First, I'll point to some fun stuff at the Peoria Pundit. Then, I'll post one of my Daily Kos diaries.
The Peoria Pundit
is a fun, information packed blog about the going's on in the Peoria area. The author is a former reporter and a libertarian; needless to say I often don't agree with his political views. But sometimes I do. For example, both of us back Bill Spears in the IL-92'nd house race.
His blog is a good place to keep track of some of the local races, especially the 92'nd House race. He also puts out some of Rich Whitney's stuff
(he is the Green Party candidate for governor
And he often posts some "fun" stuff.
Here are a couple of examples:
One is the Libertarian candidate for the Alabama governor's race. Her name is Loretta Nall and platform is the legalization of marijuana
. One of the things that she is known for his her unusual fundraising tatitcs; if you giver her campaign money, you can see the dollar bills being stuffed into her bra. Go to the link and view the comments to see what I am talking about.
Next, go to Bill's site to see the following:
A funny attack ad (Tennessee United States Senate Race
I am embarrased to say this, but I plain missed the point. Note that the candidate (Ford) is black and all of the women are white. That isn't by accident; that is by design. But because I am not a white southerner, I missed that completely. I am sure that those in Tennessee did not.
By the way, this ad could well be illegal to begin with
And what the GOP is doing is not only slimey, it's illegal. As Bob Corker admitted on CNN, it's illegal for his campaign to coordinate with the RNC. Yet the RNC spokesperson who has publicly refused to pull the ad, Camille Anderson, travels with Corker around the state every day. It's obvious that there is coordination going on.
Why haven't you heard about this story before? Why hasn't there been a segment on Olbermann? Or Hardball? Why haven't the Republicans been asked whether they denounce this ad on Meet the Press? Why isn't Bob Corker being asked about his coordination with Camille Anderson?
Because the Republicans are slipping this under the radar. The MSM hates to report on racism in campaigns, and they're giving the GOP (and Corker) a free pass.
We can't let them do that. It's time to get our asses in gear. Control of the Senate is at stake. And something greater is at stake too ... the ability of African-Americans to be elected to the highest offices in our land. With tactics like this, it's no wonder only 1 out of 100 U.S. Senators is African-American.
Let's get the word out. No excuses. At the very least, if you do nothing else, send an email to Olbermann and start blogging this story. It deserves attention, has legs, and is too important to ignore.
The latest from RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, on this ad: "I don't have the authority to take it down or put it up. It's called an independent expenditure." (from Hotline On Call)
He is the fucking CHAIR of the RNC and he doesn't have authority to pull an RNC ad? We need to hold his feet to the fire.
And if that wasn't enough, here's more from Mehlman:
"I think it's a fair ad. ... I just think those criticisms of it are wrong" (RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, "Decision 2006," MSNBC, 10/24).
I think a lot of people can see this ad is wrong. We need to make sure they see it.
Think Progress has video of former Republican senator and Defense Secretary William Cohen on CNN calling the ad racist. This is just the beginning ... this story has legs. If Cohen can see that this ad is racist, why can't Ken Mehlman? And Bob Corker has never answered the question -- are the ads being run by his party on his behalf racist?
In a great article in today's L.A. Times, the RNC claims that the ad was produced by an "independent arm" of the party and that Mehlman and the rest of the RNC hasn't seen or approved of the ad! What a crock of shit. We can't let them get away with that.
In the article, RNC spokesman Danny Diaz says that he "won't even entertain the premise" that the ad is racist. That notion is "not fair and not serious and not accurate." But even though the ad supposedly isn't racist and states that it was approved by the RNC, Danny claims that it's not really an RNC ad: "Diaz said the ad was an 'independent expenditure' produced by an arm of the Republican National Committee that is legally prohibited from coordinating with Mehlman. Because of this, Diaz said, Mehlman did not see or approve the ad before its release." In other words, not only is Bob Corker not responsible for this ad, but neither is the RNC or Ken Mehlman. Then who IS responsible? We need to force the GOP to answer that question.
By the way, the Peoria Pundit has spoken against the sexual parts of that ads.
A funny third party ad (Green Libertarian Nazi Hemp Party
Now, for one of my diaries (Daily Kos) which is, in part, inspired by what I read in the Peoria Pundit.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/24/91159/133
IL-18: Waterworth works hard; LaHood shames his district
Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 06:11:59 AM PDT
This week, the local paper (Peoria Journal Star) ran a feature on Steve Waterworth http://www.waterworthforcongress.com/ and talke about the uphill fight he has for the congressional seat in the Illinois 18'th district.
On the other hand, Ray LaHood continues to make an ass of himself on a national level, this time punishing a innocent Democratic staffer to gain political retaliation against his boss.
Hat tip to the Peoria Pundit, a local blogger (and libertarian) who brought attention to this story.
more below the fold...
First, the feature on Steve Waterworth:
BY ELIOT BROWN
oF THE JOURNAL STAR
PEORIA - Steve Waterworth's campaign is no political machine - that much is certain.
The Havana resident's house and campaign headquarters are one and the same; he writes his own brochures, simple fliers complete with minor typos; and his campaign committee, Friends for Steve Waterworth, has but one staffer: Steve Waterworth.
And this is the campaign organization of a man running for U.S. Congress.
With less than $5,000 in the bank, Waterworth is running on the Democratic ticket against six-term incumbent Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Peoria, in an area that hasn't seen a Democratic congressman preside since 1917.
The 59-year-old Air Force veteran is in for a tough struggle, to say the least. LaHood has more name recognition, more money (he's raised more than $1 million), a staff, a list of federal projects he's helped bring to the area and experience running against Waterworth (LaHood defeated him with about 70 percent of the vote in 2004).
I should point out that Waterworth managed 36 percent of the vote in the City of Peoria (Kerry got 52%)), but LaHood's district includes large swaths of rural area that is pro-Republican and includes parts of Springfield. Bush got in the high 50's (can't remember if it was 57 or 59%) of the vote in LaHood's district.
Waterworth, an energetic, retired master sergeant with the Illinois Air National Guard, is hardly tapped into the Democratic cash stores of the 18th Congressional District. He gets donations from occasional mailings and county Democratic parties, but lacks both the startup money to hold expensive fundraisers and the desire to go around with his hand out.
"The money goes to the people where there's an open seat," Waterworth said. "The rest of us are left with not very much."
And while Waterworth can speak out against the war in Iraq and for stem cell research in a similar manner, the national party committees are generally reserving their tens of millions of dollars for competitive races, which make up about 40 to 60 of the 435 House seats.
Waterworth said he was bothered by the two times LaHood has gone unopposed since he first won in 1994, adding to the reasons he is running.
As for Waterworth, win or lose, he says he'll be back in 2008.
Now for LaHood: I noted in an earlier diary that he was involved in a political retaliation scheme.
Now he is catching national heat for it:
REP. JANE HARMAN (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, took a step last week that she knew would be thermonuclear: Without the assent of the panel's chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and in contravention of a previous understanding, she released an unclassified summary of a report about former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.). Later that day, in barely disguised retaliation, Mr. Hoekstra suspended a Democratic committee staff member's access to classified documents, ostensibly based on the flimsiest of suspicions that the aide had been involved in the leak of a separate, classified document.
Ms. Harman's unilateral strike violated the bipartisan basis on which the intelligence committees are meant, at least in theory, to operate. But that cannot justify Mr. Hoekstra's malicious and misdirected response, which tarnished a staff member's reputation and was not supported by any evidence. The issue involves the leak of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism. [...]
Mr. Hoekstra's real motive -- striking back at Ms. Harman -- was made clear later in the letter, when he linked the two releases of information. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), the committee vice chairman who had lodged a complaint about Mr. Hanauer weeks before, said he made his letter public to retaliate against Ms. Harman. "If the ranking member wants to play politics," he told Fox News, "there are some of us on the other side that can play politics, and I'm not afraid to do it."
So you see how arrogant a virtually unopposed incumbent can be. We have to take him down a couple of notches.