Joel Pollak's new tv ad

Another example of Joel's positive campaign.

Not again, Rep. Schakowsky!

Jan Schakowsky sent a fundraising email to supporters attacking Joel Pollack's warm-fuzzy introductory campaign ad.

Really, Mrs. Schakowsky: what's wrong with this ad?

http://bit.ly/aVIDMq

Where exactly is it misleading? No, it doesn't mention Andrew Breitbart because most voters don't know who he is. It doesn't mention the Tea Party or Hudson Institute. It's designed to attract voters, duh, not turn them off or bore them. As for Joel's stance on issues, geez, Jan, he only has 30 seconds.

What we find grossly dishonest is Mrs. Schakowsky's pitch to her supporters: "In order to respond, we need to hit our fundraising deadline by midnight tonight." And, "Can you give us $10, $15 or $20 to make sure we can respond to this misleading ad?"

Mrs. Schakowsky is outraising Joel 6-1. According to opensecrets.org, she has over $0.5 million in the bank. Why exactly does she need more campaign cash to respond to this positive ad with the nasty attack ads that she wants to run? Can't she just borrow $1-$2 million from her husband? The cries of poverty are dishonest and frankly embarrassing for a six-term entrenched incumbent.

Congresswoman, we think your supporters are tired of listening to you whine about your opponent. Cut the attack ad. Let's see if it's in you.

Jan Schakowsky: "You have everything to fear"

There's a fascinating contrast between U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky's campaign website, janschakowsky.org, and her fundraising letters to supporters. The website is designed to reach out to everyone. The letters are targeted to Yellow Dog liberal Democrats. In the letters, the congresswoman warns that if she loses her seat, and the Democrats lose the U.S. House of Representatives, your worst nightmares might come true:

Rep. Joe Barton will become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee!
Rep. Paul Ryan will chair the Budget Committee!

Sarcasm isn't nice. So we won't add any here. Let's merely point out what she didn't mention:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi will no longer be the Speaker of the House!

If Rep. Schakowsky had reminded voters that a Republican takeover of the House would remove Pelosi from her role as Speaker, she just might have unwittingly sent money flooding into Joel Pollak's campaign. But she's a campaign veteran. She didn't mention Pelosi. Good move, Congresswoman.

Schakowsky, who opposes Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms, reminds me of Former NRA Spokesman Charlton Heston, whose most famous line was "From my cold, dead hands." Rep. Schakowsky is desperate to hold on to her congressional seat in the worst possible way. She will paint her opponent with the worst excesses of the extreme right despite his moderate views. We're convinced the only reason she hasn't accused him of racism is because his wife has dark skin. She aims for the underdog label--"A fighter for our side" is her new campaign slogan--despite her 6:1 fundraising advantage and her place among the Democratic Establishment. Furthermore, Schakowsky and her convicted felon husband Robert Creamer are millionaires. We're waiting for Creamer to lend her campaign $5 mil or so. She can't run on her embarrassing tax-and-spend record, plus no benefits for her Ninth District. So she runs a negative, scorched-earth campaign that is unbecoming her office and her character.

Really, Congresswoman?

Tea Party Glenn Beck Sean Hannity Neo-Con right-wing blog right-wing ideologues 32-year-old.

And that's just a single fund-raising letter.

Congresswoman Schakowsky, you've represented the Ninth District of Illinois for six terms. You were the president of your freshman Democratic class in 1999. You should be proud to run on your record. And the best you can do is guilt by association?

Really, Congresswoman? Isn't such mudslinging beneath a Member of Congress of your stature?

Were you making a salient point in noting your opponent's orthodox Judaism? Or was this a sleazy attempt to stir anger and antipathy among your base of liberal Jews?

Joel Pollak made several corrections to the falsehoods and misstatements in your letter. To add one more: Joel has not characterized your support for the president and a two-state solution as anti-Israel. He has characterized your friendship with Helen Thomas and your alliance with J Street as anti-Israel. Feel free to defend these connections. In fact, you responded to questions about J Street with a "wait and see" reply. One doesn't join an organization--or speak at its Chicago kickoff event--and then determine what its Israel policy turns out to be. That would be irresponsible.

It appears, Congresswoman, that you are taking your reelection campaign marching orders from the House leadership and the DCCC, which warned against running on the records of Congress or the White House. Good move. If you were forced to defend your record, voters might notice:

--how you vote for earmarks to help other districts but cannot bring any federal government money to your own.
--how Obamacare is going to cannibalize Medicare, endangering your base of senior voters.
--how your husband Robert Creamer went to prison for felony check-kiting. What did you know and when did you know it, Congresswoman? You owe your constituents an explanation.
--how you repeatedly lie (state in error?) regarding job creation statistics relating to the federal stimulus package while your district continues to lose thousands more jobs--faster than Illinois as a whole.

And organizing hecklers at your opponent's campaign events, Congresswoman? Really? Isn't that beneath you?

Oh, well. Back to the name-calling.

By the way, talk show host Glenn Beck uses two "n's" in his first name. You might want to make a note of it for your next fund-raising letter. And "Neo-Con" is a code word for "Zionist."

Can Jan hang on?

Joel Pollack took down Rep. Barney Frank. Can he hold his own with another liberal House stalwart? After just two different Members of Congress represented the Ninth District in the House over the last 62 years,* the District could certainly use "A Fresh Start."

The polls report the president's approval ratings have fallen sharply. More seriously, a majority of Americans no longer trust the president to make major policy decisions. That's not the type of person Americans typically vote to re-elect.

Concerns about skyrocketing debt, the possibility of higher taxes and a Big Government takeover of health care and so much more would naturally lead to a year with big Republican gains in Congress.

How does this voter unrest translate to the Ninth District of Illinois?

Rep. Jan Schakowsky's most loyal voters, who already voted for her six times, love Big Government. They love higher taxes. They love entitlement spending. They love taxpayer-funded abortions. They love gun bans. They love unions. They love federal spending on the arts, as if the arts were at all the federal government's business. Some of them love sticking it to Israel.

So the Republican Party's alternate message may not resonate with many Ninth District voters. These voters' active dislike of conservatives may be so strong that they will vote to re-elect the Congresswoman just to annoy Republicans. Furthermore, Rep. Schakowsky does a masterful job of portraying herself as the underdog (a six-term incumbent loaded with campaign cash? Some underdog!) fighting the good fight against those bad Republicans and their "far right-wing agenda." This goes on even as her husband goes to prison for a check-kiting scheme. Putting fear into the minds of voters may will result in a surfeit of fund-raising cash and a seventh term in office.

In 1996, a great year for Democrats with a big re-election win for President Bill Clinton, Joe Walsh ran against 87-year-old Ninth District Rep. Sidney R. Yates. This was Yates' first serious opposition in 14 years. He was so concerned about losing his precious seat he flew to his home District to campaign and ended up winning re-election by eight points.

With almost no money and a loosely organized campaign force of volunteers, Walsh had Yates thinking about retirement. (Walsh is now running against Rep. Melissa Bean in Illinois' Eighth District. Yates retired in 1999 and died in 2000.) Could Joel Pollack close that eight-point gap? Stay tuned.

*Sidney R. Yates 1949-1999. Another member served 1961-63. Jan Schakowsky 1999-present.

Chillax, AIPAC!

The race for the U.S. House in Illinois' 9th District between six-term Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Joel Pollack is heating up. Many pro-Israel voters in the District are planning to vote for Pollack, disappointed in what they perceive as the Congresswoman not being pro-Israel enough.

According to a friend, AIPAC has weighed in. AIPAC, the strong-pro-Israel lobby in Washington, has put the word out to its supporters in the District: Don't vote out a Member with a 100 percent AIPAC voting record. AIPAC uses a plus/minus grading system to evaluate members of Congress as to how each Member votes for a bill relating to Israel. According to AIPAC, Schakowsky's voting record is perfect.

News flash to AIPAC: national elections are really none of your business. AIPAC is a lobby, not a PAC (political action committee). It can evaluate, but not endorse, criticize or financially support, Members of Congress. The voters of the Ninth District in Illinois elect a Representative for a host of reasons. For many of Rep. Schakowsky's most loyal supporters, her pro-Israel record is a pretty low priority.

So AIPAC, please: work on lobbying Members of Congress, and we'll work on electing them.

Bounce an entrenched incumbent?

How does Jan Schakowsky, who has occupied her seat in the U.S. Congress since 1999, feel about bouncing entrenched incumbents?

Judging from an endorsement she made in 2007, she doesn't have a problem with it at all.

Three years ago, Ald. Bernard M. Stone (50th) was embroiled in a very close, hotly contested race to keep his City Council seat that he had held since 1973. Stone was 80 at the time, and his challenger, Naisy Dolar, was in her mid-30's. In the final two weeks of the runoff election race, Schakowsky threw her support and political capital behind the young challenger. Unfortunately for Dolar, it was too late, and she lost by six points in a race that had accusations of fraud on Stone's part. At his victory party, a triumphant Stone crowed, "Jan Schakowsky, you will never be boss of this ward!"

So Schakowsky thought Stone had been in office long enough. After 34 years (now 37), I would certainly concur. Is 12 years in the U.S. House long enough? Schakowsky turns 66 on May 26. She could retire and spend time with her grandchildren, but she soldiers on. When is long enough? For her predecessor, Rep. Sidney R. Yates, it was 50 years. I certainly hope we won't need to wait that long for Jan to head home. This election year features Jan's first serious opposition to her re-election, which is usually a formality for her. Joel Pollack is challenging her seat. At 66, is she up to the challenge? We'll see.

How much longer, Jan?

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D.-Ill.) turns 66 on May 26.

When the people of the Ninth District of Illinois first elected her in 1998, she was 54.

When the people of the Ninth District first elected Sidney R. Yates in 1948, he was only 39. By the time he left office, he was 89. Even after that, according to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), Yates regretted leaving office. "I never should have left," Durbin said Yates told him, despite Yates' health problems preventing him from performing basic duties of his office. Like showing up for House votes.

I'm very concerned that Jan* considers her House seat a lifetime appointment and will run for re-election until she is well into her 80's, like her predecessor Sid Yates did. It's not supposed to be that way. Entrenched incumbents block entire generations of qualified candidates from stepping in and making their own contributions to their communities. Take Sen. Dick Durbin, please: by 2014, we will have had one occupant of his Senate seat for 18 years. As the Congresswoman is able to amass a multimillion-dollar campaign war chest, she can look at elections as minor distractions from her long-term reign.

This needs to stop. Even Jan's hardcore liberal supporters must realize entrenched incumbents get lazy, as Yates did. Electing a member of Generation X would further reduce the average age of House members (still too high) and show the country that in the Ninth District, to quote a former president, "The torch has been passed to a new generation."


*"Mrs. Schakowsky" is somewhat incorrect as Schakowsky is her first husband's name, not her husband's name. Her husband is convicted felon Robert Creamer.

Speaking of mass murder....

Communism was responsible for the deaths of over 100 million innocent people in the previous century.

Vladimir Lenin. Josef Stalin. Mao Tse-Tung. Pol Pot. Heroes of Communism. All were mass murderers. The reason Pol Pot's personal death toll was "only" two million was because his small country had only seven million people. His colleagues were more successful.

These men are still celebrated as heroes in left-wing political groups. They meet at conferences on a regular basis (always in Chicago) to bash Israel and extol the virtues of their political system and their deceased leaders, who were surely misunderstood by the democracies that eventually prevailed.

I saw Joel Pollak speak at a political meeting Aug. 13. His focus was health care, but he spoke briefly about Communism. He pointed out that there is a Holocaust Museum in Washington which teaches children and adults too young to remember about the evils of Nazism. There should be a Museum of Communism, he said. I think he's right. Someone needs to remind us of the evils of a murderous political theology that specialized in arresting and murdering those who dared speak out against the dictatorship. For some reason, Jews always suffered under those dictatorships, too, and modern Communist groups continue to be terribly antisemitic. (Ask them why. They'll insist they're just anti-Israel. Right.) In a triumph of this century's moral relativism, Communism doesn't receive the widespread criticism, disdain and vitriol it deserves.