ArchPundit

When Idiots Blog

Citing the Onion 'author' as a real article, generally gets you a lot of ridicule.

I was fully expecting the site to be satire itself in some sort of post modern parody, but all evidence is, it's for real.

If you go to this site, the comments are adding a whole new dimension to comedy.

I have to go, I'm crying from laughing....

Nazis: Bigger Morons than You Ever Knew

The General and his inner Frenchman points us to the implosion of a big bunch of, well, Nazis.

You have to go through all the links to get the full effect, but for those with a short amount of time available, this probably will get you the most bang for the buck.

Coming from the birthplace of George Lincoln Rockwell, I always looked forward to the yearly news story on the three losers holding a parade to celebrate his birthday.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

This really says it all.

Though this one tells you a lot about what they are repressing.

The Big Bad Chicago Machine

seems a bit hypocritical when one is being supported by Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, and the Republican establishment at the center of the Culture of Corruption in DC.

Roskam isn't an independent operator or a Mr. Smith going to Washington, he's a movement conservative who has had Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist to raise money and campaign with him. DeLay is at the center of the Abramoff investigation and Norquist is being shown to be one of the conduits for money for Abramoff with his non-profit Americans for Tax Reform, that

Hiram did a good round up on this last year. The issue isn't, as the Roskam campaign has tried to deflect it towards, that Roskam worked for DeLay in the 1980s. The issue is that Roskam has been a movement conservative receiving support from just such movement conservatives in both 1998 and 2006. The two most prominent supporters are neck deep in the Abramoff scandal.

Roskam brags about his award from Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform on his web site.

So, on one hand, we have Tammy Duckworth being supported by DCCC chief Rahm Emanuel who was a Daley aide, but isn't under investigation as far as anyone knows, while two of the most prominent supporters of Peter Roskam during this election cycle are actively under investigation by federal prosecutors.

Patterson made a crack about six degrees of separation in regard to Roskam's position on Social Security, but the charges about machine politics with Duckworth are far more like six degrees of separation especially since Durbin and Obama recruited her originally. On the other hand, Peter Roskam is strongly supported by two of the major figures in what many scholars such as Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann view as the biggest Congressional scandal in over a century.

Maybe John Patterson Can Win a Prize

I generally like Patterson (and Krol)--he does good work, but in the Roskam Social Security story, he's let the campaign off on the issue of Social Security Privatization. The interesting thing about it is that Roskam hasn't even appeared on Jeff Berkowitz's Public Affairs--a fairly friendly venue, though one in which Jeff would pin him down on as many issues as possible.

Talking Points Memo is running a contest to pin down Republican candidates who have not taken clear positions on Social Security. Two of the first candidates are Tom Kean and Illinois' own Peter Roskam.

The post by Patterson is gone (nothing nefarious, they don't archive all of their posts at Animal Farm), but the basic point was Roskam's campaign replied, but no answer was given regarding Social Security instead offering a reason why Roskam was not at the vote though he made most of the votes that day in Springfield.

A fine way this could shape up.

So, if you can get him on record on Social Security Privatization, Josh has some gifts for you--or even if you can just get him avoiding the question on tape....

More on Barack's Speech

Ed Kilgore makes an important point about Barack's speech.

(1) against conservative claims that God's Will is easy to understand, dictates culturally conservative positions, and requires nothing more than obedience; (2) against Christian Left claims that progressives of faith should simply counter their Law with our Gospel; their sexual moralism with our social-justice moralism; their scriptural authorities with our scriptural authorities; (3) against secularists of the Left or the Right (encompassing, BTW, most of the political chattering classes) who reduce religious faith to entirely secular political and cultural positions, without having any clue of the ambiguities involved in believing in a transcendent God who reveals Himself in history and human action as well as in scripture.

The political import of Obama's speech is that he is engaging in an intra-Christian debate that is already undermining the Christian Right every day. In essence, the James Dobsons of the religious world have sought to lead their flocks into a prophetic stance that stakes their spiritual lives to a series of specific and highly questionable political commitments. More and more, even the most conservative evangelical Christians are chafing against this bondage, while the less conservative faithful, including the largely apolitical attendees of rapidly growing non-denominational megachurches, never bought into it much to begin with.

The real divide I noticed in reactions was between those on religious liberal blogs who found the argument quite refreshing because it was a complete reshaping of the modern debate over values and the clearest statement of that is above.

The notion that the speech reinforces GOP talking points is based on either not reading the speech or not understanding what they read. The speech redefines the values debate to not just be about sexual morality versus economic morality and argued clearly for liberal positions based on a personal understanding of faith.

Comparing it to triangulation by Bill Clinton fundamentally misunderstands the line Barack drew. He isn't attacking liberals to provide a basis for being in the middle of liberals and Dobson, he's attacking Dobson and Fawell from distinctly progressive stances.

He does say that
"Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

One challenge to this earlier was whether the ACLU actually fights this and it's rather complicated. If you think High School Democrats and Republicans should have the same access as the High School Muslims or Baptists, then the ACLU does disagree. High School political groups generally have faculty sponsors as do any student groups. The way the ACLU identifies the challenge is that faculty can only be present for monitoring which is different from political groups where faculty sponsors can be active and it's certainly different from my high school where the teacher sponsor was active for the Bible Study. So the ACLU's position might or might not be slightly different from Obama's, but we do see such arguments of separation in schools and non-profit programs that from fairly well known progressive publications like the Nation. It's true that most progressives probably aren't absolutists, but discomfort with faith based arguments aren't rare---take the response to Obama's speech that largely missed the point in terms of what the speech argued.

Barack will back the Democratic Nominee in CT Senate

He's endorsed Lieberman for the primary, but will back whomever wins the Democratic Primary. Durbin?

It's the right thing to do.

I don't have purity contests for who someone might endorse, but supporting the Party's nominee barring corruption or some terrible trait such as David Duke, seems pretty basic to being a part of a party.

Happy Independence Day!

I'm in San Francisco after having taught a seminar this morning and I'm going to enjoy the day though it would be a lot more fun at home with the family. Funny thing who you meet at seminars. More on that on Thursday.

For today, enjoy the holiday and see what I want in a Governor if you must....

Doping

By the standards of International Cycling, Barry Bonds wouldn't be playing.

The scandal is massive. Bonnie DeSimone who used to write for the Trib, is covering the Tour for the Boston Globe again and gives the full story here.

I've never thought I was naive about doping in cycling. While I see no evidence Lance used performancing enhancing drugs after cancer, I've always said I wouldn't be surpised if he did before cancer. Some recent stories suggest this may be the case, especially since Frankie Andreu corroborated his wife's position--and Frankie can only get hurt by saying so.

The Inspector Javitz like French pursuit of him always seemed strange to me given since cancer he has been the most tested athlete on the planet and it's now been disclosed, he was paying for the anti-doping program.

Instead of attacking Lance (and notice so far, no current members of Discovery are listed) the French press should have been going after the other teams.

Pavich Goal

He's shooting to hit $25,000 for his ACT Blue Donations today!

As of this minute, he's at $20,099.99

Okay, someone donating to this campaign likes hitting odd numbers, but more to the point, no one, and I mean no one has contributed through ArchPundit so I challenge you all to help him hit that goal!

There have been donations to Duckworth, Seals and Laesch which are fantastic too. If you prefer those that's great, and let me remind you, Bean is shooting for a similar number through tonight!

very, Very Bad for the Blagojevich Administration

The only upside to this whole deal is that it hit on a Friday before the holiday. Otherwise, this is just huge.

Lisa might refer to this as the Bill Brady can bite me letter. Notice the dates of the conversation were in May, fully a week before Brady apparently asks Madigan to break the law by disclosing Grand Jury rules.

Some early comments over at the Capitol Fax suggest this lets Blagojevich off the hook because no indictments will come down until after the election. The indictments might be that far off, but this also gives reporters license to tell their editors there is something there and they should be given the time to track it down.

I've argued an indictment would swing the election, I'd say this makes it very unstable and a toss-up. It also means it'll get nasty fast.

Cook Moves IL-06 to Toss Up

CQ has it as a lean Republican

The Cook Political Report Take:
OUR TAKE FROM THE TRENCHES
House Editor Amy Walter looks at the political landscape in the House.

House Rating Changes
June 29, 2006

In today's update, the number of competitive seats remains the same, but four Republican seats move from Lean Republican to Toss-Up (FL-22, IL-06, CT-04 and NC-11) and the open Democratic seat in OH-06 moves from Toss-Up to Lean Democratic.

On May 19, the last time we updated the Competitive House Race Chart, we expanded the number of competitive Republican-held seats from 24 to 36 and reduced the number of Democratic-held competitive seats from 11 to 10.

In our latest evaluation, the overall number of competitive races stays the same, but it has become clear that four races in Republican-held districts have become more competitive, while one open Democratic race has become less competitive.

Moved from Lean Republican to Toss Up are: Clay Shaw (FL-22), Chris Shays (CT-04), Charles Taylor (NC-11) and IL-06 (Open: Henry Hyde)

Moved from Democratic Toss-Up to Lean Democratic is OH-06 (Open: Ted Strickland)

While the numbers suggest that this district is not as vulnerable as the three other Republican-held open seats in toss up (CO-07, IA-01 and AZ-08), it is clear that the contest to replace GOP Rep. Henry Hyde in this suburban Chicago district is going to be very close.

A recent poll taken for Democratic nominee and Iraq war vet Tammy Duckworth showed that she was tied with Republican state Sen. Peter Roskam at 40 percent. Roskam is a solid candidate with a hefty bank account and real base in the district. But, even Republicans admit that the political environment makes this a much more difficult race for Roskam. Duckworth will be portrayed as a carpetbagger with no real legislative experience. Yet, her profile as a war veteran who has no voting record to exploit makes her a tough target.

Full Cook Ratings here

From the Inbox: An Open Letter To David Sirota

I can't claim credit for the following, though, I have to say, I pretty much agree with it. If you need someone to 'sign it', I'm fine with me being that person. And for the record, I think Schweitzer is a political stud.

OPEN LETTER TO DAVID SIROTA

Dear David:

I enjoy reading your blogs and opinions. However, as I read your recent
post about Barack Obama’s speech on faith and politics, it got me to
wondering.

You start by saying, “One of the most infuriating behaviors among some
Democrats these days is their willingness to create fake straw men that
undermine progressives and reinforce false narratives about the Democratic
Party.”

Leaving aside for the moment that if blogs couldn’t do this it’s likely
they would go out of business, I read a story just two days before Obama’s
speech about another Democrat whom I think you are very familiar with –
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. You live in Montana and you’ve been
paid by Schweitzer during his past campaigns.

Governor Schweitzer told Paul Nussbaum of Knight-Ridder newspapers that
“Democratic presidential candidate with hopes of carrying Montana would
have to tap into that independence and speak frankly to the gun issue,
Schweitzer said… ‘I'd tell him to tell people he respects their Second
Amendment rights’.”

While you scold Obama for allegedly setting up a straw man to falsely
display courage saying Obama “doesn’t offer any names to tell us who
constitutes” the “we” who “fails to acknowledge the power of faith in the
lives of the American people.” “Why? Because there are none. What
Democrat of any prominence at all in America ‘fails to acknowledge the
power of faith in the lives of the American people?’ I can’t think of one.
It is a straw man - one that might make Obama look like a man of ‘courage’
or ‘principle’ - but one that dishonestly reinforces right-wing
stereotypes about supposedly ‘godless’ liberals/Democrats.”

David, can you tell me ONE recent Democratic Presidential candidate that
didn’t respect the Second Amendment?

For that matter, can you tell me ONE Democrat of any prominence at all in
America that doesn’t “respect their Second Amendment rights”?

Or is Schweitzer setting up a straw man to portray himself as
“independent” and “not some East Coast liberal” that dishonestly
reinforces right-wing stereotypes about Democrats as people who want to
take guns away from citizens, not respect the Second Amendment and as the
party that doesn’t even recognize the lawful rights of hunters?

You give Obama credit for the idea of reaching out to religious
constituencies as I give credit to Schweitzer for wanting to reach out to
those that own guns. But in your next sentence you say “individual
high-profile Democrats need to stop regurgitating false right-wing
storylines just to promote their own individual ambitions.”

Did I miss your critique of Brian Schweitzer’s straw man arguments? I
hope your professional relationship with the Governor hasn’t caused you to
become intellectually dishonest.

You say “it doesn’t help the Democratic Party’s efforts to better connect
with evangelicals when a high-profile leader like Obama gives a speech on
that very subject that implies that Democrats (again unnamed) supposedly
don’t care about religion.”

Does it help when Brian Schweitzer implies that Democrats want to
confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens?

Again, maybe I missed your critique of your former employer.

One aspect you failed to mention in your post is the section in Obama’s
speech that chastises the leaders of the Religious Right who threaten the
separation of church and state or who use faith to divide people or those
that use faith to cynically justify the political result they want. Yes,
Obama had the courage to put that in his speech even if you failed to
acknowledge it (maybe you didn’t read the entire speech?).

I noticed in the article about Schweitzer that was proud to be both a
member of the NRA and happy to have the endorsement of the NRA.
“Politicians in Montana are extremely skittish about crossing swords with
the NRA, and that's why it's a coveted endorsement” said Montana State
University political science professor Craig Wilson.

I wonder if Schweitzer agrees with everything the NRA says? Does he
believe that those who enforce gun law are “jack-booted thugs” as the NRA
once called them? Even Former President George H.W. Bush disavowed that
statement. Maybe Schweitzer believes there aren’t enough guns in America
or that terrorists who bought guns at unregulated gun shows shouldn’t be
subject to a criminal background check?

Maybe Brian Schweitzer has the “courage” to speak out against the NRA? Or
maybe I missed that courageous speech and your blog post scolding him too.

More likely, Brian Schweitzer believes that guns don’t kill people, people
kill people – the regurgitating of the same false right-wing storylines
just to promote his own individual ambitions.
=========================

Back to me. An important point about the Obama speech that nearly everyone overlooked, he gave two examples of the problems in the Democratic Party related to faith. Both regarded his 2004 Campaign for Senate in Illinois.

Those who attend liberal to moderate and often conservative Protestant Churches recognize this as a typical way of pointing out human weakness while keeping to the admonishment that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

My inbox is full of stuff on this subject--some will see the light of day, some will not.

Holy Bicycling Bans Batman

Ullrich, Basso, and Mancebo--out of the Tour.

Sadly, Hamilton and Heras' previous suspensions are bolsterred by the investigation. More in a bit.

Help Out Your Congressional Candidates

Markos gives Dan Seals a little love, okay, a lot

I've been having a hard time balancing out coverage of 5 competitive House races and then the statewide races, but Dan appears to be doing far better than anyone expected.

That said, I've set up a page at Act Blue for you to donate to any of the five campaigns--actually Hare's isn't up there yet, so the four competitive races are there. Today is the last day of the quarter so help where you can.

Bean needs $5300 TODAY to meet her goal and I'm sure Duckworth and Pavich are trying to hit goals (if the campaigns send me where they are as the day progresses, I'll keep updating throughout the day). David Loebsack of IA-02 is listed as are the other Democratic Illinois challengers and IA-01 and IA-03. Finally, you can donate to the 8th and 10th CD Democrats there, and the Lake County Party.

I'll also have a state race page up in a bit--this is the end of the half-year reporting period and the last time until about a month out for it to show up and build momentum.

Give. Give. Give. And then volunteer. And if you can't give at all, just volunteer.

Wow! Two Members of the Press Read the Whole Speech

To Lynn Sweet's credit, she POSTED it yesterday and now follows it up with a far better description than most of the news stories.

She nails the thesis:

Obama has an important message about the need for Democrats to reach out to people of faith in America and not make concessions to the right-wingers who claim moral superiority. It's similar to a campaign for faith-based voters being waged by Dean. Obama's team also made sure there were messengers to get his message heard.

Not make concessions to the right-wingers who claim moral superiority....

That's the key to the speech. Not that secularists need to reduce hostility to religion, but that Democrats need to not be ashamed to use language of faith in backing their ideals. That's different than just saying because the Bible says so and Obama makes that point clear in the speech.

It is a far more positive message than most press stories and blogs have argued. It explicitly rejects that Democrats are hostile to religion, but he points out how Democrats go to great lengths to avoid religion, including two examples from his own political career.

One of the aspects of the message that struck me is that it is a confessional sermon type of Protestant speech that points out the struggle to be Christ-like. It doesn't point fingers except when the fingers can be pointed at the speaker as well. I think many who have commented negatively on the speech miss that character of the speech--I'm guessing largely out of a lack of experience in moderate to liberal Christianity.

Second, Dana Milbank covers it in his Washington Post column as well and he was there.

Just as Bush rhetorically took on the "leave us alone" conservatives in his party, Obama said he felt a "pang of shame" because his staff had put on his campaign Web site "standard Democratic boilerplate" that disparaged abortion foes. He also complained that Democrats had "taken the bait" by banishing any hint of faith, and said they should favor faith-based addiction programs, voluntary prayer in schools and references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

But, again following the Bush model, Obama accompanied these rhetorical gestures to the right with a down-the-line liberal agenda, all bathed in the language of morality: taking on gun manufacturers, spending more money on poverty programs, providing contraception education and fighting Republicans on taxes.

"We need an injection of morality!" he proclaimed -- but he was talking about the estate tax, not same-sex marriage.

Now, going back to Sweet, there has been one thing in several of the positive reviews that sticks out to me:

Obama goes a little further in making the suggestion that "voluntary student prayer groups" in school "should not be a threat."

Certainly the ACLU has a strong position about this, but I'm still not convinced this is a progressive bugaboo. I seem to remember when Congress went back to correct the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Acess Act of 1984 that there was a lot of support from liberals/progressives for Equal Access which largely would support the existence of voluntary religious groups at a school. Why after all shouldn't a Bible Study have the same access as the Chemistry Club? Perhaps I'm projecting on this one.