Hopefully it wasn't a big buy, because that's one of the stupider commercials I've ever seen. Downright embarrassing. And I donated to the Lamont campaign. If he doesn't have better judgment than that, perhaps I need to rethink things.
I do think Daley would stay out of it. After all, Daley appointed Tunney to the city council. And will Daley even be around in 2008? I have doubts. And, from what I hear, the Clintonistas will have bigger matters on their hands that year.
Tunney's first election victory was pretty impressive. He got 60% of the vote in a five way primary. He has the loyalty of the 44th Ward organization, the gay community and the business community. That's a pretty potent combination.
Rahm's mean-spirited tactics and insider ways have a limited shelf-life. If they don't produce results in November, there's really no reason for the people of Chicago's 5th District to keep him around. He's not seen as a local boy anyway.
If he continues to bad mouth populist politics, I'll work with other Chitown Deaniacs to lobby Tunney to run against Rahm.
Tunney would kick his ass.
I don't see anything wrong with anything Dean said, but I'm a big fan and can mentally spin the good doctor's words until they fit comfortably with my perceptions.
First, on the abortion issue, do we not want abortions to be rare?! Of course we do. We want contraception and family planning and some of us are even OK with abstinence education. Abstinence IS the only failproof way to remain free of STDs and fetuses. Abstinence-only education is dumb and dangerous, but including discussion of abstinence makes sense.
And he didn't lie when he said that the Democratic platform does not condone gay marriage. I have a feeling that might change in 2008, but it currently does not. As governor of Vermont, he advanced civil unions as a remedy for unfair treatment of gay couples. In my gay opinion, civil unions can be a perfectably acceptable alternative. I support gay marriage, but civil unions can provide all the legal protections that are needed. I know there's the impression that CUs are second-class treatment, but if the same protections are provided, who cares what they call it?
A rollback of the Bush tax cuts for the rich
Access to emergency contraception
Alternative energy funding and increased mass transit funding
Repeal of the crappy bankruptcy bill
A paper trail for all ballots
A reasonable strategy for withdrawal from Iraq
After my posting of those Gingrich quotes, I learned more about Newt's new position on Iraq and I don't think anything in the quotes contradicts it.
He hasn't said overthrowing Hussein was the wrong decision, but that the occupation was. But this is full of logical problems.
He apparently thinks we had accomplished the task of overthrowing the Iraqi government by June 2003 and should have gotten out then. Well, that's no way to create a democracy, and he's betraying what was, supposedly, his primary concern.
Saddam wasn't captured until 6 months later.
So his current position is as illogical as his old one was wrong. And new Newt is, unfortunately, same old Newt. It's all about politics:
8/5/2005: "There is more energy today on the anti-Iraq, anti-gas price, anti-changing Social Security, and I think anti-Washington (side of the debate). I think the combination of those four are all redounding to weaken Republicans and help Democrats... I don't think this is time to panic, but I think it's time to think." http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?p
Newt has few principles and an uncanny knack for sensing the political winds. If he thinks continued occupation is a mistake, no Democrat anywhere should hesitate to say the exact same thing.
New York Times (10/12/01):
On September 19-20 the Defense Policy Board met for 19 hours to discuss the ramifications of the attacks of September 11. The group agreed on the need to turn on Iraq as soon as the initial phase of the war against Afghanistan was over. The group included deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and former high-ranking officials such as William Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Newt Gingrich, and Richard Perle. Gingrich declared that the U. S. needed a major geopolitical victory in response to the attacks. "Bombing a few caves in Afghanistan" wasn't going to do it, he said, but overthrowing Iraq's government would.
"If we don't use this as the moment to replace Saddam after we replace the Taliban, we are setting the stage for disaster," Gingrich said in an interview.
Washington Post (3/9/03):
"I think history will record that a remarkably strong president happened to be in office at a juncture where weapons of mass destruction and terrorism rewrote all the rules of engagement in international relations," Gingrich said. "It will record that the president moved beyond old institutions and developed a new set of alliances."
NPR, Tavis Smiley interview (September 2004):
"If you think Saddam Hussein having killed 300,000 Iraqis is in fact a dangerous guy and it's better to have him in jail, then whether we do it brilliantly or just do it, George W. Bush essentially was right."
In a speech to the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, Gingrich slammed the State Department for "ineffective and incoherent" diplomacy in the lead up to the war and turning the world, including allies in Europe, Turkey and South Korea, against US efforts to topple Saddam Hussein.
The number of voters in Cuellar's areas seemed much higher than in Ciro's. Was that crossover or just poor GOTV work on our side?
I think there should be more analysis of what went right and what went wrong after a campaign in which the blogosphere gets financially and emotionally involved. Otherwise it can seem that we're just trying one "Hail Mary pass" after another.
Were Republicans able to take Democratic primary ballots in that race? I've heard speculation that there were crossovers voting for Cuellar.
If that's the case, a 2008 challenge makes sense. They probably won't vote in a Democratic Congressional primary if there's a contested GOP presidential primary.
I'm not sure I want Emanuel defeated. He's pissed me off (Duckworth, for instance), but I think we need to wait until November to see if he's the master strategist some think he is. Perhaps the same thing goes for Schumer.
However, there is a candidate who could beat Emanuel in the primary. His name is Tom Tunney and he's an openly gay Chicago alderman and business owner.
He is immensely popular and well known far beyond his ward.