IL-Gov. 2018 Megathread

[Blair]

What's the likelyhood that Biss, or Chris Kennedy drop out of the race?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fun fact: Turns out Ramirez-Rosa told Biss' campaign that he'd always opposed BDS shortly before his selection.

Rosa has opposed and continues to oppose BDS at a state and municipal level (voted against a resolution on the city council). He believes there is room for a nuanced debate nationally, Biss does not. Only the former issue came up, for obvious reasons, in the selection process for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois.


In other news, Biss is announcing State Rep. Litesa Wallace (D-Rockford) as his new Lt. Gov. candidate today. Rep. Brad Schneider, who de-endorsed Biss over the Rosa pick, has declined to re-endorse.

There's room for nuanced national debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  There is not any such room for "nuanced" debate over supporting anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS nor should there be.  They must be condemned in the strongest possible terms for the same reasons that it's vital for politicians to unambiguously condemn white supremacists.    

...but BDS isn't a hate group? You can't repeat something over and over and expect people who disagree with you to suddenly take your stance on the issue. I'm not passionate about this issue and I'm actually more sympathetic to the pro-Israel side (I can understand why Sunrise and such have the opinions that they do since they and their family actually a personal connection to Israel) than a lot of others on the hard-left, but boycott, divestment, and sanctions is a legitimate tactic of protest against nation-states one deems to be oppressive. You can disagree with their labeling of Israel as such, but neither BDS nor DSA are "hate groups".

I don't really know anything about DSA so I can't comment on them, but BDS is very much an anti-Semitic hate group for the reasons Gustaf and others have discussed elsewhere in this thread.  

[KingSweden]

Fun fact: Turns out Ramirez-Rosa told Biss' campaign that he'd always opposed BDS shortly before his selection.

Rosa has opposed and continues to oppose BDS at a state and municipal level (voted against a resolution on the city council). He believes there is room for a nuanced debate nationally, Biss does not. Only the former issue came up, for obvious reasons, in the selection process for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois.


In other news, Biss is announcing State Rep. Litesa Wallace (D-Rockford) as his new Lt. Gov. candidate today. Rep. Brad Schneider, who de-endorsed Biss over the Rosa pick, has declined to re-endorse.

There's room for nuanced national debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  There is not any such room for "nuanced" debate over supporting anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS nor should there be.  They must be condemned in the strongest possible terms for the same reasons that it's vital for politicians to unambiguously condemn white supremacists.    

...but BDS isn't a hate group? You can't repeat something over and over and expect people who disagree with you to suddenly take your stance on the issue. I'm not passionate about this issue and I'm actually more sympathetic to the pro-Israel side (I can understand why Sunrise and such have the opinions that they do since they and their family actually a personal connection to Israel) than a lot of others on the hard-left, but boycott, divestment, and sanctions is a legitimate tactic of protest against nation-states one deems to be oppressive. You can disagree with their labeling of Israel as such, but neither BDS nor DSA are "hate groups".

Since you are more nuanced on this than many who share your ideological orientation (to your credit!) I'll ask: why Israel? Why a liberal democracy where Arab Israelis have full political rights? Why is the same standard not applied to other countries? I used examples earlier of the pogroms against LGBT in Chechnya (an extreme version of general Russian persecution against queer people), the Rohingya attacks in Burma, An *actual* genocide in Darfur. It's absurd to compare these places to Israel and that's the point - there is no comparison. Like the earnest question every time a terror attack in the West happens, "Why aren't we talking about this instead?" If there's genuine concern for human rights, focus the energy on boycotting the Middle East's one stable democracy on thuggish regimes engaged in ethnic and religious cleansing. There's the real outrage.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Fun fact: Turns out Ramirez-Rosa told Biss' campaign that he'd always opposed BDS shortly before his selection.

Rosa has opposed and continues to oppose BDS at a state and municipal level (voted against a resolution on the city council). He believes there is room for a nuanced debate nationally, Biss does not. Only the former issue came up, for obvious reasons, in the selection process for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois.


In other news, Biss is announcing State Rep. Litesa Wallace (D-Rockford) as his new Lt. Gov. candidate today. Rep. Brad Schneider, who de-endorsed Biss over the Rosa pick, has declined to re-endorse.

There's room for nuanced national debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  There is not any such room for "nuanced" debate over supporting anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS nor should there be.  They must be condemned in the strongest possible terms for the same reasons that it's vital for politicians to unambiguously condemn white supremacists.    

...but BDS isn't a hate group? You can't repeat something over and over and expect people who disagree with you to suddenly take your stance on the issue. I'm not passionate about this issue and I'm actually more sympathetic to the pro-Israel side (I can understand why Sunrise and such have the opinions that they do since they and their family actually a personal connection to Israel) than a lot of others on the hard-left, but boycott, divestment, and sanctions is a legitimate tactic of protest against nation-states one deems to be oppressive. You can disagree with their labeling of Israel as such, but neither BDS nor DSA are "hate groups".

Since you are more nuanced on this than many who share your ideological orientation (to your credit!) I'll ask: why Israel? Why a liberal democracy where Arab Israelis have full political rights? Why is the same standard not applied to other countries? I used examples earlier of the pogroms against LGBT in Chechnya (an extreme version of general Russian persecution against queer people), the Rohingya attacks in Burma, An *actual* genocide in Darfur. It's absurd to compare these places to Israel and that's the point - there is no comparison. Like the earnest question every time a terror attack in the West happens, "Why aren't we talking about this instead?" If there's genuine concern for human rights, focus the energy on boycotting the Middle East's one stable democracy on thuggish regimes engaged in ethnic and religious cleansing. There's the real outrage.

<insert position that I don't really care about re: settlements, gaza blockade, etc etc that you're conveniently ignoring>

Like I'll be real honest - the emotions and feelings I have about either side of Israel/Palestine could fit in a thimble with room for cream and a little bit of simple syrup. But pretending that Israel is morally blameless and just perfect is at odds with the facts.

And like, the fact that you're saying "well, they're not Al-Shabab" isn't really filling me with confidence.

 I was personally opposed to DSA endorsing BDS just because I know a lot of people's berserk button is primed on the issue, and whatever good we'd do in supporting it is vastly outweighed by the s*** we'd catch because of it, but I really admire CRR for sticking by DSA's position on the issue. And let's be clear, CRR's personal position on the issue is NOT full endorsement of BDS, but he was willing to stand up to the berserk critics anyway.

[KingSweden]

Fun fact: Turns out Ramirez-Rosa told Biss' campaign that he'd always opposed BDS shortly before his selection.

Rosa has opposed and continues to oppose BDS at a state and municipal level (voted against a resolution on the city council). He believes there is room for a nuanced debate nationally, Biss does not. Only the former issue came up, for obvious reasons, in the selection process for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois.


In other news, Biss is announcing State Rep. Litesa Wallace (D-Rockford) as his new Lt. Gov. candidate today. Rep. Brad Schneider, who de-endorsed Biss over the Rosa pick, has declined to re-endorse.

There's room for nuanced national debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  There is not any such room for "nuanced" debate over supporting anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS nor should there be.  They must be condemned in the strongest possible terms for the same reasons that it's vital for politicians to unambiguously condemn white supremacists.    

...but BDS isn't a hate group? You can't repeat something over and over and expect people who disagree with you to suddenly take your stance on the issue. I'm not passionate about this issue and I'm actually more sympathetic to the pro-Israel side (I can understand why Sunrise and such have the opinions that they do since they and their family actually a personal connection to Israel) than a lot of others on the hard-left, but boycott, divestment, and sanctions is a legitimate tactic of protest against nation-states one deems to be oppressive. You can disagree with their labeling of Israel as such, but neither BDS nor DSA are "hate groups".

Since you are more nuanced on this than many who share your ideological orientation (to your credit!) I'll ask: why Israel? Why a liberal democracy where Arab Israelis have full political rights? Why is the same standard not applied to other countries? I used examples earlier of the pogroms against LGBT in Chechnya (an extreme version of general Russian persecution against queer people), the Rohingya attacks in Burma, An *actual* genocide in Darfur. It's absurd to compare these places to Israel and that's the point - there is no comparison. Like the earnest question every time a terror attack in the West happens, "Why aren't we talking about this instead?" If there's genuine concern for human rights, focus the energy on boycotting the Middle East's one stable democracy on thuggish regimes engaged in ethnic and religious cleansing. There's the real outrage.

<insert position that I don't really care about re: settlements, gaza blockade, etc etc that you're conveniently ignoring>

Like I'll be real honest - the emotions and feelings I have about either side of Israel/Palestine could fit in a thimble with room for cream and a little bit of simple syrup. But pretending that Israel is morally blameless and just perfect is at odds with the facts.

And like, the fact that you're saying "well, they're not Al-Shabab" isn't really filling me with confidence.

 I was personally opposed to DSA endorsing BDS just because I know a lot of people's berserk button is primed on the issue, and whatever good we'd do in supporting it is vastly outweighed by the s*** we'd catch because of it, but I really admire CRR for sticking by DSA's position on the issue. And let's be clear, CRR's personal position on the issue is NOT full endorsement of BDS, but he was willing to stand up to the berserk critics anyway.

But it's perfectly possible to be against settlements (at minimum I think they should be halted) or think Likud is terrible (I wanted Boogie or whatever his name was to win in '15) or oppose the Gaza Blockade (I thought it was ill-advised at best). You can hold those positions, all of which are within the progressive mainstream, while NOT supporting BDS. collectively punishing all Israeli people over policy disagreements is absurd. Not to mention the modern desire to conflate all  expressions of Jewishness with Zionism (see: Chicago "Dyke March"), and the historically illiterate contention that Zionism is a form of white supremacy or fascism

Israel is not perfect. Israel has, typically when egged on by Likudniks (or worse) made resolution more difficult. But most counties are not morally pure in any way, and BDS has a singular focus on just the one country, with logically spurious reasoning.

[Donerail]

What's the likelyhood that Biss, or Chris Kennedy drop out of the race?

I doubt either will—I thought Kennedy was looking like he might, but he also may just be disorganized and weird.

[KingSweden]

What's the likelyhood that Biss, or Chris Kennedy drop out of the race?

I doubt either will—I thought Kennedy was looking like he might, but he also may just be disorganized and weird.

The Kennedy campaign's ineptness has really been remarkable

[JGibson]

The pick of Litesa Wallace as Biss's ticketmate is a sound one.

[Green Line]

Should have picked Kelly Burke or Fran Hurley.  Two great Illinois Democrats.

[muon2]

Should have picked Kelly Burke or Fran Hurley.  Two great Illinois Democrats.

But Biss is making a play for the progressive wing, and though both Burke and Hurley are solid legislators (esp. Burke on higher ed funding), neither are going to excite progressives.

[Kingpoleon]

For Drury's running mate, would Jonathan Jackson or Kwame Raoul be interested, do you guys think?

[Donerail]

Rep. Scott Drury, the candidate of choice for Kingpoleon, Wulfric and literally no one else, has named his running mate. It's his campaign manager.

For Drury's running mate, would Jonathan Jackson or Kwame Raoul be interested, do you guys think?

No.

[KingSweden]

Rep. Scott Drury, the candidate of choice for Kingpoleon, Wulfric and literally no one else, has named his running mate. It's his campaign manager.

For Drury's running mate, would Jonathan Jackson or Kwame Raoul be interested, do you guys think?

No.

Drury sure is reaching out across all wings of the party with that one

[Ye We Can]

Friendly neighborhood reminder that nobody cares about the light gov position unless their really really controversial. Some dudes/dudettes are a staple in Illinois.

[Gustaf]

BDS supports punishing individual Israelis for the "crime" of being Israeli. The radical left has never been a reliable ally in the fight for human rights but it's important for the mainstream left to be clear about those issues. 

[Donerail]

CK to announce his Lt Gov on Thursday

[Chief Justice Keef]

BDS supports punishing individual Israelis for the "crime" of being Israeli. The radical left has never been a reliable ally in the fight for human rights but it's important for the mainstream left to be clear about those issues. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

BDS supports punishing individual Israelis for the "crime" of being Israeli. The radical left has never been a reliable ally in the fight for human rights but it's important for the mainstream left to be clear about those issues. 

Err...William Z. Foster was a diehard supporter of Stalin.

[Gustaf]

BDS supports punishing individual Israelis for the "crime" of being Israeli. The radical left has never been a reliable ally in the fight for human rights but it's important for the mainstream left to be clear about those issues. 

One always has to resort to baby talk on here. So step by step:

1. "Not being a reliable ally" implies that the subject is SOMETIMES an ally, but cannot be relied upon.

2. As such, the statement explicitly says that the radical left is indeed an ally at times.

3. Therefore, your response that it has been an ally in a specific situation does not contradict the statement and rather confirms it. The addition that the person was Stalinist further underlines my original point.

4. You should try and not embarrass yourself like this in the future.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Err...William Z. Foster was a diehard supporter of Stalin.

The addition that the person was Stalinist further underlines my original point.

Looks like the Stalinists were ahead of the kind moderate liberals on civil rights.

[Gustaf]

The radical left has never been a reliable ally in the fight for human rights

Uh, then who are the "reliable all[ies]" of the human rights movement? I don't see how the people with the deepest-seated commitment to egalitarian principles are anything but the primary allies of the humans rights cause.

Anti-semites don't really have a deep-seated commitment to egalitarian principles.

Us liberals who actually support universal human rights are the good guys. The radical left is a good ally at times but discussions like this is a useful reminder that it can't be relied upon. Currently, the radical left cannot be relied upon to protect Jews, for example.

[TheSaint250]

The radical left has never been a reliable ally in the fight for human rights

Uh, then who are the "reliable all[ies]" of the human rights movement? I don't see how the people with the deepest-seated commitment to egalitarian principles are anything but the primary allies of the humans rights cause.

Anti-semites don't really have a deep-seated commitment to egalitarian principles.

Us liberals who actually support universal human rights are the good guys. The radical left is a good ally at times but discussions like this is a useful reminder that it can't be relied upon. Currently, the radical left cannot be relied upon to protect Jews, for example.

This. And the far-left outside the Western world didn't really have a good track record on civil rights...

[Figueira]

More "anti-Israel=antisemitic" nonsense in this thread.

[RINO Tom]

The radical left has never been a reliable ally in the fight for human rights

Uh, then who are the "reliable all[ies]" of the human rights movement? I don't see how the people with the deepest-seated commitment to egalitarian principles are anything but the primary allies of the humans rights cause.

Anti-semites don't really have a deep-seated commitment to egalitarian principles.

Us liberals who actually support universal human rights are the good guys. The radical left is a good ally at times but discussions like this is a useful reminder that it can't be relied upon. Currently, the radical left cannot be relied upon to protect Jews, for example.

It's almost as if every single ideology has groups that they're less than tolerant of and there isn't one (like "liberals") that is totally innocent on the issue of tolerance.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Err...William Z. Foster was a diehard supporter of Stalin.

The addition that the person was Stalinist further underlines my original point.

Looks like the Stalinists were ahead of the kind moderate liberals on civil rights.

Pretty sure that MLK's quote is referring to so-called "moderates" on civil rights rather than liberals (who frankly did far more to advance African-American civil rights on an actual policy level than whites on the far-left fringe, but don't let facts get in your way.

Also, Stalin fanboys like Foster are almost by definition turning a blind eye to - if not, outright rationalizing or even praising - the rampant crimes against  humanity committed by Stalin's regime.  Hardly reliable allies in the struggle for human rights, to say the least.

More "anti-Israel=antisemitic" nonsense in this thread.

Claiming that those condemning anti-Semitism are somehow claiming anti-Israel = anti-Semitism seems to be the pro-BDS crowd's version of Donald Trump's "antifa is just as bad as the neo-Nazis/the KKK" BS.