IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise Bill

Putting aside 'electability', which is a stupid insider metric, Duckworth is a great candidate but basically untrustworthy when it counts. Cegelis is a real progressive. And note that Michael has done paid graphics work for Cegelis. - Matt

This just came through one of the groups I'm on. I think it's safe to say that most of us reading this oppose the renewal of the Patriot Act. So where do the candidates in IL-06 stand:

The three candidates in the Democratic Party primary election for the 6th Congressional District were recently interview by the *DailyHerald in an endorsement session. All three were asked if they would have voted in favor of the compromise bill reauthorizing the Patriot Act.

Lindy Scott answered first:  Because Democrats are in the minority, from a practical perspective, the compromise bill was probably the best deal that the Democrats could get, he said. He said he was still concerned about privacy issues and would push to ensure greater protections in the future, but he would have voted for the compromise bill. 

Christine Cegelis said she agreed with Sen. Russ Feingold, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, and others who opposed the reauthorization as embodied in the compromise bill. "I would have voted no. Period," she said. She also said that one of the problems with U.S. intelligence gathering is that agencies "have too much information -- they're overloaded with information" and their computer systems can't effectively process it all or coordinate it between agencies.   

Tammy Duckworth said she, too, had reservations about privacy issues, but she would have voted for the bill and then would push for additional changes in the future. She also noted, however, that if information derived from electronic eavesdropping or other forms of intelligence gathering would have prevented 9/11 or "saved the life of a single soldier," that benefit would outweigh privacy concerns.

Cegelis agrees with Feingold, the ACLU and the ALA, and would have "voted no. Period." Duckworth said she would have voted for it, and sees value in trading privacy rights off for government eavesdropping's benefits. Scott thought the bill was the best we could do and would have voted for it.

Is there any question which candidate is the true progressive, the one that would fight for Democratic principles, stand up for us, and that we should support in this race?

Tags: Christine Cegelis, IL-06, Lindy Scott, Tammy Duckworth (all tags)

Comments

42 Comments

Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

Damned subversive!

No wonder that that sensible Mr Emmanuel is covering the weak on national security angle by going with Duckworth instead. She sounds like the sort of girl Dem leaders are looking for - one who can straddle.

You know, they really ought to bring back Mr Truman's loyalty oaths...

by skeptic06 2006-02-23 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Patriot Act Compromise Bill

Christine is right. The only thing this act does is allow neocons to spy on regular people. I went through this in the 70's and I don't want to do it again. By saying "no" Christine is showing the leadership and courage we need to stand up to the republican and republican-light folks. Go Christine!

by feminist123 2006-02-24 07:31AM | 0 recs
really?

Tell me what language in the statute will "allow neocons to spy on regular people".

by Adam B 2006-02-24 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: really?

Adam B, if the neocons are the people in charge, they're the ones doing the spying.  There are legitimate concerns about just who Bush is spying on -- and his refusal to justify his actions before a FISA court raises all sorts of concerns about just who he is spying on.  And the Patriot Act was used to spy on war protesters, vegans, and Quakers (ok, I know there is overlap in those categories).  Among other people. The priorities of the Justice Dept. have always seemed a little odd, and they're certainly not limiting their spying to those who are "legitimate terrorist threats."

by Maven 2006-02-24 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: really?

Source on "the Patriot Act was used to spy on war protesters, vegans, and Quakers"?

by Adam B 2006-02-24 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: really?

Geez, do you even read blogs. This was blogged to death, so I'm not even going to bother getting you a link.

by michael in chicago 2006-02-24 01:42PM | 0 recs
exactly

None of it had to do with the PATRIOT Act, but pre-existing federal investigatory powers.

by Adam B 2006-02-24 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: really?

So, you are saying you think giving the government the right to invade our privacy is OK with you, and something Democrats should allow.

by michael in chicago 2006-02-24 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: really?

I am asking a specific question.  I'm asking the poster to get past demagoguery and point to something in the bill which does what she claims it does.

by Adam B 2006-02-24 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

I like this post. Good contrasting of positions and a legitimate debate.  The PATRIOT act has many flaws, but most of them aren't even being addressed by these potential revisions.  I agree with Feingold on this for the most part, but I can understand the single soldier concern/line by Duckworth.

It is clear who is more "liberal" but I would say that doesn't necessarily mean who would be the best candidate to win in the general.  This all goes back to whether you are a "contrast" person or a "appeal to independants too"  person.

by DaveB 2006-02-24 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

The way you "appeal to independents" is to be someone who actually believes something. It is so much bullshit to think that this kinda-sorta-maybe politics is somehow "centrist". What it is, is nothingist. Loserism.

by tatere 2006-02-24 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

I agree with you. As long as you stand for something  and believe it in strongly and can defend it, people care less about your ideology.  That is how a liberal Democrat could get elected in Utah in the 70s and 80s.  

This is what got Kerry in trouble...at least he seemed unprincipled, while in fact Bush was less principled (like say the Homeland Security Department).  Standing for something doesn't necessarily mean standing for whatever a "liberal" would stand for, and repeating their talking points.  I don't think that is any more principled than GOP Bush-buttkisser in congress.  

Now is Tammy hedging on the Patriot Act because her instincts are to protect soldiers, or because she hasn't been told what to say yet by handlers? Is Celigis against it because the ACLU and librarians are against it? Or has she always spoke out about it, like Feingold did in his principled 99-1 stand.  

The truth is, most of the PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with 9/11, large portions were drafted by the DOJ and they were sitting around waiting to use these tools to get more of the same folks the FBI has always been hunting down: bank robbers, drug dealers, gangs, etc.  

by DaveB 2006-02-24 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

This just goes to show that you guys don't know the district. You want to run a very liberal candidate in a suburban district where most people are moderate-to-conservative.

This is the district I live in. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Duckworth is a progressive too. She is pro-choice. She is anti-Iraq war. She wants universal health care. She believes in government staying out of our lives. She believes in a cleaner environment. But because Rahm wants her, you automatically distrust her.

And let me tell you something. When I hear Cegelis speak, all she says is reactionary liberal language, and attacking Duckworth. When Duckworth speaks, I feel like she has a real platform.

by Ament Stone of California 2006-02-24 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

When I hear Cegelis speak, all she says is reactionary liberal language, and attacking Duckworth. When Duckworth speaks, I feel like she has a real platform.

I can see that.  I listened to the radio debate and Cegelis was angry while Duckworth was measured.

But look at their track records; Duckworth just doesn't have a track record of independent political work.  Cegelis does.

If you want politics-by-charisma, fine, but I want politics by principle.

by Matt Stoller 2006-02-24 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

"If you want politics-by-charisma, fine, but I want politics by principle."

False dichotomy.  Are you trying to imply that Duckworth has no principles?

Cegelis wasn't just angry in that debate, she sounded resentful.

I want to win the House in November.  Litmus-testing  good candidates/people to death won't get us there.

by Josh Orton 2006-02-24 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

So far Duckworth's principles haven't been the most notable thing about her.

by Maven 2006-02-24 01:05PM | 0 recs
by michael in chicago 2006-02-24 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

But look at their track records; Duckworth just doesn't have a track record of independent political work.  Cegelis does.

Cegelis has a track record of running for office once.  That's it.  I don't get why that counts for much.

by Adam B 2006-02-24 01:17PM | 0 recs
Not so fast

It counts for much as it has put her on the record on most issues. Duckworth is not on the record for most issues, and hasn't been grilled much on her positions. When she is asked specific questions she has been weak or inconsistent, or down right contradictory.

by michael in chicago 2006-02-24 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

I think Cegelis' position that the government eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant is not something they want or believe in. Her position also contrasts with Roskam's where as Duckworths again is a lite version of Roskam's.

Duckworth is about as progressive as Lieberman.

She says that we went into Iraq based on faulty intellegence and has a stand up/stand down policy just like Bush. She has said at forums that she is NOT in favor of universay health care, so you are wrong about her position there. She may believe in governmetn staying out of our lives, but thinks government eavesdropping is ok and is flip flopping on where she stands on parental notification laws. She believes in a cleaner environment, but thinks depleted urainium is OK to use because we are not firing at our troops. She is pro-choice, but hasn't been clear and flip flopped on what restrictions she vote for.

You are either severely mis-informed on her positions or you are shilling for her.

Let me tell you somthing: When I hear Cegelis speak, I hear someone who knows the issues and is trustworthy. When I hear Duckworth speak, I hear talking points from a rehearsed script, and a platform built on a changable foundation with only one goal: tell them what she thinks will get her elected.

by michael in chicago 2006-02-24 01:07PM | 0 recs
by Adam B 2006-02-24 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: "When I hear Christine speak . . . "

So this is going to be your one and only line from here on out, huh?

by michael in chicago 2006-02-25 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: "When I hear Christine speak . . . "

When you post thirty-six consecutive diaries on this site over the course of three months all praising the same candidate, without posting a diary on a single other topic (plus twenty-two on DailyKos), never making a single negative comment about her, then, yes, the source of your bias is a proper topic for discussion, and people can choose to weigh it or dismiss it as they see fit.

You were asked if you were paid by Cegelis at all, and you denied it.  Had I not hunted through the FEC records, you'd still be denying it.

by Adam B 2006-02-25 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: "When I hear Christine speak . . . "

Well then according to your logic all those posts I wrote must be just things I made up because obviously no one would support a candidate that much unless they were being paid. That's a pretty said statement of your world view, if you ask me.

Of those 36 posts you refer to, by a quick count 13 are positive about Cegelis and don't mention the other canidates. 7 are on the IL-06 race generally. And with the exception of 2 or 3, the remaining posts cite articles or public statements made by Duckworth and often the other candidates as well.

The reports from my driving Christine (which I must have been paid to do) and my reports about Christine's events (which I must have been paid to attent) show just how biased my posting has been. And I've hidden that bias so well.  All those posts I made that didn't even mention Duckworth at all I must have been paid to do because heaven's knows that I couldn't actually feel that way if I wasn't being paid to do Cegelis' graphic work. Which if you take all the graphic work I did, add in the time spent blogging, plus all the other things I do for the campaign, that comes out to, what, 50-cents an hour?

But lets look further at my posting habits, because obviously I wouldn't blog so much if I wasn't paid to, right? On MyDD alone, if we look at what I've posted in 2005 through Mid November when I started to focus completely on local blogging, I posted 88 diaries. Of those, only 8 were about either IL-06 or Cegelis. So who paid me to post those other 80? The dates you cite that I was paid to do graphics cover this timeframe.

Again, read my response I gave Matt. It's none of anyone's business who my clients are. I've worked for dozens of candidates as a contractor. I've only blogged about Cegelis because she's in my district and I've volunteered for her campaign. I've stuffed envelopes, handed out name tags, drove the candidate to events, and helped put up signs. But I guess in your mind this is all bad and I wouldn't have done it unless someone paid me to do graphic for their campaign.

Like I've done for Sen. Obama. Like I've done for Dean. Like I've done for free for many local Democratic candidates running for county office in my area. But by your logic, I guess I didn't blog about them because they didn't pay me enough, right? Cegelis campaign manager responded to your post, yet you keep claiming my motives are suspect. This is not even new, as it was addressed over a month ago right here on MyDD.

But you just don't believe me and are going to discredit everything I write because your motives are pure and mine aren't. You want to talk about my blogging about a candidate so much, what about you? You seem to have multiple comments on many of my posts. Yet you admitted yourself you knew nothing about Duckworth's positions when I asked you directly on a Kos post I made. You don't even live in my district, yet you are trying to influence the race by attacking my motives, rather than defending Duckworth's statements that are quoted from the newspaper or made in public.

I post the statements of three candidate on renewal of the Patriot act. Rather than defend Duckworth for saying she'd vote for the renewal and could see the benefits of goverment eavesdropping, you attack my motives for posting the statements of all the candidates and posting regularily about a race in my district. You went to the trouble to actually count the number of posts I've made on two blogs and post multiple negative comments - often attacking the people commenting or insulting the candidate they support - on most of these posts? And you question my motives?

You want to explain to me why you would be doing this if you weren't beind paid to do so, because according to your logic, no one can have that strong of an opinion unless they are being paid to have it.

So again I'll ask, how do we know you are not working for another campaign? How do we know your not being paid to sew dissent or undermine posts that cite public statements made by a candidate?

by michael in chicago 2006-02-26 06:11AM | 0 recs
Four notes

1.  Online credibility has to be earned.  Here's the questions readers should ask of any source online: is this someone who provides the facts and reasoning which leads to his conclusions?  Is he open to new ideas or "bad facts" against someone he supports?  Does he only seem interested in one particular race?  And is he on the take?

What's been troubling about your posts even before we all learned that Cegelis has paid you $6500 for "web services" was the absolutely stridency and sycophancy of your views -- there was nothing that was going to shake you from your ultimate conclusion (Cegelis = Saint, Emmanuel = Satan), no bad fact you couldn't brush under the carpet.  And, so often, it was all conclusory: "Duckworth is inconsistent", say, without any evidence whatsoever from which others could make up their own minds.

I am not being paid by any political campaign, party or organization for anything, nor having I been since the Hoeffel campaign ended in November 2004, nor am I even in contact with the Duckworth/DCCC folks nor have I given them a dime.

2.  I don't assume that you only blog what you're paid to blog about.  But I do believe it's a relevant fact for people to consider in evaluating your credibility, especially since your ability to get future work from the campaign might be impinged by any negative reporting.  You chose to lie when asked directly about it.  As Matt said, had you disclosed early on, there might not be as big an issue here.

It is people's business who your clients are if you're going to talk about things in which you're involved and have a financial stake.  I'm currently involved in litigation againt, among others, Dubai Islamic Bank.  That's why you haven't see me publicly engage in any argument about the ports issue.  When I blog about Joe Hoeffel, everyone knows that my past history of working for him is in my DailyKos profile.

3.  As a factual matter, these posts came before Cegelis's campaign manager magically and suddenly appeared to defend you, and as a factual matter, there was no reason to blog about IL-6 until November 2005, when a primary challenge was first mentioned.

4.  No, I don't live in IL-6, but if you don't want national attention for the race, don't obsessively post on national blogs about it.

by Adam B 2006-02-26 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Four notes

Not sure I understand your #3, and my point to which I think you're responding to in #4 is that if you don't live in the district don't knock me for getting involved to what seems to you an ureasonable level.

There has been multiple primary challenges in IL-06. O'Malley entered the race over the summer, then dropped out in the fall. Scott has been in the race for a while. I like to blog about politics, so when I saw something about my own district or attended an event I posted on it. That's what I like to do with my spare time.

And you keep raising the "web services" point even though you have had this explained to you. Repeatedly.

And what bad facts are there to brush under the carpet that you refer to, other than fundraising, which I have also addressed and noted my concern over. All else is speculation open to opinion, not fact.

Also, you keep making this about my crediblity, but you have yet to refute that I posted statements made by candidates in the media or in public. Do you deny that Duckworth claimed depeleted uranium wasn't a health issue for our troops and seemed not to care if it was for Iraqis? Do you deny that Duckworth has made inconsistent statements at public forums (several I was at). Do you deny that the majority of her funding comes from a small number of donors, most of whom are in Chicago and that on her Q4 statement only approx. 3% of her contributions came from residents of the district or that only 2 of her canvassers were residents of the district?

Your interest here seems to be more about discrediting me than defending the public statements made by a candidate you seem just as obsessed with defending as I am about promoting Cegelis.

How exactly are you helping here? If you feel my posts are in error, then defend your candidate and her public statements as you did in the post on Marianjoy. But if you just want to make this an argument about my credibility, then I still insist this raises issues about your credibility as well. It's easy to say you are not involved. But I am aware of at least one blogger that was contacted by Duckworth's campaign to be paid to blog.

I'd like to continue this discussion with you, but not sure this is the format. Suggestions?

by michael in chicago 2006-02-26 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Four notes

I think the fairest thing to do would be for me to post a diary about this tomorrow on DailyKos, but leave out the names and the candidates, and see if people think it's an issue.

Just this question: if I were paid $10,000 by Duckworth for "legal services" but not to blog, would you nevertheless believe that the payments impaired my credibility on this race?  would you at least believe that it was relevant to discuss?

by Adam B 2006-02-26 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Four notes

Good question. If Duckworth paid you, and you didn't live in the district and didn't attend any events, I would probably say it would be an issue.

But if you were consistent in your posts in favor of Duckworth, lived in the district you were posting about, cited media and public comments made by Cegelis and Scott, and were generally on topic, I'd say I wouldn't care. I'd write you off as partisan Duckworth (which I have anyway) and would comment on your posts presenting my arguments to yours.

I'm not a big fan of those blogger ethics diaries. I was really pissed off when people were jumping on Jerome for writing about races he was involved with, and he was much more involved than I am.

If I wasn't a resident, or was  paid staff or was writing off the wall stuff, you've got a point. But it really deeply offends me when people attack the author of posts rather than the substance of the post. This type of thing cost us a strong voice in Jerome. I miss his posts from within a campaign. I think it hurts us as a party more than helps. It is in my opinion the circular firing squad on a micro level. Honestly Adam, it's easy to post negative comments. Write a diary regularily on a race and defend them.

When we attack each other, especially when we attack people giving their entire free time towards making their government better volunteering for a candidate they believe in, we just discourage participation, bloggers who change handles every month, and random sniping. We encourage rival campaigns to pay bloggers to sew dissent and disrupt threads. Because, honestly, you could say you have nothing to do with Duckworth's campaign, and short my tracking your IP, there's no way you can prove your claim, or I can prove otherwise.

I'd like to continue this discussion on a personal level. How can I contact you?

by michael in chicago 2006-02-26 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Four notes

Another question for you:
DuPage United, a multi-faith group, had a forum a couple hours ago. They purposely scheduled it on a Sunday afternoon so that Duckworth could attend more easily. My wife, who was at the event, told me they were told her campaign called just prior to the event and said while they though she might make it they weren't sure. She was a no show at the event. Scott and Cegelis were there. The event was open to the public, publicized by the group, and questions were taken from the audience.

Duckworth has a pattern of not showing up at district events where questions are asked. This is another example of this pattern. As a resident of the district this offends me. How would you post about this if this was your district?

by michael in chicago 2006-02-26 01:22PM | 0 recs
Stop the attacks

Thank goodness, michael in chicago, that you have spent countless hours blogging.  Those of us who have jumped in and out of the political maelstrom here in IL 06 and who have gladly let you do the research, responding, reviewing would never have been willing to keep up with the scene ourselves.

I first began reading your blogs when you started your own site.  Some of us in that first small group knew you outside the blogosphere and some didn't.  But all of us got emails from you whenever you had a new post to share.  Then we began to get links to the other sites where you commented or posted. Sometimes you wrote about your family, your hobbies, your disappointment or joy in some aspect of your life.

Pretty soon, though, I could see that Christine Cegelis had made a big dent in your allotted time for blogging.  Now, besides your family, your job, and your side jobs, you were blogging in support of Christine all the time.  Sure, some of us knew that you were a graphics guy.  But if we knew that graphics design was your work, we were aware you worked for lots of clients.

Blogging became your passion, because you are just not satisfied until you have ferreted out the facts in any issues that provoke you.  I sure don't always agree with your point of view, but it's tough to dispute your facts. I've watched you move away from only anger at what you didn't like to promoting what you thought was good in politics, government, or campaigns.

Go for it, michael in chicago. You have given so much to so many of us blog readers.

What is with you, Adam B?

by Archetype 2006-02-26 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the attacks

It's simple: if we don't adopt ethical standards ourselves, the FEC will impose them for us.

I'm not saying Michael shouldn't blog about the race; he can, but he ought to have been disclosing his relationship with the campaign this whole time.

by Adam B 2006-02-27 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop the attacks

I understand your point.  What you should know is that michael in chicago has never hidden his graphics or web design work at all.  He has posted on the subtle messages of FONTS, for crying out loud.  Just maybe not in time or in the right venues for you to have seen them.  

OK.  So, it might have prevented this pissing match if he had qualified his posts for Christine by including in his tag line "graphics design contractor for Cegelis for Congress."

Would he have had to do that every time he mentioned Howard Dean, Barack Obama, or any of others who have used his firm for their campaigns?  If bottled water is delivered to the campaign office by a company whose owner happens to also be a blogger, is there a disclaimer necessary there?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

by Archetype 2006-02-28 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Four notes

If there's a pattern, spell out the pattern so others can see it.  Don't just make a conclusory allegation.

by Adam B 2006-02-27 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

You made the case. I gave to Cegelis.

by janinsanfran 2006-02-24 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

Thanks!

If you or anyone reading this is in district, please come out to a Canvassing with Christine event tomorrow and help spread the word.

by michael in chicago 2006-02-24 01:11PM | 0 recs
FDR paging Duckworth:

"Those who would trade a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, deserve neither liberty nor security!"

Tammy Duckworth, without a doubt, is a courageous woman with a compelling story. I'm proud to know that people like her defend this country. But does her courage extend to the political front? The neither here nor there language that she's using tells me that she's in it to win. It is also making me wonder if she has the political courage to sink with her convictions. If she's not short on political courage, then her statements betray a lack  insight and thought. Either way things aren't looking good for her.

by crazymoloch 2006-02-24 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

The whole idea of a social contract is that you do give up some liberty for security, so please stop throwing that stupid ben franklin quote around.

No one's position on this issue is illiberal.  Cegelis may have the most litmus testable, but it's also the one that seems the least thoughtful.

by ItsDrewMiller 2006-02-24 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

yes she is, and if you actually listened to her speak you would see that she is quite progressive. This diarist is just trying to fire up the Cegelisites more and divide us.

by Ament Stone of California 2006-02-24 01:18PM | 0 recs
Trying to divide us?

I believe I just posted from notes for a meetings giving the three candidate's responses to an issue question. If you have problems with your candidate's lack of progressive values undermining your arguement that she's a progressive, that's your problem.

If Duckworth is quite progressive it is IMO out of necessity to get elected, not out of true feelings. The more I see her shift her positions the more I don't trust her.

by michael in chicago 2006-02-24 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

And BTW, I've listenen several times to all three candidates speak. Lindy and Christine have been clear and consistent. Duckworth has changed positions several times on key progressive issues.

by michael in chicago 2006-02-24 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act
I am still firm in my support of Lindy Scott. The problem with Cegalis' position is this: If the Democrats don't agree to a watered down Patriot Act, the Republicans will just push through the original one, if not one that explicitly grants them more power. To me, it shows a man who understands Washington. Without compromise we go nowhere, and like it or not, the Republicans can win much more easily on this not only because they have the majority, but because they almost always consistently beat us on national security issues.
Also, we must look at the Demographics of this district:
Suburban
Traditionally Republican
Booming Latino population.
Clearly they are a more values-oriented group. The fact of the matter is that Cegalis, who comes off as a pushy, confrontational, ultra-left loon, has no chance here. You are uniting around her merely because Rahm picked someone to run in that district. There is a reason for that.
by Geoff Espo 2006-02-24 10:53PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Voting for the Patriot Act Compromise B

CEGELIS is a wonderfully strong, independent, outspoken woman who's not afraid to have a position & stick to it.  From what I've seen after listening to ALL 3 candidates, she's the only one with a position grounded in reality instead of Scott's idealism or Duckworth's say-what-the-audience-wants-to-hear.

It's the let's-make-a-deal zero-sum game.  It's obvious that Scott would never survive The Hill.  Congress isn't about idealism.  Obama's ad is proof that Duckworth's campaign is tanking even more than most pundits expect.  

Of all 3 candidates, CEGELIS is the only true progressive, the one that would fight for Democratic principles, stand up for us, & the one that IL-06 constituents should vote for.  In a CD that's increasing it's Democratic base, CEGELIS will win the Primary.

by Philosophe Forum 2006-02-25 09:51AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads