Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Impeachmemt memo: Madigan’s “real” agenda? And possible blowback
Next Post: Notes to readers
Posted in:
* This might be fine for a one-day hit, but I’m not so sure they thought this through all the way…
Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna released the following statement on Dan Seals’ treatment of Iraq war veterans:
“Yesterday, Dan Seals and his campaign succeeded in kicking Iraq war veteran David Kalbfleisch off the November ballot. David Kalbfleisch fought to defend Dan Seals’ freedom and all he asked in return was a chance to participate in our democratic process. Unfortunately, Dan Seals cares more about himself than Iraq war veterans. Voters should know this is how Dan Seals treats our veterans.”
Republican Congressman Peter Roskam is running against an Iraqi War veteran, Jill Morgenthaler. So, will the state GOP now blast Roskam every time he does something negative to his opponent?
* Phil Kadner takes a look at Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s attack on Democratic congressional candidate Debbie Halvorson. If you need some background, read this first. Now, on to the column…
U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd), of Chicago, has handed Republicans a powerful political weapon by linking Tony Rezko’s name to that of state Sen. Debbie Halvorson. […]
[Halvorson’s] campaign manager, Brian Doory, sent me the following statement: “Debbie Halvorson has never met Mr. Rezko. She has not spoken to him or his associates about this issue in any way.
“Sen. Halvorson sponsored the Will County Airport Authority bill on behalf of Will County labor, business and government.”
The statement goes on to accuse Ozinga of engaging in pay-to-play politics, receiving millions of dollars in contracts by “creating a sham business to skirt minority contracting laws” and donating money to politicians “like Rod Blagojevich.”
I’m not sure how any of this will play with voters as the economy turns sour, the war in Iraq continues and, oh yes, the first black candidate for president happens to be running and he’s from Illinois.
* The pathetic clown show that is the Steve Greenberg campaign continues to muddle along…
Gurnee’s mayor and top cop have lashed out at a congressional candidate they say turned a planned discussion about crime and police work into a campaign event.
In a jointly written letter to the Daily Herald and other newspapers, Mayor Kristina Kovarik and Police Chief Robert Jones accused Republican hopeful Steve Greenberg of trying to hijack the May 28 meeting.
Greenberg is challenging two-term Democrat Melissa Bean for the 8th House District seat.
The meeting at the Gurnee police station was supposed to be a private talk about gangs and police tactics, Kovarik told the Daily Herald Tuesday. However, Greenberg showed up with members of the media and a staffer who videotaped the session.
* Related…
* Bill Foster befuddled by Gas Prices
* Archpundit: The Cheap Shot At Halvorson [language warning]
* Archpundit: Apparently Dan Seals was Supposed to Have Vapors
* Archpundit: I’m All For Historic Tax Credits
* Archpundit: Mark has a Point
* Jesse Jackson, Jr. unloads on Blago, Halverson re Rezko, airport
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:05 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Impeachmemt memo: Madigan’s “real” agenda? And possible blowback
Next Post: Notes to readers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So, will the state GOP now blast Roskam every time he does something negative to his opponent?
Yes, if they kick her off the ballot.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:12 am
I mean if the Dems kick her off of course… because like Arch, I think Mark does have a point that deservers an answer from the Colonel.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:13 am
as soon as Capt. Andy sorts out this week’s long term plan to minimalize the GOP.He should turn to Casino Cross and Faro Frank.
Are they for the GOP platform which opposes gambling expansion or for giving $34 billion to Blaggo with few string attached?
These boys do have there troubles. Maybe Bush can come campaign for Kirk and the Milkman
Comment by Gomer GOP Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:20 am
This is what happens when you have a 22yr old running your campaign.
Comment by DepressedGOP Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:30 am
Kovarik has raised 5 taxes in he brief tenure and is a supporter of Melissa Bean. Had Melissa Bean appeared at the meeting she and her lap dog Chief would have fawned over the attention.
So perhaps Steve Greenberg is playing politics, so is the dewy eyed Mayor of Gurnee
Comment by plutocrat03 Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 10:41 am
Halvorson’s staffers are wasting their time tying Ozinga to “Pay-to-play” politics.
Voters realize that in the pay-to-play political world, the politicians collecting the pay are the bad guys forcing Illinois businesses to pay in order to do business with Illinois.
Halvorson was personally involved in allowing pay-to-play to survive in Illinois, by not doing her job. The ethics bill ending pay-to-play wasted away on her watch until Rezko and Blagojevich created a need for political cover.
Ozinga was milked by her political friends, so now she is trying to use this against him?
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:04 am
Circus car driver Andy McKenna tells us, “and all he asked in return was a chance to participate in our democratic process”
…Part of that Democratic process is playing by the rules (read, following the law) and several Green Party candidates got knocked off ballots because the Green Party did not follow the law regarding committeemen.
–
To Rich’s point about the GOP’s hypocritical political expediency (which Bill Baar conveniently ignores in his partisan anguish), it has been Washington Republicans, including Rep. Kirk, which have done far worse by our Iraqi War vets by denying them body armor, blocking uparmor for vehicles, working against vets’ benefits, allowing vets’ post-battle healthcare to literally rot, and on and on.
McKenna’s has little to stand on here. His statement is, quite literally, myopic b&!!$#@%.
–
Pluto, Republicans need to decide if candidate PR events are ok or not.
When Democratic candidate Dan Seals had a campaign event (in the neighboring 10th) that required police assistance, the local Republicans went nuts pooh-poohing it, ignoring just about every fact that was presented to them.
Now, when Republican Steve Greenberg turns a public event into a campaign PR gig it’s all excuses and smarmy comments about how the police chief is a Dem “lap dog”.
The GOP needs to pick a side of its mouth and use it consistently.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:04 am
Kudos to McKenna for defending democracy. I think it’s great that he’s willing to stand up and speak out for Kalbfleisch’s right to be on the ballot, even though Kalbfleisch is a Green, and even though the release was issued primarily for Republican political gain in comparing their candidate to the Democrat.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:06 am
“Part of that Democratic process is playing by the rules (read, following the law) and several Green Party candidates got knocked off ballots because the Green Party did not follow the law regarding committeemen.”
Excuse me, but the party DID follow the law. We just had a bad electoral board make a partisan ruling based on little to no evidence and made up precedent. Besides, even if we had NOT followed the law, the state really has no business telling political parties, which are private voluntary membership associations, how to nominate their own candidates and standard bearers.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:08 am
Dan Seals campaign didn’t want David Kalbfleisch off the ballot b/c he was a veteran. They wanted him off the ballot because he was a Green and would probably draw more votes from Seals than Kirk.
McKenna is being dishonest. He knows why Seals knocked Kalbfleisch off the ballot. But among modern Republicans dishonesty is perfectly acceptable as long as it advances the GOP (which has devolved into a largely criminal enterprise at the federal level).
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:12 am
Good Lord!
Have you listened to Jesse Jackson Jr.’s interview this morning?
This is a Democratic US Congressman calling out the Democratic candidate for US Congress, Debbie Halvorson as a pay-to-play stooge.
He raked her over the coals! He said that he doesn’t care about whether Halvorson gets her job, but that Illinoians get the 15,000 jobs she, Rezko and Blagojevich have been holding up with this airport.
Wow! Roma continually called Halvorson’s SB 2063, the “Pay-to-play Airport Bill” and remarked at how angry she was over Halvorson and Rezko.
A powerful denuciation and an emotional one. A cheap shot? That usually implies an emotionless and calculated opportunity to hurt someone. Jackson’s interview is definately not cheap.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:33 am
Sorry Rob
When Seal pulled his stunt, law enforcement resources were pull off their standard duties to direct traffic. It was certainly reasonable to compensate the police (taxpayers) for use of the public resources.
I am not a Greenberg supporter, but what he did did not endanger the public or cause the police to reallocate their resources.
The Greenberg story is simply about a forgettable photo op which was resurrected by a democratic operative acting like a crybaby.
What a way to run a country.
Comment by plutocrat03 Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:33 am
If someone did their homework on Halvorson before backing her, they needed to better understand the politics in this District and how the Third Airport hurts her. These national Democrats and special interest groups like Emily’s List didn’t realize the importance her politics on this airport impacts her. Jackson just pulled out the plug for her campaign by linking her publically with Rezko and Blagojevich.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:36 am
I saw Andy McCenna teed off on Jim Thompson and Schillerstrom over the weekend. Anything on Blago?
Why isn’t Blago a poster boy for a state GOP campaign? Do they want to borrow Madigan’s talking points for starters?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:55 am
Greenberg,Sauerberg,Kirk, and McKenna are about to be swept away by a colossal Democratic/Obama tidal wave in Illinois. It really doesn’t matter what they say or do the next four months. Their “sound and fury signifies nothing” in November 2008. Illinois Republicans, the “iceman cometh!”
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 12:10 pm
I am quite impressed with J-cubed. It’s a shame the guv thinks so lowly of him.
What is McKenna doing? Is he off his rocker? The Dems’ actions are akin to what the GOP would do if a libertarian ran as a third party candidate in a tight race such as Seals-Kirk.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 12:15 pm
does anyone really know the truth about who this Greenberg guy is anyway?
Comment by indpndnt Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 12:33 pm
Rich kicking someone off the ballot and campaigning against them are two differnt things even someone with a left wing bias as yourself must see that.
Comment by fed up Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 1:11 pm
Bite me. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 1:11 pm
Capt. 12:10:
I notice Deb Halvorson’s conspicuous absence in your “tidal wave”.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 1:15 pm
Wordslinger, Blago. is a poster boy for the IL GOP. I was a delegate to the IL GOP Convention, and I heard Blago. mentioned, in several speeches. The speakers said that many voters will vote for Republicans because he’s very liberal and corrupt.
Comment by PhilCollins Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 1:22 pm
Does Dan Seals approve of Madigan, Jones, Blago, and all the other Democrats (including Rob N I’m sure) ignoring the rule of law to put Bush ON the ballot in 2004 and McCain, presumably, in 2008? Hypocrites. Beyond that, into the realm of anti-American, anti-democratic, and power lustful bigots.
Did American soldiers die in Iraq so that Sunnis could write laws making it 10,000 harder for Shiites or Christians or Jews to get on the ballot? This anti-American behavior is spitting on the graves of everyone that died for free and equal elections and continues to fight in Iraq so that EVERY CANDIDATE IN IRAQ HAS THE SAME REQUIREMENT TO GET ON THE BALLOT, unlike Illinois.
It is plain disgusting to try to defend denying democracy to Illinois citizens.
Illinois election law has specific rules for the Republican Party and seperate set for the (anti)Democratic Party, so where are the special rules for the Green Party they were supposed to follow Rob_N?
Lee v. Keith ruled Illinois election law unconstitutional, and said it had been since 1980. 28 years of illegal elections and the Democrats are still pulling this nonsense.
Illinois Democrats are going to lose this election for Obama.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 1:37 pm
1
Comment by greenberg Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 1:44 pm
Phil Collins,
If that’s the case, then the GOP should not let One More Night pass before taking their anti-Blago case to the public, if, Against All Odds, they want to stem the Obama/Dem tidal wave. Otherwise, Nov. 4, will be Another Day in Paradise for Illinois Dems.
And dont’ Blago and Cross seem to have A Groovy Kind of Love going on?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 1:49 pm
Just 5 months to go now and Republicans will finally be rid of the clueless Andy McKenna as his loaded clown car finally smacks the wall on election day. I seriously doubt if McKenna could be elected precinct committeeman after what he’s done to the GOP here. He’s done.
Comment by What a relief Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 2:25 pm
Wordslinger, I agree with most of your last comment, and I like your use of song titles. I disagree with your last sentence. During Cross’ speech, he criticized Gov. Blago, St. Sen. Jones, and St. Rep. Madigan. Cross said that our state has a budget problem because those three Democrats can’t work together well, similar to little kids. Cross said that, if we elect more Republicans, to the legislature, the state would have lower tax rates and a balanced budget.
What a relief, whom should the next IL GOP Chairman be? I think they should choose a conservative who has been a county party chairman and an elected official. St. Rep. Jo Ann Osmond would be a great choice. She’s been a state rep. since Dec. 2002, and she was chairman of the Lake Co. GOP, 2004-’06.
Comment by PhilCollins Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 2:45 pm
===A powerful denuciation and an emotional one. A cheap shot? That usually implies an emotionless and calculated opportunity to hurt someone. Jackson’s interview is definately not cheap.
It’s very cheap. How is giving Larry Walsh 4 of 7 seats in a process by which local communities sign off on the appointees and approve them along with the County board anything like giving the Governor 5 of 9 appointees as the Jackson plan does?
I’m just curious as to how Jackson making up stuff about Halvorson when he’s the guy giving the Governor more power has anything to do with reality.
Or perhaps that Jackson and Blagojevich had been negotiating over the number of Gubernatorial appointees since at least December of 2005 was conveniently left out when discussing the June 2006 meeting.
Or how overriding Weller’s amendment requiring federal procurement rules be used for the airport was a blow for good government by Jackson?
Anyone want to give it a try?
I’m somewhat amazed that Jackson is the fountain of all truth for Republicans all of a sudden.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 2:54 pm
Gee, I seem to have hit a nerve.
(Let me clarify that in my original post, I had intended to write the word little-d “democratic” but out of habit capitalized it.)
Squid and TaxMeMore have decided to start making things up as they go along…
For one thing, Squid and Tax, yes, the state actually is in charge of making electoral laws. You may quibble with those laws and whether or not they are too burdensome, and you have a legal recourse via the courts to make your case, but laws are laws.
In the case of the Green Party candidate Kabfleisch who got knocked off the ballot, he was appointed after the primary. The decision reflected the fact there was a lack of committeeman in order to actually make an appointment.
The (very basic) reasoning behind the law requiring that local committeemen make such slating decisions is that at the very least those committeemen are little-d democratically elected to their party posts by the members of the party (as opposed to any slated candidate who would appointed, not nominated by party members).
It’s the same rationale behind the Constitutional amendment placing the Speaker of the House 2nd in line for the presidency. The Speaker may not have been elected by all the people (as would be a president or veep) but the Speaker is elected to the post by members of the majority party in the House, members which reflect the little-d democratic will of the people from across the nation.
I didn’t say it wasn’t convoluted, but rules are rules.
–
Tax, as for your gripe about 2004 and placing Bush on the ballot — what would the Springfield Dems have gained by keeping him off despite the incredibly late date of the 2004 RNC convention?
So the law was changed to allow Bush to appear on the ballot. But the rule of law was still followed (it’s just that the law was changed).
Besides, Seals didn’t run in 2004. Lee Goodman did.
–
Pluto, Thanks for proving my point… (And since when is monitoring traffic not part of a local police department’s duties? That’s a new one.)
“It’s ok if you’re a Republican.”
It matters not one wit if you’re for, against or agnostic on Greenberg. You’re still acting hypocritical as you wax partisan.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 2:55 pm
Jackson’s take on Halvorson’s bill takes the issue of ALNAC board membership out of the debating arena into No Man’s Land where the real war is fought.
He didn’t correct his interviewers when they renamed her SB 2063, the “Pay-to-Play Airport Bill”. He didn’t balance their assertions that she was involved with Rezko and Blagojevich. He didn’t support Halvorson’s Congressional campaign; instead he flatly said getting her that job wasn’t as important as the 15,000 Illinoians being denied their jobs by her, Rezko and Blagojevich.
He isn’t hiding behind Bryant anymore. Jackson is out front and emotional over what he says he witnessed, his disgust with Blagojevich and Rezko, and his disgust with Halvorson. It is quite a show.
Why would Jackson do this without prevocation? Why would he make these claims without equivocation? For a veteran US Congressman with a bright future, would he be willing to gamble over some ad hoc story based on flimsy circumstantial evidence? Why would he be willing to flush Halvorson’s campaign by tying her to Rezko, Blagojevich and “Pay-to-play” politics over what some will call a mere misunderstanding?
Jackson’s fury this morning, the statements he made, the record he has, indicates to me that he is certain about the claims he is making against Halvorson.
So - no more arguments over what this or that says. The chess table has been knocked over, the windows have been kicked in, and Jackson has declared war on a fellow Democrat - for some real reason.
Ozinga has to be stunned at his fortune today.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 3:27 pm
(For one thing, Squid and Tax, yes, the state actually is in charge of making electoral laws. You may quibble with those laws and whether or not they are too burdensome, and you have a legal recourse via the courts to make your case, but laws are laws.)
Typical. Forcing Americans to gather money, resources, and lawyers just to attempt to enjoy the supposed free and equal elections our state constitution demands. If you don’t like our anti-democratic and discriminatory laws, take us to court to try to get on the ballot, should be beneath most moral individuals trusted with our paychecks.
(Tax, as for your gripe about 2004 and placing Bush on the ballot — what would the Springfield Dems have gained by keeping him off despite the incredibly late date of the 2004 RNC convention?)
Thank you for perfectly illustrating what the Democrats do in Illinois. They put political power before the principles of democracy, something their party was supposedly founded on. I thought rules were rules. But I guess that only applies when there is a political advantage, right Rob_N? Disgusting.
(So the law was changed to allow Bush to appear on the ballot. But the rule of law was still followed (it’s just that the law was changed).)
You are willing to change the law for Bush and the Republicans, but not for the Greens. Like I said, which set of election law rules, the Republicans or the Democrats, does the law say that the Greens must follow?
It doesn’t, it’s silent, just like it was silent in 2004 about whether the Republicans could replace Jack Ryan on the ballot. The Board let them switch Ryan with Keyes when the law was silent, but they won’t let the Greens enjoy the same right to slate candidates as the Rs and Ds because the law is silent about the Green Party. Why don’t the Greens have a set of laws like the Rds and Ds? Government is suppose to make laws for all people including other established parties, not just Rs and Ds. The law is unconstitutional and discriminatory and anyone that believed in the principles of democracy over party power would fix the problem instead of wasting taxpayers money forcing it to go through the courts.
They can change the law for the Greens like the did for Bush. They won’t and you don’t want them to. That is favoritism, discrimination, and bigotry and has no business in a land that is supposed to have free and equal elections.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 4:56 pm
And they certainly wouldn’t abuse the use of the lack of laws for the Green Party to remove American veterans from the ballot.
What you are advocating is the same as saying that in Iraq, they can have one set of election laws for Sunnis to follow, another for the Shiites to follow, but because there are no laws for the Kurds, Christians or Jews to follow the Sunnis and Shiites can keep them off the ballot. That is exactly what the Democrats are doing to the Greens right now.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 5:09 pm
====Why would Jackson do this without prevocation?
Jackson’s been doing this for 5 years on the issue. It’s not like it started out of nowhere. What he saw was a chance to make some hay on an issue he has not been able to advance for years.
=== Why would he make these claims without equivocation? For a veteran US Congressman with a bright future, would he be willing to gamble over some ad hoc story based on flimsy circumstantial evidence?
That’s a good question. Now, he has a plan that has 5 appointees to the Gov, she has 1 to the Gov. Explain to me how he’s been anywhere near honest?
====Why would he be willing to flush Halvorson’s campaign by tying her to Rezko, Blagojevich and “Pay-to-play” politics over what some will call a mere misunderstanding?
Team player is generally not used to describe Jackson.
—-Jackson’s fury this morning, the statements he made, the record he has, indicates to me that he is certain about the claims he is making against Halvorson.
Okay, but why does his plan give Rod more power than her plan?
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 5:31 pm
Tax,
Either you’re deliberately misreading election law or you’re completely ignorant of it.
The Green Party, as an established political party, must follow the same laws as the Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans, Democrats and Greens are all allowed to have the committeemen in a given legislative district slate a candidate during a set period of time after the primary.
The problem for the Greens is that they didn’t have committeemen in several of the districts in question. That’s no one’s fault but the Green Party’s.
What you, sir, are advocating is just blatant partisanship, plain and simple. It’s fine for you to do so, just as it’s fine for me to point how ignorant of the basic laws your writings are.
Greens fought to earn the right to be designated an established party, yet they have squandered the opportunity.
And your Jack Ryan/Alan Keyes point is an orange to this apple. Ryan won the primary, he was not slated. Keyes, Ryan’s replacement after he resigned the nomination, was slated by the duly elected state central committee of his party — just as Marty Ozinga recently was slated by duly elected county chairs in IL-11 after Tim Baldermann dropped out.
The law is clear: the county chairs are in charge of slating Congressional candidates post-primary during the slating period. Without county chairs… what happened is the result.
I didn’t see anything about Andy McKenna’s ILGOP lawyers filing amicus briefs on behalf of the Green Party — so you joining his partisan hypocrisy now is so much hooey. If you and he actually cared you two would have been in front of that electoral board making all the points you’re now making.
–
One thing in particular that you’ve completely distorted for some reason…
(Tax, as for your gripe about 2004 and placing Bush on the ballot — what would the Springfield Dems have gained by keeping him off despite the incredibly late date of the 2004 RNC convention?)
Thank you for perfectly illustrating what the Democrats do in Illinois. They put political power before the principles of democracy, something their party was supposedly founded on. I thought rules were rules. But I guess that only applies when there is a political advantage, right Rob_N? Disgusting.
The law was changed via the legislative process. The law was still the law.
If the Dems were actually interested in “political power before the principles of democracy” they would’ve kept Bush off the ballot and not changed the law.
You’ll have to ask Mike Madigan, Emil Jones and Rod Blagojevich why they changed that law. Dan Seals had nothing to do with changing it.
But good try at changing the subject and sounding whiney all at the same time.
–
For the record, I have a history of advocating for more, not less, equality in electoral laws. I may not always agree with the Libertarian, Green or other parties’ platforms but I also think they ought to be able to have their say. However, the current law, until it’s changed, is the current law.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 5:54 pm
Well Rob
Any time a police department is diverted to a private use the user gets a bill. e.g. Great America pays for police protection…
This is why our elections are so fouled up. Your partisanship is so strident that anything ‘your side’ does is acceptable but any defense or counter is met with derision and scorn.
Under the total control of the Democratic Party, in Illinois has outstripped the cronyism and thievery of the Republican Party by a wide margin.
In my mind, arguing about who is a lesser criminal than the other guy is not very assuring.
If all anyone can do is name call and point fingers the best thing for Illinois to do is to declare itsef insolvent.
Comment by plutocrat03 Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 6:56 pm
Does Illinois election law set up different party organization procedures for the Republican Party and Democratic Party? Yes.
Does it set up different procedures for the Green Party? No.
The Green Party must choose to organize themselves like the Rs or Ds, no ifs and or buts about it or the Democrats will kick them off the ballot as we have just seen. Illinois law allows the Republicans and Democrats to tell the Green Party how to run their party using only the Rs and Ds rules. That’s preposterous to use that to kick them off the ballot no matter what your justification.
I understand the law and more than that, I understand the difference between basic right and wrong. It’s wrong to use laws specifically written for Rs and Ds to kick Greens off the ballot when they haven’t been given the same opportunity to the Greens to have their own party rules written into law just like the Rs and Ds.
(If the Dems were actually interested in “political power before the principles of democracy” they would’ve kept Bush off the ballot and not changed the law.)
No Rob_D You made the argument that there was no political advantage to them kicking Bush off in Illinois since he wouldn’t have won anyway. And yes, if they wanted to stand up for the principles of democracy they would have done what I did and demand the RNC change their convention to follow the law of the 9 states they were violating or they could not be on the ballot. Their choice. Another choice they had would be to get 25,000 sigs in 90 days and put Bush on the ballot under a different party label, like the Rs and Ds require of everyone else.
You fail to understand there are two sets of laws for organizing an established party written into the election statutes. Which set of laws, the ones that are for Republicans or Democrats, does the law say the Greens have to follow?
It doesn’t. The law is silent about how Greens should organize, just like it was silent about how to replace Ryan with Keyes.
The law is flawed and obviously shouldn’t be used to kick war veterans off the ballot.
(And your Jack Ryan/Alan Keyes point is an orange to this apple.)
No it isn’t and that reflects your lack of knowledge. Filling a Vacancy in Nomination. Same exact statutes that are being used to kick the Greens off the ballot. In 2004, the law was silent on how the Republicans could fill a vacancy in nomination and the Democrats allowed them to do it anyway. in 2008, the law is silent on how the Greens must organize or fill vacancies in nomination and the Democrats are using it to kick war veterans off the ballot because it is in their political interests and not the interests of the principles of democracy.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 7:34 pm
Illinois election law regarding precinct committeemen is unconstitutional. Illinois election law allows ANYONE to run to become a party’s precinct committeeman, without that party’s consent; and Illinois election law allows ANYONE to run to become a party’s candidate, without that party’s consent. In addition, Illinois election law allows non-party members to interfere in the candidate selection process by voting in a party’s primary, without that party’s consent. In addition, while the state may be able to regulate primary elections (which, according to the case law, are not wholly public affairs, mind you) political parties have a right to choose WHATEVER candidate selection process they see fit, meaning that Greens shouldn’t even need to use a primary election if they don’t want–Greens should be able to use a convention, a caucus, or simply certify to the election authority which candidates to print on the ballot (now that the party has earned the right to place candidates on the ballot.)
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:54 pm
Oh, one more thing. As I said, primary elections are not wholly public affairs which the state can freely regulate. The U.S. Supreme Court says that states must act within the bounds of the constitution and respect the right of freedom of association that political parties, which are private voluntary membership associations, definitely do enjoy. Primary election actually started out as wholly PRIVATE affairs; and while the state may have enacted some laws in an attempt to regulate them, political parties still have the power to perform all of their normal functions which have not been denied to them by law. In other words, whenever there is gray area as to how a political party is to function internally, the political party gets to decide those rules for itself. That’s exactly what the Green Party did; and regardless if the party actually has the time, desire, people, resources, or money to fight the legal battle, the principles are all legally sound.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 9:59 pm
Pluto,
The Seals campaign did get a bill, which they were well aware of in advance, and it was paid.
So?
–
Tax,
Are you saying the Green Party is no longer an established political party?
That’s news to everyone including, I should think, the Greens.
The Republicans and Democrats follow the laws enacted for established political parties. The Greens ought to be following them also since they are, in fact, now an established political party.
Case closed.
–
Squid,
Your party is free to pursue this matter all the way up to the Supreme Court should it so choose. I sincerely wish you well.
But your party can’t agree to the publicly mandated rules before the primary (Green ballots were available at the publicly funded primary voting locations last February 5th) and then decide they don’t like the publicly mandated rules after spending public money.
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jun 11, 08 @ 11:49 pm
===The Seals campaign did get a bill, which they were well aware of in advance, and it was paid.===
Rob_N- you know that is a load of garbage. The Seals camp barely gave Lincolnshire notice an hour or so before the event, and the Lincolnshire police chief was on TV not lookin’ real happy considering he had to pull cops off their regular patrols at short notice and had insufficient time to plan to avoid the traffic jam that developed.
Considering the mayor of Lincolnshire made it a point to come out and endorse Mark Kirk only a few days later makes it pretty clear what Lincolnshire thought of the whole escapade.
Did Seals get a bill from the police (after the fact)? You bet. Did he pay it? You bet- it would have been political suicide to try to stiff them. But don’t make it sound like this was all pre-arranged with the Lincolnshire cops, because you know it’s not true. Seals’ poor planning left him looking like an idiot in the eyes of a lot of folks, especially Lincolnshire.
Comment by team america, world police Thursday, Jun 12, 08 @ 6:35 am