Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Dan Seals: Wrong for the North Shore, Wrong for Congress

I have been seeing those Dan Seals for Congress signs that have popped up in Wilmette and Winnetka, so today I decided to check out his website. I cannot believe what I saw there. This guy is wrong for the North Shore, wrong for Congress, and just plain wrong. It states "There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq," and "At the end of the day, if Iraqis want democracy, they will have to fight for it themselves."

What a guy. Suppose we had told France, "If you want to be free of the Germans, you will have to defeat them yourselves." What if we had telegraphed to the Warsaw Ghetto, "Keep it up! We know you will be able to free yourselves from being sent to a death camp if you continue your good work."

Seals website must be inspired by a thousand websites and blogs in the Mid East, which you can easily access by a little Googling. His website--and his campaign---should inspire great hope for America's enemies abroad (and here), most of whom seem to be of the mind that the horrific events of 9/11 were a plot of the Bush administration.

Here's a list of his contributors. While Dan Seals campaign committee has a Wilmette address, Dan Seals doesn't even live in the district that he wants to represent as a Congressman. While that's not illegal, I think the Democrats could have found someone from the district to represent its constituents.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Sep 13, 2006, 7:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan is asking honest questions about how the situation in Iraq can be improved.

Unlike World War ll, the Iraq war is a war we started based on flawed intelligence that was cherry picked by Bush (and Kirk) and used to invade. The war there has dangerously distracted our attention from Afghanistan and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with predictable results.

I want a Congressman who doesn't just go blindly along with the ruling party--someone who is not afraid to ask questions of those in power.
That's why I'm voting for Dan Seals.

Sep 13, 2006, 3:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just looked at the Seals website, and the Iraq issue page hasn't changed at all. It's the same text that has been there for months.

Dan has taken a principled, thoughtful, forward looking stand on Iraq. I believe Dan's position is correct and reflects the thoughts and feelings of a majority of Americans.

Dan's website is great. Everyone is encouraged to check it out (www.dansealsforcongress.com)

I'm looking forward to voting for Dan in November.

Sep 13, 2006, 11:42:00 PM  
Blogger Publia said...

Dear Anonymouses,
Thanks for stopping by. I did visit the website and it was very pretty, but what if the Democrats become the "ruling party?" From what I saw on the website, Mr. Seals will then be blindly adhering to them. Are you comfortable with this? Unfortunately, I didn't find Mr. Seals' comments particularly thoughtful. Nevertheless, I am sure we can agree that we are lucky to have democracy, although there is a real question in my mind whether we could have ever achieved our independence without the contributions of foreigners such as Lafayette and Pulaski.

Sep 14, 2006, 1:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Publia,
Glad to stop by.

Thanks for checking out Dan's site and revising your post.

I think it would be a good thing if the Democrats took control of the House. I've had enough of one party rule. I don't think it's good for our country.

Concerning Dan, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I think Dan's positions on the issues are thoughtful, intelligent and independent. I have seen Dan and heard him speak. He's a bright guy who would bring a breath of fresh air to Congress. He's also very receptive to listening to what people think.

He knows the legislative process in Washington, has traveled widely, and has a strong business background that would allow him to be a representative we could all be proud of.

Sep 14, 2006, 4:16:00 PM  
Blogger Publia said...

We shall disagree, then. The Democrats had one party rule for 40 years, don't forget. The Republicans are nowhere near that yet, but I won't comment as we may not be able to find common ground.

I could say exactly the same thing about Mark Kirk as you say about Dan Seals. I think this campaign will be very interesting.

Sep 15, 2006, 12:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If I understand it correctly, Seals lives in Wilmette but not in the 10th district. Where he lives was in the district when Rumsfeld was the representative but got moved to JS's Evanston district through gerrymandering. Unless I am missing something, that means that Seals paying the same taxes as other Wilmette residents and is a resident of New Trier township as well. Besides, he has said he will relocate if elected.

What does his residence have to do with anything about the election? You seem like a thoughtful person -- I would really like to know why living on Isabella in Wilmette disqualifies him from representing the 10th district.

As to Kirk, I am not quite sure how you can say the same things about Seals as have been said about Kirk. But that is hard to tell, at least for me, since Kirk has steadfastly refused to answer questions on policy issues, apart from sporadic releases to everyone. If you don't believe me, send a communication about a policy issue to the congressman and see what response you get. After you get ignored a few times, it gets much easier to look at a challenger.

Sep 16, 2006, 9:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Publia said...

Hi Again Anonymous,

Don Rumsfeld represented the old 13th District. What that has to do with Dan Seals I don't know because he was probably elected before Mr. Seals was born. Mr. Runsfeld was born in Evanston; Mr. Seals in Hyde Park. He is new to the area, having returned here from being a Congressional aide. The Congressional district has been redrawn many times since Mr. Rumsfeld's days. If people are going to be represented in Congress, I think generally speaking its done best by someone who knows the district by having lived there for many years. Of course he will move to the district if he's elected because the law requires him to do so.

Sep 18, 2006, 1:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if you live in Wilmette but are represented by someone from Waukegan, then you are being represented by a neighbor who shares your interests? Or if I live in Palatine and am represented by someone who lives in Highland Park, then that person is a neighbor who shares my interests? Take your pick for which towns to compare -- it is a large district and hardly homogenous in demographics.

The point about boundaries is that they have historically changed and will continue to change. Do you really think that sensitivity to local interests is tied to residence address in a big district like this? Do you really believe that?

Even in the same town, does my neighbor share my interests? Do all Wilmette voters think the same about education, city services, diversity, teacher contracts, infrastructure? If I don't happen to like teardowns and my representative (or village manager) supports them, does that mean the my representative who lives in the same town is supporting my interests?

Besides, this election is not just about local interests. Kirk is on record telling his colleagues that the way to secure reelection this year is to distract attention from the Iraq war, terrorism, torture, and the like by focusing on local issues. It is his strategy to avoid the big issues by focusing on the local. And that is what he is doing.

Kirk, however, is the assistant majority whip of the House and is thus one of its managers. What do I do if my representative has major responsibility for national issues and decisions about which I object strongly? Am I constrained to looking at people who happen to reside in the district? The problem is that our representative has also made a substantial mark on some very nonlocal issues that affect me very significantly. And since you talk about the law, I do not recall a legal requirement regarding his residence in standing for election.

I am still trying to figure out from your post why a residence on Isabella in Wilmette disqualifies (or should disqualify) someone from running for Congress and representing my interests effectively in the 10th district.

Sep 19, 2006, 8:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You put down Seals for stating the fact that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, yet you offer nothing in the way of a refutation. Why not? State your case for supporting the war in Iraq, and please include evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11, if that's what you believe. Secondly, you replied to one comment with the statement "The democrats had one party rule for 40 years, don't forget." That's not true. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 40 years, but during that time there were Republican Presidents and Republican control of the Senate. Today Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This is true one party rule, and the distinction is a very important one. Both of my complaints about your blog boil down to one problem: you ignore facts because they don't serve your purposes. Your behavior is typical of the modern Republican party, and it's unfortunate. Why not just be perfectly honest? Why not just admit that there was no need to invade Iraq? Why not be more accurate in your portrayal of American political history? What are you so afraid of that prevents you from being perfectly honest and straightforward?

Sep 22, 2006, 12:26:00 AM  
Blogger Publia said...

Dear Anonymouses,

Geez, you guys are really tough players, and probably have the benefit of being much smarter and better educated than me. So many questions, and I don't know how to do debating. About all I could say would be to try the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground websites which you could find via Google. I think you would like them. I did find this on Iraq which might help http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115888803926970848.html?

I also found a good little book
http://littledemocrats.net/samples.html, which is a book you might like.

I am a working person and don't have the leisure to do the research; I'm sorry.

Sep 22, 2006, 1:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't be sorry. Disagreements are that are honest are OK and even positive. There is no reason for disagreements to indicate deficiencies of character or provide a basis for demeaning someone else. That is unfortunately not a widely held opinion these days.

You should note that some people feel strongly that respect for others' opinions is stretched when there seems to be a gap between the opinion and what actually happened or is happening now. If you claim something has happened and I know it has not, then how am I to judge your opinion? You have a right to your opinion and I to mine, but if you claim the sun is shining and I know that it is not, then one of us is in error. It may be your opinion that 2+2=5 and you have a right to it, but you are also incorrect in that opinion.

Look at the start of this thread, when you criticize the view that if the Iraqis want democracy they need to fight for it themselves. Then you say:

What a guy. Suppose we had told France, "If you want to be free of the Germans, you will have to defeat them yourselves." What if we had telegraphed to the Warsaw Ghetto, "Keep it up! We know you will be able to free yourselves from being sent to a death camp if you continue your good work."

Well, in truth, we did not intervene to help France until after Hitler had declared war on the US, in December 1941 and had not Germany done that, it is not clear when we would have helped France.

In truth, we did not help the Warsaw Ghetto, but instead stood by while they were slaughtered by the Nazis. Perhaps it would have been impossible to help, but the fact is that we did not help them.

In truth, we did not intervene to stop the mass murder at the Nazi death camps in Poland. We could have bombed the camps but we did not. We stood by and let the Jews be slaughtered by the Nazis. The same could be said more recently for our record in the Yugoslav civil war.

Your post gives the impression that intervening in a war to assist others in fighting for democracy is an American tradition. Perhaps you believe that to be the case. What actually happened in the circumstances you mention, however, is not consistent with what you claim to draw from it. That wasn't how it happened.

So if you want to criticize someone who says that an intervention like in Iraq is not consistent with our national interests or is just plain wrong, please do so -- but don't claim history to be on your side. You cannot just make up what happened.

As to your being a working person without time for research, join the club! That doesn't free you from an obligation to try to get things right where factual matters are involved. Nobody is free from that obligation, even the President and even our Congressman, who believes he can banish national issues from his website as if they did not exist.


Sep 25, 2006, 5:30:00 PM  
Anonymous KO said...

I was about to write quite a long reply, but reading the other comments, I see that PUBLIA simply gives up and says that those who disagree with him must be smarter and since he is a working person he doesn't have the luxury to learn more. That is truly sad. I work 50 or more hours a week, but it is my duty to educate myself about as many facts and opinions as possible when they relate to the governance of my country. That's patriotism as it was taught by our founders.

Sep 30, 2006, 8:04:00 PM  
Blogger Publia said...

Well, this isn't a political blog, and if you had looked at any posts other than by googling for anyone who mentions your candidate you probably would have noticed that. There are plenty of blogs that are political, and there you will find people who enjoy policial discussions and debate. I think that you can find those blogs pretty easily.

I was offended by Candidate Seals' comments and I won't be voting for him. Because I am pretty sure that there were at least 2 (if not more) commenters here, 2 against one means majority of commenters are for Seals. If that is any reflection on how people feel, I wouldn't be worrying about the election.

The fact that we don't think alike does not make me unpatriotic.

Oct 2, 2006, 12:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Wilmette Blogger:

Your blog was written in September. Like to take it back now? All your perceptions have been proven WRONG. There was no connection b/w 911 and IRAQ. Boo Hoo for you!! You don't have an argument. Ck out Woodward's book. looks like Condi Rice is on the run now. She "suddenly" remembers a meeting about being warned for 911. Hmmmmm And let's not talk about the GOP party right now covering up for Pediphiles. That makes them just as bad as a pediphile. No Morals. Un- Christianlike and will wind up not in heaven but in the other place. Looks like you are in the wrong place at the wrong time Mister Wilmette Blogger. Congress needs to be cleaned up. Mark Kirk is the WRONG PERSON, WITH LOW ETHICS AND MORAL STANDARDS. HE IS NOT A PERSON FOR THE NORTHSHORE. Maybe he is for your individual residence where you would all lie to each other and cover up for crimes and pretend you didn't know anything. Dan Seals will restore Trust and Accountability to Washington. A Vote for Dan is a vote against the republican pediphiles.

Oct 6, 2006, 3:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See THIS blog post:
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2006/10/liberal-is-not-dirty-word.html It says a lot about this race in the upcoming election.

Oct 12, 2006, 3:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan Seals is CORRECT: ther WAS no connection between 9/11 and Iraq - you've believed the fodder Bush has fed the public about Iraq. Afghanistan, yes; Iraq, no. Iraq is NOW a haven for terrorists that it was NOT before Rumsfeld and Bush invaded. Now almost 2,800 soldiers have died for King George, I say "Go Dan Seals!"

Oct 23, 2006, 12:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home