were clammering for him to run. Yeah, right. I use to think the republicans had hit the bottom of the barrel with Keyes, but that's an insult to the barrel.

Dude, what are you smoking? NO ONE deserves to lose to Alan Keyes!

Also, MIB, I love how you quote some nutso's "letter" to that tabloid SUN-TIMES to justify your hatred of Obama. No hard facts? Kerry's "lies"? What about the packet of lies that issue from Keyes and W's mouth on a daily basis? How pathetic!

FT, you're delusional again. They have stuff to treat that, you know. I don't hate Obama at all. I just don't believe a socialist should be this state's senator. Now we find out this socialist can't get things straight and makes stuff up; and do his defenders like you criticize him for this? Of course not. Instead, it's the same ole "but the other guy's..." excuse. Stop deflecting it.

FWIW, I'm not voting for Keyes, either. This circus is ridiculous.

Also, it's no surprise you don't like the Sun-Times now, since the Tribune has become far more liberal. That must be why you're so disappointed in the Sun-Times, since its left-wing leaning isn't nearly as pronounced as the Trib's. Never fear, though. The Sun-Times does have two vile, extreme left-wing columnists (among other lefties, of course) in Mark Brown and Neil Steinberg. They're right up your alley, I'm sure.

[ August 16, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

You know all about making stuff up, dont you judge?

And who, besides Bill Lipinski, do you consider a "real Democrat" and not a "socialist"? Other than the aforementioned Lipinski and Fitzgerald, can you name one actual officeholder to the left of John Ashcroft whom you don't consider "socialist" or a "dangerous" liberal or a "moron"? Can you?

Look, I have little use for the Illinois GOP, but it's not because of graft (the Democrats are equally corrupt in Illinois, if not more so, and have been for generations) or an insider clique (the Democrats have more than one of their own, and have for generations, and the insipid feud between Rod the Mod and Mad Mike is a royal waste of your tax dollars and mine). No, it's because of homophobic bigots like Pate Philip, Jim Ryan, and Joe Birkett who make no bones about opposing equal rights for gay people in such basic areas as housing, employment, and credit. As long as the GOP nominates dickheads like them and Keyes, they can forget about my vote. Period.

And if the DuPage clique that gave us Jimmy and Joe and Pate isn't a "country club" then what is it? The Church of the Poisoned Mind? Do they even represent the "mainstream" in their own cloistered county?

Yes.

Please do then. The more, the merrier.

A Republican attorney quoting Thurgood Marshall--there's hope for you after all. wink

Are you talking about Democrats?

In or out of Illinois?

Current officeholders, either party, any state.

The thing is, your posts frequently slam liberals and middle-of-the-roaders, but not (as far as I can recall) right-wingers, and the only pols about whom I've seen you say anything favorable are Fitzgerald (a maverick whose positions on the issues are all over the map, so he's hard to classify, not that there's anything wrong with that) and the elder Lipinski (generally considered moderate, sometimes called "a Democrat who could be a Republican").

So I can tell whom you're against but not, with those two exceptions, whom you're for. And your strongly felt positions on issues don't sound like those of an "A pox on all their houses" cynic. So you must think someone's not "dangerous" or "a moron" or a corrupt liar, but it's such a short list that I wonder if (and why) you vote at all. Not that I have any right to know, but I'm trying to understand what your point of view is, and I'm fairly sure you have one. :confused:

I sent you a PM only because this appears to be a question from you to me.

And I replied. Thank you.

You're quite welcome. wink

Great interview with IL Sen. Barack Obama this afternoon on "All Things Considered." Among his best lines, recognition that the Democrats are saddled with certain "dogmas" that need reconsideration, and that social welfare programs are not "mutually exclusive" with personal responsibility. Why do I trust this Democratic Senator much more readily than I ever would Hillary, Teddy or Jo-Jo B???

But don't forget, according to MIB, he's a dangerous socialist or some other such nonsense, to the left of Mao, blah blah blah.

Every time I'm driving in Chicagoland and I have on Chicago Public Radio and they mention Senator Barack Obama, I smile broadly. I'm so glad I played even a small part in ensuring he was elected to that body of wackos. And it's great he's working alongside Illinois's other dynamic Senator, Dick Durbin!

Can't beat the Prairie State (unless you're talking about the Garden State, which actually has a socialistic Senator who'll soon be its governor!)

[ March 10, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]