Friday, August 12, 2005

 

Happy post #3

What does it say about me that it is now taking entire chunks of days for me to come up with ideas for happy posts? Oh, great blog-god in the sky, please start sending more honey-coated goodness like this and less frightening, nauseating, shocking, please-let-it-be-over travesties like this (which leads to this, which features such lovelies as "how should I witness to a Jew" and "The biblical way to witness to a homosexual is not to argue with him about his lifestyle but to use the Law to bring the knowledge of sin. This will show him that he is guilty of breaking God’s holy Law, and he is damned not because of, but despite his sexual preference. The Law was made for homosexuals, as well as other lawbreakers," cause yeah, that's gonna work, and "Learn how to do what Jesus did and circumnavigate the intellect") or this ("three-point turn" my ass ... a man is dead!) (when you're done with the second "this" go look at this. And weep.)

But then I remembered the other thing I did today, which was compile the election numbers of Hyde's opponents since he started running for re-election in 1976. I got to see for myself what a remarkable job Christine Cegelis did last year, and it gave me that much more happiness and good feelings, and it will do the same for you. Rather than post all the numbers, I'll just say that only once had a Democrat running against incumbent Hyde posted more than 40%, and that was the first election following the impeachment debacle and associated revelation's of Hyde's "youthful indescretions" committed when he was well older than me and I'm an old man. Cegelis trounced all previous opponents. And she hit the ground running this time around.

Now, Lynn Sweet's article in Thursday's Sun-Times provides a note of caution in her rundown of what CC has been able to put together in recent months. While Michael in Chicago (cross-posting on the promising local (remember: all politics is local and that should include blog-itics) combined blog SoapBlox) did a good job of pointing out the major problems with Sweet's statement that "Emanuel uses one major yardstick to measure political viability, and that is fund-raising," this in particular had me perk up my ears:
Cegelis' second quarter haul was below the national average raised by Democrats and Republicans competing for open seats, according to research by the DCCC.


Okay, first, my response to people who think the DCCC is onto something with their sole criteria crap -- I'll be more interested in listening when you START POSTING GAINS IN THE HOUSE!!!

Second, with regard to her "haul" -- we already KNOW Cegelis is a viable candidate. She's got the name recognition, the committed volunteer factor, the solid team around her, and the track record of success. If she needs a little help raising money, you would be a fool not to send some of it her way. She is not a self-funder. She doesn't have lots of industry PACs begging to max out on her. She's got a lot of other intangibles, and she did an amazing thing 9 months ago. And like it or not, IL-06 will be a bellweather campaign in the region and probably even nationally. If you can replace Henry Hyde with a Democrat, you do it. Roskam is not invincible.

But most important, what the hecky darn is this about "below the national average raised by Democrats and Republicans competing for open seats"???!!!??? According to this right-wing site there are only FOUR open seats in the country. Roskam's $350K+ (from a small number of donors) obviously raises the "national average". So how far below the average is Cegelis, exactly? And how far below other dems is she? If I didn't know better, I'd think there was a little double-speak and possible subversion going on here.

If so, that makes me very angry. But not angry enough to mess up my happy mood.

Okay, enough Cegelis (go donate!) for right now. It's late. But have no fear: she'll be back.

Update: Right. No more posting after midnight. I was in a rush & misread the Freeper site, and in fact there seem to be more like eleven open House seats for 2006. Still, I'm suspicious of their calculus....

Update AGAIN: And there's this site, which shows 18 open seats. So from now on, I'll keep my fingers shut. BUT I'M STILL SUSPICIOUS!

Comments:
All this suspicion. Let's be happy and take things at face value! There is no right-wing conspiracy...

Anyway, where's the seamen...um...semen?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?