45 Comments - Previously Anon - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:12 am: I lost a friend on 9/11 and we all lost a lot of other things…. Anyone who uses Osama Bin Laden on a campaign flyers like that…. Well, I hope the voters are repulsed! - Wumpus - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:16 am: Well, they said McSweeney wants to keep that pretty little Aryan (blond haired-blue eyed) girl in a wheel chair. They started it. - leigh - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:28 am: Yikes! I am a republican and I find it over the edge. It may work though. I sure don’t appreciate her votes. I bet others will feel the same way. - NW burbs - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:31 am: Aren’t Republicans IN CHARGE? Aren’t Republicans the ones who LOST BIN LADEN? Aren’t Republicans the ones who CAN’T DECIDE on immigration reform? Does the NRCC really think voters are that stupid? (don’t bother answering) - Way Northsider - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:34 am: Sick flyers by sick people - hopefully the voters aren’t stupid enough to fall for this. - Anonymous - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:36 am: “Does the NRCC really think voters are that stupid?”…….. It would appear that they do. - Reality Check - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:38 am: “Too liberal for Illinois”?? Hasn’t the NRCC noticed how blue this state is? Forget good taste, this piece is just dumb… - 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:39 am: This is the GOP playbook people. Wake up. If you aren’t 100% in lock-step with the Administration, then you are on the side of the terrorists. It’s that simple. We’ll be seeing more of this, all across the country. It’s beyond pathetic and I hope patriotic Americans reject it for the BS that it is, starting in the 8th. - Left Leaner - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:40 am: NRCC motto: “There’s no class like low class.” - This guy - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:42 am: Maybe it’s an attempt to get Osama to come forward by hoping he will file suit charging unauthorized use of his name and/or likeness. Just a thought. - Anon - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:55 am: There’s a reason why the Repubs are in charge. This stuff works. Period. We can blog ourselves to death about how insulting this type of mailing is but at least 50%+1 of the voters don’t think so. Sad but true. - Kodak - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:57 am: How will the NRCC attack Bean’s vote for President Bush’s system to interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects? Oh, NW, it was Democrats and Republicans who failed to get Bin Laden. Let’s not rewrite history, they both failed. - Jaded - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 10:57 am: Absolutely over the top. I am actually surprised the NRCC put out this piece. The US Chamber of Commerce endorses Bean, and I thought they purchased the NRCC years ago! Too liberal for this state, not a chance! - Lovie's Leather - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 11:01 am: Okay… yeah… I think the bottom piece is fine. It is the top one with Bin Laden that is a little disheartening. Honestly, I am suprised that it is not the work of McSweeney. But the fact is, Bean doesn’t have a particularly liberal record. And if she really doesn’t want the military on the border, welcome to half of the GOP in the house. Rich, I totally agree, the grandstanding by the Congressional hopefuls is old. Bean is probably the democrat I like the most… I mean, she is probably the only democrat I like (now that Lane Evans is retiring). It sucks when your own party pisses you off…. - grand old partisan - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 11:03 am: I’ll agree that including the photo of Bin Laden was ill-advised. I think this is a case where the shock value of one aspect undermines an otherwise reasonable and effective piece. To wit: Immigration IS a national security issue. I find it appalling that so many Democrats (and even a few “moderate” Republicans) can be so cavalier about how porous our southern border is. The other two photos are an effective and valuable contrast: what if it was the people on the right hoping over the fence like those on left. Why would anyone in their right mind oppose using the National Guard to make sure that doesn’t happen? The second bullet point on the back is important too. Illegal Immigration is a crime, regardless of how sympathetic, merciful and accommodating liberals think we should be to those who commit it. They are criminals who belong in the Criminal Information Database. Perhaps now that the cathartic, righteous indignation over UBL’s photo has been excised, someone can offer me an actual defense of the positions that have rightfully been attributed to Bean on this mailer. Nw burbs – You are right, Republicans control the House and Senate. You’ll notice that these mailers don’t attack Bean as a “Democrat,” but rather as a “liberal.” Indeed, the NRCC is controlled by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, an isn’t very happy with their more “moderate” party members either. But if they can knock off Bean and pick up another conservative seat, they could override even the members of their own party who are blocking their favored solutions to these problems. - Gus Frerotte's Clipboard - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 11:09 am: The quality of political discourse in this state, and this country, is appallingly low. The Republicans certainly deserve a healthy share of the blame, as do the Democrats, the media, the bloggers, and everybody else who contributes to it, not to mention the general public that doesn’t demand better. There’s almost no effort to hold a serious policy debate — it’s all over-the-top accusations of impropriety by the other side. We get what we deserve, I guess, and it doesn’t speak well of us. - Lovie's Leather - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 11:29 am: By the way, just did a little research. It turns out that Bean actually voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006… http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml - Wumpus - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 11:31 am: This is nothing new. We have seen the NAACP blame Bush for the murder of James Byrd, Bean’s mailing that McSweeney wants to keep kids in wheelchairs and now this. It is what we have allowed to happen, deal with our creation. - doubtful - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 11:32 am: Yeah, in the 8th we’re getting bombarded with NRCC mailers. Funny, not a single one EVER mentions McSweeny. Anyone who things Bean is too liberal obviously hasn’t looked at her voting record. My personal favorite mailer was the one with the skull x-ray. - NW burbs - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 11:43 am: Lovie, the “top” and “bottom” images are front and back of the same mailer, not two different mailers (or am I mistaken). Thanks for doing the research and putting the lie to the Republicans mailer. So now we know they’re lying about both Bean and Duckworth. Who’s next? Seals? I wouldn’t doubt it. – Kodak, Bill Clinton was not president during or after 9/11/01. He did fail to kill or capture bin Laden before he left office, but he put the full resources that the Republican Congress made available to him into the effort. He also listened to Richard Clarke’s warnings, as did Bush 1 and Reagan before him. So, no, let’s not rewrite history Kodak. Let’s be honest about it. It was Bush 2 who received the Presidential Briefing Memo that said al Quaeda was determined to attack, but he ignored it and went golfing or fishing or whatever it is he does at his ranch. It was Condi Rice who was in charge of counterterrorism but who all but ignored Clarke’s warnings. It was Rumsfeld and Cheney who were in charge of war efforts and who decided to pull our troops out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq for what we now know was really no rational reason at all. So, no, let’s not rewrite history. Let’s also not ignore it. - grand old partisan - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 12:04 pm: Rich – I appreciate and understand your point about the “if you don’t agree with our policy than you must not be working towards the same goal” rhetoric that is used in DC campaigns. However, I wouldn’t be doing my job as the grand old partisan if I didn’t point out that it is hardly the exclusive realm of Republicans. For decades, conservatives have been slammed by Democrats as cold-hearted, corrupt, greedy war-mongers who want to kill social security, destroy public education, punish the poor, and start wars for oil profits. Who do we see about stopping that? I don’t think Melissa Bean wants to hurt America’s security. But it is hardly inappropriate to cite her positions on the issue and question why she isn’t more supportive of efforts that could improve security. If she can’t defend herself or those positions as being in the best interests of our security, then that is her problem – just as if the Republicans can’t effectively make the case that privatizing social security is actually the only way to save it, raising standards and fighting the complacency of the teachers unions will improve public education, welfare is a generational trap that perpetuates the poverty cycle, and we went to war – correctly or not – because we thought it was in the best interests of our safety and security….well, that would be our problem. - NW burbs - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 12:26 pm: G.O. Partisan whines “For decades, conservatives have been slammed by Democrats as cold-hearted, corrupt, greedy war-mongers who want to kill social security, destroy public education, punish the poor, and start wars for oil profits. Who do we see about stopping that?” You can talk to the people who give Americans that impression. They currently work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and in the two leadership offices on Capitol Hill. (Admit it, you set yourself up for that one.) - grand old partisan - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 12:42 pm: nw burbs, you missed the point. 99.999% of the time, Democrats’ first reaction to being attacked as “soft on terrorism” is to - how did you put it - ‘whine’ about how their patriotism is being questioned, instead of offering any explaination of why or how their policy positions are better for our national security. If you’re upset that your party has a history of being less trusted on military and security matters, you can talk to the people who live in Boston, Vermont, and San Fransico. - fedup dem - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 1:06 pm: Are they talking about the same Melissa Bean that has been repeatedly criticized by her Democratic base in the 8th District for a number of votes where she sided with that (insert your choice of insulting term here) President? - Kodak - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 1:21 pm: I am being honest about history…I blame Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton and Bush for failing in preventing terrorism…you, sadly, are too partisan to look at this issue objectively. Now, I know Clinton didn’t have the facts during his “ambush as he calls it” on Fox News…but perhaps he and you should stop using Richard Clarke as your white knight…Clarke himself says Clinton left no plan for dealing with Bin Laden…and Clarke wasn’t removed…he was in his same position when 9/11 happened. Please, try looking at the facts…and don’t be such a partisan hack, man that’s annoying. - RealClear - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 1:33 pm: Once someone brings in Bin Laden, it’s kind of like bringing up Hitler in a comparison - the person doing it has lost the debate. McSweeney could stop this crap if he wanted. He must be losing. This shows real desperation. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 1:34 pm: Actually, Kodak and others, neither political party failed to stop 9/11. The complete and utter politicization of every minor detail of the “war against terror” and the war in iraq is essentially what my column was about. Y’all are just buying into the DC spin and proving for all to see right here how empty this “debate” really is. - HANKSTER - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 1:39 pm: KODAK: maybe you should listen your own advice and look at the facts. A few days after Bush took office he recieved a memo called “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects” Nice try though. - jeff wegerson - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 1:55 pm: Thanks for the hat tip. - Lovie's Leather - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 2:03 pm: Yes, NW Burbs, I know that was the front and back of the same mailer. I was just saying that one side was okay, and the other side wasn’t. And Hankster… Our Father, Richard Clark, who art in heaven… Because Richard Clark had an idea, it must be the best one ever, because we love him, and squeeze him…. - HANKSTER - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 2:08 pm: Loves Leather: Im not sure what your trying to be cute comment was supposed to mean but the point is that Bush had a memo given to him when he took office and its nothing but lie to say otherwise. At this point it does no good to blame Bush or Clinton or anyone but the Bush people trying to blame Clinton for it is a joke. - TR - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 3:06 pm: Gee Rich, sorry that political campaigns hurt your feelings. Next time do me a favor get Carol Marin to write a garbage piece like that. - Still Anon - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 3:08 pm: Looks like McSweeny wants to compete with Roskam for a “Worst Person in the World” nomination. - illinoisEddie - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 3:15 pm: It looks to me like a generic NRCC attack mailer. Which means the NRCC didn’t spend a lot of money producing it. Which probably means the NRCC doesn’t want to spend a lot of money on trying to help Larry McSweeney. - Frank - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 3:30 pm: If the NRCC didn’t care about David McSweeney they wouldn’t spend any money on him whatsoever. Someone out of DC must care… Guiliani coming in on the 5th and Bush on the 12th with potential visits from Quayle and McCain (again!). Now… on the otherhand, if you want to see who the NRCC doesn’t care about just look at Zinga. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 3:34 pm: TR, those campaigns don’t “hurt my feelings.” But calling your political opponent a terrorist sympathizer is just about the most unAmerican, despicable thing I can think of. If you think it’s OK to do something like that, then you’re a sick person. - HANKSTER - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 3:59 pm: Rich: I never thought I would ever say this but I agree with you. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 4:01 pm: LOL - Kodak - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 4:18 pm: Hankster…I’ll add you to the list of hacks here who can’t look past their partisan blinders…God, know wonder this Country is doomed. This is why I don’t belong to a political party. But hey, at least Clinton “tried”…isn’t that what he kept saying. Oh, and if you’ll read my posts you’ll see I blame Both 41/43 and Clinton…man, you guys are so lame. - Hypocrite Hater - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 4:36 pm: You know what I am sick of? Liberals decrying negative politics. As if the NRCC is the only committee running negative ads. Libs have mastered the art of the negative campaign. National and local examples abound. Two famous examples: Lyndon Johnson’s commercial implying Goldwater was going to cause nuclear war and Lisa Madigan’s last minute newspaper ad claiming that Birkett was responsible for the New England sniper shootings. And dirty tricks? How about Wisconsin Dems sending their kids out to slash GOP tires? So please, spare us the mock outrage. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 4:46 pm: HH, you’re gonna compare slashing a few tires to putting Bin Laden’s photo on campaign lit? Spare me the mock outrage. And if you think everything’s going just smoothly in DC these days, you’re either extremely partisan or blind. - HANKSTER - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 4:52 pm: Kodak: calm down, thats not very lady like of you. If you would read my post I simply corrected the false statements you said. I never said anyone was or was not to blame and unlike you I dont really do not think there is a President to blame, the entire government had serious problems. My problem with you, besides thinking you are so smart, is that when you say for people to look at the facts, I think it only fair you should try that first and stop name calling and being angry. - Scott Fawell's Cellmate - Friday, Sep 29, 06 @ 5:13 pm: Kodak, Hypocrite Hater, Lovie’s Leather, and Grand Old Partisan: Please leave and head back over to the Illinois Leader website. Scram. Rich’s column in today’s CS-T and this blog post could’ve generated a civil discussion about a real bipartisan problem, but - once again - your constant, foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing babble brings this blog string to a screeching halt. Head back over to one of your many, fine online conservative echo chambers and leave CapFax to the rest of us. - David from Princeton - Tuesday, Oct 3, 06 @ 11:54 am: The NRCC is slightly over the top….ok they are so over the top that even Republicans like me will cease funding them in favor of conservative Democrats like Melissa Bean. We need more politicians of both parties who are “in the middle” like the rest of the country. You fools think that God is on your side…you have more in common with the Islamofacists of the world than your own population. Clean up your act. David - x-hill-staffer - Tuesday, Oct 3, 06 @ 12:21 pm: As a former Congressional staffer and campaign manager, I find it very interesting that the NRCC is so heavily funding these disgusting attack ads that I’ve been receiving in the 8th District recently. I find it compelling, however, to point out that the NRCC is unwilling to reject the $100,000 it received from disgraced Congressman Mark Foley. So the argument might be made that Congressman Foley’s money is funding David McSweeney’s attack ads. Here’s the link to today’s Roll Call article on the NRCC money. http://hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/100306_foley.html It seems to me that McSweeney, like the NRCC, just doesn’t have any principles, and will go to any extreme to win this election. He should be held accountable for where his supporters are getting their money. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.