You are currently viewing archive for February 2012

Category: Local politics
Posted on February 26, 2012 by Gary
If Santorum is defined to refer to that certain mixture of bodily fluids, then Roskam really ought to refer to a falsehood so blatant that nobody with the remotest shred of decency would want to touch it. Sadly this class of human being includes few if any modern-day Republican politicians, and certainly not Mr. Roskam himself. Case in point, his latest tax-payer-funded campaign emailconstituent franking email:
You and your families are surely affected by high and rising gas prices. The average price is already over $3.50 a gallon! Unfortunately, some experts say they could rise as high a $5-per-gallon.

This is a disappointing but unfortunately not surprising reality. High gas prices and rising electricity costs are just some of the results of the Administration's energy policy designed to benefit political allies at the expense of lower American energy costs.

But House Republicans are fighting back. Find out how in my interview with Martha MacCallum here.

High gas prices are the result of Obama administration policy in the world according to Pete. Here's a graph of those prices over the past thirty-plus years:

As you can see, gas prices were more or less stable until they took a major spike upwards around 2005 and another one in 2008. Gosh. Petey, who was President in 2005?

If you watch the video, you'll find the "solution" Petey is pushing is to build the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline is actually designed to allow Canadian oil producers to export oil overseas by providing a route to oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. Not only would this pipeline be disastrous for the health and well-being of those of us who drink water, but It might actually increase gas prices in the USA, and according to Cornell researchers might actually cost jobs in the USA.

But on the plus side, it would mean fat profits for Canadian oil companies, some of which would no doubt fall into Mr. Roskam's campaign coffers. Also, more work for doctors and other health professionals who will have to treat the resulting chronic health problems. This is good news for people like Pete and his staff whose health care is paid for by public money, a benefit he's worked hard to deny to the rest of us.
Category: Local politics
Posted on February 14, 2012 by Gary
The Daily Herald reports:
Tammy Duckworth, one of two Democratic Congressional candidates making a bid in the 8th District, challenged her opponent Monday to reject any contribution from Super PACs — political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.

Opponent Raja Krishnamoorthi said he’ll agree — but only if Duckworth also agrees not to accept contributions from international unions, lobbyists or other corporations.... He also proposed that the candidates get rid of “paid media (ads)” by holding one debate a week until the election.

For Krishnamoorthi's specific proposal, look here.

This morning, the Duckworth campaign sent out this:
Yesterday, I asked my opponents to join me in a pledge to keep Super PAC spending out of this race. An overwhelming number of you signed on to agree that unlimited, anonymous funding should have no role in our democracy. But unfortunately, my primary opponent refused to sign on to the same kind of pledge Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown agreed to.

As I said yesterday, this will only work if my opponent agrees. Over 7,000 of you have contributed to my campaign--often in spite of tough financial circumstances--and I'm not willing to let your contributions be overwhelmed by millions of dollars in negative attack ads.

We've already seen the corrosive effect of Super PAC support in the Republican presidential primary. And frankly, I'm not surprised to see Republicans embrace unlimited, anonymous corporate funds. But using a Super PAC in a Democratic primary would be unprecedented. It's just not who we are as a party and it's not what we should aspire to be.

Hey, Duckworth campaign: Your primary opponent has a name, you know. And unless I'm missing something, the above is just dishonest.

How is it dishonest? For one thing, it's true that using a Super PAC in a Democratic primary would be unprecedented. That's why it's probably not going to happen. Joe Walsh will almost surely benefit from SuperPACs in the general election against whichever Democrat wins in March (and the chance of him signing onto any agreement of this sort are basically nil). But talking about a SuperPAC attack in the primary as if it were a clear and present danger is disingenuous at best, and is an indication of a campaign that is less interested in taking the influence of money out of the election and more interested in using it as a publicity stunt.

But more importantly, Krishnamoorthi didn't fold, he raised the bet. He didn't refuse to sign on, he asked for a broader agreement that would have taken other kinds of money out as well, plus public debates that would've lessened the impact of paid media. Maybe the Duckworth campaign views these extra conditions as unacceptable. It would be reasonable to say that Krishnamoorthi didn't refuse an agreement but attached conditions to it that they viewed as unacceptable. Then maybe they could tell us why they feel that one kind of outside money is bad but other kinds (which are far more likely to actually show up in this particular race) are absolutely necessary. But just portraying Krishnamoorthi's response as a flat-out "no" is flat-out dishonest.