DOWNSTATE ILLINOIS ADVOCATE
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke
DOWNSTATEILADVOCATE.COM
Something Important About The Illinois Primary
On March 20th, Illinois voters will head to the polls to vote in the Presidential Primary. In addition, many of us will cast votes in local primary races ranging from county board to coroner. However, one of the most important votes cast isn't for any of those races; it's for Precinct Committeeman.
One of the general criticisms of the Tea Parties is that they are very disconnected from each other and have generally failed to rally around a particular candidate or have split their support among a field of candidates. Hence the rise of Mitt Romney as the front runner and the others in the field splitting the other 75% of support.
Another criticism of the Tea Parties is their unwillingness to be absorbed into the Republican party or any party for that matter. They are staunchly conservative, but independent. This point has been both their benefit and their defeat. Staying independent has allowed the Tea Parties to largely operate outside of the normal political world while affecting elections to their liking in 2010. At the same time, the Tea Parties have failed to affect the Republican party leadership despite being instrumental in the takeover of the US House and other races.
There is a growing number of conservatives and Tea Partiers though that have recognized this problem of not affecting the Republican Party leadership at both the local and state level. As a result, these people have collected signatures on petitions within their respective voting precincts in order to be placed on the ballot on March 20th for a two year term as a Precinct Committeeman. An overwhelming majority - if not all - of those conservatives/Tea Partier Precinct Committeeman candidates you will find on the Republican ballot.
These people understand that in order to effectively affect change within the Republican Party, you must become a voting member within that party. Once a voting member of the Republican Party, these same conservatives/Tea Partiers can then help affect change at the leadership level.
Of course change won't happen overnight, but getting involved as a Precinct Committeeman is one of the important things you can do within the political world and voting for a Precinct Committeeman is one of the most important things you can do this upcoming Illinois Primary.
Unfortunately, the deadline for petitions to be on the March 20th ballot as a Precinct Committeeman has passed. But there is still hope for you! 28 days fter the Primary, your county Republican Party will meet for their County Convention to elect the new party leadership and only elected Precinct Committeemen can vote during this convention. After the County Convention, you can still step forward and ask to be appointed to any precinct that does not have a Precinct Committeeman elected to it. In this way, you can still affect the party through other ways since during the next 2 years, all Precinct Committeemen - both elected and appointed - can vote on party business at the county level. As a result, even though you missed the deadline to file, you still have an opportunity to make changes at the county level.
When March 20th comes around and you are in polling place casting a vote, make sure to check to see if there is a Precinct Committeeman running in your precinct. If there is someone running, then make sure you vote for him or her. If there isn't, then contact your county's Republican Chairman or another Precinct Committeeman (list available at your county clerk's office) to get involved.
If you are a Tea Partier, you must get involved in party politics, especially if you want the movement to survive longer than previous political movements before it. The machine that is party politics will leave the Tea Parties in the dust if the Tea Parties do not join in and attempt to take over the party machine. This Illinois Primary is your first chance to do just that. The next opportunity won't happen until 2014 - and pray it won't be too late by then. If the Tea Partiers don't get involved now, then they risk being nothing more than a blip on the map of political history like Soccer Moms, Reagan Democrats, etc.
To quote one of my favorite movies, "get busy livin' or get busy dyin'.".
One of the general criticisms of the Tea Parties is that they are very disconnected from each other and have generally failed to rally around a particular candidate or have split their support among a field of candidates. Hence the rise of Mitt Romney as the front runner and the others in the field splitting the other 75% of support.
Another criticism of the Tea Parties is their unwillingness to be absorbed into the Republican party or any party for that matter. They are staunchly conservative, but independent. This point has been both their benefit and their defeat. Staying independent has allowed the Tea Parties to largely operate outside of the normal political world while affecting elections to their liking in 2010. At the same time, the Tea Parties have failed to affect the Republican party leadership despite being instrumental in the takeover of the US House and other races.
There is a growing number of conservatives and Tea Partiers though that have recognized this problem of not affecting the Republican Party leadership at both the local and state level. As a result, these people have collected signatures on petitions within their respective voting precincts in order to be placed on the ballot on March 20th for a two year term as a Precinct Committeeman. An overwhelming majority - if not all - of those conservatives/Tea Partier Precinct Committeeman candidates you will find on the Republican ballot.
These people understand that in order to effectively affect change within the Republican Party, you must become a voting member within that party. Once a voting member of the Republican Party, these same conservatives/Tea Partiers can then help affect change at the leadership level.
Of course change won't happen overnight, but getting involved as a Precinct Committeeman is one of the important things you can do within the political world and voting for a Precinct Committeeman is one of the most important things you can do this upcoming Illinois Primary.
Unfortunately, the deadline for petitions to be on the March 20th ballot as a Precinct Committeeman has passed. But there is still hope for you! 28 days fter the Primary, your county Republican Party will meet for their County Convention to elect the new party leadership and only elected Precinct Committeemen can vote during this convention. After the County Convention, you can still step forward and ask to be appointed to any precinct that does not have a Precinct Committeeman elected to it. In this way, you can still affect the party through other ways since during the next 2 years, all Precinct Committeemen - both elected and appointed - can vote on party business at the county level. As a result, even though you missed the deadline to file, you still have an opportunity to make changes at the county level.
When March 20th comes around and you are in polling place casting a vote, make sure to check to see if there is a Precinct Committeeman running in your precinct. If there is someone running, then make sure you vote for him or her. If there isn't, then contact your county's Republican Chairman or another Precinct Committeeman (list available at your county clerk's office) to get involved.
If you are a Tea Partier, you must get involved in party politics, especially if you want the movement to survive longer than previous political movements before it. The machine that is party politics will leave the Tea Parties in the dust if the Tea Parties do not join in and attempt to take over the party machine. This Illinois Primary is your first chance to do just that. The next opportunity won't happen until 2014 - and pray it won't be too late by then. If the Tea Partiers don't get involved now, then they risk being nothing more than a blip on the map of political history like Soccer Moms, Reagan Democrats, etc.
To quote one of my favorite movies, "get busy livin' or get busy dyin'.".
The Scam of Higher (Lower) Education
I may be stating the obvious, but 4 year universities and colleges are nothing more than scams designed to bleed the taxpayer of money and trick students into the idea they "need" to take and pass certain classes!
Mind you, I'm not taking issue so much with what is learned (though I have serious reservations about cherry picking information or skewing that knowledge taught from a liberal point of view). The courses you decide to take to achieve a degree within a chosen major are needed and the intro-major courses provide a scaffolding system for the student as the student advances through his or her major courses into more intense and narrower scoped classes within their major.
The scam of higher education begins with the "prerequisite" courses a student must take before that student can pursue their chosen major. For instance, the "general education" requirements at Eastern Illinois University include:
Of course the power that be that decided the "general education" requirements justify it as creating a well rounded, worldly minded student. Bunk. It's all about the money.
According to the EIU Financial Aid site it would costs a student, who lives on campus, $22,736.00 to attend one year at EIU @ 15 hours with a 12 meal plan in the dorms. If you live off campus, it will cost a student $14,194.00 per year (actually higher if you are a commuting student) less the costs of 12 meal plan/campus housing. For our purposes, let's just use the student living off campus as an example. The costs to a student just to get through 40 hours of "general education" @ $269.00 + fees per credit hour = $17,705.00 +/-.
One question I have is why are we being double taxed or triple taxed to pay for "general education" that should have been learned while a student was in high school? How are we double or triple taxed? Look at your property taxes - you pay a portion to your local school district and then you pay a portion to EIU and Lakeland. Then you are taxed on your state income which helps pay for higher education. Then your income is taxed at the federal level which some of it filters back to the universities or colleges. In addition, once enrolled at a university there are also activity fees, parking fees, book rental (at EIU students rent books instead of buying them), health services fee, etc. More money, more problems.
It's not my fault or your fault that a student is not prepared for college. It should not be our responsibility to reteach students what they need in order to do well in their major courses. It lessens the value of a college degree when students are taught, retaught, and then pursue their career chosen college classes. If a student can't write a paper when they get to college, they either need to learn how on their own real quick or maybe, **gasp**, they shouldn't be there in the first place? It's not our fault that a student's high school did not educate them correctly or the student didn't pay attention in class. If anyone can basically get a degree because they have been coddled and tutored the first 2 years of school (at considerable costs to the student and taxpayer) so they can make it in their chosen major classes, then what's the value of a Bachelor's degree? The value sure doesn't go up, but the cost of college always does.
I'm not that old, but I do remember a time when a college degree was something special. Your degree gave you an advantage over someone that didn't have a degree, and double that sentiment if you had a Master's degree. What happens to the value of a product or service when scarcity is no longer an issue? The value of that product or service goes down. Likewise, that principle transfers to a college degree but yet the costs associated with obtaining a less-valuable degree has gone up considerably. This is also a problem I have with "online universities", but that's a post for another day...
Furthermore, universities crank out degrees like Bill Maher cranks out stupid. If a certain major is a dying field or the job market is saturated, then universities should either limit how many they allow to major in that field or shut down the program altogether. But again, it's all about the money. Just because a student wants to major in something, doesn't mean the university should provide them the avenue to pursue such folly. As an example from a fantastic movie starring Jeremy Piven, Jon Favreau and David Spade called PCU:
It is beyond belief that it takes 4 or more years to get a degree because it should take only 2 at the most 3 to achieve a degree. When a student attends a university, the student should be placed directly in their chosen major courses. If they make it, great! If they sink, perhaps a university isn't for them - there is junior college though.
Junior colleges offer a 2 year degree where students do take general education courses and either graduate with an associates degree or then continue on to a 4 year university. Why are universities offering the same courses as junior colleges? Better yet, if universities and junior colleges are going offer the same courses, WHY DON'T ALL COURSES TRANSFER?!?!
That's right. Let's say you attend Lakeland, don't get an associates degree but decide after 2 years at Lakeland you want to go directly to EIU. Some of your courses will not transfer, and you will be forced to retake the same courses at EIU. Furthermore, if I attend EIU and decide after 3 years that I want to finish up my degree at SIUC or any other 4 year university, guess what....not all of your classes will transfer, if any do at all. Once arriving at your new university, you will have to retake courses you already took at EIU. So the scam for more money continues.
To continue, if I take courses at EIU but I can't fit one class or another into my schedule but Lakeland teaches the classes and is actually a class that transfers, one would think I could dual enroll, transfer my credit from Lakeland up to EIU to speed up the process towards graduation. Wrong. I used to be able to dual enroll, but universities have gotten wise and now if they find you have dual enrolled, the credit taken at the other institution will not transfer regardless if it would have transferred if you were only enrolled at the junior college. Money.
But it gets better! In order to graduate from EIU, a student has to take a senior seminar - that'll basically cost an extra $1000. If you transfer to EIU, a student has to reach "institutional residency" which means a student has to take a minimum of 30 hours at EIU to graduate.
Every step of the way, the student and the tax payer gets bled just a little more.
By allowing QUALIFIED students to attend universities and achieve their degree in less time also ensures they will have less student loan debt (not getting into that argument here) when they graduate. If a student has less debt, then they have more money to spend. If the graduate has more money to spend, then the economy benefits. And so on and so on.
As a result, we are left with archaic institutions of learning that are more concerned with ensuring our students are classicallyindoctrinated educated liberals, retaught in the finest education that our tax dollars can buy and pass out degrees like ice cream. It's redistribution of wealth - education style - and our universities are failing miserably. I can tell you horror stories of senior level students I had classes with that either could not write a coherent sentence or could not arrange the English language into a coherent sentence while speaking.
Our politicians are so concerned about reforming public education at the high school level they have completely ignored universities. I'm sure the heavily unionization of universities has nothing to do with the lack of reform in any way shape or form...
Our university system must be reformed. Dropping "general education" requirements and allowing transfer of credits from institution to institution without penalty would be a great places to start.
Mind you, I'm not taking issue so much with what is learned (though I have serious reservations about cherry picking information or skewing that knowledge taught from a liberal point of view). The courses you decide to take to achieve a degree within a chosen major are needed and the intro-major courses provide a scaffolding system for the student as the student advances through his or her major courses into more intense and narrower scoped classes within their major.
The scam of higher education begins with the "prerequisite" courses a student must take before that student can pursue their chosen major. For instance, the "general education" requirements at Eastern Illinois University include:
Humanities and Fine Arts |
9 hours |
| Language | 9 hours |
| Mathematics | 3 hours |
| Scientific Awareness | 7 hours |
| Social and Behavioral Sciences | 9 hours |
| Senior Seminar | 3 hours |
| TOTAL | 40 hours |
Of course the power that be that decided the "general education" requirements justify it as creating a well rounded, worldly minded student. Bunk. It's all about the money.
According to the EIU Financial Aid site it would costs a student, who lives on campus, $22,736.00 to attend one year at EIU @ 15 hours with a 12 meal plan in the dorms. If you live off campus, it will cost a student $14,194.00 per year (actually higher if you are a commuting student) less the costs of 12 meal plan/campus housing. For our purposes, let's just use the student living off campus as an example. The costs to a student just to get through 40 hours of "general education" @ $269.00 + fees per credit hour = $17,705.00 +/-.
One question I have is why are we being double taxed or triple taxed to pay for "general education" that should have been learned while a student was in high school? How are we double or triple taxed? Look at your property taxes - you pay a portion to your local school district and then you pay a portion to EIU and Lakeland. Then you are taxed on your state income which helps pay for higher education. Then your income is taxed at the federal level which some of it filters back to the universities or colleges. In addition, once enrolled at a university there are also activity fees, parking fees, book rental (at EIU students rent books instead of buying them), health services fee, etc. More money, more problems.
It's not my fault or your fault that a student is not prepared for college. It should not be our responsibility to reteach students what they need in order to do well in their major courses. It lessens the value of a college degree when students are taught, retaught, and then pursue their career chosen college classes. If a student can't write a paper when they get to college, they either need to learn how on their own real quick or maybe, **gasp**, they shouldn't be there in the first place? It's not our fault that a student's high school did not educate them correctly or the student didn't pay attention in class. If anyone can basically get a degree because they have been coddled and tutored the first 2 years of school (at considerable costs to the student and taxpayer) so they can make it in their chosen major classes, then what's the value of a Bachelor's degree? The value sure doesn't go up, but the cost of college always does.
I'm not that old, but I do remember a time when a college degree was something special. Your degree gave you an advantage over someone that didn't have a degree, and double that sentiment if you had a Master's degree. What happens to the value of a product or service when scarcity is no longer an issue? The value of that product or service goes down. Likewise, that principle transfers to a college degree but yet the costs associated with obtaining a less-valuable degree has gone up considerably. This is also a problem I have with "online universities", but that's a post for another day...
Furthermore, universities crank out degrees like Bill Maher cranks out stupid. If a certain major is a dying field or the job market is saturated, then universities should either limit how many they allow to major in that field or shut down the program altogether. But again, it's all about the money. Just because a student wants to major in something, doesn't mean the university should provide them the avenue to pursue such folly. As an example from a fantastic movie starring Jeremy Piven, Jon Favreau and David Spade called PCU:
Tom: What's he doin?Some might argue that it's a free country and if my kid wants to get a worthless degree in underwater basket weaving, then that's his or her right. I guess you can study, or do anything you want, but that doesn't mean the tax payers have to pay for it or provide a vehicle for your kid to be eventually unemployed (thereby costing tax payers more money).
Droz: He's finishing his senior thesis. Pigman is trying to prove the Caine-Hackman theory. No matter what time it is, 24 hours a day, you can find a Michael Caine or Gene Hackman movie playing on TV.
Tom: That's his thesis?
Droz: Yes! That's the beauty of college these days, Tommy! You can major in Game Boy if you know how to bullshit.
It is beyond belief that it takes 4 or more years to get a degree because it should take only 2 at the most 3 to achieve a degree. When a student attends a university, the student should be placed directly in their chosen major courses. If they make it, great! If they sink, perhaps a university isn't for them - there is junior college though.
Junior colleges offer a 2 year degree where students do take general education courses and either graduate with an associates degree or then continue on to a 4 year university. Why are universities offering the same courses as junior colleges? Better yet, if universities and junior colleges are going offer the same courses, WHY DON'T ALL COURSES TRANSFER?!?!
That's right. Let's say you attend Lakeland, don't get an associates degree but decide after 2 years at Lakeland you want to go directly to EIU. Some of your courses will not transfer, and you will be forced to retake the same courses at EIU. Furthermore, if I attend EIU and decide after 3 years that I want to finish up my degree at SIUC or any other 4 year university, guess what....not all of your classes will transfer, if any do at all. Once arriving at your new university, you will have to retake courses you already took at EIU. So the scam for more money continues.
To continue, if I take courses at EIU but I can't fit one class or another into my schedule but Lakeland teaches the classes and is actually a class that transfers, one would think I could dual enroll, transfer my credit from Lakeland up to EIU to speed up the process towards graduation. Wrong. I used to be able to dual enroll, but universities have gotten wise and now if they find you have dual enrolled, the credit taken at the other institution will not transfer regardless if it would have transferred if you were only enrolled at the junior college. Money.
But it gets better! In order to graduate from EIU, a student has to take a senior seminar - that'll basically cost an extra $1000. If you transfer to EIU, a student has to reach "institutional residency" which means a student has to take a minimum of 30 hours at EIU to graduate.
Every step of the way, the student and the tax payer gets bled just a little more.
By allowing QUALIFIED students to attend universities and achieve their degree in less time also ensures they will have less student loan debt (not getting into that argument here) when they graduate. If a student has less debt, then they have more money to spend. If the graduate has more money to spend, then the economy benefits. And so on and so on.
As a result, we are left with archaic institutions of learning that are more concerned with ensuring our students are classically
Our politicians are so concerned about reforming public education at the high school level they have completely ignored universities. I'm sure the heavily unionization of universities has nothing to do with the lack of reform in any way shape or form...
Our university system must be reformed. Dropping "general education" requirements and allowing transfer of credits from institution to institution without penalty would be a great places to start.
The Battle For The Republican Party
Much has been made online and within the MSM about the conservative vs liberal (and moderate) wings/candidates of the Republican party during this Presidential GOP primary election.
On one side - the liberal or Massachusetts Moderate - we have Mitt Romney. On the other side, we have the rest trying to pit themselves as the poster child for conservatism (and the word "conservative" seems to be open to debate and interpretation this year as well).
I think this GOP primary is shaping up to be something more though, something that the Democratic Party had to go through in 2008 - Old Guard vs New Guard or better yet Old Establishment vs New Establishment.
Let me define "establishment" in these terms for our purposes here as those that are in a position of power within the party structure.
This thought first came to me awhile ago, but I was reminded about it and made more of a connection when John McCain endorsed Mitt Romney. This endorsement was really no surprise and in fact, I wrote a piece detailing that Mittens was actually McCain Version 2012.
McCain's endorsement coupled with the endorsement of former President George HW Bush and the less than tacit snubbing of TX Gov. Rick Perry there is a power struggle within the GOP (carried out almost daily on Fox News anytime Karl Rove opens his mouth). In effect, it's the Bush wing vs. all challengers to the Bush legacy.
We saw the same thing playing out in 2008 and since - the Clintons vs all challengers to the Clinton legacy.
As former Presidents, both Clinton and the Bushes, had the opportunity to place their supporters and loyalists in positions within their respective parties. Both the Clintons and the Bushes continued to shape their parties until someone came along to knock them off the proverbial hill. In the Clintons' case, it was Barack Obama's hostile takeover of the Democratic Party and when President Obama leaves office, his loyalists will control the Democratic Party until someone unseats the Obamaites' chosen successor(s). Right now, Obamaites have already fanned out across the country to lay the ground work to stay in power within the Democratic Party. Mayor Tiny Dancer in Chicago is a prime example of this, much like how Clintonites Bill Richardson ran for governor, Hilary ran for Senate, etc.
Likewise, we see this same situation taking place during the GOP primary. The Bushes, with their preferred candidate John McCain of 2008, have tried to crown their successor through Mitt Romney. Mittens will of course promote his people into positions of power, but those people will be aligned with the Bush wing.
Hence, we see one of the roots of the conservative vs moderate/liberal problem within the GOP just like we saw the battle between the center-left vs far left in the 2008 Democratic primary. The non-Mitt candidates represent varying different variations of conservatism different than George W Bush "conservatism". We have Reagan Republicans, Libertarian Republicans, and Clinton Era Republicans vs Bush Republicans.
I know I am working in grand generalizations here, but it's a working thesis. I would ask you to pay attention to who the pundits and commentators are talking up or down. Right now, it seems Mittens is largely getting pass from the conservative intelligentsia while these same critics are pointing out how Candidate X or Candidate Y doesn't have the money, doesn't appeal enough to independents, didn't make the correct speech, etc.
We are left with a power struggle for the GOP that could ultimately result in Obama's re-election.
On one side - the liberal or Massachusetts Moderate - we have Mitt Romney. On the other side, we have the rest trying to pit themselves as the poster child for conservatism (and the word "conservative" seems to be open to debate and interpretation this year as well).
I think this GOP primary is shaping up to be something more though, something that the Democratic Party had to go through in 2008 - Old Guard vs New Guard or better yet Old Establishment vs New Establishment.
Let me define "establishment" in these terms for our purposes here as those that are in a position of power within the party structure.
This thought first came to me awhile ago, but I was reminded about it and made more of a connection when John McCain endorsed Mitt Romney. This endorsement was really no surprise and in fact, I wrote a piece detailing that Mittens was actually McCain Version 2012.
McCain's endorsement coupled with the endorsement of former President George HW Bush and the less than tacit snubbing of TX Gov. Rick Perry there is a power struggle within the GOP (carried out almost daily on Fox News anytime Karl Rove opens his mouth). In effect, it's the Bush wing vs. all challengers to the Bush legacy.
We saw the same thing playing out in 2008 and since - the Clintons vs all challengers to the Clinton legacy.
As former Presidents, both Clinton and the Bushes, had the opportunity to place their supporters and loyalists in positions within their respective parties. Both the Clintons and the Bushes continued to shape their parties until someone came along to knock them off the proverbial hill. In the Clintons' case, it was Barack Obama's hostile takeover of the Democratic Party and when President Obama leaves office, his loyalists will control the Democratic Party until someone unseats the Obamaites' chosen successor(s). Right now, Obamaites have already fanned out across the country to lay the ground work to stay in power within the Democratic Party. Mayor Tiny Dancer in Chicago is a prime example of this, much like how Clintonites Bill Richardson ran for governor, Hilary ran for Senate, etc.
Likewise, we see this same situation taking place during the GOP primary. The Bushes, with their preferred candidate John McCain of 2008, have tried to crown their successor through Mitt Romney. Mittens will of course promote his people into positions of power, but those people will be aligned with the Bush wing.
Hence, we see one of the roots of the conservative vs moderate/liberal problem within the GOP just like we saw the battle between the center-left vs far left in the 2008 Democratic primary. The non-Mitt candidates represent varying different variations of conservatism different than George W Bush "conservatism". We have Reagan Republicans, Libertarian Republicans, and Clinton Era Republicans vs Bush Republicans.
I know I am working in grand generalizations here, but it's a working thesis. I would ask you to pay attention to who the pundits and commentators are talking up or down. Right now, it seems Mittens is largely getting pass from the conservative intelligentsia while these same critics are pointing out how Candidate X or Candidate Y doesn't have the money, doesn't appeal enough to independents, didn't make the correct speech, etc.
We are left with a power struggle for the GOP that could ultimately result in Obama's re-election.
Why Are We Tolerating Carpetbagging?
It's a redistricting year which means all precincts, County Board districts, State Representative, State Senator, and US House districts are all redrawn to reflect the findings from the decennial census.
Sometimes, as a result of redistricting, a sitting US House member or sitting State Senator or Representative might find themselves on the other side of the fence a district they represent once the district lines have been redrawn.
As a result, this predicament places those redistricted incumbents into a precarious situation - retire or run in a sometimes partially or fully brand new district.
There's a word for those that decide to move to a district from a different district, in an attempt to make it easier to get elected or re-elected - carpetbagging. Generally, outside of a redistricting year, the voting populace usually has no stomach for people moving into a district last minute to run for office or for someone living outside of a district to run in a district where a candidate does not reside.
Since it is a redistricting year, the rules change a little bit for state offices**. Simply put (or not), anyone can run in any district as long as they move into the district they are wanting to represent by the time they run for re-election the next election after a redistricting year. So, if you win a IL House seat in 2012, you must move in district by 2014 or if you win a IL Senate you would have to move in district in 2014 or 2016, depending on which straw you draw since IL Senate terms are broken up into 2 year-4 year-4 year terms (or 4-4-2 or 4-2-4).
The quandary we find ourselves as constituents of the newly drawn IL 54th Senate District is that our sitting Republican State Senator Kyle McCarter is finding himself challenged by a fellow Republican, State Senator and Deputy Minority Leader John O Jones. Prior to 2012, McCarter basically represented the western portion of Effingham County and Jones represented the southern portion of the county (State Sen. Dale Righter - whom we are losing as a result of the redistricting currently represents the north/northeastern part of Effingham County).
My contention is why do we tolerate carpetbagging during redistricting years? It's not our fault that an elected official was drawn out of his or her district by political dealings or other means. In the case of McCarter versus Jones though, we are left scratching or head even more as to why this race is tolerated by the constituents of the IL 54th Senate district.
You see, John O Jones was not drawn out of a district, but rather his district radically changed. Instead of stretching basically from southern Effingham County south through Jefferson County (Mt. Vernon) where Sen. Jones lives, his new district would have stretched from Jefferson County west towards the Mississippi River, then south from there.
Instead, and in my opinion, to punish Sen. McCarter for not playing nicely with IL GOP leadership in the Senate - you know, they kind of frown on independent conservative thinkers in Springfield - Sen. Jones decided to run in a district that he DOES NOT LIVE IN - like the IL 54th Senate district.
If Jones were to win the primary and then the general election AND if Jones were to draw the long straw, he could live in Mt. Vernon and not have to move into district for 3 years...if he decided to run for re-election that is. If for instance, he draws the long straw for a 4 year term and decides not to run for re-election, we would have a State Senator that would not live in district for 4 years. What incentive would Jones have to represent the 54th district if he doesn't live there? We are supposed to trust that he would represent the 54th district as virulently as he has his current district? I'm a trusting soul, but not that trusting. I believe we need someone that lives in district to represent us in Springfield.
Why do we tolerate this? Sen Jones could easily run in the district that encompasses where he lives but instead, decided to run against Sen. McCarter. Carpetbagging is the highest form of a politician being a self-centered. The fact that he or she would have the gall to think they are so important to a district that a district and its constituents just cannot live without them is appalling to me.
We would not tolerate carpetbagging any other election year, why now? What's different? In short, absolutely nothing and we should treat such behavior in the same way - DON'T VOTE FOR CARPETBAGGERS OR SEN. JONES!
** (US House rules don't change during redistricting since according to the US Constitution, one must only reside in the state where the district located or in other words, it is within the realm of possibility to have a US Representative live in the state but outside a district he or she represents in Washington DC.)
Sometimes, as a result of redistricting, a sitting US House member or sitting State Senator or Representative might find themselves on the other side of the fence a district they represent once the district lines have been redrawn.
As a result, this predicament places those redistricted incumbents into a precarious situation - retire or run in a sometimes partially or fully brand new district.
There's a word for those that decide to move to a district from a different district, in an attempt to make it easier to get elected or re-elected - carpetbagging. Generally, outside of a redistricting year, the voting populace usually has no stomach for people moving into a district last minute to run for office or for someone living outside of a district to run in a district where a candidate does not reside.
Since it is a redistricting year, the rules change a little bit for state offices**. Simply put (or not), anyone can run in any district as long as they move into the district they are wanting to represent by the time they run for re-election the next election after a redistricting year. So, if you win a IL House seat in 2012, you must move in district by 2014 or if you win a IL Senate you would have to move in district in 2014 or 2016, depending on which straw you draw since IL Senate terms are broken up into 2 year-4 year-4 year terms (or 4-4-2 or 4-2-4).
The quandary we find ourselves as constituents of the newly drawn IL 54th Senate District is that our sitting Republican State Senator Kyle McCarter is finding himself challenged by a fellow Republican, State Senator and Deputy Minority Leader John O Jones. Prior to 2012, McCarter basically represented the western portion of Effingham County and Jones represented the southern portion of the county (State Sen. Dale Righter - whom we are losing as a result of the redistricting currently represents the north/northeastern part of Effingham County).
My contention is why do we tolerate carpetbagging during redistricting years? It's not our fault that an elected official was drawn out of his or her district by political dealings or other means. In the case of McCarter versus Jones though, we are left scratching or head even more as to why this race is tolerated by the constituents of the IL 54th Senate district.
You see, John O Jones was not drawn out of a district, but rather his district radically changed. Instead of stretching basically from southern Effingham County south through Jefferson County (Mt. Vernon) where Sen. Jones lives, his new district would have stretched from Jefferson County west towards the Mississippi River, then south from there.
Instead, and in my opinion, to punish Sen. McCarter for not playing nicely with IL GOP leadership in the Senate - you know, they kind of frown on independent conservative thinkers in Springfield - Sen. Jones decided to run in a district that he DOES NOT LIVE IN - like the IL 54th Senate district.
If Jones were to win the primary and then the general election AND if Jones were to draw the long straw, he could live in Mt. Vernon and not have to move into district for 3 years...if he decided to run for re-election that is. If for instance, he draws the long straw for a 4 year term and decides not to run for re-election, we would have a State Senator that would not live in district for 4 years. What incentive would Jones have to represent the 54th district if he doesn't live there? We are supposed to trust that he would represent the 54th district as virulently as he has his current district? I'm a trusting soul, but not that trusting. I believe we need someone that lives in district to represent us in Springfield.
Why do we tolerate this? Sen Jones could easily run in the district that encompasses where he lives but instead, decided to run against Sen. McCarter. Carpetbagging is the highest form of a politician being a self-centered. The fact that he or she would have the gall to think they are so important to a district that a district and its constituents just cannot live without them is appalling to me.
We would not tolerate carpetbagging any other election year, why now? What's different? In short, absolutely nothing and we should treat such behavior in the same way - DON'T VOTE FOR CARPETBAGGERS OR SEN. JONES!
** (US House rules don't change during redistricting since according to the US Constitution, one must only reside in the state where the district located or in other words, it is within the realm of possibility to have a US Representative live in the state but outside a district he or she represents in Washington DC.)
Newt Is Like Newt, Nobody Else
Recently, Steven F. Hayward at National Review wrote a piece comparing and contrasting Newt Gingrich to Winston Churchill on two different points - personal faults kept/keeping both men from higher office and whether or not both men had/has learned from history. Although Hayward's piece is an interesting read, it is based on false historical analytical assumptions.
As a student of history, we are taught that we should not practice "presentism" or the practice of imposing history on today's events. We hear such presentism every day on the news whether it's a school shooting being described as a "Columbine type" shooting or a disaster being compared to Katrina. We also hear it from politicians or pundits comparing today to some event in the past like "the worst economy since the 1970s". We do it ourselves as well. Presentism is used to help connect today's events to a shared history or a shared time period or person in history and to help explain what is taking place today, but can lead the reader or viewer to a false interpretation of correlation-causation relationship.
We have to first understand that each event in history is unique time, place, and set of circumstances, so to compare one event to another is a misnomer. Likewise, to compare one person in history to another is fun, but is also based in the same historical untruths.
Knowing what we know now about the basic tenet of historical analysis, let's deconstruct Hayward's piece comparing one of the greatest statesmen in modern history - Winston Churchill - with Newt Gingrich.
First, Winston Churchill's faults as Hayward points out and believes - "his resolute stubbornness, his unconstrained and unpredictable imagination and occasional recklessness" kept Churchill from high office and also contributed to Churchill being distrusted by his own Conservative Party. Yes, Churchill was a stubborn man, but what got Churchill in trouble was his insistence that England take a hard stance against an emerging Adolf Hitler in Germany - which stemmed from Churchill's own military service and time as Minister of Defense - while the government and people still had fresh memories of leaving an entire generation in Flanders' Mud. Churchill also made a political miscalculation by picking the wrong side during Edward VII's abdication of the throne. In addition, Churchill did not always tote the party line, even as he became that party's leader. Churchill had friends, but he had just as many enemies.
Comparing Gingrich's economic "radical change" and past leadership to Churchill's defense of the economic status quo (he would lose reelection to Prime Minister to a Clement Atlee of the Labour Party who ran on a platform of socialist programs that plunged England into a democratic-socialist government until Margaret Thatcher's rollback of those programs) and Churchill's wartime leadership is incorrect. I would hope that if Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee, that he too would not fall victim a head of government who has instituted several democratic-socialist programs.
Second, did Churchill or Gingrich learn from history? In a nutshell, no. Have both men used their experiences as a tool to leadership? Yes. Churchill used his experience as a military veteran and his experience in the government during World War I to sound an unheard alarm regarding events unfolding on the European mainland and to lead England during World War II. Gingrich, on the other hand, has used his experience as Speaker of the House to find compromises and hammer out a plan of action, including working with the opposition to enact his agenda and believes he can bring that experience to the White House.
Historical comparison is a dangerous game to play - like President Obama ranking himself as the fourth most accomplished President in just two years, ranking himself behind LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln. Arrogance to the point of megalomania to say the least. LBJ dealt with a country seriously divided along racial lines and divided over Vietnam. FDR dealt with an economic crisis not seen since the Crash of 1920. Lincoln dealt with a country literally and figuratively divided. Obama has accomplished nothing except dividing a nation whereas it can be argued that LBJ, FDR and especially Lincoln, did what they could to unite or reunite a nation.
Comparing Winston Churchill and Newt Gingrich to each other is like comparing apples and oranges while the circumstances of those apples and oranges are miles apart. Presentism is a road we, Steven Hayward, and especially President Obama should rarely travel down.
As a student of history, we are taught that we should not practice "presentism" or the practice of imposing history on today's events. We hear such presentism every day on the news whether it's a school shooting being described as a "Columbine type" shooting or a disaster being compared to Katrina. We also hear it from politicians or pundits comparing today to some event in the past like "the worst economy since the 1970s". We do it ourselves as well. Presentism is used to help connect today's events to a shared history or a shared time period or person in history and to help explain what is taking place today, but can lead the reader or viewer to a false interpretation of correlation-causation relationship.
We have to first understand that each event in history is unique time, place, and set of circumstances, so to compare one event to another is a misnomer. Likewise, to compare one person in history to another is fun, but is also based in the same historical untruths.
Knowing what we know now about the basic tenet of historical analysis, let's deconstruct Hayward's piece comparing one of the greatest statesmen in modern history - Winston Churchill - with Newt Gingrich.
First, Winston Churchill's faults as Hayward points out and believes - "his resolute stubbornness, his unconstrained and unpredictable imagination and occasional recklessness" kept Churchill from high office and also contributed to Churchill being distrusted by his own Conservative Party. Yes, Churchill was a stubborn man, but what got Churchill in trouble was his insistence that England take a hard stance against an emerging Adolf Hitler in Germany - which stemmed from Churchill's own military service and time as Minister of Defense - while the government and people still had fresh memories of leaving an entire generation in Flanders' Mud. Churchill also made a political miscalculation by picking the wrong side during Edward VII's abdication of the throne. In addition, Churchill did not always tote the party line, even as he became that party's leader. Churchill had friends, but he had just as many enemies.
Comparing Gingrich's economic "radical change" and past leadership to Churchill's defense of the economic status quo (he would lose reelection to Prime Minister to a Clement Atlee of the Labour Party who ran on a platform of socialist programs that plunged England into a democratic-socialist government until Margaret Thatcher's rollback of those programs) and Churchill's wartime leadership is incorrect. I would hope that if Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee, that he too would not fall victim a head of government who has instituted several democratic-socialist programs.
Second, did Churchill or Gingrich learn from history? In a nutshell, no. Have both men used their experiences as a tool to leadership? Yes. Churchill used his experience as a military veteran and his experience in the government during World War I to sound an unheard alarm regarding events unfolding on the European mainland and to lead England during World War II. Gingrich, on the other hand, has used his experience as Speaker of the House to find compromises and hammer out a plan of action, including working with the opposition to enact his agenda and believes he can bring that experience to the White House.
Historical comparison is a dangerous game to play - like President Obama ranking himself as the fourth most accomplished President in just two years, ranking himself behind LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln. Arrogance to the point of megalomania to say the least. LBJ dealt with a country seriously divided along racial lines and divided over Vietnam. FDR dealt with an economic crisis not seen since the Crash of 1920. Lincoln dealt with a country literally and figuratively divided. Obama has accomplished nothing except dividing a nation whereas it can be argued that LBJ, FDR and especially Lincoln, did what they could to unite or reunite a nation.
Comparing Winston Churchill and Newt Gingrich to each other is like comparing apples and oranges while the circumstances of those apples and oranges are miles apart. Presentism is a road we, Steven Hayward, and especially President Obama should rarely travel down.
Link Card Fraud In Illinois
Over the last few years, our good friends over at Republicanreporter.com have highlighted the abuses of a system set up to help those that actually need it. Unfortunately, there are those in Illinois that think the Link Card program is their own playground to use and abuse at will - at the taxpayers' expense.
The Republican Reporter has once again landed an exclusive pinpointing yet another fraudulent use of the Link card system here in Illinois. I strongly encourage you to read the article, then take some antacid and some high blood pressure medication.
Link Card Fraud Exclusive via RepublicanReporter.com
The Republican Reporter has once again landed an exclusive pinpointing yet another fraudulent use of the Link card system here in Illinois. I strongly encourage you to read the article, then take some antacid and some high blood pressure medication.
Link Card Fraud Exclusive via RepublicanReporter.com
Romney Plays It Safe With Newt
It's no secret that Newt Gingrich is a huge fan of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Newt loves a good debate and quite frankly can destroy anyone he would go up against. So when a Lincoln-Douglas debate was proposed between Romney and Gingrich, Romney declined.
Romney's refusal may come off as running scared against Gingrich or "playing out the clock", but in reality, it's a smart move.
I remember working for the Patrick Hughes campaign for US Senate. Along with others in the race, now Senator Mark Kirk refused to debate any of the GOP US Senate candidate. Debates were held, but Mark Kirk was a no show. At the time, I raged about Kirk refusing to leave his ivory tower to debate my candidate - or any other of the candidates for that matter. On the practical side, if you are the front runner, why debate? You have nothing to prove, only something to lose.
As with Mark Kirk, Mitt Romney is in the same position. Newt is on top of the polls right now, but over the last 2 months, we have seen no less than 3 different candidates rise to the top only to fall as quickly as they rose. Meanwhile, Romney remains solid with his 20-24% polling. Gingrich is now on top, but for how long? Why would Romney expose his campaign to Gingrich?
Don't get me wrong. I am a full time member of the "anyone but Mitt" movement and I would love to see Newt debate Mitt. To see Newt call into question Romney's backtracking, flip-flopping, less than conservative ways would be well worth the price of admission. I'm just saying Romney refusing to debate Newt is smart politics given the fluid nature of the GOP leaders.
Such is politics. It's not always what we want or want to see happen but you have to see it for what it is - a contest to outlast your opponent.
Romney's refusal may come off as running scared against Gingrich or "playing out the clock", but in reality, it's a smart move.
I remember working for the Patrick Hughes campaign for US Senate. Along with others in the race, now Senator Mark Kirk refused to debate any of the GOP US Senate candidate. Debates were held, but Mark Kirk was a no show. At the time, I raged about Kirk refusing to leave his ivory tower to debate my candidate - or any other of the candidates for that matter. On the practical side, if you are the front runner, why debate? You have nothing to prove, only something to lose.
As with Mark Kirk, Mitt Romney is in the same position. Newt is on top of the polls right now, but over the last 2 months, we have seen no less than 3 different candidates rise to the top only to fall as quickly as they rose. Meanwhile, Romney remains solid with his 20-24% polling. Gingrich is now on top, but for how long? Why would Romney expose his campaign to Gingrich?
Don't get me wrong. I am a full time member of the "anyone but Mitt" movement and I would love to see Newt debate Mitt. To see Newt call into question Romney's backtracking, flip-flopping, less than conservative ways would be well worth the price of admission. I'm just saying Romney refusing to debate Newt is smart politics given the fluid nature of the GOP leaders.
Such is politics. It's not always what we want or want to see happen but you have to see it for what it is - a contest to outlast your opponent.
Is Sarah Palin Still Relevant?
Sarah Palin jumped onto the scene in late 2008 as the VP nominee. She was a straight talking, brash, take no prisoners type of politican. Palin was targeted relentlessly by the left in an effort to destroy her politically, and possibly even personally - which continued even after the 2008 election.
She continued to influence the GOP via the 2010 midterm elections by raising money for her PAC and being one of the voices of the Tea Party. Of course she caught flak for "targets" on certain districts on her website - especially after the Gabby Giffords shooting. Needless to say, Palin is no stranger to controversy, contrived or otherwise.
But now we sit in 2011. In the course of less than a year, we have seen the Tea Party influence begin to wane, though they are still a force to be reckoned with politically. We also have a GOP primary to concern ourselves with as well. However, the question I want to examine is whether or not Sarah Palin is still relevant to the 2011 election cycle. Will she hurt or help the eventual GOP nominee? What role will she eventually play in 2012?
Palin has spent the last 2 years attempting to establish herself as the conservative kingmaker in GOP politics. In the year leading up to the 2010 elections, at the height of the Tea Party, many candidates for office on the federal level running as conservatives seemed to covet the opportunity to kiss Palin's ring to gain her endorsement.
That was then, this is now. One year is a lifetime in politics. Now, Palin is nearly a nightly event on either Greta or Hannity. She's on TV as much as Karl Rove these days, but like Karl Rove, she has yet to say anything different or groundbreaking other than to add commentary on different GOP candidates or rightfully criticize President Obama. I have to apologize, but when I listen to Sarah or Karl I don't feel like I know more afterwards than before they started opining.
Palin still has a very vocal and strong following among certain corners of the GOP (whom I am sure I'll here from because of this post). I'm not trying to be insulting here towards Palin, but she comes off to me as this generation's version of Ron Paul - only sane. Their followers are similar - passionate, devoted, and willing to defend until the bitter end. Nothing wrong with that per se, loyalty in politics is a rare thing.
Which brings me to relevance. Is Palin's endorsement really all that important going into 2012? Do the GOP candidates have to kiss her ring this time around? I'm not convinced. I believe that Palin has lost some of her punch as a kingmaker or being able to influence the GOP at large. Her unfavorables are fairly high based on the last time I could find polling about her - 32% favorable, 62% unfavorable.
Perhaps Palin's relevance hit a peak this past summer when she led the media around the country as she stopped at different US historical sites. Each speech she gave was half-way covered by the media just in case the announcement to run for President came - but it never did - leaving the MSM to scratch their head wondering what just happened. Her supporters wept and gnashed their teeth and did everything in their power to draft Palin or convince her to reconsider - to no avail.
Has the ship sailed on Palin? She declined to run for President instead deciding to stay on the sidelines to help defeat President Obama. Others have done the same from Mitch Daniels to Chris Christie, but both Daniels and Christie are not perceived must-have endorsements. As time ticks closer to the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary, I believe her relevance in 2012 diminishes without her endorsing anyone. After Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada,and Florida, will her endorsing anyone really matter anyway? The GOP field should be whittled down by a few candidates by that point anyway. Besides, isn't that the point of endorsements? To gain enough support to push the other candidates out of the race or create a perception of inevitability of one candidate over another?
What if Palin does endorse - given her high unfavorable rating - does she hurt or help the GOP candidate she endorses? If a candidate - at this time Newt Gingrich - can rise within the polls, maintain the lead, and win at least one of the early primaries, does Palin's endorsement matter, again, leading to whether she is relevant. At the same time, a Palin endorsement could hurt the perceived frontrunner as the MSM would have the ammo to run stories about how the "radical" Palin has endorsed a fellow "radical" so on and so on .
On the other hand, maybe Palin is smarter than the average bear. Palin protected her relevance/influence when didn't endorse Bachmann as Bachmann rose and fell in the polls. Palin didn't endorse Perry as he rose and self-destructed. Palin didn't endorse Cain as he rose fast and fell just as hard. Palin also hasn't endorsed the other candidates - Paul, Santorum, Huntsman, Romney or Gingrich.
Today, as I write this, a Palin endorsement in my opinion is about a 50/50 help/hurt chance. One just never knows how such an endorsement will be perceived by voters - which will be the real test of Palin's relevance and ultimately, her continued influence within the GOP. We know how such an endorsement will be handled by the MSM and the left attack machine (is there really a difference?).
To sum up, I feel Palin has lost some of her influence among the GOP voters. I believe her relevance in the GOP primary race lessens each day as the political world goes on without her blessing one candidate or another. Finally, in a real threat to Palin's relevance, influence, and another test on her base supporters, what if Palin came out and endorsed Romney? Whatever happens, at this point in the ball game a "none of the above" answer is unacceptable.
She continued to influence the GOP via the 2010 midterm elections by raising money for her PAC and being one of the voices of the Tea Party. Of course she caught flak for "targets" on certain districts on her website - especially after the Gabby Giffords shooting. Needless to say, Palin is no stranger to controversy, contrived or otherwise.
But now we sit in 2011. In the course of less than a year, we have seen the Tea Party influence begin to wane, though they are still a force to be reckoned with politically. We also have a GOP primary to concern ourselves with as well. However, the question I want to examine is whether or not Sarah Palin is still relevant to the 2011 election cycle. Will she hurt or help the eventual GOP nominee? What role will she eventually play in 2012?
Palin has spent the last 2 years attempting to establish herself as the conservative kingmaker in GOP politics. In the year leading up to the 2010 elections, at the height of the Tea Party, many candidates for office on the federal level running as conservatives seemed to covet the opportunity to kiss Palin's ring to gain her endorsement.
That was then, this is now. One year is a lifetime in politics. Now, Palin is nearly a nightly event on either Greta or Hannity. She's on TV as much as Karl Rove these days, but like Karl Rove, she has yet to say anything different or groundbreaking other than to add commentary on different GOP candidates or rightfully criticize President Obama. I have to apologize, but when I listen to Sarah or Karl I don't feel like I know more afterwards than before they started opining.
Palin still has a very vocal and strong following among certain corners of the GOP (whom I am sure I'll here from because of this post). I'm not trying to be insulting here towards Palin, but she comes off to me as this generation's version of Ron Paul - only sane. Their followers are similar - passionate, devoted, and willing to defend until the bitter end. Nothing wrong with that per se, loyalty in politics is a rare thing.
Which brings me to relevance. Is Palin's endorsement really all that important going into 2012? Do the GOP candidates have to kiss her ring this time around? I'm not convinced. I believe that Palin has lost some of her punch as a kingmaker or being able to influence the GOP at large. Her unfavorables are fairly high based on the last time I could find polling about her - 32% favorable, 62% unfavorable.
Perhaps Palin's relevance hit a peak this past summer when she led the media around the country as she stopped at different US historical sites. Each speech she gave was half-way covered by the media just in case the announcement to run for President came - but it never did - leaving the MSM to scratch their head wondering what just happened. Her supporters wept and gnashed their teeth and did everything in their power to draft Palin or convince her to reconsider - to no avail.
Has the ship sailed on Palin? She declined to run for President instead deciding to stay on the sidelines to help defeat President Obama. Others have done the same from Mitch Daniels to Chris Christie, but both Daniels and Christie are not perceived must-have endorsements. As time ticks closer to the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary, I believe her relevance in 2012 diminishes without her endorsing anyone. After Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada,and Florida, will her endorsing anyone really matter anyway? The GOP field should be whittled down by a few candidates by that point anyway. Besides, isn't that the point of endorsements? To gain enough support to push the other candidates out of the race or create a perception of inevitability of one candidate over another?
What if Palin does endorse - given her high unfavorable rating - does she hurt or help the GOP candidate she endorses? If a candidate - at this time Newt Gingrich - can rise within the polls, maintain the lead, and win at least one of the early primaries, does Palin's endorsement matter, again, leading to whether she is relevant. At the same time, a Palin endorsement could hurt the perceived frontrunner as the MSM would have the ammo to run stories about how the "radical" Palin has endorsed a fellow "radical" so on and so on .
On the other hand, maybe Palin is smarter than the average bear. Palin protected her relevance/influence when didn't endorse Bachmann as Bachmann rose and fell in the polls. Palin didn't endorse Perry as he rose and self-destructed. Palin didn't endorse Cain as he rose fast and fell just as hard. Palin also hasn't endorsed the other candidates - Paul, Santorum, Huntsman, Romney or Gingrich.
Today, as I write this, a Palin endorsement in my opinion is about a 50/50 help/hurt chance. One just never knows how such an endorsement will be perceived by voters - which will be the real test of Palin's relevance and ultimately, her continued influence within the GOP. We know how such an endorsement will be handled by the MSM and the left attack machine (is there really a difference?).
To sum up, I feel Palin has lost some of her influence among the GOP voters. I believe her relevance in the GOP primary race lessens each day as the political world goes on without her blessing one candidate or another. Finally, in a real threat to Palin's relevance, influence, and another test on her base supporters, what if Palin came out and endorsed Romney? Whatever happens, at this point in the ball game a "none of the above" answer is unacceptable.
Illinois Straw Poll Results In Continued Failure
This past week, the
Illinois GOP has been running their online straw poll to determine who
the Illinois Republican voters like in the GOP primary for President.
Yesterday, November 5th, the Illinois GOP also had multiple locations in
Illinois where people could walk in and vote in the straw poll as
well. To cast a ballot, a voter only had to provide a minimum $5
donation. The results after 3,649 votes cast?
1. Ron Paul wins the online straw poll
2. Mitt Romney wins the walk-in straw poll.
3. The Illinois GOP loses again.
I have long detailed the failures of the Illinois GOP but the straw poll just seems to keep that losing streak alive.
Regarding the online poll, are we surprised that Ron Paul would win? I'm not. The Paulites have a long tradition of stuffing the ballot box and here we have yet another example. Seriously Illinois GOP? An online straw poll? Did they expect different results? The straw poll couldn't have been solely about raising money since the buy-in to the straw poll was set so low so I guess we should chalk it up to incompetence.
Regarding the walk-in straw poll, to my knowledge most of the polling stations were in northern Illinois which accounts for Romney getting the most votes at 35% but Cain, despite the ongoing Politico crap shoot, came in with 29% of the vote.
So why is this straw poll a failure for the Illinois GOP? Outside the Ron Paul ballot stuffing, it was a failure because the Illinois GOP continues to list like a sinking ship as it slowly takes on water before its inevitable demise.
The Illinois GOP continues to put their stock in "activism" through phone calls via Illinois Victory and doing PR stunts like straw polling. It's great, grand and wonderful that Illinois Victory "identified" the most voters than any other state that ran similar programs or that more people voted in the the Illinois GOP straw poll than other large electoral college voting states that conducted their own straw polls. But what did it accomplish other than a news headline and possibly a bragging point for not one, but two candidates? Isn't one of the goals of a straw poll to find one winner?
On November 28th in Illinois, the filing period for petitions to be Precinct Committeman. Has the Illinois GOP tried to recruit people? No. I have not heard a single word from IL GOP Chair Pat Brady - publicly - about Precinct Committeemen. Nothing. In fact, when I met with Pat Brady at the Illinois State Fair GOP Day, he stated to the group of Tea Party leaders present that he believed that the PC doing GOTV is going to the wayside because of online outlets such as Twitter and Facebook.
Nothing beats boots on the ground. Nothing. You can Twitter and Facebook all day long and it either gets lost in the noise or your message doesn't reach a large enough audience. This "strategy" also relies on everyone you are trying to contact being a member of some sort of online community.
But everyone does physically live in a real world community and therefore they can be reached by the PC knocking on their door to inform them about a candidate and/or to remind them to vote. The Illinois GOP doesn't seem to want or care about informing voters or GOTV, just identifying them. The Illinois GOP strategy of voter ID can be summed up like this:
That's their idea of getting people to vote. Furthermore it's apparent that the Illinois GOP leadership thinks that we will turn into Chris Farley when PCs do GOTV...
I have three stories of successful GOTV campaigns. The candidate didn't always win, but if this effort was multiplied across Illinois and within other states we could make a serious difference.
1. Bill Brady (R) vs Pat Quinn (D) Illinois Governor race 2010. Bill Brady lost by just shy of 20,000 votes. In my county, my girlfriend and just a handful of others walked door to door in each precinct for Brady and to GOTV. The result? Our county had a 58% turnout in an off year election with Brady winning by the second largest percentage than any county in the entire state.
2. Judge Doug Jarman. Running for Circuit Judge against a candidate who was related to and shared the same last name as the long serving retiring incumbent which equaled strong name ID. Jarman did not have as strong name ID as his opponent. We used Illinois Victory to try GOTV via phone calls but most callers would not give us a hard answer as to which judge candidate they preferred (a serious flaw within the Illinois Victory strategy) and actually seemed a bit insulted we were asking (a huge flaw in the Illinois Victory strategy). So we went door to door distributing literature and reminding people to vote. We walked our city's Halloween parade and we were able to distribute over 3500 pieces of literature for Judge Jarman. The results? Judge Jarman won his 9 county election with our county returning a considerable higher percentage of votes for him than any of the 9 counties in his circuit.
3. My city council election. I had some name ID because of our Tea Party efforts in town, but I was not running and did not run as the "Tea Party candidate". I ran solely on the issues. Our city council is an at-large bid so GOTV was important to success. My girlfriend (also doubling as my beautiful campaign manager) led the GOTV effort for my election as I was tight for time because I was doing my student teaching at the same time as running for office. We sat down and identified which precincts had turned out the largest number of voters the last city council elections and we targeted those precincts with our door to door campaign. The result? I won and I saw first hand the election result difference between the precincts we walked versus the precincts we didn't. GOTV was singlehandedly the deciding factor in my victory.
Why the Illinois GOP continues to waste time with PR stunts as straw polling instead of recruiting PCs so that we have our ground game in place is beyond me. Perhaps the Illinois GOP is stuck in a loser mentality and needs a shake-up at the top. Or perhaps we should make sure we are on the ballot to be Precinct Committeemen so we can snatch victory from the grasp of defeat because of the Illinois GOP leadership.
If you live in Illinois, November 28th - December 5th is the filing period for Precinct Committeemen. If you live out of Illinois, get on the ballot to be a Precinct Committeeman!
1. Ron Paul wins the online straw poll
2. Mitt Romney wins the walk-in straw poll.
3. The Illinois GOP loses again.
I have long detailed the failures of the Illinois GOP but the straw poll just seems to keep that losing streak alive.
Regarding the online poll, are we surprised that Ron Paul would win? I'm not. The Paulites have a long tradition of stuffing the ballot box and here we have yet another example. Seriously Illinois GOP? An online straw poll? Did they expect different results? The straw poll couldn't have been solely about raising money since the buy-in to the straw poll was set so low so I guess we should chalk it up to incompetence.
Regarding the walk-in straw poll, to my knowledge most of the polling stations were in northern Illinois which accounts for Romney getting the most votes at 35% but Cain, despite the ongoing Politico crap shoot, came in with 29% of the vote.
So why is this straw poll a failure for the Illinois GOP? Outside the Ron Paul ballot stuffing, it was a failure because the Illinois GOP continues to list like a sinking ship as it slowly takes on water before its inevitable demise.
The Illinois GOP continues to put their stock in "activism" through phone calls via Illinois Victory and doing PR stunts like straw polling. It's great, grand and wonderful that Illinois Victory "identified" the most voters than any other state that ran similar programs or that more people voted in the the Illinois GOP straw poll than other large electoral college voting states that conducted their own straw polls. But what did it accomplish other than a news headline and possibly a bragging point for not one, but two candidates? Isn't one of the goals of a straw poll to find one winner?
On November 28th in Illinois, the filing period for petitions to be Precinct Committeman. Has the Illinois GOP tried to recruit people? No. I have not heard a single word from IL GOP Chair Pat Brady - publicly - about Precinct Committeemen. Nothing. In fact, when I met with Pat Brady at the Illinois State Fair GOP Day, he stated to the group of Tea Party leaders present that he believed that the PC doing GOTV is going to the wayside because of online outlets such as Twitter and Facebook.
Nothing beats boots on the ground. Nothing. You can Twitter and Facebook all day long and it either gets lost in the noise or your message doesn't reach a large enough audience. This "strategy" also relies on everyone you are trying to contact being a member of some sort of online community.
But everyone does physically live in a real world community and therefore they can be reached by the PC knocking on their door to inform them about a candidate and/or to remind them to vote. The Illinois GOP doesn't seem to want or care about informing voters or GOTV, just identifying them. The Illinois GOP strategy of voter ID can be summed up like this:
That's their idea of getting people to vote. Furthermore it's apparent that the Illinois GOP leadership thinks that we will turn into Chris Farley when PCs do GOTV...
I have three stories of successful GOTV campaigns. The candidate didn't always win, but if this effort was multiplied across Illinois and within other states we could make a serious difference.
1. Bill Brady (R) vs Pat Quinn (D) Illinois Governor race 2010. Bill Brady lost by just shy of 20,000 votes. In my county, my girlfriend and just a handful of others walked door to door in each precinct for Brady and to GOTV. The result? Our county had a 58% turnout in an off year election with Brady winning by the second largest percentage than any county in the entire state.
2. Judge Doug Jarman. Running for Circuit Judge against a candidate who was related to and shared the same last name as the long serving retiring incumbent which equaled strong name ID. Jarman did not have as strong name ID as his opponent. We used Illinois Victory to try GOTV via phone calls but most callers would not give us a hard answer as to which judge candidate they preferred (a serious flaw within the Illinois Victory strategy) and actually seemed a bit insulted we were asking (a huge flaw in the Illinois Victory strategy). So we went door to door distributing literature and reminding people to vote. We walked our city's Halloween parade and we were able to distribute over 3500 pieces of literature for Judge Jarman. The results? Judge Jarman won his 9 county election with our county returning a considerable higher percentage of votes for him than any of the 9 counties in his circuit.
3. My city council election. I had some name ID because of our Tea Party efforts in town, but I was not running and did not run as the "Tea Party candidate". I ran solely on the issues. Our city council is an at-large bid so GOTV was important to success. My girlfriend (also doubling as my beautiful campaign manager) led the GOTV effort for my election as I was tight for time because I was doing my student teaching at the same time as running for office. We sat down and identified which precincts had turned out the largest number of voters the last city council elections and we targeted those precincts with our door to door campaign. The result? I won and I saw first hand the election result difference between the precincts we walked versus the precincts we didn't. GOTV was singlehandedly the deciding factor in my victory.
Why the Illinois GOP continues to waste time with PR stunts as straw polling instead of recruiting PCs so that we have our ground game in place is beyond me. Perhaps the Illinois GOP is stuck in a loser mentality and needs a shake-up at the top. Or perhaps we should make sure we are on the ballot to be Precinct Committeemen so we can snatch victory from the grasp of defeat because of the Illinois GOP leadership.
If you live in Illinois, November 28th - December 5th is the filing period for Precinct Committeemen. If you live out of Illinois, get on the ballot to be a Precinct Committeeman!
Northbound and Down
One of my favorite movies is Smokey and the Bandit. In that movie, Jerry Reed played Snowman, a trucker who the Bandit played by Burt Reynolds ran as blocker while they bootlegged a load of Coors to Georgia from Texas. Reed also wrote a song called Eastbound and Down that was featured in Smokey and the Bandit about what else? Truck driving.
The trucking industry is near to my heart. My grandfather was a OTR trucker with Smith Transportation in Louisville, KY and then ran local for a company in Effingham, IL. He started driving truck shortly after exiting the Army after WWII and drove truck until about 1995/6 before he finally retired. I also know many, many truck drivers because of work and I have had plenty of conversations with them about issues facing the trucking industry and as truck drivers.
Drivers seem to be under attack at every turn whether it's DOT regulations or at weigh stations. I just recently talked with a driver that got hit up crossing the California border who was forced to pay $75 for a piece of tubing (along with every other truck in line) during a check, and when he asked for a receipt he was told that would cost him another $75. Other drivers have been fined thousands of dollars for loads that were just slightly overweight - despite having nothing to do with loading the trailer.
Since the economy took a hit, drivers have seen their expenses go up but independent drivers are seeing loads pay less today than a few years ago doing the same run. The repairs alone on a big rig will set you back thousands of dollars, which in itself could be considered highway robbery.
Now, drivers have to contend with Mexican truck drivers being allowed to enter deep in the US because of that wonderful treaty (sarcasm) NAFTA. I understand the benefits of free trade, but I believe free trade only works with countries with similar economies and pay scale. Free trade with countries like Mexico only hurt the US worker.
Unfortunately, the US does not really have a choice in the matter of letting Mexican drivers into the US because treaties have the force of law and Mexico has threatened to take us to the World Trade Organization because the US is violating the agreement. If this issue were to go the WTO, we would most likely lose the case and the WTO would force the US to comply or risk facing fines and sanctions against US products with WTO participating countries.
Of course the unions want to make this issue about them as Hoffa Jr has been been trying get this provision of NAFTA stopped at the 11th hour. Hoffa Jr has seen his numbers of members dwindle to about 12% of the trucking and warehouse industry in 2009. The trucking unions have already been taking a hit, especially with the revamping of the auto industry. Union members have had to take concessions to keep their jobs while others have seen their companies go bankrupt completely. However, the Mexican trucker entering the US has more to do with the non-union company driver and the independent than the union drivers.
Right now, the better paid company drivers get between 32 and 40 cents a mile based on experience, company and record. The union drivers that I know get about $1.00 a mile, plus benefits including 100% paid health insurance - and that is down from 5 years ago. The independent driver can earn more or less than the company driver depending on the distance of the load and who their broker is, but having to do their own repairs and pay for gas and lodging. I talked with a driver not too long ago that told me his load paid $1200 but by the time he was done with gas and lodging he was expecting to get $400. Yet another driver told me that after a load he recently took, he would actually be losing money.
Mexican drivers coming into the US will depress the earnings of US drivers as they will be running for much less than what the US driver gets paid. What is stopping shipping companies in the US from contracting with Mexican drivers would will make the runs for much less than a US driver? Nothing. As a result, we may see almost 100,000 drivers lose their jobs as a result of Mexican truckers entering the US.
Because of NAFTA, the US drivers will be forced to do one of two things - find a different line of work or work for less to compete for loads.
In addition, we have to take into consideration the safety of the Mexican driver, the condition of their equipment, and their willingness to follow federal rules regarding the trucking industry (ie mandatory restarts).
I have a further problem of letting foreign nationals en masse into the US. What is to say that we won't see an epidemic of Mexican drivers abandon their loads once they get into the US knowing full well our federal government no has a policy of not deporting illegal aliens? I know it's speculative, but US policy makers have to take this into consideration.
Furthermore, what recourse do US citizens have against Mexican trucking companies if a qualified or unqualified Mexican company driver causes an accident, injury or death on the US highways? There is no incentive or guarantee that a Mexican trucking company would pay damages if held liable in a US court.
While union drivers see themselves under assault, it really is the other 88% of non-union workers within the trucking and warehouse industry that are under assault with this provision of NAFTA.
In a few days, we will have Mexican truck drivers traveling our US highway system within the deep parts of our nation.
Let's check back in a year or so and see how enforcing NAFTA fully has affected the trucking industry. Until then, I guess it's northbound and down instead of eastbound and down.
The trucking industry is near to my heart. My grandfather was a OTR trucker with Smith Transportation in Louisville, KY and then ran local for a company in Effingham, IL. He started driving truck shortly after exiting the Army after WWII and drove truck until about 1995/6 before he finally retired. I also know many, many truck drivers because of work and I have had plenty of conversations with them about issues facing the trucking industry and as truck drivers.
Drivers seem to be under attack at every turn whether it's DOT regulations or at weigh stations. I just recently talked with a driver that got hit up crossing the California border who was forced to pay $75 for a piece of tubing (along with every other truck in line) during a check, and when he asked for a receipt he was told that would cost him another $75. Other drivers have been fined thousands of dollars for loads that were just slightly overweight - despite having nothing to do with loading the trailer.
Since the economy took a hit, drivers have seen their expenses go up but independent drivers are seeing loads pay less today than a few years ago doing the same run. The repairs alone on a big rig will set you back thousands of dollars, which in itself could be considered highway robbery.
Now, drivers have to contend with Mexican truck drivers being allowed to enter deep in the US because of that wonderful treaty (sarcasm) NAFTA. I understand the benefits of free trade, but I believe free trade only works with countries with similar economies and pay scale. Free trade with countries like Mexico only hurt the US worker.
Unfortunately, the US does not really have a choice in the matter of letting Mexican drivers into the US because treaties have the force of law and Mexico has threatened to take us to the World Trade Organization because the US is violating the agreement. If this issue were to go the WTO, we would most likely lose the case and the WTO would force the US to comply or risk facing fines and sanctions against US products with WTO participating countries.
Of course the unions want to make this issue about them as Hoffa Jr has been been trying get this provision of NAFTA stopped at the 11th hour. Hoffa Jr has seen his numbers of members dwindle to about 12% of the trucking and warehouse industry in 2009. The trucking unions have already been taking a hit, especially with the revamping of the auto industry. Union members have had to take concessions to keep their jobs while others have seen their companies go bankrupt completely. However, the Mexican trucker entering the US has more to do with the non-union company driver and the independent than the union drivers.
Right now, the better paid company drivers get between 32 and 40 cents a mile based on experience, company and record. The union drivers that I know get about $1.00 a mile, plus benefits including 100% paid health insurance - and that is down from 5 years ago. The independent driver can earn more or less than the company driver depending on the distance of the load and who their broker is, but having to do their own repairs and pay for gas and lodging. I talked with a driver not too long ago that told me his load paid $1200 but by the time he was done with gas and lodging he was expecting to get $400. Yet another driver told me that after a load he recently took, he would actually be losing money.
Mexican drivers coming into the US will depress the earnings of US drivers as they will be running for much less than what the US driver gets paid. What is stopping shipping companies in the US from contracting with Mexican drivers would will make the runs for much less than a US driver? Nothing. As a result, we may see almost 100,000 drivers lose their jobs as a result of Mexican truckers entering the US.
Because of NAFTA, the US drivers will be forced to do one of two things - find a different line of work or work for less to compete for loads.
In addition, we have to take into consideration the safety of the Mexican driver, the condition of their equipment, and their willingness to follow federal rules regarding the trucking industry (ie mandatory restarts).
I have a further problem of letting foreign nationals en masse into the US. What is to say that we won't see an epidemic of Mexican drivers abandon their loads once they get into the US knowing full well our federal government no has a policy of not deporting illegal aliens? I know it's speculative, but US policy makers have to take this into consideration.
Furthermore, what recourse do US citizens have against Mexican trucking companies if a qualified or unqualified Mexican company driver causes an accident, injury or death on the US highways? There is no incentive or guarantee that a Mexican trucking company would pay damages if held liable in a US court.
While union drivers see themselves under assault, it really is the other 88% of non-union workers within the trucking and warehouse industry that are under assault with this provision of NAFTA.
In a few days, we will have Mexican truck drivers traveling our US highway system within the deep parts of our nation.
Let's check back in a year or so and see how enforcing NAFTA fully has affected the trucking industry. Until then, I guess it's northbound and down instead of eastbound and down.
