Chicagoist: Sauerberg: Durbin Hates America

smussy

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:55:38 -0600

i'm just loving the word "jagamuffin."

ljpljpljp

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:03:33 -0600

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.)

ljpljpljp

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:33:17 -0600

I cannot speak about Durbin himself, as I have never spoken with him. However, I can testify that I have spoken with numerous members of his Chicago and DC Senate staffs. The apathy and ignorance that I have encountered was surprising. I mean real ignorant, real apathetic, and thus real surprising. Their comments were funny in a Beavis and Butthead kind of way, but because the issue was about health care, I didn't laugh at the time. I will no longer vote for Durbin, but at the same time, I will not vote for an anti-free speech candidate like Doc. Whatshisname either.

mikely1

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:24:20 -0600

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

mepps

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:21:02 -0600

What a joke Let me guess, you also like to call republicans sheep?

thepchandyman

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:17:26 -0600

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

Chicago D

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:01:48 -0600

Mepps, Dipshit? Wow. That was quick. In any case, you need to work harder to understand what you are looking at. The key is in the methodology: "A panel of National Journal editors and reporters initially compiled a list of 216 key congressional roll-call votes for 2007 -- 107 votes for the Senate and 109 for the House -- and classified them as relating to economic, social, or foreign policy." All of the scientific mumbo-jumbo after that is how the skewed data were handled. However, if garbage went in, garbage came out. And here it looks like that's what happened. A bunch of those votes are not even on legislation, but on procedural issues, like cloture. Sheesh. It is no excuse to say that McCain was running for president and missed the "key" votes when Obama and Clinton were also running for president. Maybe the issue isn't a lack of data for McCain, but a lack of the National Journal's preferred data. Those are two different things. Personally I think that (a) citing, and (b) defending the National Journal rating makes you look like a drone of the right, as opposed to the drones of the left you are attacking here. The fact that you would accept results including procedural votes, rather than only on actual legislation is also in error.

Navin

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:47:07 -0600

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?

mepps

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:34:20 -0600

Chicago D- The rated votes are right on the site. You know the section that says 'important rated votes'- click on it dipshit. You also need enough information to rank somebody, if there isn't enough info, you can't get a valid result. But, believe what you want. Navin, stop posting, your annoying as hell. Don't you do anything for a living?

Albanyparkour

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:22:53 -0600

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.

irishman1

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:22:03 -0600

@ Navin...the reason I was asking Matilda is she was calling someone out for them using the name "far left". I know what the term "far left" is, I was hoping to get some insight as to why Matilda seems to disagree with what "far left" means.

Navin

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:15:09 -0600

Somebody think about the children!

Chicago D

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:14:11 -0600

Mepps, That National Journal piece may have been a tiny bit biased. Did you notice that Obama and Clinton, both in active races for the presidential nomination were scored, whereas McCain was one of "Three senators [who] do not have scores for 2007 because they missed more than half of the rated votes in an issue area: John McCain, R-Ariz., who was running for president . . ." What exactly were the rated votes? Hmmm. Inquiring minds would want to know. You don't seem to be one of them.

jennyblur

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:13:11 -0600

I mean, this could have been a good discussion about any number of issues. Are we this simplistic and close-minded?

Navin

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:10:53 -0600

Irishman, You need somebody to tell you? Most everybody involved in either of the two parties is center right or BARELY left. Democrats have been chasing off their fan base for some time now by trying to appear more conservative. Mepps, there are some real easy basic resources on the web that will help you get some book learnin'. I'm sure wikipedia can help you get a grasp on the right and left througout the world and history. Clearly you have no clue. I'd say there's nobody on the hard left *or* hard right in a big political posistion in this country. Seriously I've got to lol @ you guys. You really think of Durbin as some kind of anarchist or something. Oh my......

mepps

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:00:02 -0600

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.

irishman1

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:54:34 -0600

Hi Matilda, Okay, you said, "Durbin is hardly far left". Couple questions... what is YOUR definition of far left? who, in your opinion, is "far left"?

matilda

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:48:23 -0600

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.

mepps

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:46:01 -0600

Liberal in 1770's and Liberal in 2000's are two completely different things. Your both wrong.

irishman1

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:43:26 -0600

@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"?

mepps

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:41:11 -0600

The stupid bullshit on this board is dumb and predictable. but the worst argument comes from those who say "Thanks for playing I-am-a-GOP-crybaby-and-everyone-picks-on-me." Essentially what you are saying is that, 'since you have different views than me, and since I cannot formulate a response to you, I will try to negate your point by claiming that you are a sore loser.' Go back and you will see that 'Ward' was responding to the post which essentially said "if you disagree with Durbin, you can't think right..." Ridiculous. Great way to carry on a conversation- essentially "if you don't agree with me, your retarded" All that says to me is that you cannot rationalize a thoughtful response. Matilda you've used that argument more times than I care to count. Stop posting if you don't have anything to say.

matilda

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:20:28 -0600

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.

no_one

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:20:14 -0600

->Sure, Sauerberg will lose, but he is building awareness of what a far-left jerk Durbin really is. He's really not. Most people don't even know who he is.

Prescott Carlson

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:12:37 -0600

What the hell is smeared all over that picture? On second thought, I don't want to know.

Navin

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:07:35 -0600

Sauerberg is right. Democrats have always felt more comfortable burning the flag lolllz, When exactly are you talking about? I'm not a democrat but I'd like to know. Folks, Ward and his new friend must clearly love the way the last 7 years have played out. Maybe they need to put in a sanitarium with the guy who "Makes Love" to chickens.

Ward Up

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:04:15 -0600

"....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.

matilda

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:45:14 -0600

Durbin's continuous attacking of American military personnel has been nothing short of disgusting. The Bush administration's continuing degrading of our great military, and its exhaustion of our brave troops in a stupid, pointless war, is nothing short of disgusting. And if you think Durbin is far-left, I question your ability to think in an analytical manner that respect history and political realities.

Ward Up

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:36:00 -0600

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.

matilda

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:35:05 -0600

Sauerberg is right. Democrats have always felt more comfortable burning the flag (or defending flag burning) than actually waving it. So true. In fact, this year at the convention in Denver, the Dems--along with Google--actually are sponsoring a flag burning contest. The hippies and commie libs have given too much ground in this area lately to Muslim nuts (this losing streak extends back to the '79 Iranian revolution), and it is time for all the American haters--that is, the Dems--to take back the crown. Burn away ...

mss2400

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:32:06 -0600

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.

Albanyparkour

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:09:32 -0600

"unforgivable sin against the brave men and women who serve our country in uniform," The real sins were committed by soldiers violating the basic human rights of detainees. "I was just following orders" has never been a very sound defense.

matilda

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:57:38 -0600

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.

Navin

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:52:00 -0600

I wonder if this jagamuffin's as angry about U.S. Flag: hats, bandanas, shirts, underwear and so on.

Chuck Sudo

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:41:03 -0600

"(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.

TomDArch

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:38:25 -0600

A certain percentage of pointless right wing candidates seem to be running a "Producer's" scam. Instead of conning little old ladies who are enamored of the bright lights of Broadway, some candidates talk this sort of nonsensical crap to get donations from feeble minded, low-information goofballs. Hey, it's work for a good six months or so. I miss the good, old McCain who would have given this schmuck a verbal slap down. Now look how low he's sunk in his desperate attempt to take "his turn" as the Republican nominee. Makes me wonder, did he "win" the nomination, or was he just the last rat to realize that the ship was sinking? Maybe they have the answer in "modern day Czechoslovakia" ;^)

jennyblur

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:32:51 -0600

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.

literati

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:23:25 -0600

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?

SeanP

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:23:00 -0600

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.

celerysalt

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:22:40 -0600

Dick Durbin is among the finest public servants in Congress today, if not THE best. Period. I'm sorry.

Slaphappy

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:22:27 -0600

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

Slaphappy

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:22:07 -0600

Don't sweat it, folks -- these guy will get creamed. I mean, he's still barking up the flag burning amendment tree? Does anyone anywhere give a fucking shit about that non-issue?

jennyblur

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:09:58 -0600

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.

Spook

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:09:48 -0600

Man, McCain looks scary and that scary right eye has nothing to do with a war injury