I just saw Sharon Stone say that Hillary Clinton is a “hot babe.” MMM … Now that Hillary has gone all “what would Jesus do” on us, and amazingly has seen references to illegal immigration in her Bible (must be the same version as John Francois Kerry’s, with its mention of Medicaid), I hope she doesn’t see this story and decide to join up with this group of, shall we say, unconventional evangelists.

Trackback URL

Other members: Ted Bundy, Jeffrey McDonald, O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson. As we have seen in these cases, pathological narcissism can be fatal.

I have just watched Michael Schiavo’s interview with Matt Lauer on “Dateline”, and I’m having a tough time keeping my dinner down. Nice try, Michael, but sadly, despite your televised tears—they were SOO genuine—don’t you worry about it— I’m unconvinced that you and Terri had a “perfect marriage” (yes, he really said that) before her unexplained collapse. I guess the little sticking point for me is the fact that you saw fit to remain married to your voiceless, helpless disabled wife, while at the same time start banging some other woman, and even father two illegitimate children with her. Why not divorce Terri and marry the other woman? Sure, it didn’t seem to matter to Jody (can you say “hard up?”) that you were married. She was apparently more than willing to hit the sheets with you anyway, but wouldn’t that have been the honorable thing to do? Of course! Yet, when Matt Lauer asked you why you chose to stay married to one woman while having sex with another, you said “why should I have to give up my wife? She’s not a football.” That’s ironic because you were treating her exactly like an inanimate object, albeit one with that nifty six-figure malpractice settlement attachment.

If I hadn’t been convinced that I was right about Michael Schiavo a year ago when I couldn’t help but notice his very creepy enthusiasm that his wife die and die fast, Terri’s headstone sealed the deal. Michael very pointedly added the sentence “I kept my promise.” PULEEZE! Now I’m puking.

I’m sure you’ll sell a lot of books, Michael. Yeah right.

Trackback URL

IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND OPINIONS, AND IN NO WAY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THE THOUGHTS OF WLS RADIO, ITS MANAGEMENT OR ANY RELATED ENTITY. THIS ENDORSEMENT IS STRICTLY FROM ONE PERSON, ME.

This has been a tough decision, but one that I am very comfortable announcing. As most of you know, I firmly believe that any of the four guys running against Judy Barr Topinsky (so nicknamed by me for her backstabbing support of Democrat incumbent Bill Lipinski against up and coming Republican Jim Nalepa in 1994) would be a much better choice. That’s an understatement. It will not be possible for me to support the polka-dancing, accordion-playing, mouth-shooting-off lady treasurer in November under any circumstances because to do so would be a betrayal to the great legacy of the Republican party. I can’t tell you precisely when it happened, but at some point, here in Illinois, the party of Lincoln and Reagan ceased to be a party of ideas. Instead, we are the party of the Combine, that cabal of insiders more interested in spreading around our money in the form of lucrative contracts among their various friends than fussing over “ideology” or acting like “right wing nuts.” Democrat, Republican what’s the difference as long as one of the tribe is in power? And make no mistake: Judy Barr Topinka is part of the tribe.

So now Job 1 is to defeat Judy in Disguise tomorrow, and Job 2 is to do so with a principled conservative. There are two candidates who fit that description, Bill Brady and Jim Oberweis.

BRADY
Bill Brady is a very impressive guy. I thought he was genuinely charming when he came in-studio to appear on my show. I also had the pleasure of meeting his lovely wife last October when I was the keynote speaker at the Illinois Citizens for Life dinner. He’s a successful businessman, and he’s been elected to the legislature, proving he can win an election. He’s great on the 2nd amendment, which you know is near and dear to my heart, and on taxes, another extremely important issue as we watch Blago lie awake at night dreaming up new ways to spend money that the state doesn’t have. He is pro-life. From a strategic point of view, he also has the advantage of being able to turn out downstate voters against Blago. These things are all good.

But it’s not all good. Sen. Brady voted for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and against school vouchers. Even more troubling, he refuses to call for the resignation of National Committeeman Bob Kjellander, the poster boy for business as usual (corruption, self-dealing, one hand washes the other—you get the idea), and the guy who made an $809,000 commission on one of Blago’s bond deals (remember, the tribe helps its members). When I asked him about this when he was on the show, he said Bob Kjellander hasn’t done anything illegal, to which I responded “Has Rod Blagojevich?” He had to admit that, so far anyway, Blago hasn’t been indicted or convicted (yes, timing is everything).

OBERWEIS
As many of you know, I have had my differences with Mr. Oberweis, most notably back in 2004 when he managed to get on the front page of the Liberal Death Star (the New York Times). There is one sure-fire way for a Republican to achieve the approval of the editors of the LDS, and that’s to disagree with and criticize another Republican. If that Republican happens to be the President of the United States, you get on the front page. Since John Kerry didn’t win the election, I can forgive him that mistake. I think he’s learned his lesson. I hope so. (Plus, he’s a really nice guy, and he’s been known to hand out some delicious ice cream. It is really terrific!) He’s right on the 2nd amendment, which is mandatory for me, and he’s pro-life, at least since 2004. (see below). Like me, he opposes gambling expansion. So far, so good.

Still, I am troubled by some of Mr. Oberweis’ 180’s on some hot button issues, such as abortion and even the issue with which he is most identified, immigration. That last one might be too strong, because unlike abortion, where he went from saying in 2002 that pro-lifers could become like the Taliban if Roe were overruled to being pro-life in 2004, with immigration, he went from not saying anything about it in 2002 to making it the most important issue in the history of politics in 2004. It was the immigration issue that made the hearts of the editors at the New York Times leap at the mention of his name. I agree with Jim that it’s a national security issue, but wasn’t that true in the post-9/11 world of 2002? Of course, it was. It’s hard to escape the suspicion that these dramatic changes in position on important issues are the result of anything other than political expediency, so I can understand why some are skeptical of his genuine commitment.

THE BOTTOM LINE
I am prepared to give Mr. Oberweis the benefit of the doubt on the flip-flops. No politician is perfect on every issue, but I think Jim is the best candidate, and I have satisfied myself that he has seen the light and is a genuine committed conservative: right on the 2nd amendment, right on abortion, and most of all, not part of the Combine. Even more important, I believe he has the best chance to beat Judy in Disguise and therefore offer some hope of returning the Illinois Republican Party to a party of ideas. Are we the party of back room deals, the politics of personal aggrandizement and naked opportunism, what I like to call the party of PUNY? Or are we going to be the truly GRAND Old Party, the party of ideas that gave our nation Lincoln and Reagan? Is our state going to continue to be a big ugly blue zit in a sea of red middle America? I think Jim Oberweis represents our best chance at answering “yes,” to the first question and “no” to the second, and therefore, I’ll be voting for him tomorrow.

Trackback URL

Liberal elitists were beyond disappointed when “Brokeback Mountain” didn’t win “Best Picture” at the Oscars last Sunday. In their minds, its surprise defeat revealed something horrifying and previously unthinkable: that the members of the Academy, supposedly progressive Hollywood illuminati, are as homophobic as those mouth-breathing, knuckle draggers in flyover country.

Speaking of us Neanderthals who don’t take our marching orders from the New York Times, some of us have issues with the adultery “Brokeback Mountain,” but by raising that very concern, we show yet again how we just don’t get it. Did we miss the whole point of this beautiful film? The early 60’s, before the tie-dyed liberation forces rode in bearing birth control pills, pot and an end to any stigma attached to the word “slut,” were the Dark Ages. It was a time when women were brainwashed to believe that marriage was something other than involuntary servitude, and every natural and normal sexual impulse was strangled by the narrow-minded, rigid standards enforced the religious bigots who ran everything. C’mon—haven’t you seen “The Graduate,” or “Peyton Place?” Ennis and Jack had no choice. As the tagline for the movie says, love is a force of nature. They were virtually forced to marry women and have children, only to abandon them every few months for some carefree days of nude swimming, backrubs and pup tent humping. That was one of the take-home lessons of the movie. Repeating: they had no choice because they were stuck in a backward, repressive time of traditional values and very deep closets for guys like them. You can’t blame them for all the misery their relationship caused. That was another great thing about the movie, we’re told. It showed how damaging that old-fashioned condemnation of homosexuality was, not only to the poor gays themselves, but for those women unfortunate enough to fall in love with them.

Thank goodness it’s not like that any more! Today a gay man can be openly gay, and doesn’t have to choose between being who he is and enjoying a loving relationship, and being accepted by society. No longer will homosexual men marry, and father children, only to inflict incalculable pain on unsuspecting women who learn that their husbands aren’t the men they thought they were.

Oh, wait. As it turns out, it’s not better today. If you think it is, perhaps you could ask Amy Jo Remmele. She is part of a story in the Liberal Death Star about Brokeback couples. “On June 1, 2000, Mrs. Remmele, then 31, discovered her husband’s profile on the Web site gay.com. The couple stayed up all that night weeping and talking. Soon afterward, 10 days before she gave birth to her second child, Mrs. Remmele’s husband went off to spend a couple of nights with his new boyfriend. “I tried to talk him out of it, and he left anyway,” Mrs. Remmele said. “I was devastated.” Three months later the couple divorced.” (“Many Couples Must Negotiate Terms of ‘Brokeback’ Marriages, by Katy Butler, New York Times, March 9, 2006.)

I guess it’s that Neanderthal thing again, but maybe some enlightened person can explain this one to me. If the disgusting behavior of the characters in “Brokeback Mountain” is excusable because they had no choice, how exactly do they explain the same behavior—adultery, abandonment of children and just generally selfishly inflicting pain and misery on people they claim to love—by gay men today when they are not only out of the closet, they are EVERYWHERE. Could it be that the “no choice” claim is more insidious propaganda like the Matthew Shepard (Laramie Project version, not the truth) ending?

And I’m not even addressing the very questionable suggestion by the New York Times that this Brokeback couple thing is all the rage. “Many couples,” Liberal Death Star?

Trackback URL