Lets take your remarks one at a time.

“do you believe all the media spin? You know I have seen it being reported that it was his ex girlfriend (e.g. not ex-wife), which is a lie, and that he “encouraged” it, while one cannot see any evidence of this, if in fact it really happened.”

Its precisely “media spin” that I wish to avoid, Stefan. I have been interested solely in matters of objective truth: Did Barr sign a check paying for abortion his ex-wife is said to have had, period.

“If it happened, I think you are splitting hairs with wordplay ” might” and “”would”. “Might” does indicate a possibility.”

Again, I am interested in matters of fact: Was the former Mrs. Barr at death’s door and would she have been pushed through it without the abortion, or was she simply casting about for a rationale to mitigate the moral impact of what she’d already decided to do. The facts would not seem to indicate that Mrs. Barr would have died had she not had the abortion, Stefan.

“DO you really want to speculate about an issue Barr has probably forgotten about the – details – and/or if he remembers everything, would understandably not want to talk about a very deep personal issue where there is perhaps a lot of deep personal feelings.”

Again, we’re working from facts, not speculation, Stefan, and I really don’t think Barr has forgotten about anything. It is clear in extemis that he doesn’t want to talk about it, however.

“For one, I would leave it between God and him and his ex-wife.”

Oh, there can be no question that, ultimately, the matter will come down to being between Barr and God, and Barr’s ex-wife and God. But why leave out the one party that always had the very most intense interest in the outcome, the little one that was dispatched? That little innocent already knows what it is that God thinks of the matter, of Barr and his ex-wife, doesn’t he, Stefan?

“I do respect people’s privacy, especially with an intense personal issue.”

Most commendable, Stefan, but the man’s running for President of the United States. The American people have a right to know if they’re electing an out-and-out phony.

“Also, it happened in the 1980’s. Would you remember every detail of what happened 20,30 years ago? Normally one remembers the good experiences and forget the bad/negative experiences.”

Yup, I would have remembered, particularly something this consequential.

“Now you have “christian leaders” like Pat Robertson endorsing pro-abortion Giuliani, you have christian family leaders like Dr. James DObson – a respected man – who is for the Iraq war, still all these years, apparently rejectiont he christian just war theory, or is he simply a fool? Think about all the death and destruction, all the CHristians that had to fled Iraq etc. etc. One can make a statement that these two men as hypocrats. I am not even talking about John Hagee, who propogate attacking Iran and write a book about “Jesus not coming to earth to be the Messiah”! This is an absolute blasphemy. I really do not know how such a person can call himself a “christian”. That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, our saviour is the very basis of the Christian belief. There can be a difference on many other issues (like women as preachers for instance), but this is a crucial issue, the essence of CHristianity. And then you have the Rev. Billy Graham endorsing a warmonger, womanizer, unethical, lier, flip-flopper John McCain! I mean what is wrong here….”

Not sure how this item gets inserted into the Barr abortion question, Stefan, but you’ll most certainly not get an argument from me about the content. Those you describe here are some of the leadership of what I feel comfortable in describing as a kind of latter day Reichs Church. Not unlike most of their opposite numbers in the mainline Protestant churches, these impostors have so ideologized the Christian faith as to make it unrecognizable.

We all know his voting record is not as nearly perfect as Dr. Paul’s, but consider this: Barr approved the Iraq invasion under the WMD and immediate threat issue. Four months after the invasion, as soon as it became clear no WMD have been found, he turned against the war.. FYI: He was against the immoral Vietnam war. Now you have “christian leaders” like Pat Robertson endorsing pro-abortion Giuliani, you have christian family leaders like Dr. James DObson – a respected man – who is for the Iraq war, still all these years, apparently rejectiont he christian just war theory, or is he simply a fool? Think about all the death and destruction, all the CHristians that had to fled Iraq etc. etc. One can make a statement that these two men as hypocrats. I am not even talking about
John Hagee, who propogate attacking Iran and write a book about “Jesus not coming to earth to be the Messiah”! This is an absolute blasphemy. I really do not know how such a person can call himself a “christian”. That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, our saviour is the very basis of the Christian belief. There can be a difference on many other issues (like women as preachers for instance), but this is a crucial issue, the essence of CHristianity. And then you have the Rev. Billy Graham endorsing a warmonger, womanizer, unethical, lier, flip-flopper John McCain! I mean what is wrong here….

A suggestion for the lawsuits being filed in Illinois on the 5,000 versus 5%. What if an independent candidate won? The law says they would still need 5% to run again in two years, while the Rs and Ds would need much less. I’ve not seen that angle presented, and like usual, there is no justification for it.

An incumbent independent US Congress Representative could have to get over 10,000 sigs in 90 days to run again, while his R and D opponents would need about an 1/8 of that amount. That was one point Lee v Keith missed.

I’m all for keeping ballots from being cluttered with incumbents, but not like that.

The Constitution Party and Libertarian Party both had affiliated write-in candidates in 2006. Stufflebeam mopped the floor with the LPs effort after the LP Convention voted not try to run a candidate and their state committee somehow endorsed a write-in.

Whitney’s success will not translate for their Presidential candidate in 2008. Topinka versus Blagojevich created the best opportunity third parties have had to get votes and ballot access in Illinois for at least 30 years. The Greens were able to take advantage of that. The LP dropped the ball and the CP wasn’t ready yet.

With all of them on the ballot it will be very interesting to see how it turns out. State bragging rights are up for grabs.

The only thing wrong with what you report of the facts in the Barr abortion situation, Stefan, is all of it. The former Mrs. Barr, in an affidavit at the time of the Barr’s divorce, when speaking of the reasons for the abortion, never spoke of health concerns as definitely influencing her decision to abort. Rather, she spoke of health concerns only in the conditional, that there “might” – not would – have been risk to her health had she not had the abortion. So before we get out the crying towel, lets get the facts straight: The reports of the presence of some kind of life-threatening disease as being decisive in Mrs. Barr’s decision to abort, by her own statement, would seem patently false, probably the product of some spin mechanism in Barr’s campaign apparatus. In any case – and this is quite important, Stefan – the question I raised had to do with whether Barr signed a check paying for the abortion, not whether Mrs. Barr was justified by health reasons in having it. Barr has always maintained – and he did so in an affidavit of his own – that he never “encouraged” the abortion. Yet we have an abortion, the wife’s statement that Barr paid for the abortion, and reports of the existence of a check bearing Barr’s signature paying for it. And of greatest concern is why it is that Barr can’t or won’t deal with the question of the check forthrightly. Larry King asked him about the check on television in 1999, and Barr was completely unresponsive. The existence of a check with Barr’s signature on it is critical, Stefan, because it would establish that Barr did, in fact, pay for the abortion and at a time that he was holding himself out as “pro-life”. In the terminology of moral theology, it makes him “formally complict morally” in an evil act. It also makes him a 24 carat phony. The man’s running for president, not ward leader, Stefan. He has a chance of influencing the outcome of the election decisively. The public is entitled to know if he misrepresented himself as to his posture regarding abortion in the 1980s, and that certainly every bit as much as it was regarding Bill Clinton’s draft situation or the possibilty of George Bush’s having received favored treatment by the Air Force.

Meanwhile, since the Greens got over 5% for Governor in 2006, they are safely on the ballot for all offices (statewide, district and county) not only in 2008, but 2010 as well.

As to the small number of signatures the Constitution Party got in Illinois this year, they would have had a lot more, but most of their signatures were collected on forms that had the wrong date of the election. So all that was wasted effort. They threw those signatures away and started over.

As to Nader’s complaint against the Democratic National Committee for failing to report its expenditures in 2004 (their expenditures to keep him off ballots), Nader filed that complaint with the FEC on May 30, but he didn’t publicize it until almost a month later. He wanted to make sure the FEC staff acknowledged that his complaint was correct as to form, etc., before he trumpeted it.

July 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Well, if the CP’s anemic showing at petitioning in IL is any indication, I wouldn’t count on a tidal wave of support for Baldwin in the state.

I would not count CP out in illinois,votes are what counts and we managed 20,000 write-in votes for gov in 2006,the most in illinois history.we can produce when needed

A significant improvement in tone, gonolzohio. That’s good, very good.

Well, with all respect to your dad, we simply don’t form judgements about how people might act or feel by projecting out on them the opinions of one individual, eh? Much better to rely on the data of sociology, or, in this case, political science. And the science isn’t on your dad’s side. We’ve already looked at that. And additionally, the question the check raises is as much the fact of blatant hypocricy as it is the possible formal moral complicity in an act of murder anyway. Barr, when he is alleged to have signed this check to pay for this abortion, was an acknowledged leader in the House on pro-life questions. So, enlarged, the question becomes is Barr a hypocrit in addition to being complicit in an evil act? If your dad isn’t concerned, as I suspect most pro-lifers will be, with the possibility of voting for an accomplice to murder alone, perhaps he will be if he were to think of it in terms of being bilked. I mean if you’re not 100% pro-life perhaps you’re an outraged consummer.

How did you put it, JT? You had my e-mail address and you were going to distribute it to whomever you wished and that, to quote you, “you’ll not only sit still for it, but you’ll like it”. Isn’t that what you said? And now you’re here to tell me that I’m not going to “do shit about anything”. I see.

We can ask GOD for help, but first we Americans must help our self.
GOD BLESS

My guess is that IL will be one of the bright spots for Greens in ‘08’, especially with all of the downticket races the GP is running this year.