The Chicago Tribune 'Breaking News' website reports:
Rep. Don Manzullo, who opposes the idea of moving terrorism suspects to Thomson Correctional Center in his northern Illinois district, issued a qualified apology today after a comment that critics viewed as insulting to Islam.
In an interview with television station WREX in Rockford that was aired Monday, the Illinois Republican said of terrorism suspects: "These are really, really mean people whose job it is to kill people, driven by some savage religion."
(Please attend events with you Congress critter and report on the events. - promoted by Carl Nyberg)
"What's important," said Rep. Don Manzullo at today's health reform town hall meeting in Elizabeth, Ill., "is that people be heard."
"People," in this case, not including your diarist. When I was called on and began to reel off ShadowSD's town hall talking points, Manzullo cut me off and went to another questioner.
Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) is complaining about his government-sponsored health care plan. Manzullo, who opposes a “public option” in health care insurance, told the Rock River Times:
The DCCC has launched a radio ad program on families first in 28 districts held by Republicans.
The interesting thing is that in Illinois the only district targeted is Manzullo. He is also a top choice to get the short end of the stick for redistricting in 2010.
The two most notably absent in my mind are Kirk and Roskam. Both of them are in competitive districts and it would seem to me that they would be much better targets.
Robert Abboud has officially declared against Don Manzullo in IL-16. Abboud is the village President of Barrington Hills and a former nuclear engineer and business owner. His campaign is motivated by the increasing national debt created by the Republican congress and President Bush, the war in Iraq, and the lack of action on global climate change.
"I've got grandchildren, and I cannot in good conscience leave
them to a crushing $9 trillion debt fueled by an economy that has lost its strategic manufacturing base, and fueled by a misdirected military action that costs $12 billion a month," Abboud said.
"And I cannot leave my grandchildren with a global climate threatened by ignorance and greed."
I still couldn't find a website for Abboud, but some of his positions were articulated to Eric Krol in early June.
(Promoted with some formatting changes... - promoted by EricV)
Don Manzullo has been around a long time representing Northwest Illinois. Unfortunately his recent challengers have with not been legitimate candidates or have been severely under funded. Manzullo ran on a term limits pledge that he broke long ago. Recently Rockford Register Star political editor Chuck Sweeny interviewed one of the most promising potential candidates that Democrats have run in years.
Manzullo rival fears the demise of manufacturing
U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo was elected in 1992 and has never faced a serious challenge to re-election. Until now: The 2008 campaign is shaping up to be a barn-burner.
This time, Democrats say they have a candidate who can beat the popular Egan Republican. He's Robert G. "Bob" Abboud, a McHenry County Democrat.
Unlike Manzullo, Abboud isn't a lawyer. He's a nuclear scientist and engineer who holds five patents. He's president of RGA Labs Inc., an engineering, research and development firm. In his spare time, Abboud, 50, is village president of Barrington Hills, an enclave of business titans.
Abboud also has plenty of money. And he said he understands that defeating Manzullo will mean having to raise $2 million. So, why does a successful businessman in the prime of life want to run for Congress?
Peace activists living in Rockford were able to sit down with Don Manzullo and discuss their concerns. What they came away with was perhaps better than expected, but not near so good as they had hoped. First off, Manzullo met with them, and what a sad day it is when it is noteworthy and impressive that our elected officials deigned to meet with their constituents. He even answered their questions. Granted they were prepared, canned answers, but answers nonetheless. Unfortunately those answers showed that he was more beholden to himself and his corporate sponsors then to the people of his district.
Again and again, Don has asked to serve as our elected representative. During his 13-year career in Congress, America's best interests have changed, while Don has not. Citizens of our district can be proud that he is not a crook. Don Manzullo is wise and smart. To be sure, he knows this district; it is sad that he did not know the name of the soldier from Freeport, Ill., who committed suicide rather than return to the illegal and immoral war in Iraq that Don has fully supported. Our hour with Don sends a call to our own electorate. When elections come up, do we really want a C- average representative? What about the near quarter-billion Don caused this district to send in support of a failed war?
We don't seem to hear to much about Illinois' 16th District (The Fightin' 16th), but we here at PrairieStateBlue still love the area. (Go RiverHawks!) Well, the 16th is represented by Don Manzullo. Manzullo is a conservative Republican; according to the National Journal he was Illinois' second most conservative Representitive in 2006 and 39th most conservative overall. He was involved in the Abramoff scandal (here and here, for instance) and more than half of the money he took in for his 2006 race against Dick Auman came from PACs.
Well, one thing that has become more and more apparent over the last few years is that no area is devoid of progressives. The Rock River Times of, surprise, Rockford printed two "Guest Columns" critical of Don Manzullo. I'll put teasers above the fold, but go below the fold or to the link for the full text.
I recently sent an e-mail to my congressman, Don Manzullo, giving my opinion opposing the plan to send more troops to Iraq, and then Iran. The response I got back was the status quo. A few paragraphs opposing my opinion, and finishing with "your input is important to my work here in Washington." It's what I get every single time. I did get one paragraph that I did not expect in the reply.
"My primary responsibility in Congress is the protection of the American people. There is conclusive and indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein was preparing to restart his nuclear weapons program. Though it has been a difficult road in Iraq, our involvement has resulted in one less individual threatening the world with nuclear capability."
REALLY!?! I thought my congressman's primary responsibility was to defend and uphold the Constitution for the United States. At least that's how his oath puts it.
I am not politically left. I am conservative about killing people.
...I know that the United States of America does [have a constitution]. All laws are supposed to conserve it. If we don't like any part of our Constitution, we may amend it. According to the Constitution of the United States of America, only the Congress can declare war (Article I, Section 8). When the power to declare war is passed on to the president and commander-in-chief, the balance of power written into the Constitution is violated. Therefore, any member of Congress who votes for executive warfare is violating the Constitution of this nation, a document which I revere. Don Manzullo has done so; though he considers himself conservative, he does not care to conserve our nation's Constitution.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our chairman, Mr. Lantos, has scheduled for March a hearing to discuss the different proposals relating to the handling of the war in Iraq. He has promised a lot of time for debate on all the different bills introduced in the House of Representatives, ranging from those that call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, to those that demonstrate our presence there as part of a larger war, not against a nation, but against a movement, Islamic jihadis. They are everywhere and are responsible for attacks in India, Jordan, Israel, England, Egypt, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the Gaza, Morocco, Pakistan and in the United States and Iraq. Chairman Lantos wants to make sure that all sides are heard, that all possible alternatives are given an airing. But that is what is missing in the bill that the Democratic majority has given us this evening: it can't be amended. Can you imagine three days of debate without the opportunity to amend a bill? That implies the Democratic leadership believes they have a monopoly on truth and fear input from other Members of Congress. The bill we are debating today condemns the infusion of up to 21,000 more troops in Iraq. However, at a time when we should be excited about a new proposal calling for a major shift in our policy on Iraq, the bill we are debating condemns it. This proposal taps as its new leader Lieutenant General David Patraeus, who should be given an opportunity to succeed. Confirmed unanimously by the Senate, he has extensive knowledge of other wars and military conflicts and has resolved that America can achieve a favorable result in Iraq. The new policy is a shift in the rules of engagement and calls upon the Iraqis themselves to step up in responsibility and achievement. A Washington Post story dated January 12 of this year with the byline, ``Withdrawals could start if Iraq plan works: Gates,'' repeats the words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 11, Gates said: ``If these operations actually work, you can begin to see a lessening of the U.S. footprint both in Baghdad and Iraq itself. Then you could have a situation later this year where you could actually begin withdrawing.'' Isn't that what Americans want, a plan of action with a new focus, stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home? But that plan is not being debated today, and that is why I am going to vote against this resolution. We live in extremely dangerous times. We know Iran is developing atomic weaponry. We also know that six other Arab nations are actively seeking atomic technology, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The stakes are onerous. That is why America's men and women in uniform not only deserve our support in the field, but also here in the House of Representatives, by allowing their opinions to be voiced through their Members of Congress. It is the least we can do for them.
Agape Press ("Reliable News from a Christian Source")
An Illinois congressman says the Government Accounting Office (GAO) needs to evaluate the appropriateness of some pregnancy prevention classes being offered to young people.
Representative Don Manzullo, along with 20 other members of Congress, sent a letter to the GAO about some of these taxpayer-funded pregnancy prevention classes. He says he did this because taxpayers have a right to know about the obscenities that are being taught to their children.
