Illinois Review

New Year's Resolution

by Ralf Seiffe

New Year’s Day is one many of us will to resolve to do better. For some it will be to lose weight, stop smoking or exercise.  Other will be more esoteric; write more, volunteer often or be kinder to strangers.  I am still trying to decide on mine; I’m stuck wondering how long to refrain from criticizing the Obama Administration.

Why I must agree with Dan Proft

By Mark Rhoads

The first time I ever met U.S. Senator-designate Roland Burris was thirty years ago when I was serving my first term in the state senate.  It was a cold day and the Inauguration Ceremony for the elected statewide officers had been moved inside to the National Guard Armory.  Burris gave one of the best speeches I ever heard in my life.  He talked about his family, growing up in Centralia, Illinois, and what it meant to him to be the first African-American ever elected statewide in Illinois.  But his remarks did not focus on his race.  His focus was the opportunity for public service and why citizens should embrace it when they can.  He was not just eloquent, but substantive and inspirational as well.  He said he had visited the tomb of Abraham Lincoln at Oak Ridge Cemetery that morning and prayed that his service could be inspired by the spirit that

Seat Roland Burris

by Dan Proft

Is Rod Blagojevich an idiot or an idiot savant?

That is not a trick question. It turns out he is mostly an idiot. But Blagojevich's selection of Roland Burris to fill the Obama senate seat was a shrewd tactical move legally and politically.

Arrested for allegedly conspiring to sell the seat to the highest bidder, Blagojevich's lawyers can now argue he did nothing of the sort by pointing to who he actually appointed.

Burris is the rarest of all Chicago Democrats (his Centralia, IL roots notwithstanding): one who is heretofore untainted by scandal. That in itself is an accomplishment for any four-time statewide office holder in Illinois.

An Opportunity For Leadership

by Andy Haaf

Dear President-elect Obama,

Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush (D) has presented you a tremendous opportunity to lead. You spoke very elegantly in your speech on race. And while millions of Americans were inspired, unfortunately your message of hope and change apparently ricocheted off the forehead of one of your Democrat colleagues, Bobby Rush.

To quote your own words:

The "Rule of Law" Applies to Gitmo Detainees, But Not Roland Burris

by William Jacobson

Barack Obama loves to invoke the "rule of law" when it suits his political purposes, but not in the case of Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to Obama's empty Senate seat. In the Burris case, politics apparently trumps the law.

There is no substantial legal dispute here. Harry Reid and other U.S. Senators have no right to refuse to seat an appointee merely because they do not like the appointer. I think the situation might be different if there were evidence that Burris bribed Blagojevich (in which case the Democrats could challenge whether there was a true appointment), but that is not the case here. Blagojevich's appointment of Burris simply is politically inopportune for Democrats, and that is not enough to avoid what appears to be a constitutionally valid appointment.

Bobby Rush says it's all about race!

by Sam Pierce

I had the terrible misfortune of listening to the announcement in which Governor Blagojevich named Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. What started out as a pathetic posturing event staged by a governor whose mental stability is certainly questionable, turned into a serious and blatant playing of the race card.

Congressman Bobby Rush (D - 1st) spoke passionately, on behalf of Burris… but only as a black person. (I will not use the term African American, because I have no evidence that Burris’ ancestors are African and not from some other region of the world!) Rep. Rush focused solely on race and even went as far as to make a veiled threat to any U.S. Senator regarding “going on record” to deny a seat to a black man.

GOPUSA ILLINOIS Daily Clips - December 31, 2008

What's your resolution for 2009?

For hardcore Illinois conservatives, 2008 was one of the most heart wrenching and disappointing in recent history.  Thousands, if not millions, of dollars lost in the housing and stock markets.  The election of liberal messiah Barack Obama.  The national embarrassment of a governor in denial and oblivion.  The distress of apparent hopelessness to escape by traditional political means.  An in-the-tank, partially responsible media folding its tents in disgrace and failure.  Lack of loyal opposition and conservative leadership at the state and local levels.  Cannibalistic conservatives delighting as fellow soldiers fall to their sides.

One fears saying it can't get much worse, because it really can.  So...we must face the new year with resolve.  Things can change, but it will take each of us -- one person at a time -- to change things in our circle of influence.  Corruption can be snuffed.  Vision can be lifted.  Hopes can be raised.  Things can be different in 2009.

Okay, maybe it sounds pollyannish, but where would you start in 2009 to turn things around?  What's already happened that's lifted your hopes?  What would you like to see happen, and maybe most importantly, what will you do to make a difference in 2009? 

Blagojevich: What's he thinking?

Illinois is giving 24-hr news stations lots of fodder for talk. Now for psychological analysis. Someone should tell these folks its all in the hair.

Single Issue Fallacy

by Sam Pierce

Given the struggle within a Republican Party that quite frankly teeters on the brink of being not worth saving, it seems necessary to address the fallacy of the dreaded “single issue voter.” Most often the phrase is used to denigrate and minimize those of us that have a threshold we cannot cross by supporting someone that believes it is acceptable to kill the unborn. The phrase is intended to paint pro-life voters as bible thumping neanderthals whose only concern is forcing our values on our fellow citizens.

Now, as the Republican Party (national and local) is at a crossroads, there are those who believe the party should abandon single issue (pro-life) voters as a means to garnering a broader appeal. Certainly I am not breaking any new ground here, but any voter that has some threshold he or she cannot cross is a single issue voter! If a voter is not a single issue voter, meaning there is no position a candidate could hold that would disqualify him or her as worthy of support, then why would this voter care who gets his support? If a voter has no threshold and is a partisan, then he is a partisan for some reason other than issue positions, perhaps it is because his parents were members of the specific party.