Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Hospitals could be facing huge property tax bills
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Dold plays the concern troll…
Republican Rep. Bob Dold of Kenilworth was in the middle, telling the Daily Herald editorial board Monday that additional background checks would be a “common sense step forward” but saying Obama moving forward without Congress could “poison the well” for the future.
“My concern is obviously on the process,” Dold said.
Dold is facing a re-election campaign against either Democrat Brad Schneider or Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering, who have both also tried to make guns a key issue in the campaign.
The “process” is broken. Whether you’re with Obama or not, you have to admit there’s no way to get any sort of gun limits passed through Congress right now. And the well has been “poisoned” for years.
* Then Dold got trolled…
Rep. Bob Dold planned to bring a felon to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech next week as a guest, but he withdrew the invitation Thursday after learning that a Waukegan woman had accused the man of threatening to kill her in 2014 and obtained a restraining order against him.
Durrell McBride, 30, of Zion, served six years in state prison for armed robbery and was released in 2011, state records show. He was on parole until 2013.
Dold, a Republican from Kenilworth, announced this week that McBride would be his guest at Tuesday’s speech. An aide to Dold said McBride worked in sales and owns a “small business for his motivational speaking engagements.”
In a news release, Dold said he had he met McBride and was “inspired by his success story.” McBride “has worked tirelessly to lift himself up” since his release from prison, Dold said in the statement.
The prison stint wasn’t and isn’t a problem. It’s what happened afterward…
A Dold spokesman said neither the congressman nor the Lake County YouthBuild program that recommended McBride knew of the situation.
“Congressman Dold has a long history of efforts to prevent domestic abuse, including his Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act, and does not tolerate violence against women of any kind,” Dold spokesman Brad Stewart said in a statement. “Immediately after learning of this, Congressman Dold notified Mr. McBride that, in light of this information, he would no longer be attending the State of the Union as Congressman Dold’s guest. […]
“Mr. McBride was the 2013 YBLC Alumni of the Year and interned at YouthBuild Lake County for the past year,” said Laurel Tustison, executive director [of Lake County YouthBuild]. “He was an outstanding student and we were unaware of this personal situation with the restraining order when we recommended him for the trip.”
Oops.
…Adding… Meanwhile…
Three House Republicans on Wednesday voted against the reconciliation bill that would defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare while one Democrat voted for it. The bill passed the House of Representatives 240-181.
Republican Representatives Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), and John Katko (R-N.Y.) broke ranks with 239 of their Republican colleagues and opposed the bill while Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) was the only House Democrat to vote for the bill.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:20 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Hospitals could be facing huge property tax bills
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“The ‘process’ is broken. Whether you’re with Obama or not, you have to admit there’s no way to get any sort of gun limits passed through Congress right now. And the well has been ‘poisoned’ for years.”
Um. That means the process is working, not broken. The whole point of having a Congress and a President was the separation and balance of powers. It’s not the president’s job to make laws or rule by decree.
Comment by Jack Kemp Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:25 pm
People elected their Congressman to represent them in Washington. With Dold being one of the few exceptions, an overwhelming majority of Republicans ran on being pro-gun. Maybe that’s a good indicator that people don’t WANT gun control, which is why Congress doesn’t act.
Comment by Jack Kemp Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:27 pm
Is the process broken if a majority of Congress does not support a president’s reforms to gun laws?
Is the process broken if a majority of the General Assembly do not support a governor’s reforms to labor laws?
Some might say both processes are working the way they are supposed to.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:31 pm
Argue process if he wants, but politically it’s not a good issue for him. Rotering could beat him in part because of the gun issue polling so well for her right now.
Congressman Dold can’t claim to be for gun control - he never has been. He is probably hoping he gets Schneider again.
Comment by hockey fan Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:37 pm
“an overwhelming majority of Republicans ran on being pro-gun. Maybe that’s a good indicator that people don’t WANT gun control”
Maybe.
Or maybe simply asking people is a good indicator of what they want, e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:37 pm
The process isn’t broken enough for the President to break it further.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 1:47 pm
MrJM,
Thanks for the link. From the full results:
“Do you favor or oppose Obama using executive orders to implement these policies? Favor 44%/Oppose 54%”
“And do you think these changes will be effective or will NOT be effective in reducing the number of gun-related deaths in the United States? Will be effective 41%/Will not be effective 57%”
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling gun policy? Approve 43%/Disapprove 53%”
Hm. From a poll that asked folks in which a bare majority (51%) do not own a gun, I’d say these are pretty telling results.
Comment by Jack Kemp Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:05 pm
As of December 20, 2015 President Obama had issued 227 Executive Orders in seven years. George W. Bush had 291 in eight years. Bill Clinton, 364 in eight years. George H. W. Bush, 166 in four years. Ronald Reagan, 391 in eight years.
A large percentage of Americans, including gun owners and members of the NRA, favor sensible gun control measures like closing the gun show loophole. But Congress has steadfastly refused to entertain a discussion of any measures that would promote gun safety.
If Congressman Dold and his colleagues believe that the President has “poisoned the well,” “broken the process” or, worse yet, broken the law,they should take it to court. I admire the fact that the President is trying to something to address these issues.
Comment by And I Approved This Message Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:07 pm
Oh dear, Jack! You somehow overlooked some of the results: “A new CNN/ORC poll finds 67% say they favor the changes Obama announced, and 32% oppose them. Support for the executive actions, designed to expand background checks to cover more gun purchases made online or at gun shows and to make it easier for the FBI to complete background checks efficiently, comes across party lines, with majorities of Democrats (85%), independents (65%) and Republicans (51%) in favor of them. Majorities back the measures across most demographic groups, in fact, including 57% of gun owners and 56% of rural residents.”
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:36 pm
No. I didn’t miss it; I just didn’t blindly accept it. CNN cherry picked the one result from their survey that dictated the story they wanted to tell and reported that. Golly, I wonder why they would ever do that?
Of course majorities support background checks at gun shows and on the Internet. I’m a gun owner, I do. Trouble is, purchases at gun shows and on the Internet already require a background check, so the question is heavily misleading. Perhaps intentionally so.
Go ahead and try to buy a gun online without having it shipped to a federally licensed firearms dealer; let me know how that goes.
Comment by Jack Kemp Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 2:51 pm
You must not be familiar with the internet Mr. Kemp.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 3:33 pm
Congressmen like Dold are probably less beholden to NRA for contributions or support than state Reps, their contribution base is larger and they represent more well-off areas. Who else is NRA going to support on the North Shore? Rep. Dold can afford to be neutral with NRA.
Rep. Brandon Phelps and Sen. Forby appear to be the NRA guys in the legislature, but they seem to put the worst language their bills that panders to the police unions, rather than representing the interests of the taxpayers and citizens.
Phelps represents one of the most economically depressed areas in the southern tip of the state, with little industry and working at the prison being the plum job. If NRA-ILA gives him $3,000 it means a lot more to his campaign than a Congressman like Dold.
Gun issues in IL seem to break down along regional and racial lines, rural vs. city, rather than party lines.
Comment by Payback Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 3:36 pm
– It’s not the president’s job to make laws or rule by decree. –
Pretty chicken-stuff changes, if he’s making laws or rules “by decree.” You’d think if you were going all unlawful and unconstitutional and stuff, you’d go yard.
Before you join the militia, you might want to familiar yourself with the history of presidential executive orders.
Obama is on about pace with Benjamin Harrison in that regard.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 3:56 pm
Wordslinger, simply citing the number of executive orders issued is a textbook strawman. EOs have a legitimate purpose; one president could presumably issue 1,000 without abusing his authority. The issue is actually, “what is the stuff of these orders?” If they change law, as the President’s most recent orders appear to do, then that’s the problem.
Comment by Jack Kemp Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 4:54 pm
JK, I’m guessing your “problem” is that you don’t like the content of the order.
You throw out words like “abusing his authority” and “change law” like you know what you’re talking about. Please expand.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “textbook strawman” in this instance. What false argument have I constructed only so I could knock it down?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 5:03 pm