Healthcare, Iraq - Cegalis, Duckworth and the soul of the Party

this post is about ISSUES ... it seeks to provide some information about the stated positions (from their websites) held by Cegalis and Duckworth on two key issues: healthcare and Iraq. I singled out these two specific issues first, because they are critically important and second, because these are the two issues Kerry specifically mentioned in his endorsement email.

in reflecting on these two issues, I ask the question: what, if anything, does the Party's support for Duckworth say about the Party's views and values on the issues? some might argue it has nothing to do with views and values and they just believe Duckworth has a better chance of winning. if that's so, and i consider such selection criteria abhorrent, choosing winning over views and values is most certainly a value judgment in and of itself ...

so, with the above in mind, what are the stated views of Cegalis and Duckworth on these two critical issues and what does it say about the Democratic Party?

Healthcare.

Here are a few excerpts from the Cegalis and Duckworth websites. I chose excerpts i thought were the most indicative. If you want to post others, fine ...

Cegalis:

I believe that health care is a human right and that every American should have access to affordable quality healthcare. As a Member of Congress I intend to fight to secure that right for all Americans through a universal single-payer, national healthcare plan.

Duckworth:

Congress must step up and work together to provide access to affordable health care to those who need it.

Providing health coverage for all children is a good place to start. <skip> I support Governor Blagojevich's initiative to provide health coverage to every child in Illinois, financed largely through administrative changes in the state's Medicaid program. As a Member of Congress, I will work for a similar initiative at the federal level.

I will also work hard to ensure that the medical care we have promised to those who defend our nation is delivered.

Iraq.

Cegalis:

It is time for us to bring our troops home. The Bush Administration must provide a comprehensive timetable for withdrawal of the majority of our combat troops at the earliest possible date. <skip>

Extending the conflict in Iraq only gives terrorists more opportunities to foment hatred against America. Instead of lessening the threat of terrorism around the world, our war has accelerated it. We owe it to ourselves and the world to reverse this trend, and to use our foreign policy muscle to truly lessen the global reach of terror. A stable and sovereign Iraq can only occur when the U.S. becomes an ally, not an occupying force ...

Duckworth:

The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists.

To bring our troops home, we need a much more aggressive plan and timetable than the Bush Administration has offered (Note: has bush offered one??) for training the Iraqi police and armed forces, and transferring to the Iraqis the responsibility for securing their own country.

:shrug:

LOL - Duckworth sounds like a Republican!

there have been lots of DU threads about this race ...

for more info:

Cegalis: http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/
Duckworth: http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/cms/

conservatives and "moderates" from the Republicans, because they are in the process of essentially kicking progressives and leftists out. Maybe it is time for leftists and progressives to accept the fact that the Democratic Party no longer cares for their participation and find some other party to support and vote for. No point in hanging around where you're not wanted. I, for one, am already gone - so don't tell me "bu-bye" or "don't let the door hit you" (The door did hit me, because I hesitated too long in leaving)...

That I am not welcome in what they see as their version of the Democratic Party. Something about the "Loonie Left"... Honestly, I have only viewed the Democratic Party as vehicle of convenience to be used to get the GOP out of control.

The Democratic Party as they presently exist, in their corporate iteration, are only a marginal improvement over the GOP, as evidenced by what you have been seeing.

is a bunch of threads from our "lefty left" announcing grandly that they are leaving the Democratic party forever because their lofty ideals (snicker, snort) have been compromised.....

Of course, none of them ever go anywhere and they continue to clog the forums, bashing Democrats and calling for the purge of everyone they hate (which is just about any Democrat anyone's ever heard of).

you are one of the biggest whiners on DU ...

i offer you an objective post about the views on two important issues raised by the candidates in this race and you do your usual thread trashing by whining about the left ...

nothing was said in the OP about left, right, center or anything else ... you had a chance to discuss your views on the issues and instead chose to make yet another useless, whining post about the left ...

try discussing the issues sometime ... it won't hurt you ... really, i promise ...

(reality)

no difference between the two parties.

just for people to get their asses handed to them in the primaries.

maybe you should stop only reading your own anti gun owner screed. (reality)

Your posts aren't worth reading (reality)

(snicker)

Your own posts aren't worth reading....

Thank you for providing the side-by-side comparison.

We can't have a candidate who actually wants to change anything, just a candidate who sounds as if she might want to change things if circumstances are right and if the Republicans don't mind too badly.

.. yeah, that's about it. It's either corporate money or Stockhausen's syndrome, but whatever it is I'm getting tired of it.

....a part of the process that is often ignored by many here on DU

thanks for not addressing them ...

what is the point of saying you have to get elected before you can change anything??? does that include changing minds? i like to think that the best way to get elected is to offer the best solutions to the country's problems ... but instead of discussing different views on what those problems are and how to solve them, you offer your pseudo-pragmatic gibberish ... your post says absolutely NOTHING ... got that? you didn't even make a case for which views are more electable ... you couldn't even do that ... you just wanted to drop your little diaper load of hostility for other DU'ers ... that's all i expect from YOUR wing of the Party anyway ...

it sounds like your argument is that we should do or say whatever it takes to win ... your failure to address either of the important issues raised by Senator Kerry in his endorsement of Duckworth is exactly what's wrong with YOUR wing of the party ... frankly, it's disgraceful ...

excuse me for trying to raise the legitimate issues being discussed by the candidates in this race ...

the rest of your post is nothing more than a personal attack

of your usual "I'm holier than thou" variety

that's what your sig says ....

bwaaaaaaa-haa-haa-haaaaaaaaaa ... :rofl:

conscience: winning is everything; nothing else matters ...

is that your definition?

you're going to accomplish your political goals

by losing

candidates that have ANY INCLINATION to "change things".

We keep backing and electing enablers.

Round and round it goes. Until someone,probably a republican "white knight"
rides in to "save" us. The dems will be asleep at the wheel, doing the bidding
of the banking and pharmaceutical industries as usual...

changing things?

While sending up a doomed universal healthcare bill that would never be passed, somehow would "change things"?

Got it.

It is an idea whose time has come.
The fact that you think that the idea of national health care is "doomed" speaks volumes
for the mindset from which you espouse. Not Hillary's complicated, insurance industry, pharma-industry backed plan. A simple, single payer plan. Doable AND a winning issue.

Polls show health care to be a winning issue, and many states are ALREADY covering
underage children.

House and Senate versions. Who sponsored them, how many cosponsors do they have? Where is the vast grassroots effort to get those bills passed?

Please tell me this info so I can lobby my current representatives. Not that anything will come from lobbying Santorum, Specter, and Weldon, but hey I may as well raise my voice.

are being pissed away by 'pukes and dems who vote along pharma and insurance industry lines.

We need to elect people who aren't afraid to shoot.
And take all that "dry powder" away from those who
are not willing to.

(Like, YESTERDAY)

If I have my facts straight, there's one from the House sponsored by Conyers and some others which mandates universal coverage, and another in the Senate sponsored by Kerry that just covers kids.

Neither of them seem to be going anywhere, and I don't know their bill numbers.

The media that has most people convinced she is the Dem candidate in '08? Many states are covering underage children? Not exactly. In Illinois the program has already exceeded funding. The necessary funding would be enhanced with a program at the national level. People respond to polls about health care, but do not always back it up at the polls that count.

our dem governor is running on his expansion of chips.

it certainly won't be passed if Democrats are so afraid of losing that they won't even place the idea into the national dialog ... if we only are willing to have a vision of what can be safely achieved, there will be little or no progress ...

bold ideas take time but they're often worth proposing ... just because you can't get 100% of what you want right at the start doesn't mean you should avoid laying out the case ...

so, with all sincerity, i disagree with your premise ... i believe that change happens by offering a bold vision for change and then fighting for it like hell ... implicit in your strategy is the idea that reaching for too much will result in no gain at all ... but reaching high often results in moving the center, i.e. the middle ground between the two parties, further in the direction you seek ...

the way it seems right now, the Dem moderates say "let's move an inch to the left and the neo-cons say let's move 10 feet to the right and the moderate middle ends of moving to the right to find the center of the two positions" ... my view is that by proposing a vision for universal health care, and really fighting for it, Americans will listen ... it may take time but it's very worth fighting for ...

if we don't fight for meaningful, significant change, we're not likely to see much change ...

I vehemently reject that position.

No one is taking that position.
You will have to practice your vehemence somewhere else!

Show me the post where someone said they were against healthcare for kids!

Let me AT THOSE BASTARDS!

what i find incredibly disturbing with those endorsing Duckworth is what it says about the Party's stance, or lack of one, on the war ...

it's clear the program is to let bush stew in his own juices and let bush's incompetence be the issue ... "it's his mess and we're not obligated to do anything to fix it" ... well, it is bush's mess ...

the problem this approach creates is that there's no urgency to rallying the American people to demand an end to the war ... it just sort of goes on and on and on and it's getting less and less coverage ... i've seen days go by on DU with barely a mention or two on Iraq ... out of sight, out of mind ...

and frankly, I don't think the "it's his mess" make the best politics either ... oh, bush is taking a beating for his many failures ... but two grades are given out on the voters' report cards; not just one ... yeah, bush will fail this course for sure ... the problem is, Democrats are coming out with solid C's ... we haven't done anything wrong; we just haven't done anything ... Democrats are not going to get good grades on Iraq; they basically aren't going to get grades at all ...

of course, some respond that we have no power ... well, quelle shock!! but we do have the power to share our ideas with the country ... do you believe Democrats like Kerry or Clark or Clinton or others have captured the nation's attention with their ideas on Iraq? the question isn't whether their ideas are good or bad but whether they've had any impact? my belief is that Murtha's proposal, before it was shot to hell by both parties, at least focussed the country's attention on the idea of withdrawal ...

and some will blame the media for blocking our message ... well, yeah, that's true ... but we still have to fight to be heard ... the latest nonsense (Boston Globe article) suggested the Dems may be coalescing around a plan to stay in Iraq another two years ... i don't know about you but i don't plan to coalesce around that idea ...

so i don't need labels about Boxer being a sellout ... it doesn't matter what i call her or what i think about her ... what does matter is that the Party seems to be taking a "it will end when it ends" view of Iraq ... frankly, it seems like it's become 99% politics ... and the dying just continues ... that's not selling out; it's just plain tragic ...

If your point is that the party is pushing moderate candidates rather than more progressive candidates, I agree with you. I have been very bothered by the notion that some people seem to think that you have to be both moderate and religious to win. I hope that we can win races with more progressive candidates (which is one of the reasons I was supporting Brown rather than Hackett).

On this specific race (Cegelis vs Duckworth), I dont know enough to judge. I like Cegelis, but I am nowhere near IL-06, so I dont really have a voice (I will focus on pushing my candidate for governor (Patrick) and hope he wins) . Who knows, if Duckworth is as unknown as those who know the district seem to think, may be Cegelis will win and give a lesson to those who forgot her. It would not be the first time).

BTW, it is Cegelis, not Cegalis. I have seen this error a few times today. I wonder why?

but it is pronounced cegalis.

Maybe he knows the District better than some.

and the difference between many Democrats...

You said....they just believe Duckworth has a better chance of winning. if that's so, and i consider such selection criteria abhorrent

NADER MADE THE SAME CASE IN 2000!

Since the district we are discussing has been the District of Extremist Republican Henry Hyde for the last 32 years (just so you know what type of GE voters you are dealing with)....Good luck continuing on with the losing but "principled" party.....! When thinking about election 2000, just remember your own words....cause you are currently living with the "principled" results nationally of 95,000 Nader votes in Florida; War in Iraq, deficity, cabal and all!

:hi:

If we were to win, who would we blame for the Fascist takeover of our Country? Because the majority of people in the 6th CD don't follow the Progressive Path, we must abandon them to the GOP. We don't need no stinking middle when we can be stuck in the mud.:sarcasm:

instead of your endless juvenile whinings, try discussing the issues raised by the candidates ...

but nooooooo ... you just want to insult people ...

i'm confident that had you had anything intelligent to say, you would have offered it by now ...

Read post 14 above. Read many other posts on this subject that I have written. I reach the level of sarcasm when I see people who feel their "principles" are what is important, even if it means this Country is surrendered to the Fascists. It's time the "purists" grew up.

. . .all politics are local and while a lot of purist want someone more "progressive" in the 6th (I'm not convinced Duckworth isn't progressive) they have to be conscious of the political demographic of the district.

please note that the OP did not endorse either candidate but you are writing things about purists and progressives ...

do you have any basis to argue that Duckworth's views will be more popular in the district? of course, that doesn't even begin to address which policies will actually be better for the district but at least that would be a starting point ...

talking about "purists" is just slinging insults and not addressing even the issues you yourself alluded to ...

what percentage of the people in the district would want to see a quick end to the war in Iraq? how many in the district believe that by staying longer we will make things better there? how many in the district believe that health care is a fundamental right?

if you want to make a case for Duckworth's views being more popular because "all politics is local", then make your case ... but just saying that DU has all these "purists" doesn't make any case for anything ... it might just be true that even "purists" want to win ...

They are both for expanded healthcare. Cegelis for an idea that is great but has failed to pass at almost any level. Duckworth supports a system that the Illinois Governor has managed to get passed. They are both for ending the Iraq War. Cegelis with an immediate withdrawal, another great idea that thus far has failed to gain enough political or popular support to pass. Duckworth supports a withdrawal that allows for Iraq's defense from outside forces, an idea that presently holds sway with the majority of the Dem leadership and the general population. As Frenchie pointed out above, this District has elected Hyde for the last 32 years. In the last election Cegelis garnered three percent less of the vote in this District than Kerry. Cegelis has been running for about two years, Duckworth for about three months. It's not surprising that Cegelis has a more defined candidacy with that time advantage. What is surprising is that in polling last summer she did not show well against a candidate who has since dropped out. These Party leaders from Illinois, Durbin, Emanuel, Obama, Schakowsky, and Evans have been elected in this state, both Senators statewide, and are familiar with the state. They are not DC outsiders. I work in this District and know people from this District, I feel I have a better perspective than some of the members of "national" organizations who respond to members' requests for support.

dropped out"
did not poll as well as, was it peter o'malley? yeah, that's real significant. a guy with a name like o'malley, sorta like patrick o'malley, the public guardian, patron saint of the powerless in illinois for how many years. irish surnames polling well, wow that is so significant. NOT.

For all her exposure, and great stand against Hyde, Cegelis isn't "all that". BTW, Roskam may be a RW flake, but he is no Alan Keyes, he is a local office holder with major GOP support in a GOP stronghold.

period.
roskam has a clear track record, stated position, and even a non-profit organization, dedicated to dismantling public education in illinois. and he has a bootle of delay/abramoff tainted money. if we can't beat him, we should go back to the drawing board.

oh, yeah, that's why they are rolling over the local dems that have been working to elect christine for 3 years.
and why they ignore the polling that says that at least 10% of the voters in the district will vote against duckworth because of the out of district issue. i'm not saying that should be the deciding issue, just that if we are falling back on "tammy can win", you have to explain how she intend to overcome a 10% disadvantage.

It is YOU who is currently living with the UNPRINCIPLED
leadership that drove and WILL DRIVE IN GREATER NUMBERS,
(if we are not careful) non-yellow-dogs
into the ranks of the Green and Libertarian parties.

The MIRACLE is that there weren't MORE Nader voters!

The smarter Nader voters that I knew told me that the party wouldn't change.
They feel that we have wasted an entire cycle in getting rid of the corporate
whores of BOTH parties.

After seeing the vitriol expressed for anyone who questions the
party line; and the front loaded primaries; and the circular firing
squad that is afforded anyone not beholden to the corporate interests,
I am beginning to see their point.

I ain't even shouting. :shrug:

But hey, I'm glad to see that, at least, you and I can differ on what's what without "vitriol".

:hi:

that she supports jack murtha, and his bill. (sorry, i do not remember the number.)
tammy was invited, but did not return calls.

nibbling around the edges of healthcare. come on.

if you think that dems have enabled *co, because they are cowed by their big money supporters, well, you know what to do.

Murtha.....cause if we are going to speak of Progressives....Jack Murtha is more conservative than most Democrats....except for on the War Issue, where he was all for it before he was against it.

. . .and I would hate to see that happen.

just wow.
the question was stand on iraq, and healthcare. cegelis' statement is she supports his bill, and his plan to get out.

Back away from the computer. . .LOL

i am really sick of your constant lol's. they are very disrespectful. and there is nothing funny about the ass whipping poor taammy has in store for her.

"who's your daddy?" Oh the double standard continues.

one is a legitimate question, one is a bullying tactic?

and it will be an uphill battle even for her

you find such "election criteria" abbhorent?

you would rather sit in your moral ivory tower and lose

than deal with the reality of our political landscape

you know what it says about the Democratic Party?

that they want to win

that they're willing to run conservative candidates in conservative districts

knowing that a majority in Congress will help the liberal candidates

from liberal districts.


------------------

first, again you've completely ignored health care and you've completely ignored Iraq ... and second, you've put all your emphasis on winning as you sit there in your "immoral Ivory tower" ...

what the hell kind of insulting bullshit is that your peddling?? you sit there in your immoral ivory tower and criticize other people for having a set of beliefs? that's your little act? let's hear you explain this ivory tower crap ... just which beliefs are other citizens not entitled to?

you think spending a couple of more years in Iraq "fixing stuff" is a good idea? you call it ivory tower for believing the deaths prolonged occupation will cause is basically criminal? that's ivory tower to you? perhaps since you didn't even mention Iraq it's of basically no concern to you at all ... you just sit there in your immoral ivory tower, all knowing of course, and you're oh-so-confident that calling for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will cause the Democrats to lose ... it's nice that you know these things ...

again, you have totally failed to address the issues raised and you have failed to show why one set of beliefs is "ivory tower" and the other is "pragmatic" ... it must be nice to be so vacuous at your core ... i suppose the best salesmen can sell any product whether they believe in it or not ...

conservative Republicans in the House, why wouldn't I assume that the more conservative Democratic candidate would have a better chance? That's just common sense. That, and the fact that a whole lot of other Democrats, Democrats who have won elections in Ohio and may know something about what it takes to win there, seem to think that Duckworth has a better chance than Cegalis.


Speaking of insulting .... read through this thread. You have a habit of belittling people who disagree with you... and it's on full display today. And your usual tactic is the holier than thou approach. Exemplified by the "I'm willing to lose as long as I can be morally superior" that's also on full display in this thread.



Calling me "vacuous at my core" is a tremendously insulting thing to say to someone, don't you think?

i'm tired of all the purist labels and i'm tired about people, including you, who refuse to discuss the issues raised in the OP ...

two topics that are very important to the people in the Cegalis-Duckworth race were raised - you've yet to comment on either one of them ...

all you care to discuss is winning - here's what i said about winning in the OP ... i repeat this because it has been consistently misintepreted in this thread ... i used the phrase "some might argue it has nothing to do with views and values and they just believe Duckworth has a better chance of winning" ... i did not say there should be no compromise on the issues ... it's not about purism ... it's not saying winning isn't important ... it's saying that IF the only reason you're supporting a candidate is winning and the issues are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, then i find that abhorrent ... i was commenting on the most extreme position of not caring about a candidate's position on any issue at all ...

the OP was an extremely neutral post and you, and the "usual suspects", pile in here and have 100% refused to discuss the issues ... it's like the issues just aren't worth discussing ... what are looking for on DU? you want us all to come in here and put on little cheerleader outfits?

two issues remain on the table in this thread: health care and Iraq ... you haven't even gotten to the point of endorsing Duckworth's views ... do the candidates' views on these issues make any difference to you at all? they did to Kerry according to his endorsement letter ... he said he liked Duckworth's views on health care and on Iraq ... but not you ... at least you haven't addressed the issues ...

it's remarkable to me that the other Cegalis-Duckworth threads, which i did NOT participate in btw, had tons and tons of responses ... a brief read of the thread, which was about all i could stand, showed all the usual screaming back and forth with nothing of substance ... in this thread, i tried to post clear excerpt on two key issues and the anti-purity squad piled on with their little attacks ... well, fine ... and still, no one wants to discuss the candidates' views ... yeah, i see that as vacuous ...

Democratic position on any given issue, and it just doesn't work that way. All politics really IS local.

"two topics that are very important to the people in the Cegalis-Duckworth race were raised "

The pragmatic voter, the voter who is interested in winning, doesn't look at at what's important vis a vis the issues between
Cegelis and Duckworth, they look at what's important to the voters in the district overall. And in a conservative leaning district like the one we're talking about on this thread - there is no reason to think the issues you raise, with the intent of showing that Cegelis is the more progressive candidate and therefore should get the nomination, will lead to a Democratic victory in the general election. In fact, there's plenty of reasons to suspect the opposite.

Issues are not irrelevant to me - my representative, Diana DeGette (CO 1st district), is quite possibly to the left of Ms. Cegalis -and I approve of her positions. However, I don't believe she could get elected in Henry Hyde's district. And that's the whole point... having a Democrat elected to replace Mr. Hyde helps out MY representative, especially if we can gain the majority in the House, and if a more conservative Democrat is what it takes to win that district, I'm all for it, even if it means voting against my values.

If that makes me some kind of morally inferior soul, so be it.

But, think of it this way - politics isn't about morality, it's about power. The gaining of it and the using of it. It's something the Republicans understand all too well. I'm not satisfied with being "right" on the issues and having no political power - after 6 years of Bush and his Republican buddies, it's a luxury I can no longer afford.

no, you're not a "morally inferior soul" ... i apologize for any of my over-the-top comments ...

implicit in your argument is the idea that if we propose ideas more than a few polling points away from the dead center, we're likely to lose ... it's a "bell curve" view of the world ... it says, if you go to the part of the lake where the most fish are, you'll probably catch the most fish ... it's a "you do your best business on main street" view of politics ...

but it's a simplistic view ... i'll use this obviously ridiculous analogy just to make the point ... two ice salemen are arguing about the better place to locate their ice business ... one argues that the outskirts of town would be better because there's more parking available ... the other argues that the most customers would be available right on Main St. in the dead center of downtown ... that's how i see the argument of those who peddle bell curves ... and, of course, in the analogy provided, they're absolutely right ...

but that doesn't allow for paradigm shifts ... it lacks vision; it lacks imagination; it lacks greatness ... it aspires to things that are much less than than should be; and could be ... in the analogy, someone else invents a refrigerator and the population finds the new idea appealing and moves to a brave new world (sorry about this, my refrigerator burned out yesterday) ...

i don't accept the idea that everything is a point on a political spectrum ... i think ideas are good or bad; i think they'll work and make our lives better or they won't ... i also think, focussing strictly on politics and winning, that voters are usually self-serving and will respond to sensible ideas that will make their lives better ... i think the view that you better not wander too far from home prevents us from aspiring to something better ...

here's one of my extremist, far left radical ideas: the American people should have a greater say in the decisions made by their government and the evils of big money have badly corrupted many of our political institutions ... is this a "lefty" idea or is it an essential element of what our country should aspire to be? i hear many of those who appear at least to me to think as you do making a case that we have to be careful not to come across as anti-business when we say things like that ... too many see such arguments as out of the mainstream and far left ... no wonder we can't attract republicans or even moderates ... instead of allowing such views to be labeled somewhere along the political spectrum, we should be talking about what's best for the country ... you see, in the end, we'll only achieve the progress we seek if we get out of the bell curve mindset ...

none of this is intended to argue that we can afford, as you put it, the luxury of considering the realities of where the voters currently are ... but i believe leadership demands a bold vision to move the country in the right direction ... and i believe those willing to take such risks and fight for their vision will be rewarded by a shift in voter attitudes ... in the end, i see two goals to politics: one is winning but the other is making real progress on the problems we face ... putting all your emphasis on only one of these objectives will result in failure over the long-run ... I'm afraid that's where we're at today ...

he is that crazy, but much dirtier. plus, the district is not interested in a carpetbagger. much less a mealy mouthed one.
fear not, wt, i am out there in the district, and these blowhard disrupters are nothing. this "electable" shit is a smokescreen pure and simple. there is nothing but blowback in store for tammy duckworth.

. . .official in the district so he has proven he can get votes. I agree with you that Roskam bad, but he has to be taken seriously. They are going to bring in the big guns to get this guy elected, this is a national showdown on both sides. It appears that Duckworth will do much better than Cegelis is getting the big time national support needed to win this district. But again I pledge to support and work for whoever wins the district, do you?

i am not in that district. i would vote for tammy if i were. i would work for her if i were. but since it is not my district i would find another progressive to work for. my goal is to reform my party, not follow like a sheep, like the old cloth coat republicans did.
but make no mistake- it is a high stakes race for "my side", the side of we the people. and that is what it will really take to turn this district- organization and face to face campaigning. only one candidate has the structure in place to do that. it ain't tammy.

Its good to know you are down for the cause. It seems like if you don't get your way you will take your ball and go home.

i have a cause, and it is not the elite of the democratic party. that does not mean i am not a good democrat. it means that i am working for the reform of MY party. and the return of the u.s. government to we the people. i will work to send a people's representative to the people's house. or to return a fearless citizen. maybe i'll go over to michigan, and work for john conyers. in other words, i am a citizen, not a slave. sorry to hear about you.

. . .concern you unless you get your way? You will work on helping out in a safe district than help pick up a seat. I see you are really interested in helping your party. As an African American I really take issue with your slave comment when you say "in other words, i am a citizen, not a slave. sorry to hear about you."

Are you trying to imply that since I support the candidate party insiders support and after March 21st I will support whoever the nominee is I'm a slave. You have some explaining to do about that comment.

seriously. but i do not take the comment back. i do not support any candidate that the power elite shoves down my throat. you are free to support whoever you like. the power elite are free to grab whatever the citizens do not nail down, i guess. i am free not to help them. one thing is for sure, i am not a win at any costs person. i pick my own battles.
unlike the ordinary republicans whose party has been hijacked, i put country first, party second.
and i would not pick a safe race. i just picked conyers out of the air. if i wanted a safe race, i would work for jan. i am looking for a fight. on that you can depend.

edited to add- as a feminist, slavery has no color to me. like you say, i calls 'em as i sees 'em. no apologies.

That is a simple yes or no question.

i have no such loyalty to winning and the corrupt in my party. it sure looks to me like you do.
i do not back down either, friend.

The Illinois primaries are on March 21st, so about 3 weeks to go.

http://www.barrywelsh.org/fiftystate/index.html

Here are the races that are open or have incumbent Repukes:

IL-06 Open (Henry Hyde retiring)
Dem challengers: Lindy Scott, Christine Cegelis, Tammy Duckworth

IL-07: Danny Davis (Dem)
Dem Challenger: Jim Ascot (Dunno whats going on here, is Davis a DINO who needs to be primaried?)

IL-10: Mark Kirk
Dem Challengers: Zane Smith, Daniel Seals

IL-11: Jerry Weller
Dem Challenger: John Pavich

IL-13: Judy Biggert
Dem Challenger: Bill Reedy

IL-14: J. Dennis Hastert
Dem Challengers: Ruben Zamora, John Laesch

IL-15: Tim Johnson
Dem Challenger: David Gill

IL-16: Donald Manzullo
Dem Challenger: Richard Auman

IL-18: Ray LaHood
Dem Challenger: Steven Waterworth

IL-19: John Shimkus
Dem Challengers: Vic Roberts, Dan Stover