Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Little Lip hit again
Posted in:
· Congressman Jan Schakowsky’s loss of a leadership spot to a total underdog has had plenty of tongues wagging this week. Schakowsky’s husband pleaded guilty to bank fraud charges last year, complicating the Democrats’ ability to make corruption an issue. But she and another opponent were also supporters of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The winner, John Larson, was seen as allied with Pelosi’s bitter opponent in the last leadership fight, Steny Hoyer.
·
· Either way, it was probably not a good time for Alexi Giannoulias to announce that Schakowsy had endorsed him.
· Meanwhile, lobbyist loans have become an issue in the 45th House race.
· Fish from the Kankakee River are now on a state advisory list.
· George Ryan’s “Christmas card defense” ensnares a Republican gubernatorial candidate, Ron Gidwitz.
· Box has a 50/50 shot at confirmation.
· Another “Plan B” prescription allegedly rejected.
· Quote of the day: “If it’s only about name recognition, maybe we should just get Mike Ditka to run, or maybe Bozo the Clown,” Rauschenberger said. “We’re running on our record.”
· Hey, Joe Birkett, why aren’t you investigating this?
More later.
· Another quote of the day, from Christine Cegelis on whether the US should withhold support for Hamas, which just swept Palastinian elections:
“I kind of liken it to the [Irish Republican Army]; as they became more involved in politics they became less militant,” she said. “… I don’t think that just because they were once a terrorist group they should always be a terrorist group.”
That’s kind of an over-simplification.
· Jill Stanek blogs about her day at the Statehouse. Interesting approach.
· Krol wants a death match now!
· “In a way, with the Internet, everyone’s an editor. Everyone’s a reporter,” he said. “No media is going to survive if it doesn’t take ethics seriously.”
· Just because it’s red, doesn’t mean it’s fresh.
· I think Eric might be surprised at how widespread the practice of bundling cash gifts to statewide executives was in this state not all that long ago. It predates George Ryan at the SoS, for instance.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 7:33 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Little Lip hit again
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Hey Rauschenberger, if it’s not about name recognition, then why did you bring Alan Keyes to IL????
Comment by Macphisto Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 7:38 am
Capitol fax sez….>“Congressman Jan Schakowsky’s loss of a leadership spot to a total underdog has had plenty of tongues wagging this week. Schakowsky’s husband pleaded guilty to bank fraud charges last year, complicating the Democrats’ ability to make corruption an issue. “
Does anyone have any word when the sentence for Aunt Jan’s husband will be handed down?
Is Creamer signing like a Canary?
The “Broken Heart” wants to know.
Comment by The Broken Heart of Rogers Park Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 7:58 am
On the Pharmacy thing, what IL statute gives the Gov the ability to issue that? Is it like an exexutive order, that the nexxt gov can undo? I have always wondered how he could do that without a law being passed.
Comment by Pat Collins Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 8:34 am
Rich,
You’re mixed up. Hoyer backed Joe Crowley, not Larson.
This was a 3-person race, with two losers–casting this as a loss solely for Schakowsky is a vast oversimplification.
Comment by insider Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 10:36 am
Just going by the article in The Hill. No expert on that thing.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 10:48 am
Cegelis’ comment about Hamas shows a total lack
of understanding of international issues and an alarmingly tolerant view of violence in the Middle East, violence which is costing Americans dearly in blood and money.
More importantly, however, it shows that she doesn’t know enough to keep her mouth shut when she doesn’t have any expertise in the subject under discussion.
She should lose the election on that comment alone.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 11:07 am
Cegelis’ likening Hamas to an historical political party would be OK if she chose the closest actual party, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei of Adolph Hitler.
Comment by donchicago48 Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 3:32 pm
Ms. Cegelis raises an interesting point, but reaches the wrong conclusion. She believes that actually running a government will make Hamas turn away from its terrorism roots. I have seen no evidence to support that. To digress, the IRA analogy is not even close, since the IRA was in a genuine war of liberation against an historic oppressor. The IRA had no other option. The IRA hit military and government targets, as opposed to Hamas who blows up buses of civilians. They did what they had to do to gain liberation. The IRA was a terrorist organization only if you consider George Washington to be a terrorist.
Back to the poing: She does have a point that bringing Hamas into government will change Hamas. Significantly, the acts of Hamas will no longer be considered “terrorism.” They will be the intentional acts of a government. Rather than committing acts of terrorism, Hamas will be committing acts of war. There is an important difference between the two.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 3:45 pm
I would guess that Ms Cegalis has never read the Hamas charter, which advocates unending Jihad against Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel, among other niceties. Hamas would fall apart if it renounced its charter and its raison d’etre. The reason for its election victory is simple… Hamas represents the views of the Arabs who elected it.
Her thoughts are typical Left-Wing liberal positions, dripping with relativism and cultural imperialism. But in reality, Hamas does not think like we do, and its terrorism against civilians is as wrong as its revisionist historical agenda.
News Flash: Hamas really does hate Israel and the West, because its Islamofascist ideology has taught hatred and violence against Jews and non-Muslims for 14 centuries.
Electing people who are ignorant of these facts to represent us in Washington is suicidal.
Comment by donchicago48 Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 4:25 pm
In response to donchicago:
Despite your comments, I am sure you are glad that the people have spoken in a democratic election, right? That’s the goal? It’s O.K. that terrorists were elected. The goal was to bring them fair and free elections, right? Isn’t that the Bush line?
Or is more important that the region have stability, like those damn Democrats preferred?
Tell, us donchicago, who’s side are you on?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 4:54 pm
The naivete here about the IRA is amazing. In 1984 they tried to kill British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a hotel bombing at the Conservative Party conference. Several people were killed. And the Palestinians could learn a thing or two about hatred from the Irish - they and the English have been going at it for over 800 years … . The only reason the IRA has given up on terror is that 9/11 has made terrorists radioactive in the US, not because they are nice fellows … .
Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, Feb 3, 06 @ 10:56 pm
Smitty, are you really claiming that an attack on a head of government is anything like blowing up a bus full of innocent people?
I like forward to your bitter condemnation of George Washington.
You need to read some history. The Potato Famine was caused by the fact that when when the potato blight came, the occupying British starved the Irish rather than allow them access to non-impacted crops. For several hundred years the British systematically repressed the Irish, on the Irish home soil.
The IRA was not perfect, but the attacks were not aimed at civilians. They were aimed at the British government and military. They did not want to kill ordinary Brits. They wanted independence.
In the alternative, would you prefer that the Queen still reign over America?
Comment by Skeeter Saturday, Feb 4, 06 @ 10:34 am
Skeeter - First, Margaret Thatcher was not the intended victim of a snipers bullet. Rather, she was to be killed by an indiscriminate bomb blast - one that missed her and killed a British MP. Second, in 1991, the IRA mortared 10 Downing Street in an attempt to kill Prime Minister John Major and his cabinent - they missed by 30 yards. Third, the IRA did target civilians - in their own words “We are also conscious that non-combatants were killed and injured as a consequence of some of our actions. We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families and friends.”
Or “Jean McConville was abducted and murdered in 1972 after she comforted a British soldier who had been shot and wounded outside her door in Belfast.
The Provisionals denied killing her, claiming she had fled the Catholic working-class area to live with a soldier, leaving her children to fend for themselves.
But after a long campaign by the family, the Provisionals admitted three years ago that they had murdered her and gave details about the unmarked graves of a number of the so-called Disappeared - the victims of IRA terror.”
Telegraph, 8/8/2001
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=
/news/2001/08/08/nuls108.xml
Read some of the Northern Ireland press - the IRA’s biggest critics are among the SDLP party, the Catholic nationalist party that wants peaceful unification of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
This does not make Hamas nice guys - but open your eyes about the IRA.
Comment by Smitty Irving Saturday, Feb 4, 06 @ 8:39 pm
Smitty,
First I never claimed the IRA was perfect. I did say their cause was just and that their main targets were military and government.
Regarding the MP: The British are an occupying army for Northern Ireland. The MP is a member of the government. An attack on the ruling party of Britian is an act against the government. It was not an “indscriminate bomb blast.” It was not randomly put on the street. It was aimed at the occupying government.
Read some of the history. See what the Brits did to the Irish. Killing one MP? How about starving thousands? How about 1916?
There is no connection in any manner between Hamas, who deliberately killed innocents, and the IRA, who may have done so inadvertently. Hamas engages in act of terrorism aimed at the people. The IRA acted against an occupying government.
Further, even you acknowledged that the IRA expressed remorse for the killing of innocents.
The IRA is no more a terrorist organization than George Washington was a terrorist.
Comment by Skeeter Sunday, Feb 5, 06 @ 8:22 am
Skeeter - The IRA was a terrorist organization - until their announcement of disarmament in July 2005. And most of the arms they “put beyond use” - were given to them by Khaddafi after Margaret Thatcher let Ronald Reagan use the UK as part of the 1986 bombings (you know, the one that took out his tent, missed him, and killed his infant daughter). If they weren’t terrorists, why did they accept the RPGs, C-4, etc? To blow up sheep and deprive the Protestant Scotch-Irish of haggis?
Did the British do horrible things in Ireland? Yes. But a majority of the 6 counties that comprise Northern Ireland has always favored union with Great Britian over being part of Ireland - always, including today. And partition? It has happened in many former British colonies - India, Palestine, and North America … .
And even though the IRA has ended the war, they are still engaged in cigarette and petrol smuggling between the Republic and the North today … little different than organized crime in that respect.
Comment by Skeeter Sunday, Feb 5, 06 @ 7:25 pm
Skeeter - apologize for your name being on my last post of 7:25 pm. Browser error - sorry.
Comment by Smitty Irving Sunday, Feb 5, 06 @ 7:27 pm
Joe Birkett is investigating the thing in Downers Grove. I am sure that the evil doers can expect a FOIA request any minute now then 8 months from now Joe will give them a clean bill of health right about the time the feds get interested. No wait, that is the tollway. Never mind. With 64 1st cousins, maybe one of Joe B’s lives in Downers.
Comment by Anonymous Sunday, Feb 5, 06 @ 8:15 pm
Smitty,
Do you believe that George Washington was a “terrorist”?
Comment by Skeeter Sunday, Feb 5, 06 @ 9:11 pm
Skeeter -
Did he or his soldiers kill British politicians in Great Britian?
Comment by Smitty Irving Sunday, Feb 5, 06 @ 9:44 pm
Smitty,
In response to your question: Yes. The Colonies were considered British soil at the time.
In any case, is “in Great Britian” really the test you want to use to define terrorists?
Under your logic, of course, if American soldiers killed Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia, they would be “terrorists.” I, on the other hand, would view that action as “national defense.”
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Feb 6, 06 @ 10:21 am
Skeeter -
Wrong wrong a thousand times wrong. Great Britian is composed of the countries of England, Wales, and Scotland - and nothing else. Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the “United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.” Before Michael Collins won Irish independence, it was the “United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland.” These shores were British colonies, not Britian. So, back to my question - did George Washington or his soldiers kill any British politicians on British soil?
As for Osama - was not aware he, his ancestors, or his country were a former American colony / subject … .
On the other hand, the Irish and the British (and before them, the English) have been going at it for over 800 years - ever since Pope Adrian IV “gave” Ireland to English King Henry II, not as an English King, but as a Catholic “defender of the faith” … .
By the way, I do not post from work, so it is either early AM or later PM.
Comment by Smitty Irving Monday, Feb 6, 06 @ 6:20 pm
Let me accept your premise for a second. I will assume that the colonies differ from British soil.
WOULD it have been wrong for George Washington to have attacked the British on their soil, if it meant liberation for the colonies? If that was the only was that America could become independent, would you have told Gen. Washington not to attack?
We have gotten a bit off track, but the bottom line must be that there is a massive difference between a group that attacks military and government of the oppressor nation for the purpose of liberation, and a group that purposely kills civilians.
It is absolutely clear that the British have oppressed and killed the Irish on Irish soil, on purpose and as a matter of policy. The fact that it has taken hundreds of years just shows the will of the oppressor and in no way excuses the oppressor’s conduct.
The IRA may have done some dangerous and some frankly stupid things, but they pale in comparision to both the deliberate policies of the British government with regard to the Irish and in comparison to the daily acts of Hamas.
26+6=1
Up the Ra!
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Feb 6, 06 @ 8:13 pm
Skeeter -
I still maintain that until the July 2005 decommisioning, the IRA was a terrorist organization. Was it their stated goal to drive the haggis breathed Scotch-Irish into the sea? Probably not, unlike Hamas, who believes the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” are literal truth and want to drive the Zionists into the sea. The IRA seemed perfectly willing to tolerate 1 million Protestants among 4 million Catholics.
However, the IRA did try to influence politcal events with ballots supplemented by force and bullets, as necessary - ask the McCartney family of Belfast.
If you believe in democracy, the pre-July 2005 IRA was much less of a threat to democracy than Hamas, but a threat none the less.
Comment by Smitty Irving Monday, Feb 6, 06 @ 8:59 pm
Smitty,
Do you acknowledge that the British Government systematically starved and repressed the Irish for hundreds of years?
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Feb 7, 06 @ 8:55 am
Skeeter
As they did with the Acadians, the Indians, the Epyptians, the Scots (who instead of Michael Collins had William Wallace) and the Welsh (who instead of Michael Collins had Owain Glyndŵr), and others who escape me now … .
Comment by Smitty Irving Tuesday, Feb 7, 06 @ 7:08 pm
And the Americans, right Smitty?
Of course, the Americans were not starved by the British.
To say that the IRA is anything at all like Hamas to admit that you are ignorant of Irish history. It is a simple fact. The IRA fought a government for independence. Hamas attacked civilians. They are not the same.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Feb 7, 06 @ 9:31 pm
OK -
Once again, the pre July 2005 IRA were and Hamas is terrorists. But, then again, saying Franco and Hitler were dictators does not mean you are accusing Franco of putting Republicans and Masons in death camps. Same with IRA and Hamas.
Comment by Smitty Irving Wednesday, Feb 8, 06 @ 7:08 pm