CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Chad — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:54:33 -0000

Valerie: As a fact witness to this entire event, I can say with knowledge that your are wrong about people streaming in and out. The count was accurate. People cooperated by staying near their seats. The proposers of the measure did not prepare -- at all -- for what they needed to do, including simply getting their people appointed to county delegations (not a function of the state party). When a convention takes a vote, it first does so by voice, next standing (often called a "rising" vote), and only if a proper petition is filed with the chair and approved by the convention delegates, a roll-call or secret ballot vote. In this case the proponents did not file a petition. It would not have mattered anyway, as the vote was overwhelming. All of this procedure was plainly posted on the state party web site.

Re: Question of the day

Valerie — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:48:09 -0000

As one of those conservatives who applied early to be a delegate, I can attest that the selection process was closed and private. The state party didn't even attempt to let rank-and-file members know that a person could apply, what the deadline was, what the selection process was, etc. I found out in a roundabout way and made a timely (even early) application. But in spite of repeated phone calls to my township chairman and the county chairman, and in spite of assurances that my name had been submitted as a delegate, when I got to Decatur, my name was not on THE LIST. I inquired and applied on site to get included and the most I got was to be an alternate, ALTHOUGH NOT ALL THE DELEGATE SLOTS FOR MY COUNTY WERE FILLED. I was not alone in this. I heard similar accounts from many others. This was how the state party was able to control the direct elections issue, along with not allowing anyone to speak in favor of the matter, and also conducting a very confusing and unreliable standing count. During the count, people were streaming in and out of the delegate section. The was NO WAY the count could have been accurate. You had to have been there to know without a doubt that the whole thing was set-up for the state central committee's desired end.

Direct elections are needed in order for all members of the party to have a voice.

It's also interesting how much effort the party is expending on this matter. Makes the point that they really fear this reform because it is a threat to their white-knuckled control.

Re: Question of the day

reformer — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:06:53 -0000

The GOP leadership has lead us to slaughter. We will not win in 2010 state wide because there is no Party. Only the COMBINE that just loves the pay-to-play. The GOP must clean our own house before we can expect to start cleaning up the mess in IL.

Re: Question of the day

Smitty Irving — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:38:34 -0000

Steve Schnorf -

Didn't say Andy McKenna was a hypocrite, said he came across as one. Right now in Illinois the only special elections are for Congressional vacancies. Both parties seem VERY happy with the current system of appointing all other replacements (and VERY VERY happy with state vacancies being restricted to the party of the previous incumbent). Suddenly Blago / Burris erupt, and NOW Andy McKenna wants a special election? To quote the Church Lady, "How convenient" ...

Re: Question of the day

Truth — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:54:20 -0000

The party is a good organization, but they handled this thing poorly. Keep your eye on the enemy. Straighten out that circular firing squad.

Re: Question of the day

Amuzing Myself — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:36:23 -0000

"Andy McKenna isnâ€™t even trying to win elections. Heâ€™s just being propped-up by staff who want to stay on a political payroll so they can keep playing games."

Clueless. Absolutely clueless. Anyone who believes this either has no idea or interest in the what the party is actually doing or is intentionally lying.

I'm not part of the party structure at any level, but I have been around politics close enough the last decade or two to see that McKenna has done more the last several years in that job in very difficult times than anyone in quite a while. Some on the right will clearly not be happy until they have the entire party apparatus at their disposal to pull a "Jim Oberweis" on and kill the party for ever.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:58:30 -0000

Smitty et al--so the founding fathers were hypocrites because they had direct elections for Representatives and not for Senators. That's just silly on its face, doesn't need a lot of analysis.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:56:03 -0000

I think part of this is about the constant need for a devil if you want to keep your religion thriving. The hard right conservatives told us for years we needed to get rid of the unholy KJ in order to save our state party. KJ gone, party certainly not noticeably better off. New devil needed (although an old new devil). Those guys just can't accept the fact that they are at most a minority (high tide 35%?) within Republican voters, and barely a whiff in the wind to the rest of the voters. Its their right to not accept that and try to change it, but boy, they do so in a very non-friendly way, forgetting the rule about addition.

Re: Question of the day

Smitty Irving — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:44:44 -0000

This stance is why Andy McKenna comes across as a hypocrite. The State GOP does not have direct elections. When an elected official resigns, (s)he is replaced by the county party chairman / chairmen - no election. But we have to have an election for Obama's seat? Please - try to be consistent!

Re: Question of the day

What a laugh — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:30:05 -0000

Don't you have elections to lose Bubs?

Keep the laughs coming.

Re: Question of the day

Bubs — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:07:51 -0000

What a Laugh-

Do you really think you are helping your cause with ranting diatribes like that?

If you do, think again.

Re: Question of the day

What a laugh — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:18:52 -0000

Yeah, some victory Andy McKenna and his stooges had at the state convention in Decatur last year.

They proved themselves to be a bunch of clowns who alienated the entire base. McKenna and his stooges destroyed what was left of their already bad reputations.

If idiot leaders who hold the gavel are intent on destroying their reputations, there really isn't much attendees can do.

Five months after Decatur, the "winners" went on to deliver one of the most embarrassing showings at the polls in GOP history. There's no end in sight.

Most Republicans won't follow clowns who lie to them, and they certainly won't "unite" with convention rigging goons.

The IL GOP needs a complete power wash.

Re: Question of the day

Chad — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:48:37 -0000

This is my closing thought today on this matter, and Rich, I hope you will forgive me from straying from your direct question.

It is really amazing just how entirely unprepared the conservatives have been for the last several state conventions on strategy or even basic event registration compliance to forward their agenda. There was a time when conservatives registered in large numbers and arrived armed with a detailed understanding of how to master and harness the party rules and procedures. Recall the kind of activities volunteers associated with leaders of the Eagle Forum were able to make nationally, and you know what I am talking about.

What we have seen these last few state conventions are conservative activists just showing up (sometimes without even having undertaken the simple task of becoming part of a county delegation), insisting on getting into meetings, and bluntly trying to "have their way". Even those who are registered as delegates don't seem to have the most fundamental understanding of how to get their issue placed before official party bodies, or even how to call for votes. Finally, basic advocacy across the broad spectrum of delegates does not seem to take place. Conservatives stick with each other and do not really engage the delegations generally. This last convention, some conservative activits actually circulated around the event simply yelling their opinions at people. Some of these folks have arrived to run for party positions without even arranged for a person to second their nomination.

This is really political advocacy negligence. What I observe is that the conservative agenda is not being affirmatively derailed. Rather, people have not prepared to understand or accomplish the hard work of political organization and advocacy. This is not difficult to figure out or do. Arguing that the system is somehow unfair -- when there is a failure to understand and work basic tasks --just falls flat.

I don't blame the activists for trying the legislative route, even though I think it is inappropriate. It is apparently the only route the current proponents can figure out.

Re: Question of the day

Squideshi — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:27:50 -0000

The state has no business dictating how a political party--a private, voluntary membership organization--chooses its leadership. Parties are free to make that process democratic; and if they don't, and people don't like that, they're free to switch parties or start new political parties.

Re: Question of the day

Chad — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:07:08 -0000

To "At Decatur":

Let's keep the record straight and to the facts.

By law, convention delegates are selected by the county GOP parties in advance of the convention. A small number of people just showed up at the convention demanding to be delegates, and their county delegations were already full. There is no right to be a delegate or claim the floor to participate unless you are an official delegate in accord with the legal practice. That said, all who were interested were allowed to circulate in other areas of the convention as guests, although not on the convention floor.

Senator Lauzen was given a tremendous amount of time at the convention committee held the day before the floor vote to expound on his resolution, and he did a very good job. Every person in that room, packed with at least 500 people, quietly and respectfully listened to him and all activists on both sides of the question that wanted to speak to the issue. To say the Seantor was not allowed to speak or to imply that the proposers were somehow limited in the ability to present their case is just contrary to the facts.

The Senator failed to get simple majority support for his resolution at that committee meeting. In fact, the committee recommended against direct elections, and that was the only resolution that went to the convention floor. Only the most careless person would not have known what they were voting on. There was never an attempt to file any other resolution to be put to a floor vote.

The Convention floor is not the place for sophisticated debate. That took place in the convention committee. That said, no person ever attempted to file any written request for a floor debate, and they were expressly informed of this opportunity.

Re: Question of the day

Suburbanite — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:06:48 -0000

NO!

Why would anyone want to turn it over to the likes of Jack Roeser.....the GOP will be hurt even more!

Re: Question of the day

Ashamed to be an Illinois Repu — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:53:38 -0000

Andy McKenna isn't even trying to win elections. He's just being propped-up by staff who want to stay on a political payroll so they can keep playing games.

The current bad system for picking the State Central Committee helps them do that. It's much easier to get compliant hacks on that oversight board who are happy just going along with the losing status quo. If they get some free event tickets they're happy and they stay quiet.

Andy McKenna is a real life scene from the movie Weekend at Bernie's.

The IL GOP is going nowhere as long as a few get to put their own interests first. SB600 is about changing that bad incentive structure.

Every corporation lets every shareholder directly elect the board of directors. The IL GOP needs to allow the same thing, just like they used to when this was a Red State.

It's all about accountability.

Re: Question of the day

EmptySuitParade — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:44:30 -0000

Pretty funny stuff.
GOPs (as in MOPE) want to elect some senators, but not others.
They want to appoint, not elect, central committee members
And then they have the nerve to point to the state convention, which opposed the gamblers only to see StateWideTom and VandaliaFrank sell the party out to do their deal with Blagoof.
And some still wonder why anyone is attracted to this collection of losers.
Democrats should show mercy and vote this collections of sad sacks out of business.

Re: Question of the day

Adam Smith — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:34:40 -0000

At Decatur, if you couldn't figure out what you were voting for that hardly recommends your faction for leadership. You got outsmarted by parliamentary procedure. Poor baby. Should the other side make it EASIER for you to win? If you want to win a contest against those who have a different opinion, you are going to have to do better than just crying that it wasn't fair.

Maybe if you guys take over the party then Mike Madigan and John Cullerton will start being "fair" in the General Assembly because you are such pure and virtuous people.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:21:05 -0000

Plutocrat03, that's a complete red herring and not very original, at that. The GA can do more than one thing at once.

Re: Question of the day

At Decatur — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:18:31 -0000

I was in Decatur at the State GOP Convention in June.

First, anyone who publicly supported direct elections (SB600) was kept from being a delegate in the first place.

Second, there were 2 resolutions about direct elections. One in favor, one against. Only one resolution was voted on, but many of the delegates didn't know which resolution there were voting on.

And as it turns out, the resolution that did get a vote was wrutten in the negative so if you SUPPORTED direct elections you had to vote NO.

People were yelling, "what are we voting for" as the vote was being taken. Others were yelling "point of order" in order for clarification as to what resolution they were voting for.

NO ONE was allowed to speak in favor of direct elections. Senator Syverson got into a heated exchange with McKenna because he promised before the vote was taken one person would be allowed to speak in favor and another in opposition.

That never happened.

The only person allowed to speak about direct elections was McKenna. He spoke in opposition of direct elections at the Platform Committee that day before the floor vote.

Republicans left the convention frustrated and angry and you saw the results at the polls in November.

Re: Question of the day

Plutocrat03 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:15:26 -0000

The legislature has time to worry about something so insignificant?

I'm glad the budget, loopy politicians and health care are taken care of.

Re: Question of the day

Louis G. Atsaves — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:15:16 -0000

- - - Political hacks with jobs vs. political hacks who want their jobs. - - -

Ouch! You mean I'm supposed to be getting a paycheck for all this aggravation? After all this time, no one bothered to tell me! : -)

To paraphrase the late, great Rodney Dangerfield: "Take my 'job' PLEASE!"

Re: Question of the day

Chad — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:08:12 -0000

Rich: Any news from the Senate hearing going on today on this issue?

Re: Question of the day

aMi — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:02:27 -0000

If this question were posed regarding private businesses, I would be opposed...that should be left to the discretion of those businesses. However, we are dealing with a question regarding our government employees. Our government works for US, making each of us the boss who is entitled to know what we are spending on these salaries. I think they should be posted, but possibly under an employee ID so that there is some privacy for the individual. We should be entitled to know what our government employees are being paid.