Image 01 Image 03

Illinois primary open

Illinois primary open

Adam Kinzinger, a first term Congressman who was backed by Eric Cantor, defeated 10-term incumbent Don Mazullo.  Kinzinger had won election in 2010 with the support of Tea Party groups, but many conservative / Tea Party groups supported Mazullo in the new district which pitted two Republican incumbents.  Perhaps readers can explain this in the comments.

With 87% reporting, Romney 47%, Santorum 35, Paul 9, Gingrich 8.

Good interview of Newt on Hannity here.

Fox called the race for Romney at around 8:40.  The real question will be the delegate split and how close the vote is.


Polls close at 8 p.m. Eastern.  A Romney win seems to be expected.  I’ll update results at some point; more frequently if it is unexpectedly close.

In the meantime, Stanley Fish in The NY Times issues a call to arms to go after opponents  without regard to double standards or any sense of “fairness,” in his case justifying the war on Limbaugh but not the war on Maher:

I know the objections to what I have said here. It amounts to an apology for identity politics. It elevates tribal obligations over the universal obligations we owe to each other as citizens. It licenses differential and discriminatory treatment on the basis of contested points of view.  It substitutes for the rule “don’t do it to them if you don’t want it done to you” the rule “be sure to do it to them first and more effectively.” It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that.

Sounds like The NY Times is promoting incivility. Bookmark Fish’s column.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


[…] Illinois Republican Primary Showdown A lot of delegates are up for grabs today in the Illinois showdown between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. It’s Mittens versus Sweater day. […]

Well, at least he’s refreshingly honest about it. He’s way better than the people who do it and deny it (even to themselves). The first step in getting help to stop doing something is admitting you do it.

Is there a ‘Liberals Anonymous’?

LukeHandCool | March 20, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Off topic:

Professor, I can’t listen tonight, so I hope you have a link tomorrow so we can listen to you on the African-American Conservatives radio show.

Off topic again:

Doesn’t Biden saying the mission to get bin Laden was the most audacious in 500 years prove bin Laden was right about Biden becoming president?

BurkeanBadger | March 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm

I have to respect Stanley Fish’s honesty and bluntness. That’s the way he is, both in his columns and in person. I saw him only once, when he gave a lecture on Milton at the University of Chicago. He was refreshingly forthright in his presentation. So ironic, yet welcome, for one of the exemplars of a post-modern leftist intellectual.

Fish states outright what much of the left whispers behind closed doors when they know that they are only amongst themselves (or think so…cf. Journolist). They’re engaged in “total war” against conservatives of any stripe, against all forms of capitalism, against the traditional family, traditional religion, against ‘bourgeois’ society in general. Outright hypocrisy is a must: Attack your opponents using any means necessary, draw them out, then accuse them of ‘incivility’. Manipulate language to apply a blatant double standard: only conservatives are hateful, angry, racist, etc. Only capitalism is oppressive; leftist ideologies are ALWAYS, prima facie about tolerance and social justice. Alinskyite tactics are not just acceptable, they are required.

Yet outside of their tight little cocoon, lefties will never admit to any of this; indeed, they generally become indignant and outraged at the very suggestion. Except for Fish. Conservatives are strongly advised to read his columns and read them closely. They are a frank and detailed description of of the left’s actual tactics and actual aims

theduchessofkitty | March 20, 2012 at 8:40 pm

“Sounds like The NY Times is promoting incivility.”

Why pretend anymore? That is exactly what they want: total war.

Rush gets it. Breitbart got it. Why aren’t we?

    Yep. The Left is looking for an excuse to suspend Presidential and Congressional elections. It’s why certain members of their party — who have so-called “deniability” — have floated trial balloons of “temporarily” suspending an election or two, to “solve the nation’s problems.”

    Let’s make sure they fire the first shot, so we have the high ground.

    “Rush gets it. Breitbart got it. Why aren’t we?”

    I think because it’s traumatizing to many Republicans to accept such radical realities; acceptance implies a matching response. It’s much easier to deny. Witness the entire GOP establishment, who’s been treating Obama from the beginning as a vaguely exotic variety of ordinary liberal democrat.

    It means confronting one’s identity and the entire political assumptions of a lifetime. Further, how many people within any “establishment” are cut out to be warriors? It’s a contradiction. In this, the Left has a huge advantage — for them there is no contradiction. They’re conditioned from birth to accept the premise of conflict, the necessity and even romance of total war. Their historic visual logo is a clenched fist.

    Breitbart was a beautiful freak, not really a conservative by either nature or training as much as a fiercely classic liberal.

    I have a theory about Romney — who in my view is the most absurdly inappropriate choice to face a Leftist movement in its vicious fullness as one could possibly put forward. That is, Romney is an embodied reflection of the psychotic trauma and denial of the GOP. They simply cannot accept the radical reality of Obama, and more important what it requires of them. Essentially, such an acceptance requires that they become something they are not, go through an existential makeover.

    So Romney, a very conventional northeastern RINO with all the approved, familiar and comfortable credentials and mannerisms, allows them to inhabit the fantasy that Obama is just a pat, incompetent liberal failure, and that this election is nothing special or challenging and doesn’t require any existential reckoning.

    Indeed, the Republican GOP, if it had had any understanding of Leftism and the nature of Obama, would have gone on a retreat long ago to consider the profound and lethal implications of the challenge it faced.

    This is not to boost Gingrich or Santorum, just to point out how woefully lost and outmatched we are at these levels.

      Nathan in reply to raven. | March 20, 2012 at 10:59 pm

      Yep, Obama’s such a radical that he managed to pass a health care plan that was originally dreamed up by….Republicans.

      How incredibly radical.

        Something needs to be said to these comments. I’m not going to defend Obamacare. I understand why certain Republicans supported some lesser version of it in the past; they did so because they wanted to limit the impact of health care reform on the nation’s economy and budget, and cut Democrats off at the pass my denying them a Single Payer health care entitlement. It’s why Democrats hate the medicare reform that Bush did; they wanted their shot to expand it to everybody.

          Nathan in reply to McCoy2k. | March 21, 2012 at 1:35 am

          Yeah, why set up a simple system that works for everybody when we can have instead a Rube Goldberg mess of for-profit companies endlessly trying to get people out, while sick people desperately try to stay in?

          The plan (with mandate) formerly known as Romneycare, now attacked by Republicans because it’s ‘Obama’ instead of Romney in the name, was not only ‘supported by some’ Republicans….the plan was dreamt up at the Heritage Foundation, and Romney was praising the individual mandate on a national level as recently as 2009.

          If you want to get people to believe you when you talk about this fictional “Radical Obama,” you are going to have to find another topic than ‘Radical Obama passed a Republican-created health care plan!!!’

          Perhaps you can get a little more mileage out of the birth certificate thing, who knows?

          @Nathan. Well, let’s see adding another health care entitlement, a Single Payer model, would triple the national debt that is already projected. And that’s using accounting tricks that were used to convince enough house blue-dog Democrats to vote for it. There isn’t enough wealth in the entire Western world that could sustain a program like that.

          That’s the thing that’s maddening about you so called Progressives. We can’t afford these entitlements anymore, and you know it, and yet you insist upon them.

          It’s real easy, if you don’t have the money, you don’t spend it. And don’t tell me the Republicans started it, and when. The Democrats as a party is generation older than the Republicans.

          Nathan in reply to McCoy2k. | March 21, 2012 at 8:43 am

          Sure we can afford it. We are practically the last developed country not to have some form of universal health care. Look at Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Costa Rica.

          Obviously, universal health care is possible.

          Cutting out the middleman…the insurance companies…would be a start.

          Quit pretending that the spoiled rich deserve ten homes and a hundred cars apiece, for a start.

          Funny thing I read recently….the main reason (or so I read) that Romney was off the short list of VP candidates for McCain was that during the selection process the story that McCain couldn’t remember how many homes he owned, and I think it was eight. That, combined with Romney’s six, was just a non-starter. GOP campaign strategists knew that they could never run a ticket (during a collapsing economy) with FOURTEEN homes owned between two men.

          And so Romney-bot was cut out of the short list. In hindsight, it’s too bad…because maybe none of would have ever heard of Sarah Palin if Romney had been picked.

      Profound and True. And if Romney as the nominee somehow stitches together an electoral win this November, he will be conservative only in the sense that he wishes to preserve the status quo. The only two expectations are him sending Obama packing on 1/20/13, and his pledge of giving every state a pass on Obamacare.

      Scorpio51 in reply to raven. | March 21, 2012 at 8:11 am

      I think you have described Romney perfectly.

      This is why he describes Obama as “in over his head.”

      I do believe with Romney as the nominee, Republicans wil lose badly. The establishment GOP just doesn’t get it.

Fish’s piece is completely unremarkable except that he was so open about saying what he said.

The Left has always seen themselves as superior human beings to whom bourgeois standards of conduct and decency do not apply. That’s only half of it: conservatives (or whatever the term for those who don’t accept the moral superiority and political wisdom of the Left) are subhuman, i.e, troglodytes, embarrassing and loathsome moral mongoloids.

I heard the gist of Fish’s piece as a background narrative my whole life.

So many conservatives I meet maintain the illusion that Leftists want to co-exist or that there is some possibility that a political co-existence can be created from just the right mix of conditions and accommodations. They don’t. It can’t. It won’t. This is a war to the political end. With the advent of Barack Obama, the genie left the bottle.

Any of you interested in the Fish piece would find that interesting.

Well, at least Gingrich didn’t get beat by Bachmann…

Romney wins in “record low turnout?” 15% turnout? Romney appears to be the ultimate GOP voter suppression mechanism! The problem is he appears to suppress the GOP vote! This is not a formula for winning the general election…

    If Romney is the nominee and seriously wants to contest the election and win, he’s going to have to make a bold, conservative choice for Vice President, and at least hint of other people of conservative caliber to be within his Presidential cabinet.

      WarEagle82 in reply to McCoy2k. | March 20, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      Who exactly would be that “bold conservative choice?” Rubio and Jindal are probably not eligible. Palin certainly wouldn’t run with Romney. I don’t expect Santorum or Gingrich would be willing to run along side Romney either.

      That leaves Ryan? Bachmann? Paul?

      I don’t think McDonnell from Virginia is well known nationally so I don’t know that he would help much but he seems to want the spot. There is Haley from South Carolina but I’m not sure how well known she is either.

      Who does the GOP have in the bullpen that would offset Romney? I hope I am overlooking some real stars…

        Allen West. Scott Walker. Rand Paul. I’m not sure Palin would say no if she was asked; she is a patriot. I’m quite sure team Romney already has constitutional scholars on the possibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or Nikki Haley.

        The election is going to be won or lost primarily in the Midwest, so a candidate from the region is high on the list.

        No one has been talking about John Thune for awhile; he was on the radar a year ago. He’s got to be on the short list if not at the top of it. It’s weird no one is talking about him.

          Hope Change in reply to McCoy2k. | March 20, 2012 at 10:28 pm

          Hello, McCoy2k. The Left has America on the brink of economic collapse.

          They have now (with the help of Establishment Republicans) indebted the United States at such a level that without a truly bold solution, we will be hard-pressed to pay it back.

          Unless we do something dramatically different and dislodge to LEftist traps =from our governmental structure, there is no way to do something bold.

          You talk about Romney as if a conservative fig leaf running mate would make a difference to outcome for the people, to the nation’s welfare.

          Unless someone can take away the effectiveness of the MSM-LEFT echo chamber, the left will continue to control the narrative in the public discourse.

          Do you think that the Left will stop trying to destroy the economy, our society, the moral fiber of our children and our country, for that matter, if Romney (or anyone, really) is elected?

          There’s blood in the water. They’re trying to destroy the political process in Wisconsin to protect their union control of schools and their (essentially) money-laundering at the taxpayers’ expense.

          They are trying to go in for the kill. Romney? Again: Superman — or Churchill — but Romney has to resign.

          How about Superman AND Churchill.

          Newt can handle this. No one else is even close. NewtCerto
          vroom vroom!

          WarEagle82 in reply to McCoy2k. | March 20, 2012 at 10:28 pm

          West, Walker and Rand Paul all suffer from the same lack of experience. Mind you, I like West and Walker a great deal. I just hate to see potential rising stars get hitched to Romney and thus tainted.

          I have hopes for Rand Paul but I fear the apple may not have fallen far enough from the tree…

          My only concern about Haley is that she is a Clemson Tiger and I am not sure I could support one of those. I didn’t realize that there could be eligibility issues with her as well. Like I said, the conservative bullpen is young.

          It would be the ultimate irony if Obama launched a national attack on eligibility for Jindal, Haley or Rubio. But the progressives would certainly try. If it weren’t for double standard they would have no standards at all.

          @Hope Change, your comment was too nested to make a rely. I agree with you! Romney is the last possible candidate (with the exception of Ron Paul) I would ever support.

          But I am resigned to the fact if Romney is the nominee, I’m going to have to vote for him or not at all. (Ron Paul is a no vote. Period.) The last month has proven to myself that holding one’s nose to get Obama out of office is a existential necessity for the survival of the Republic.

          I wish Gingrich and Santorum well in their continued quest to deny Romney the nomination at the Tampa convention. Not participating in the Presidential election is not an option anymore.

        Nathan in reply to WarEagle82. | March 20, 2012 at 10:06 pm

        Romney’s not dumb enough to pick Palin. He’s programmed to be a smarter robot than that.

        Palin isn’t in a position to ‘decide’ to run with anybody.

        Nobody wants her dragging them down; nobody wants an egotistical, vain, uninformed dingbat with a giant grievance chip on her shoulder and a need to have all the attention running on their ticket.

        Plus she’s a proven loser, proven quitter, and her unfavorables are sky high.

          huskers-for-palin in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 10:22 pm

          Palin isn’t that dumb to join a candidate (Romney) who’s wooden, dumb, talking points reader, vote depressor, enthusiasm killer, and whose minions spread false rumors about her at the end of the 2008 campaign.

          Nor does she need the support of asshats such as Nathan who read talking points/lies from Schmit, Wallace and Media Matters.

          With comments from Nathan (and his ilk), I have one less reason to volunteer, donate or even vote for the GOP. And considering how much help Romney will NEED, pissing off/turning off voters is a sure way to depress the base even further.

          2012 will be a combination of a drag race and “Weekend at Burnies”…both sides dragging, pushing and pulling their respective dead corpse candidate across the finish line.

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 10:25 pm

          Plus she’ll never, ever be asked.

          WarEagle82 in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 10:30 pm

          Romney is overqualified to bring down Romney with no help from anyone else.

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 10:31 pm

          For all the reasons I laid out.

          Nobody wants Palin’s politics of resentful grievance and playing the victim.

          “Going rogue” may be personally exciting for Palin…makes her feel like a rebel bad girl, just like the good old days of high school, but that’s exactly the opposite of what any sane candidate at the top of the ticket wants in a running mate.

          Palin won’t have to worry about choosing to run with anybody. She’ll be the girl at the convention that none of the candidates wants to dance with, or even be photographed with.

          WarEagle82 in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 10:37 pm

          Is Nathan that guy who rented the house in Alaska right next to the Palins? He sure sounds like that guy…

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 10:50 pm

          Outside of the insulated world of the Palin cult, nobody likes Queen Sarah.

          Her “I’m-ignorant-as-hell-but-I-love-me-some-Jeesus-look-I’m-important-maybe-president-STOP-PICKING-ON-MEEEE” schtick just doesn’t wear well outside of her rabid followers.

          Perhaps one day you’ll realize that her critics and detractors on both the left and the right aren’t just meanies picking on poor, poor, eternal-victim Sarah.

          On both the left and the right, her critics and most of the things they said about her turned out to be accurate.

          WarEagle82 in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 10:51 pm

          It’s official. Nathan is that guy…

          wodiej in reply to Nathan. | March 21, 2012 at 5:17 am

          Spoken like a true Obamabot.

          scooterjay in reply to Nathan. | March 21, 2012 at 7:32 am

          Nathan, when asked for a contribution….his answer to the problems he highlights….shows his true intent and hauls ass. Fine, if it is violence you want, then “occupy” will supply it when “we” don’t get baited into it. As much as I would love to express my displeasure with leftist, anarchy-promoting socialist losers I shall not be baited and prefer to perform my “swagger” at the voting booth, even if it involves holding my nose and voting. That, my friends, is why we won’t be voting this fall, thanks to the “incivility” that is coming. Having said that, I know quite a few occutards that I will be visiting if the “incivility” arises and suspends elections. be afraid, leftist agitators, be very afraid. WE love our country.

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 21, 2012 at 8:33 am

          wodiej: “Spoken like a true Obamabot.”

          Spoken like someone living in the real world and not in Palinland.

          Why on earth would you ever think that any of the Republican candidates would ever ask Palin to run with them? She knows how to lose, she knows how to quit, and she knows how to cause problems and get way off message….and that’s about the extent of her knowledge.

          Talk about delusional.

          @Nathan. I can tell from your arguments you’ve taken a drink from the swill at the bottom of the Kool-Aid.

          She made the difference when she was selected until McCain threw the election when the economy collapsed. That’s why you libturds are scared of her; Palin is the one move that made your false messiah bleed for 3 weeks.

          She made a big and positive difference in the mid-term elections in flipping the House and closing the gap in the Senate. Make no mistake, if she had run, Obama would be running scared, refusing to share a stage with HER, to debate HER. She would beat him like a drum.

          You keep drinking that Kool-Aid, but your false god is leaving the White House January 20th, 2013. Whether Palin is on the ticket or not, she will work the hardest to make sure that scenario exactly happens.

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 22, 2012 at 12:54 am

          Yeah, we’ve already seen how hard the Quitter from Wasilla works, that’s for sure. When the going gets rough, she quits and leaps at the first hand holding out money.

          You should pull your head out of your Palin and take a look at Caribou Barbie’s approval ratings one of these days, if you really think she would be routing Obama or anything like it. Whatever drugs you are on, please let me know where I can get some…sounds like you’re having a great trip!

          Yep, she gave the flagging McCain campaign a boost for a few weeks, and then the non-wingnut voters saw her Katie Couric interview…..and the rest, as they say, is history.

          It’s funny that she has ‘let it be known’ that she would ‘step in if asked’ to run at the convention. Typical Palin….she would like the prize, as long as she doesn’t have to actually, you know, WORK for it.

          As long as it’s delivered beauty pageant style, she’ll be happy to wear the tiara and get all the attention.

          It’s really not any more complicated than that.

          Nathan in reply to Nathan. | March 22, 2012 at 12:58 am

          Actually, Bible Spice probably cost the GOP the Senate, by backing whackadoodles like Sharron Angle and what’s-her-name….the ‘I’m not a witch’ chick from Delaware.

          Both those seats were near-sure GOP pickups until Palin and the Tea Party got involved.

        Hope Change in reply to WarEagle82. | March 20, 2012 at 10:10 pm

        The original Superman. But Romney would have to resign.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to WarEagle82. | March 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    I know that when I watch Romney trying to be passionate, it is a painful thing. He is so affected, straining so hard to seem sincere and heartfelt. It isn’t working. People got to vote for somebody, and Romney’s winning so far, but it ain’t pretty. So awkward. He’ll look like a grinning mannikin on stage next to slick talking Obama. We are so screwed.

    Thank you, GOP establishment, for arranging yet another excitingly charismatic wooden stump for a candidate. Dole made me hope, McCain made me dance, but Romney? I swoon at his every word.

      Hope Change in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 20, 2012 at 10:12 pm

      Hi Henry Hawkins, I already “liked” but please indicate sarcasm. Too painful for words.

      I hear Romney-bot 3.0 will come with an emotion chip so he will seem more natural.

      Newt had a great comeback line awhile back: when Romney said he hadn’t spent all his life in government, Gingrich pointed out that it was only because Romney lost most of the elections he’s been in.

        Hope Change in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm

        Hi Nathan – huh. I consider that a sensible remark. Good.

        May I ask something of you that I’ve asked other commenters here when I don’t understand their motivations …

        What are you for? What do you want for our country? What do you hope for? What do you love and want more of for America and the world?

        I genuinely would like to know.

        I think our country is in really serious trouble and on the brink of worse trouble.

        I honestly don’t see what sniping at each other in comments does for us.

        I would love to know more about what you want for the people and our country. I imagine you want some really good things.

        We may have more in common than we expect.

        Hope Change in reply to Nathan. | March 20, 2012 at 11:52 pm

        Hi Nathan — the opening sentence of my comment responding to you looks disrespectful to me as I see it on the page.

        I didn’t intend that. My interest is genuine and not at all meant to be snark or sarc.

          ohiochili in reply to Hope Change. | March 21, 2012 at 1:02 am

          Seems our friend Nathan is suddenly at a loss for words, Hope Change.

          scooterjay in reply to Hope Change. | March 21, 2012 at 7:36 am

          I have a friend, a high school dropout that sounds remarkably like our friend Nathan. I have a couple of questions….where do y’all get your talking points because Ducky says the same sort of stuff, and lays out all this impressive sounding “blah-blah” that is way above his thought process. Secondly, if you are so smart why can’t you see the painfully obvious in this administration? I know where you are, and will come see you if your plan succeeds!

          Nathan in reply to Hope Change. | March 21, 2012 at 9:18 am

          “I know where you are, and will come see you if your plan succeeds!”

          Oooohh…an Internet threat! Really dude, you’re threatening me?


          Well, tell me where you think I am.

          And while I think about how far my boot will be up your butt, tell me what you plan to do, O manly man.

          Internet threats….sign of a loser.

          scooterjay in reply to Hope Change. | March 21, 2012 at 10:18 pm

          Nathan…it is totally rhetorical, not calling you out specifically but rather calling your “kind” out. You are our neighbors, our colleagues, our coworkers and some used to be our friends. We will be visiting you come November via the polls. Why is it you “civil” lefturds think in such violent terms? You perceived it as a threat, don’t you think that is pretty telling of your intent?

          scooterjay in reply to Hope Change. | March 21, 2012 at 10:21 pm

          “the plan” is to incite civil unrest thru the use of jingoism, and saber rattling. when that fails to upset a “teabagger” into an act of violence the Occupy goofballs will supply the astroturf for the october suprise. When that happens it will be a free-for-all and your side will be on the wrong end of karma, you little stinky b!tc#!

          Nathan in reply to Hope Change. | March 22, 2012 at 1:03 am

          If you keep frothing like that, someone’s going to think you’ve got santorum all over your mouth.

          scooterjay in reply to Hope Change. | March 22, 2012 at 6:13 am

          oh, don’t you mean the santorum leaking from YOUR a$$?

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to WarEagle82. | March 20, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    I haven’t been back there in a while but most Illinois voters are post political parties at this point. Both Democrats and Republicans have lied stolen and cheated on them. Chicago is the new New Orleans. The downtown and certain adjacent areas delight visitors but there is no effective law in much of the rest of the city. Unfortunately the Chicago machine gets out 130% of the vote so there is no way for the rest of the state to get the bad apples out of the political basket.

    Sorry to be so cynical but I lived there for 23 years, most of them in the shadow of the John Hancock before I said screw it and went John Galt. Now I grow my own veggies and comment on the sorry st

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to WarEagle82. | March 20, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    I haven’t been back there in a while but most Illinois voters are post political parties at this point. Both Democrats and Republicans have lied stolen and cheated on them. Chicago is the new New Orleans. The downtown and certain adjacent areas delight visitors but there is no effective law in much of the rest of the city. Unfortunately the Chicago machine gets out 130% of the vote so there is no way for the rest of the state to get the bad apples out of the political basket.

    Sorry to be so cynical but I lived there for 23 years, most of them in the shadow of the John Hancock before I said screw it. Now I live in Hillbilly Heaven, grow my own veggies and comment on the sorry state of the world.

      Hope Change in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | March 20, 2012 at 10:15 pm

      Hi NC Mountain Girl — your comment doesn’t sound overly cynical from what I’ve been told.

      Someone I know well lives in Chicago and he says the city keeps the corrupt just a scintilla less than what would cause outright citizen rebellion.

Henry Hawkins | March 20, 2012 at 9:32 pm

RE: Fish – A liberal NYT journalist tries honesty. The article is unremarkable except for the honesty. Says a lot about Fish, about the NYT, and about modern journalism. Check that… from now on the term ‘journalism’ warrants scare quotes, given how far removed it has become from true journalism.

RE: Romney and Illinois – Turnout reported as 15%. That’s a major concern or at least ought to be. This is one of several reasons I see Romney losing to Obama 48/52 – Romney’s inability to energize the GOP, even with as hated and polarizing an opponent as Obama in the game. Big problem.

RE: Prof J on the radio at 10:30 pm ET (see link, top right of page to hear it live) – Hmmmm. New episode of Justified or Prof J….. Hmmmm. Sorry Prof! Justified is a ritual between me and my youngest, a daughter, who leaves the nest for school come fall.

Is there an archive for Prof J’s media appearances?

A recurring theme?

– headline #1: Romney wins Illinois Primary
– headline #2: Voter Turnout Extremely Low

Probably just a coincidence, really…

BurkeanBadger | March 20, 2012 at 10:41 pm

I understand Fish’s article and the larger questions it raises are idea for generating interesting and insightful commentary. Still, I find it surprising that there are so few comments on the Illinois Primary Open thread about…the Illinois primary!

Hmmm…no, I actually don’t find it surprising at all…given the results. But I must ask: are some of you finally ready to acknowledge that Romney will be the nominee (as Erick Erickson did on CNN tonight)? Spare me the red-faced rage against him. It is far too redundant at this point. All I’m asking is if you will concede that he’s going to win the nomination.

    “All I’m asking is if you will concede that he’s going to win the nomination.”

    No. He’ll find a way to lose it.

    Sidebar — he outspent Santorum 21 to 1 in the Chicago market, 7 to 1 overall. It’s absurd. He’s absurd.

      BurkeanBadger in reply to raven. | March 20, 2012 at 11:24 pm

      Interesting. Please elaborate on how, precisely, he is going to “screw it up”.

      I’m always intrigued by the fallback argument that he won by vastly outspending his opponents. So? What does that prove other than:

      1. Romney is an adept fundraiser.

      2. Romney knows how to use the funds successfully.

      Aren’t those qualities any GOP nominee needs against Obama? I’ve heard the tired refrain many times: Obama will vastly outraise and outspend any GOP nominee. Even if that’s true (and the President’s recent underwhelming fundraising efforts cast some doubt upon it), shouldn’t the GOP want a nominee who can at least come close to matching the President in fundraising prowess?

        Hope Change in reply to BurkeanBadger. | March 20, 2012 at 11:42 pm

        Who is his biggest donor? Goldman Sachs, iirc. They benefitted from the bailouts.

        Are you under the impression that these great monied interests, corrupted as they have been by bailout money and the revolving door to power in Washington, D.C., give their money to someone who will work for the American people at the expense of the Establishment?

        Use your good sense. Why is he good at fundraising? Who gives him these enormous sums of money? Why?

        They expect compliance.

        Look more deeply. Your reasoning leads to a continuation of politics as usual.

        Romney can’t do the job. Romney can’t do the job that needs to be done. Romney couldn’t do the job even if he understood the job, and Romney doesn’t even understand the job, what needs to be done.

      Hope Change in reply to raven. | March 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm

      Hi raven — I thank God the future is not in the hands of these people without vision.

      It would be one thing if they liked Romney because he had an exciting, bold plan for America. But the only argument for Romney appears to be that he will get the nomination no matter how much 60% or so of the GOP electorate reject him. That’s not a plan for America.

      Here is Newt’s path to the nomination, for those who have not yet had a chance to read it. It’s only almost half time in this race.

      For those who repeat and repeat, “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.”

      “Ancaeus was helmsman of Jason’s ship Argo. Anceus was told by a slave that Anceus would never live to taste the wine of his vineyards.

      When a bottle made from his own grapes was set before him, Anceus sent for the slave to laugh at the slave’s prognostications; but the slave answered only, “There’s many a slip betwixt cup and lip.”

      At that moment a messenger came in and warned that the Calydonian boar was laying the vineyard waste. Anceus set down his cup, went out against the boar and was killed in the encounter. Hence: nothing is certain until you possess it.” [Proverb Hunter]

      Newt: AMERICAN ENERGY NOW. see:
      NEW ORLEANS, March 16, 2012 –

      Newt: AMERICAN ENERGY NOW see: Newt Press Conference –
      SHREVEPORT, LA – March, 19, 2012 –

      We will bring back ebullient prosperity. We will restore our Constitutional liberties. We will fix this mess. Newt is the man with the plan — the ONLY man with a plan.

My notes:
* Dem Legislature deliberately pitted two strong Republicans
* Ballot was too big for the machine ballot reader to read
* election was two different – a ‘beauty contest’ for the candidates and seperate vote for pledged delegates
Very frustrating to hear of Gingerich pledged delegates going to Santorum

    Hope Change in reply to kobayashi. | March 20, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    Hi kobayashi – others feel the same as you do. These comments were posted earlier.

    conservativegram | March 20, 2012 at 6:06 am

    Rick Santorum’s Illinois Comedy of Errors

“Still, Santorum’s Illinois organization was confident it could pull off a big, impressive election-eve surprise — one that would surely get the candidate a lot of buzz for the momentum he was picking up in the state:

    “At a Monday rally in Dixon, Ronald Reagan’s boyhood home, five [Newt] Gingrich delegate candidates would announce they are switching their allegiance to Santorum,” Politico’s Reid Epstein reported.
After Epstein’s original story was published, though, his source — Jon Zahm, Santorum’s Illinois state director — admitted he had perhaps oversold the event.” [end conservativegram post]

    Hope Change | March 20, 2012 at 11:41 am
    It’s apparently not the first time Santorum has tried this tactic. Does anyone know how it can be that the rules allow delegates to switch secretly and at the last minute, so that people think they are voting for NEwt, for example, but the votes go to, for example, Santorum. I don’t see how that makes sense.

[from intellectual conservative]
“In Michigan and Ohio, Santorum linked up with famed leftist Hollyweirdo Michael Moore to drive democrats and union workers into the GOP voting booth in an unbridled and unprincipled effort to upset RNC golden boy Mitt Romney. That effort failed in both states…

    But in Tennessee, they tried a different underhanded tactic and succeeded…

    Hours before the election, Santorum met with several state delegates declared on the ballot for Gingrich, one even the Co-Chair of the Gingrich campaign, convincing them to switch to Santorum delegates even though the state ballots declared them all for Gingrich.

    It amounted to election fraud, as millions of Tennessee Gingrich supporters cast vote after vote for Gingrich delegates that had quietly switched to Santorum hours before the election. The old backroom switcheroo had worked and Santorum won Tennessee, snatching the number two spot in the GOP race from Gingrich for the first time.

    As I write this morning, Santorum demonstrates just how far out of check his ego really is by suggesting that he would consider Newt Gingrich for his running mate. As we used to say in my old football days, Santorum can’t carry Newt’s jock strap… He isn’t qualified for more than Newt’s water boy! [ … ]

    An honest résumé on Santorum would read: 1) I was present in congress when Newt Gingrich was successful; 2) I voted for everything I am running against now. [ … ]

    Conservatives need to pay attention to how he stayed in until now… once again, they will get what they deserve for supporting a candidate willing to use such underhanded tactics in the race.” [end quote]

      Hope Change, you’re the best.

      Scorpio51 in reply to Hope Change. | March 21, 2012 at 8:27 am

      HopeChange…is Newt aware of this delegate fraud?

      OcTEApi in reply to Hope Change. | March 21, 2012 at 8:48 am

      Uhmm, the article from [from intellectual conservative] is being intellectually dishonest
      A) Santorum has the right to seek votes wherever he can find them, the fact he tried to appeal to Democrats, be it with robocalls or not is his choice, and it seems to me being from Michigan that he had something to offer WRT his Manufacturing economic policy.
      Just because there was a concerted effort by unions with democrat election hijinks to deny Romney a win doesn’t mean that Santorum did anything wrong or that “Santorum linked up” with these efforts.

      B)”…millions of Tennessee Gingrich supporters cast vote after vote for Gingrich delegates that had quietly switched to Santorum hours before the election.”

      Scuze me, do Tennessee voters vote in election primaries for delegates, or do they vote for actual candidates on the ballot… and since it was a winner take all state for delegates Santorum convinced them to switch based on an the claim that Romney would take all.
      So Tennessee voters would have voted for Romney or Paul instead of Gingrich had they known the delegates had switched to Santorum?

      The argument in both cases is rather weak, insultingly weak.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Hope Change. | March 21, 2012 at 10:18 am

      The Illinois presidential election rules are deliberately complicated. In the primary there is a beauty contest at the top of the ballot and a then way, way at the end a slate of delegates and alternates who are pledged for each man. Those pledges may not be legally binding.

      It’s a nightmare for campaign workers and election judges because you are endlessly reminding people they haven’t really voted for their man until they find the delegate slates on the ballot and vote for a delegate.

      Delegates have to circulate nominating petitions to get on the ballot. Early on each presidential campaign scrambles to line up the best known local politicians to serve as delegates. It does happen that an area will vote for candidate A in the beauty contest and Candidate B delegate based on the name recognition of the delegate. An acquaintance was a Dole delegate in 1988 even though the city Republican primary went overwhelmingly for Bush.

I volunteered for the Kinzinger campaign last election. Sadly I’m now redistricted into the 1st and Bobby Rush will be my new congress-critter (the Pub nominee, Donald Peloquin, is a decent enough guy but he can’t overcome the Chicago wards).

Kinzinger struck me as the real deal. Decent, rational, down to earth enough, good story line. I didn’t know Mazullo at all, but Kinzinger has a real ‘go at them’ attitude, so I’m not surprised he ran at Mazullo and won.

Will Kinzinger remember his roots? Not sure, but he’s clearly moving up in the Congress.

    I’m in Kinzinger’s district and I can tell you that there was a lot of money poured into these campaigns. Someone clearly didn’t want Adam back, and we would receive two mailings every day for Manzullo’s campaign.

    Here are the facts. Mazullo stated that if elected, he would only serve 12 years. He served 20. Seems to me that Manzullo is also to blame for the mess that we are in. Adam has only been there for 15 months.

    I went to a Lincoln Day Dinner where they both spoke. I also watched them together on a Chicago TV program. There is clearly a reason why Adam won again. Adam is inspiring. I can see why WLS Radio likes to have him on their program, as well as FOX News. Manzullo’s idea of inspiration was telling us that he had the cabinets in his basement from the campaign headquarters during the Reagan campaign. Adam was telling us how important it was to keep Pelosi from her Speaker of the House job again.

    When asked in the TV debate what he read, Manzullo went in to this long description of how he sat at his kitchen table, looking out his patio doors and saw the steam coming off the creek on his property. After explaining that he raised cattle and lived on a farm, he said that he turned to his bible and read Psalms. Seriously, he took several prescious minutes of debate time to go in to this long story to tell us that it was his bible.

    I am watching Adam’s votes closely and there were a few that I questioned. What I do know, is that there are a lot of chess pieces being moved around, and we don’t know all the details. Let’s face it, we don’t have the media with us (except for Fox) and there are still a lot of voters out there that only get their news from ABC, NBC, and CBS. The “Party of No” campaign the Dems had against us was resonating. Let’s look like we’re willing to compromise, win the House, Senate, and Presidency, and get to work fixing things. Things aren’t always black and white.

      G. de La Hoya in reply to cynic. | March 21, 2012 at 3:57 pm

      I voted for Adam Kinzinger. Manzullo people told me not to be influenced by young and cute. I told them if young and cute is there in 20 years, I will vote him out as well.

      And Professor Jacobson, it is Manzullo with a “z”.

This is a pretty good run down on why Kinzinger has turned his back on the tea party … his voting record scores aren’t very good:

I can’t say I personally follow or know anything about the candidates or district, but I do find the overall difference in voting scores pretty compelling.

Make of it what you will …

    stevewhitemd in reply to PrincetonAl. | March 21, 2012 at 10:33 am

    Again, I volunteered for the Kinzinger campaign in 2010. I went to some of the campaign appearances and I listened to the man. He never said he was a Tea Party conservative, though he sympathized with the TP folks who came to the open mike sessions. He struck me as a more mainstream Republican working both sides of the party. I didn’t have a problem with that, particularly since in ’10 the Democratic opponent was the terrible Debbie Halvorson (who just got spanked by Jesse Jackson Jr. yesterday in the IL-02 primary in her ‘comeback’).

    So yeah I can see why RedState doesn’t particularly like him, but that doesn’t make him bad. Manzullo scored higher with RedState but he’s been in Congress for a long, long time — time for him to come home. I’ll be saying the same thing about Kinzinger in a few years.

It is just standard “progressive”/Communist/Marxist perspective:

Our Utopian ends justify any and all means.

This is nothing but pure marxist political theory directly from the NYT…

…the proletariat must rise up, cast off the chains of bourgeois oppression, seize the means of production as well as political power.

-narfle the garthog!

I cast my primary vote for Newt at 6:00 PM CST. He is the only conservative worth his salt.

@Cynic and @SteveWhiteMD

I’m right next door to where Adam got elected last time around, and I have to say, it is possible that part of what got Adam past this Primary hump was anger that the IL Dems did their best to oust a popular Republican who was on the leadership committee.

As for me? I’m just glad that my Rep is no longer someone I’m ashamed of – Schock instead of Johnson. Seriously, I hated Gary with a passion.

However, while I support Newt more than the rest, I could only bring myself to vote for 3 of his 4 main delegates (and all 4 of his alternates).

Why wouldn’t I vote for the 4th one? Last name of LaHood. I can’t vote for anything with that last name…

Mitt Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom on Wednesday said the general election would practically be a blank slate for Romney.

“It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch — you shake it all up and start over again,” he told CNN of the general election.