Um, people like this baffle me. Isn't it like, ultra American to defend freedom of speech and the constituion. Guess who wrote the decision protecting flagburning? Everyone's favorite originalist Scalia. If that isn't enough to convince you it is American, I don't know what is.

Additionally, I don't think that it is exactly acting as a beacon of democracy to torture people in dubious quasi-prisons. Durbin's gulag analogy is right-on.

Republicans are shameless. Look at the smear job they ran on Max Cleland down in GA, calling him anti-american even though he was a fucking triple amputee. Ugh ugh ugh.

Oops -- make that "this" guy will get creamed.

I think the fact that this is the first I've even heard of a challenger to Durbin this year is indicative how much of chance he's got.

The GOP went batshit during the 2000 election. That was the turning point when evangelicals took over the party and then the desperation to win the election culminating in Republicans advocating for federal intervention into a state issue...oh Bush v. Gore. The parties weren't the same after that.

"(T)he founding fathers 'never had to deal with ultra-liberal Americans who hate their own country.'"

WOW!!!

Never mind that the Founding Fathers were "ultra-liberal Americans" themselves.

It's fun watching the far right fall on their own swords as they self-immolate.

Actually, Chuck, the Founding Fathers, in the early presidential elections, did smears and other shit that make these recent comments look fairly tame--a tense international competition between the UK and France, the main powers of the day, had an burning effect on US politics, especially when war was in the air and the country had yet to fully unify, and the country faced threats along its edges from Spain and the Indians.

Some members of the founding genertaion also questioned each other's patriotrism on a fairly regular basis--Jefferson, Hamilton, J. Adams and others were all involved at one point or another--and the word "traitor" was sometimes tossed around. This crap is bullshit and any such smears deserve a smack in the mouth, especially from right-wing idiots, but this stuff has a long tradition in the USA (and other countries).

Don't make the mistakes of remaking, too much, the Founders in your own mold. The right wing already does enough of that. The Founders were all too human.

Sauerberg is right. Democrats have always felt more comfortable burning the flag (or defending flag burning) than actually waving it.

Durbin is a partisan hack who can find a TV camera faster than almost anyone in Washington. He is a walking, talking example of the need for term limits. Sadly, the people of Illinois don't seem to have much sense when it comes to electing leaders.

Durbin's continuous attacking of American military personnel has been nothing short of disgusting.

He is a political hack who plays on the emotion of the have-nots of this world.

Just support him, have-nots, and you'll get your entitlements from the haves.

Sure, Sauerberg will lose, but he is building awareness of what a far-left jerk Durbin really is.

"....And if you think Durbin is far-left, I question your ability to think in an analytical manner that respect history and political realities....."

Oh, that's right. I forgot. We Republicans arent's as smart as you liberals.

What the hell is smeared all over that picture?

On second thought, I don't want to know.

Ward Up: Thanks for playing I-am-a-GOP-crybaby-and-everyone-picks-on-me.

I questioned your view of what "far-left" means, and you come back suggestion you are being picked on my snobby elitist.

Poor you.

And you can't even fashion an argument or response.

Pitiful.

Perhaps you are not as smart as you think you are.

@Chuck Sudo

you said, "Never mind that the Founding Fathers were "ultra-liberal Americans" themselves."

Are they? I don't know if this was a joke or not.

The founding fathers were the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

They did not want to pay their taxes to England.

That doesn't sound very "Liberal" to me.

What aspects of our founding fathers leads you to say they were "Liberal"?

No, Mepps, I am saying that instead of offering a counterargument, Ward Up went off and basically cried foul. Ward shut down the debate. I never said he wasn't smart until I threw that silly martyr shit back in his face.

Again, for the challenged among up: Ward said Durbin is "far-left." I questioned that view and wondered if Ward really knows what far-left is. I implied by those words that I disagreed that Durbin is far left, and never said I liked Durbin. Ward apparently felt I was picking on him, but instead of calling for him mom, he made the same old tired elitist bullshit charge that the modern GOP is so good at. And here comes you, Mepps, telling me to shut up because you have nothing to offer, either.

My view: Durbin is hardly far left, not if one takes an honest look at the political landscape.

Ward's view: Oh, so you're an elitist and you must think I am dumb to question my view.

Mepp's view: Quit picking on Ward.

Nice playing with you.

Matilda-
Get your fucking eyes checked- if your view doesn't think he's far left
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Instead of making pointless posts to nobody that cares, teach yourself something and find the information before you spout off like a liberal propaganda machine.

I mean, this could have been a good discussion about any number of issues.

Are we this simplistic and close-minded?

Somebody think about the children!

Oh, that's right. I forgot. We Republicans arent's as smart as you liberals.

When your argument consists of being defensive and accusing anyone critical of the military of being a flag-burner, then yes.

An old European saw goes "There are two parties in the US, the Right wing and the REALLY right wing."

Clinton had a balanced budget. Bush has one of the largest deficiet's in history. The Patriot Act, which is right up there with the Alien and Sedition acts in terms of constitutional fuckery, was supported by both parties. Including Dick Durbin.

Attacking people's patriotism, smearing them with metaphorical (and sometimes literal) crap has been the modus operandi of the republican party since 1994 or so. It's old, tired and fail.

Not unlike John McCain, funnily enough.

For the record, I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm a cafeteria catholic when it comes to politics.

Navin, stop posting, your annoying as hell. Don't you do anything for a living?

Alway's insightful mepps,
And such a sharp quesion.......
of course the same question could be asked of yourself, so maybe not such an effective putdown.

You are the poop handler and sign soiler of Chicagoist.
Actually let's just change your handle to "Poop Grip".

Did you go do some reading on the actual meanings of right and left?

How are we supposed to win the war on terror, when these idiots are afraid burning flags?

Jesus ... I'd like to see all of you jokers put in a room together.

Somewhere along the line, Conservatives turned into anti-Constitutionalists. I don't get it. Wouldn't the most conservative thing possible be to DEFEND the Constitution?

Well, it used to be that way, but now the term "libertarian" best defines somebody who would prefer that the government stay out of "We the People's" business. That includes adhering to the philosphy of the initial Amendments (as opposed to concocting new ones to stifle such things as free speech, like a flag burning ban etc.)

A lot of people think that libertarians are right wingers. That is hardly the case. For example, just as libertarians support the First and Second Amendments, we do not want the government telling us what we can do with our bodies, as in regards to drugs, prostitution, and abortion.

(One celebrity who claims to be a libertarian is Bill Maher. He is not a libertarian, as he supports outlawing such things as hunting.

One person who I would not describe as being a celebrity, but who might think that he is one is the Tribune's Steve Chapman. However, I think that he might be a libertarian.)