Quote:

---

Not long after sharing her anti-gay views with the Daily Herald editorial board on Jan. 20, the 55 year old Niles, Ill. resident was disavowed by leaders of the Illinois Republican Party and Chicago Republican Party. She was even asked to withdraw her candidacy.

At the time, the party issued a statement to Chicago Phoenix that insisted the party would not support the Niles-resident’s bid.

“The offensive statements by Susanne Atanus have no place in the modern political debate, and she has no place on the ballot as a Republican,” Republican Party Chairman Jack Dorgan said. “Her candidacy is neither supported nor endorsed by the leaders of our party, and she should withdraw from the race immediately.”

The 9th congressional district includes Chicago’s North Side where many of its Republicans hold moderate social views. The Chicago party organization stood up against Atanus’ statements.

“Atanus is not in any way affiliated with any of our efforts in the Chicago GOP,” said Chairman Adam Robinson. “Nor have we ever supported, endorsed, or assisted her in any way at any time.”

Atanus ran for the same congressional seat in 2010 and lost. In 2012, her name was pulled from the primary ballot for lack of signatures.

Schakowsky has a long history supporting the LGBT community in word and deed—supporting bills covering various LGBT issues in the U.S. House. Her congressional offices prominently display the rainbow Pride flag.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Funny how that got left out of the original post.

---

Quote:

---

I'm sure Niki just didn't want to cut and paste an entire article for the purpose of brevity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Once again, our resident fascists have no criticism of the brain-dead candidate, but have plenty of hatred to pile on the messenger.

It's as if they want that psycho in office. Strange how they jump to the defense of a certifiable idiot, though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Once again, our resident fascists have no criticism of the brain-dead candidate, but have plenty of hatred to pile on the messenger.

It's as if they want that psycho in office. Strange how they jump to the defense of a certifiable idiot, though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Once again, our resident fascists have no criticism of the brain-dead candidate, but have plenty of hatred to pile on the messenger.

It's as if they want that psycho in office. Strange how they jump to the defense of a certifiable idiot, though.

---

Wow! fingers typing but brain not engaged. Might want to look to that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Once again, our resident fascists have no criticism of the brain-dead candidate, but have plenty of hatred to pile on the messenger.

It's as if they want that psycho in office. Strange how they jump to the defense of a certifiable idiot, though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
You just described yourself, idiot.

Reaver is 100% accurate - you say nothing against the moronic views of this crazy woman - and whine like a bitch that someone pointed it out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
What does the fact that "the party" rejected her have to do with anything? She won the primary. I wasn't referring to "Republicans", I was pointing out who won a primary for national office. I KNOW there are plenty of intelligence Republicans out there, but that someone like this won their primary is what blows my mind. She's not MY "opponent" (and hopefully doesn't have a hope in hell of winning in the general), but I should think she would be any think Republican's opponent!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Quote:

---

Once again, our resident fascists have no criticism of the brain-dead candidate, but have plenty of hatred to pile on the messenger.

---

No, but it's what they joy most in focusing on.

What does the fact that "the party" rejected her have to do with anything? She won the primary. I wasn't referring to "Republicans", I was pointing out who won a primary for national office. I KNOW there are plenty of intelligence Republicans out there, but that someone like this won their primary is what blows my mind. She's not MY "opponent" (and hopefully doesn't have a hope in hell of winning in the general), but I should think she would be any think Republican's opponent!

Jong actually nailed my point:

Quote:

---

The thing that's wrong are the voters themselves. Campaigning politicians are just a reflection of the constituents.

---

Bingo: THAT's what worries me about our country.

Good gawd, if a Democrat espoused such views, I'd post it in a minute and have a lot to say about it--I HAVE posted at length about idiot Democrats, and have decried Obama on so many things…sigh…but I know, there's only "us and them".

(Just to note, however; I haven't watched MSNBC in over a year, and I think I've gone to their website maybe three times in all that time.)

That's okay, tho', go on with your hate fest, and pay no attention to what's happening to your country...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
"It's all about controlling the message, and crafting the most negative image possible of your opponent."

Seems to me you guys have that down to a science...............

3 Letters: WMD

Need I say more!?


SGG

---

Quote:

---

well before 2000.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

well before 2000.

---

Nearly everyone in Europe said the earth was flat, back in the 1400s. Times change, and so does understanding. Why do you keep pointing to things that were said and done so many events in the past as to be irrelevant, when there was an inspection team ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME doing exactly what should be done- looking for WMD? Yet another unanswered question!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

well before 2000.

---

Nearly everyone in Europe said the earth was flat, back in the 1400s. Times change, and so does understanding. Why do you keep pointing to things that were said and done so many events in the past as to be irrelevant, when there was an inspection team ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME doing exactly what should be done- looking for WMD? Yet another unanswered question!

---