I often claim that all politics is local. This morning proved that.
Champaign County Republicans gathered for a Unity Breakfast this morning at Republican Headquarters. Jim McGuire represented the Brady campaign and JE Miller spoke on behalf of the Oberweis campaign. (Ron Gidwitz and Andy Martin didn't have local representatives, so there isn't much to read into their failing to attend.) Also, John Maloney spoke on behalf of the Topinka campaign.
I say all politics is local because ”“ when it gets down to it ”“ the people speaking today were people we all know and respect.  They are members of our community. They represent important constituencies and viewpoints in our party. Overall, I felt the event was a tremendous success. Everyone acknowledged that we all have our differences. In the end, however, we agreed that a unified party is the most important aspect to defeating an administration that ignores East-Central Illinois, Champaign County and the University community.
If you didn't hear about the breakfast or other local GOP events, e-mail me at jason_barickman@hotmail.com and begin receiving our weekly e-newsletter of local events and news.
I'm open to other ideas to promote party unity, and consider this an open thread to provide feedback, thoughts or ideas on the local Republican party as we move toward November.
I would love to see Judy flash some conservative credentials soon - come out in strong opposition to the minimum wage increase, and say "no" to Rod's road/jobs plan as too expensive for our current situation.
How was the Champaign County Young Republican unity breakfast? Any unity demonstrated?
Maybe I shoulda read the post first. My bad.
Jason, I agree that we need Party unity to defeat Blago, and I applaud the efforts of the local party to do that. I appreciate that Oberweis' local representative joins in that. Will Oberweis himself do that as well? We need this on a state-wide level if we're going to get rid of the disaster that is now our governor.
Just an observation: each of the three GOP candidate reps that spoke this morning referenced the Right to Life/Pro-Life issue... both how their candidate stood/stands and also how the issue affected the primary and will affect the GE. We hear an awful lot about "not being a one issue vote or candidate". But once again, this issue is at the top, or near the top of every substantial discussion when it comes to political issues.
Catholic Man, Obi fans,
how much would it help your support for Judy if she came out supporting the conscience-clause for pharmacists, or the cutting of funds for embyonic stem cell research? (these being the two most recenct battles in the state pro-life/pro-choice war)
I am begining to think that the Obi people haven't yet quite figured out that he has lost. You seem to hear more about him that we do about JBT. Any insight?
I think the question is whether Oberweis and his supporters will sacrifice the party and a chance to beat Blago in order to soothe his ego.
Well considering at the breakfast this morning the Obi campaign representative stated that he would not endorse JBT unless she conceded some of her more liberal views, then no I dont think his supporters will help out JBT.
If I read right, "each of the three GOP candidate reps that spoke this morning referenced the Right to Life/Pro-Life issue," and yet, "the question is whether Oberweis and his supporters will sacrifice the party and a chance to beat Blago." What did the other two speakers have to say about it?
Jim mentioned it and said he was a pro-life along with Brady, however to me it didn't seem like he dwelled on it like the Obi rep. did. Also the Obi rep. made a joke out of Shelden's walk out during the LD Dinner. Sure it was funny, but at a unity breakfast was it necessary?
If Mr. Miller and the Obi-Weiss-Kenobi campaign were honestly interested in promoting unity they should have supplied creamer for the coffee.
He or she seriously singled out Shelden?
RSW - "how much would it help your support for Judy if she came out supporting the conscience-clause for pharmacists, or the cutting of funds for embyonic stem cell research?"
I'd love for her to do that. I doubt it will happen, because I think most pro-lifers will vote for her over Blago anyway. As much as I hate to admit it, like Jim said this morning, even with her faults, she's better than Blago any day of the week.
... even with her faults, she's better than Blago any day of the week.
Really? Why?
Judy does tell it like it is, no question about it. I think she seriously thinks she doesn't have to do anything to "appease the social right" because they have nowhere else to go. And reversing any of Blago's recent attacks on life might jeopardize some of her potential Dem crossover vote. It saddens me, but I fear you are right.
Huh? Says--where to begin? JBT probably knows that the Daily Show isn't produced by Mayor Daley. JBT probably won't appoint the minister of protocol of the Nation of Islam to a committee designed to foster peace and cooperation. JBT probably won't sweep funds specifically designated for some other purpose. JBT probably won't try to sell off every asset that the State of Illinois has in order to fund give-away programs and buy votes. JBT will probably live in Springfield, the state capitol. Jbt will probably reject bad advice in freezing judicial salaries, costing the taxpayers significant attorneys fees. JBT probably won't claim that she has the right under the lottery to institute keno games where ever she wants. JBT probably won't run afoul of the federal law on flu shots, order them from a non-approved foreign source and then refuse to pay them. JBT probably won't... Anyone else want to jump in here?
Anyone who took JE's comments to be negative toward me is out of line. I took it in good humor, and others should as well. I also did not hear him say "that he would not endorse JBT unless she conceded some of her more liberal views" What he said was that JBT had suggested that she didn't need social conservatives to win. He wants to be asked for his vote, and JBT would be prudent to reach out to social conservatives. JE is smart enough to know that JBT is not going to change her colors. I think JBT is also smart enough to know that she needs people like JE.
Thanks JE for coming. It meant a lot to me and many others.
That's an awful lot of "probably"s. I'm not convinced she'd be any less corrupt that Blago, in fact she may be a step backwards (at least Rod isn't on trial).
In the meantime you want her to allow pharmacists to pick and choose which drugs they are going to dispense? You'd like her to come out of against a woman's right to choose. You'd probably like her to do away with AllKids, reduce education funding, and further deregulate our environment (maybe we should allow more sewage into Lake Michigan?).
Sounds like a lot of probablys (hopes) and exagerations, with a ton of negative legislation. Surely we can do better than this?
"Surely we can do better than this?"
It's either her or Rod. We have seen what Rod has done; we can only make assumptions as to what Judy will do. Shall we make her take a lie-detector test and answer your questions?
The assumption that a George Ryan protegee will be any better than Blago is one large blind leap of faith. I think youy're probably placing a lot of things at her feet that she probably will ignore should the unlikely happen and she's elected. She'll probably spend half the state budget on Miss Clairol Clown Red hair dye.
Ask any of our local hospitals or clinics if they accept AllKids . . . Carle, Christie - even Francis Nelson. No one accepts it (or plans to).
Great plan Rod.
ACtually, my point is that we can surely do better than Rod. The last time that I looked JBT wasn't on trial. Will you use that same argument when Rod's associates are indicted, as some will surely be, given some of the actions in this STate? The point is that we already know that Blago is a disaster. In this case, I'd rather vote for someone who could hopefully do better--we know he can't.
A large leap of faith into a very shallow puddle. An awful lot of probablys and hopefullys and surelys floating around here. Last time I looked, Blago wasn't on trial, either. Surely we can do better. But is Judy 'better'?
"She'll probably spend half the state budget on Miss Clairol Clown Red hair dye. "
While I do find that comment funny, I'm more intrigued with this fixation you libs have with hair. You guys seem to get excited about polticians that have "good hair." Look at Blago, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards--all obsessed with having perfect hair. Very strange indeed.
And who IS the most liberal in this race, Judy or Rod? Hard to tell, isn't it?
Well, if we're going to end up with a liberal, at least make it a competent one.
"And who IS the most liberal in this race, Judy or Rod? Hard to tell, isn't it? "
Pension boondoggles, gun grabs, and the multimillion dollar boondoggle spending program of the week.
It's not hard to tell.
I think Mark Shelden and Jason Barickman both have great, sexy hair.
I would. In a heartbeat.
Champaigndweller: You win; I can't argue with that logic. I just hope you're right.
Mollie,
I hear Barickman's law partner has great, sexy hair as well.
The point isn't that one is less corrupt than the other. The point is they are all equally corrupt. If you don't agree, I'd suggest you are either willfully ignorant of how politics works, or naive with hope for the one lone candidate who's gonna "turn it all around".
News flash: it aint gonna happen.
So if you proceed from the assumption that they are all equally corrupt at some level: Ryan, Blago, Topinka, even Edgar, then you must make choices about policy and policy alone.
I'd rather have someone who is not in the pocket of the AMA, not tied to corporate polluters, and not in the businesses of underfunding the schools. As for AllKids, Christie and Carle may refuse to accept these patients (cold-hearted bastards that they are, it wouldn't surprise me) but Francis Nelson will accept them.
Doesn't Francis Nelson currently serve a predominantly lower-income patient that has little or no health coverage? Why would you think it is a good idea for them to pay premiums for something they already receive for free. Surely you can admit there is a problem with AllKids that goes beyond just Carle & Christie. Be honest and admit that AllKids is just an election-year political stunt.
And I don't like Judy or her Miss Clairol Clown red hair.
And don't forget that Judy Baar smokes like a chimney.
This governor is using every short-term gimmick possible to keep money flowing to his projects - stretching state vendors, borrowing from the pension plans, selling state assets, "sweeping" designated funds for general expenditures, and raising every fee possible to the detriment of economic growth.
He is beholden to one person - himself. When all these chickens come home to roost, he plans on being long gone to bigger and better things.
The leaders of the G.A. from his own party now insist on written letters of understanding, because they can't take him at his word.
But, huh?, if you are worried about Judy being in the pocket of the AMA, go ahead and vote to put this guy back in for another 4 years.
A vote for Rod is a vote for bankruptcy court.
Actually, if you are already a patient (or, more to the point, your child is already a patient) at Carle or Provena then the hospital will have to accept AllKids. It's the new sign-ups that are the issue.
I don't think AllKids is just a stunt (it's a stunt, but not just a stunt). The legislation attempts to get at the heart of the health care crisis in this country. A crisis, I might add, brought on by private insurers and hospitals. Health Care, USA is example one for why privatizing essential services is a bad idea.
Blago has the guts to try to get government back involved with funding health care for the middle class. It is a good, big idea and people all over the country will be watching it. If it is successful, and the middle class turns out for Rod, then it may well be emulated across the country.
As for the budget - I am sure if we started talking about the federal budget we'd suddenly get a long litany of reasons Bush is unable to control it. This list would probably start with an "out of control" congress, or some such nonsense, instead of looking at the unsustainable tax cuts and an illegal fraud of a war that is sucking billions into the Middle East.
It is similar in Blago's case, except he is not fighting a war and has not cut taxes - he is coming up with his own strategies to pay the bills, with the assumption that some day soon the tax revenues will increase enough to pay back all that has been borrowed, etc. Pretty much the exact same reasoning Reps will use to defend Bush's deficits.
But, of course, Blago is not a Republican. So, fire away?
What Bush and the Congress are doing to our national budget is horrendous - conservatives won't defend that.
Is that the best you have - "your guy does it too"?
"he is coming up with his own strategies to pay the bills, with the assumption that some day soon the tax revenues will increase enough to pay back all that has been borrowed"
And all the while, adding to the expense load with bunches of new programs - this morning we get news that Madigan is coming up with his own budget - so much for support from Rod's Democrat-controlled G.A.
Is that the best you have - “your guy does it too”ÂÂ?
Unfortunately, on the budget, the answer seems to be yes. :(
If you guys had nominated Brady, we might have something to discuss. Sigh.
I have to disagree that Rod is trying to help out the middle class. Who do you think is going to soaked to pay for his bloated social programs?
I don't see how we can continue to develop new programs when we can't pay for existing programs. Try talking to nursing homes, hospitals, pharmacies, etc that are waiting on payments from the State. If private citizens paid their bills the way that the State of Illinois, under the governor, pays its bills, they would be in court all of the time as deadbeats. Blago will continue to borrow from the future until the State has to raise taxes, the State defaults, or he bails on the mess that he has perpetuated.
Right. But then my question would be, "Did you vote for Bush?"
If the answer is yes, then I would ask "why?". Probably because you knew he was a big spender, driving our deficits sky high, but you believe in the other issues he carries: the GWOT, maybe Gay Marriage, etc.
It's the same thing with Blago. I readily concede that this program may be hard to fund, but that doesn't mean I don't like it. I like it a lot, and I like the steps he's taken on regulating business (especially polluters), funding the schools, etc.
So sure ... he's trashing an already trashed budget (mainly because he swore to not raise taxes and has to live with that idiotic promise) - but he is doing what my silly-Liberal-ass likes: trying to take care of the workers.
This is one of the wittiest, most provocative, and fun threads I have read in a long time. Kudos to all of you. Keep it coming, I need more.
ACtually, although I supported Bush, I didn't think he was going to be a big government spender or flunk on the issue of border control. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of us don't support the President's policies 100% across the board.
Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear. I assume that you don't support his budget (though you must have known his habits by '04) - but you support a host of his other issues. It's the same with Blago.
No one's perfect (especially politicians). We must choose our battles, and often vote with our nose plugged. You do it for Bush, I do it for Blago.
The best of times ...
Huh? I see your point. We have reached a sad point when the voters are voting for the candidate they dislike the least, rather than a candidate they can wholeheartedly support.
I found this quite informative. I like the consensus that was built in the thread. I can really see the motivation in the thread for people to vote either side on this upcoming election. Of course, with my concerns, the choice is pretty clear at this point. But as you say at the end, I wish I had a better choice.
Right. But then my question would be, “Did you vote for Bush?”ÂÂ
If the answer is yes, then I would ask “why?”ÂÂ. Probably because you knew he was a big spender, driving our deficits sky high, but you believe in the other issues he carries: the GWOT, maybe Gay Marriage, etc.
Kerry did not have any position I preferred. None.
Republicans can now proudly wear the label: No tax and spend.
"So sure ”¦ he's trashing an already trashed budget (mainly because he swore to not raise taxes and has to live with that idiotic promise) - but he is doing what my silly-Liberal-ass likes: trying to take care of the workers."
So...how exactly does bankrupting (workers') pension plans and driving businesses out of the state with higher regulations/fees help workers?
I guess it proves that if you promise to rob Peter to pay Paul, you are assured of Paul's unfailing support at the ballot box.