Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
John McCain held a fundraiser here Wednesday at the Drake Hotel. According to CBS2, the campaign is hoping to raise $2 million dollars, which will be divided between the McCain Campaign and the GOP's Victory Fund. (Which, by the way, comes with its own awesome Chase Bank credit card!)
One of the vice chairs of the event, state Rep. James Durkin, used it as an opportunity to call on Obama to mediate the budget dispute in Springfield. "He's the Democratic nominee for the president. …If he's really interested in the people of the state, our leaders in Washington need to intervene, spend some time in Springfield. … He needs to go down there and referee this scrum or this wrestling match that's been going on for three years," Durkin said. Obama had no comment.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Well if that wasn't the obligatory 'need to post at least something that happened in Chicago to counter the Obamessiah complex on Obamaist' then I don't know what was. The majority of the post was about Obama anyway.
What...no McCain shoes, sandals, t-shirts, buttons, fantasies, etc...?!?! C'mon I know you can do better in your pathetic attempt to look rational.
And here comes the obligatory post saying that Chicagoist is all Obama all the time, as though this blog were your only source of news in this freaking world and you are being forced to read this site while seated in some detention camp.
God, it must be hard to feel so picked on and disregarded. Do you have a victimization fund to which we can contribute, Mepps?
(No, I am not a member of the Obama cult and, in fact, I used to like a good number of things about McCain before he started to bend over and flip-flop for the GOP base in recent months.)
@ mepps
Based on the post, it seems as if (Republican) Jim Durkin turned the focus to Obama. You can't really blame Chicagoist (this time.)
Full disclosure: I have Obama in my pants right now.
Yeah, I'm suuuuurrrre Jim Durkin chose to focus on Obama for the majority of the event, and not that Kevin chose to focus on it. Riiiiigggghhhhttt.
Matilda, yes I do; it's called the 'sheeples' fund. However, nobody knows if the money goes to GW or to Barack.
(No, I am not a member of the Obama cult and, in fact, I used to like a good number of things about McCain before he started to bend over and flip-flop for the GOP base in recent months.)
Good things? Like the Keating Five years? Or his vote against a national holiday for Martin Luther King? Or his support of the Iraq war? Or his rejection of health care for poor children? Or the fact his opposition to the assault weapons ban? Or his support of torture, including blocking a ban on water-boarding?
Just because he doesn't come across as the usual screetching-mad Neo-conservative waving the bible in one hand and a shotgun in the other doesn't make him any less right-wing.
If anything it makes him more of a creep for trying to hide his opinions with this "Straight-Talk" nonsense.
I'm not voting for him or Obama come November by the way. I vote for a third party. The only way to waste your vote is to vote for a waste.
Albany:
Campaign finance reform with Fiengold.
His actual, documented history of working with Democrats in Congress, of reaching across the aisle.
His first vote against the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
His early moves toward environmentalism.
His earlier rejections of the right-wing Jesus freaks.
The ways in which he handled the MIA stuff in the '80s and '90s--he was concerned but also managed to tell the conspiracy nuts to fuck off.
His earlier opposition to torture (do you see a theme here?--he's bent over too much in recent months, trying to kiss too much ass.--WHICH WAS MY WHOLE FREAKING POINT)
Excuse the fuck out of me for saying I don't hate a guy from the GOP. Hell, I don't even think they are all eeeeviiiil, either.
And good luck with that third-party thing in November for president. Should work out very well for you this year. Going with Barr? Or whomever the Greens managed to put up? Perhaps the Constitution Party? Fight the power and remain pure.
Hi Matilda...I understand the point you have been driving home for the past couple of days with comments like, "as though this blog were your only source of news".
But really, let's examine:
Fox News is not the only source for news, yet people still bag on them for their content.
The Tribune or the New York Post is not the only source of news, but people still critique their content.
This angle of "if you don't like it then don't read it" can be thrown right back at you.
If you don't like the posts people make, then don't read them.
But if a site is going to have an option for comments, let's not just sit around agreeing with each other and telling each other how "right" everyone is.
I actually enjoy the jabs and zings I read on this board.
If you don't like them, then don't read them.
P.S. Great point about McCain. I agree 100%.
And good luck with that third-party thing in November for president. Should work out very well for you this year. Going with Barr? Or whomever the Greens managed to put up? Perhaps the Constitution Party? Fight the power and remain pure.
At least he/she has a spine, principles and isn't voting for somebody they don't like out of fear of "throwing their vote away". Enjoy holding your nose and voting for one of the obligatory candidates. Enjoy the self-fulfilling prophecy of voting for either a Democrat or a Republican and helping to keep this country a two party system for eternity.
Fight the power and remain pure.
Klassy.
OMG! McCain's got the dreaded Bobe Dole Hand Disease! It’s spreading!!!!!!!! Next you will see a pen grow out of the permanently clinched moldy fist!
Hey Albanyparkour
Seriously I'm really trying hard to bring myself to vote for Obama but your last comment isn’t helping! So if I vote Green, afterwards you better buy me a drink cause I won't have any friends left at that point.
p.s you don't have to be my friend, just open your wallet of purse for drinks :-)
Irish: Fair enough.
But I don't see the point of someone arguing about coverage, whether too much or too little, especially when such complaints seem--and perhaps I am wrong--driven by ideology more than notions of fairness. And that people apparently consider this site a real news site is a notion I don't understand. This is a site where bored people come to argue, and where others look for food and booze and music ideas. The Ecomonist it is not.
Navin: First, this country is very, very unlikely to have anything but a two-party system ever, given 1) The nature of the Constitution, which seems unfriendly at best to anything resembling a parliamentry system [in large part due to the powers of the executive]; and 2) The apparent reluctance of Americans over two centuries to have anything but two main parties operating at one time, as evidenced by the way their elected representatives have written elections laws.
Vote third party. I've done it more than once, and citizens can vote for whomever they like, of course. But to pretend a third-party vote in this presidential election is anything but some wasted action designed to make the voter feel good and pure seems rather optimistic. Politics is dirty and impure, and often--too often--the choice is between a lessor of two evils. Them's the breaks. Voting third party in the 2008 presidential election carries all the gravity and power of attaching a "Get Out of Iraq NOW" button to your coat. That is, it does nothing whatsoever except make the person feel better about him- or herself.
@ mepps
It's not just Chicagoist. FoxNews.com, in their coverage of the event, mentioned McCain by name three times and Obama four. Is it possible...Fox News is totally crushing on Obama too!
John "I was against it before I was for it, but I forgot I was ever against it" McCain was in town?
At the Drake?
And I missed it?!
Lame.
McCain is the Republican Party's Dukakis. Only more inept.
Matilda,
If those excuses and insults to people make you feel better then good for you. I've got more respect for some wingnut who votes for the Constitution party than for somebody who complains about the status quo while perpetuating it.
Dear God, Navin, how on earth was I insulting people?
Why can't you debate/argue/comment without making everything so personal? You always think everything is some insult, and that shuts down debate. Someone offers another view and you almost always take it as some sort of insult.
Tell you what: Prove me wrong. Instead of saying I am insulting people, show how my ideas are wrong, or offer different and better ideas--I am certain there are many out there that would kick the hell out of mine. Tell me the value I am missing in voting third party in this year's presidential election, or the importance of wearing political buttons. Please, prove me wrong and show me better ideas than I have offered. Just don't label everything an insult simply because you disagree. You are better than that.
Campaign finance reform with Fiengold.
After being caught with his hand in the cookie jar with the Keating scandal. Not to mention the fact that the bill has loopholes the size of montana and is constitutionally flawed.
His actual, documented history of working with Democrats in Congress, of reaching across the aisle.
They all work together. Ted Kennedy sponsored bills with Strom Thurmond. He's not a "consensus-builder" by any means. Another republican claiming to be a uniter? Sounds...familiar.
His first vote against the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Stopped clock is right twice a day too. That's one, of course now his economic policies are a shambles and he admits to "not knowing as much as he should" and supports a sham gas tax holiday that's nothing more than pandering.
His early moves toward environmentalism.
Like drilling in Anwar? McCain is rated one of the wort senators on the environment year after year.
His earlier rejections of the right-wing Jesus freaks.
Whom he now embraces cause the clock is ticking and he wants to be president really bad. That's worse than someone who has been in the wrong the whole time. Giving a speech at Bob Jones University? Come on.
The ways in which he handled the MIA stuff in the '80s and '90s--he was concerned but also managed to tell the conspiracy nuts to fuck off.
Again, stopped clock. Though the military imagery that suffuses his campaign is unseemly at best.
I don't think he's evil. He's wrong about pretty much everything and his "straight-talk" is mostly double talk well-sold. Though it's well past it's expiry date at this point really.
Your ignorance regarding the election process is as profound as your lack of knowledge about McCain. It's not about "being pure", it's about voting for the candidate I support. Period. I don't vote strategically, I vote for the best person I see for the job. If more people realized that and stopped viewing the two parties as the end all be all of our government. Thomas Jefferson said "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all"
Stop listening to the noise, pause, reflect and think and then act.
Tell me the value I am missing in voting third party in this year's presidential election, or the importance of wearing political buttons. Please, prove me wrong and show me better ideas than I have offered. Just don't label everything an insult simply because you disagree. You are better than that.
Well your integrity for one. Obviously the more people that vote third party the more viable those parties will be, it's not very complicated.
Regarding the insulting talk, see the bolded part above. Your constant digs like "fight the power and remain pure" and "Get out of Iraq NOW buttons" are lame and condescending and imply that people who disagree (me and albany in this case) must be pie in the sky, overearnest limousine liberals.
Good for you, Albany. You should vote for the person you consider best at that moment. I do every year, every single election, though sometimes, I admit, "best" means "less bad".
Let's see which our candidates win this year--your third-party person or my mainstream candidate.
And good luck changing the two-party system. You've done wonders so far--I guess these things need three centuries to really work themselves out--and look forward to taking note of your progress on 5 November.
If more people realized that and stopped viewing the two parties as the end all be all of our government. [sic]
That is one way of looking at things. Another way is: Perhaps over two centuries Americans have simply decided for better or for worse they prefer the two-party system to a system that more closely resembles European or even Asian parliamentary systems. You are basically offering the argument that "If only more stupid Americans were blessed with the wisdom I have, things would be so much better." While I am sure you are wiser than the rest of us, and have the political laurels to prove it, such arguments rarely gain as many supporters as one might think. Seriously, if there were a real majority that wanted to change the entrenched party system--perhaps redefining the role of the president to more closely resemble a prime minister, or even changing the electoral system--don't you think that might have happened through the amendment process or through state legislatures by now? Deal with it: Americans are comfortable with the two-party system. I don't think it's the best, mind you, but it is reality.
And it's funny, but Tommie J was one fuck of a partisan and party hack when the time came, wasn't he? He sure embraced his party pretty well, didn't he? He is one reason we have a two-party system so entrenched today. He helped set the pattern. So pull out all the quotes you want, but realize Jefferson said a lot of contradictory things, and did a lot of actions that further contradicted what he said.
And it's telling that all you really have on McCain, as far as scandals go, is something about 20 years old. Yeah, Keating was ugly, but it's peanuts compared to what his colleagues were involved in. That's a low standard, to be sure, but that's politics. As for the rest, we simply have different views, I guess, and no amount of hot air will change our minds.
Keep on keeping on, Albany. I look forward to that third way any day now ....
By the way, what exactly am I "ignorant" about regarding the election process? Simply because I think a third-party vote will do nothing this year does not mean I lack knowledge of how elections work in this country. Odd comment that is.
The Republican Party was once a third party.
The Republican Party was once a third party
Indeed.
The mid-19th Cent. Republicans quickly replaced the dying Whigs to become one of the dominent second parties, restoring what seems to be the natural balance of the American political system.
I would be amazed if we do not see a similar dynamic within our lifetimes, if not within the next 10-15 years.
"If only more stupid Americans were blessed with the wisdom I have, things would be so much better."
A complete falsehood. You're restating my position because your argument is weak.
I'm not blessed with any special insight. The reason we have a two party monopoly is complex. The facts of modern campaigning (expense, competition for air time) make it easier for established parties to dominate. Why can't Obama and McCain share a debate with the libertarian candidate? Or the Freedom Party candidate? Because the parties set the rules for the debates and the media outlets oblige them.
Ron Paul made a hell of a dent, but was dismissed as a crank at every turn. I vehemently disagree with the man, but I'd love to have seen him debate McCain and Obama.
Deal with it: Americans are comfortable with the two-party system. I don't think it's the best, mind you, but it is reality.
I find this kind of apathy remarkably offensive. How sad that you have so little of the passion and revolutionary spirit that founded this country.
Now it's two parties, but wouldn't just one be even easier? Why have elections at all? Just find someone else to make my decisions. That's a slippery slope with a very soggy bottom.
All you seem capable of doing is insulting and sneering at anyone offering something other than apathy and complacency.
Your ignorance comes in your assumptions. About me, about how nothing can be changed so why even bother, about McCain, about how the election process really works and how the two major parties have rigged the game so hard and heavy in their favor, locking out all but billionaires like Perot and Bloomberg from even thinking about running. You seem to be able to string sentences together, so you are not stunted by lack of knowledge, rather you wish to embrace that which is either not true or simply convenient for you. Ignorance.
I find this kind of apathy remarkably offensive. How sad that you have so little of the passion and revolutionary spirit that founded this country.
Now it's two parties, but wouldn't just one be even easier? Why have elections at all? Just find someone else to make my decisions. That's a slippery slope with a very soggy bottom.
Talk about restated bullshit and assumptions.
First, it is not apathy, but rather an observation of reality. Americans for whatever reasons have not embraced a multiparty system. They have not turned to European or Asian models. That is a fact that has stood for some 200 years. That I acknowledge that fact does not make some dumb-ass reactionary. That you then use my misstated views to suggest that one might want an single-party system is childish crap.
Yes, the established parties throughout US history have worked hard to force out the rest--I already know that in detail, as I have studied it and experience it in depth, especially in this state. That is politics. That is human nature. But here's the deal: The people do rule in our system, even with all the hurdles. Nothing will happen if the votes are there, ultimately. If the people wanted a multiparty system, the people would have found a way to create such a system over the last 200 years (the people have managed to change many things about the USA in that time frame). That they fail to do so year after year--even at the state and local levels--says more about America than you care to acknowledge, and you seem bitter about it.
I admire your passion and pride and political integrity. Too bad others don't have it. But don't go calling me some apathetic dumbass just because reality does not conform to your ideals. Perhaps people such as you, who disdain the two-party system so much, who think it is damaging to our country, have simply not worked hard to enough to persuade enough citizens that such a system is better. Perhaps such a task is impossible in America for various reasons.
You are making the mistake of killing the messenger (me) for delivering the message, and then you go on to insult me personally while having the balls to call my argument weak. That is rather silly, don't you think?
You may find my so-called "apathy" offensive, but I find your lack of realistic observation and thinking to be equally such. And, my friend, that is why people like you HOLD SO LITTLE POWER: You fail to realize we live in a realistic world, not an idealistic one, and you are left on the sidelines to bitch and moan and feel scorned by the current system instead of doing more heavy lifting to change that system.
So, go ahead and insult me some more if that makes you feel better. It's alright. Smarter people than you have insulted me in more creative ways. But it does not change this fact: America is a two-party society, and likely will remain so under the current Constitution, and nothing you have done so far--no votes, no letters written, no insults tossed around on blogs--has managed to change that reality.
Or, perhaps you can share you grand plan to change that reality?
Spot on post Albanyparkour!
Matilda:
You really aren't capable of having an adult conversation on this topic.
Between the sarcasm, the dissembling remarks and the attempts to make this a personal fracas...you've come to a battle of wits unarmed.
But I'm not trying to insult you or belittle you. If you really believe that we are such mean and meaningless little cogs in a great and fixed wheel then how can I insult you any more than that?
You talk about the "real world" and "reality" and "delivering the message". This is a message that accepts what is broken as immutable fact. You are so wrong in this. You serve as your own jailer.
150 years ago black humans were sold as property. 100 years ago black men were lynched and killed for daring to even look at white women. 40 years ago a black leader was shot for having the temerity to declare that he was a man. Today a black leader could become the next president.
A small group of committed people can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has.
Albany: What, then, is your grand plan? You have general ideas but no specifics. I am not interested in cliches from motivational posters and self-help tracts, but specifics. What will you do to 1) Get more parties actually involved in power; and 2) Make Americans think and feel they have a vested interested in having multiple, strong parties. Those are your challenges.
Don't try to act superior by saying I am not capable of having a conversation on this. I cleary am, as I can offer specifics and example after example from history (see: the bit about Jefferson), ableit more cynically that you seem to prefer.
So, again: What are you specifics? How do you accomplish your goal? Because if all you plan to do is vote for a third-party person every so often, such action has clearly done little.
By the way, slavery, et al was solved by 1) mass, substained action; and 2) getting the mainstream of American society invested in the change, as many of those changes required amendments.
Why is that idealists can so rarely come up with specifics on this site? I am starting to think some of you like being out of power because then you can pure.
I am all but begging for the honor of reading your great plan for transforming the American political system to one so long dominated by two parties to one with more inclusion. Why must I beg? What exactly are you waiting for?
A small group of committed people can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has.
True dat, Albany True dat
Why is that idealists can so rarely come up with specifics on this site? I am starting to think some of you like being out of power because then you can pure
We have offered you specifics and you've ignored them. Instead you tried to shift the argument to one of immediate huge results, which it never was about anyway. Third parties get more votes every year and in the case of The Green Party, win more offices every year. As we said these small gains eventually reap rewards like participating in debates and other things that are essential to being noticed in the political process. Aside from all that, there's also the simple issue of integrity and self respect.
So now, please respond with more of your predictable platitudes and jokes about the tiny victories third parties have made: "you're dreaming", "real world", "naive leftists" etc.. zzzzzzzzzzzz.....
Seriously though, Albanyparkour has done a much better job illustrating the point then I have and you look really, really foolish continuing to press the issue.
I can just imagine you:
Geez guys we've been under a monarchy since like the 9th century are you so naive to think you can change that? You idealists need to get with King George and the rest us in the mainstream real world.
I am starting to think some of you like being out of power because then you can pure.
Ha, yeah that's surely it 'Tilda. Whatever relieves the guilt and justifies your moral bankruptcy.
Third parties get more votes every year and in the case of The Green Party, win more offices every year
True enough for the sake of this thread, even if the statement is far too general.
But that still does not change the fact the USA is a two-party society, and will likley remain so, even if the parties do occassionaly change or shift. That is the whole freaking point of my argument, in case you have forgotten in the attempt to paint me as some dumbass who doesn't give a shit, and the attempt to paint others as saviors of the world. And no one has offered any evidence to prove my point about the two-party system untrue--or about the need to attract mainstream support for any type of real change.