Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The Tribune cowards
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Illinois Republican Party’s new platform has a couple of interesting planks…
We call on the Governor and the General Assembly to balance the state budget and provide for a responsible capital development program without resorting to the expansion of gambling, which harms Illinois’ families and our state’s business climate and presents costly challenges for both law enforcement and social service agencies.
Both Republican legislative leaders, Frank Watson and Tom Cross, support gambling expansion to help fund the capital construction plan.
* And then there’s this…
We call on the Governor and the General Assembly to cease diversion of dedicated funds – such as the road fund – to other purposes.
Skimming dedicated funds (not the Road Fund, but others) is one of the two revenue streams that Gov. Blagojevich wants to use to patch the gaping budget hole. The Senate has already passed it, but the bill stalled in the House. The House Republicans have said they are against the fund skims, but without HGOP votes the skims can’t be approved.
I’m curious to see if you think the most senior Republican leaders in Illinois should follow their own party’s platform.
[Hat tip: Diersen]
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 1:39 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The Tribune cowards
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes, ALL Republicans in the State House and Senate should abide by the State GOP Platform which rejects gambling expansion.
Those who don’t shouldn’t expect Republican help or votes.
It’s time to throw the bums out, even that means a Dem wins this time. Who can tell the difference with most of these clowns anyway?
Comment by GOP'er Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 7:31 am
They probably should, but it won’t factor into whatever they decide to do. Most Republicans, even some of us that have been around for decades, have never even seen the party platform. The specifics of the platform don’t usually really matter, because candidates run on what’s important to them locally with an underlying idea that, as a party, we’re against overspending and raising taxes to pay for it, for smaller government (fun to define these days!) and for individual responsibility.
Generally, Republicans are closer to those key principles, so the rest of the platform is left to the couple dozen on the right that really care about what a document says - even if it bears no practical relation to Illinois politics and elections.
You could say that means there are no core values to the party, but I don’t think the platform represents that anymore - in either party. You can argue all day long about whether that is itself a good or a bad thing, but the reality is that most even active partisans couldn’t care less about what their respective party’s platform says.
What the Republicans need is a unified MESSAGE - anti-corruption, fiscal responsibility, etc. Until they do that and sell it, they’ll continue to be tagged by the Democrats in Illinois with whatever Label of the Day they think will damage the GOP the most.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 7:37 am
They ought to (not because it’s the party’s platform, but because it’s the morally right thing to do), but won’t, because a few crumbs thrown the right way by the powerful House Dems will buy the necessary votes.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 8:18 am
Yes, adhere to the platform. Those in favor of gaming expansion fail to account for the enormous start-up and regulatory costs associated with the proposal, aside from the social issues. It’s a non-starter. Can you imagine a casino in the political vicinity of the Daley administration? Hollywood won’t need a script writer for this impending albatross.
Ditto with fund sweeps. If these supposedly dedicated revenue streams are regularly being diverted for other purposes, perhaps it’s time to examine why they were enacted initially, and if a reallocation to the GRF or somewhere else is necessary.
Agree with GOP’er that the line between Democrats and Republicans has been blurred, at least in this state. Yes, they like to blame each other for everything, and their rhetoric echoes supposed party platforms, but these days I’m much more interested in the person who can unclog the stopped-up toilet that is IL politics. Good riddance.
Comment by The Doc Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 8:56 am
Imho, the platform is relevant 1 day every 2 years, the day it is debated and adopted by the platform committee at the state convention. And, on that day, its meaningfulness is limited to its ability to partially define the various compromises that have been made among attendees.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:02 am
I would also note that I think a lot of Republicans were already for holding GOP elected officials accountable on gambling expansion, long before this platform plank was adopted a week ago in Decatur. Here’s a good example where a platform plank really does reflect the sense of a big portion of the GOP voters out there.
It was great to see this anti-expansion plank make it into the final document, but of course most Republican voters already thought gambling expansion reflects horribly irresponsible fiscal policy.
On the one hand we think Blagojevich is awful and can’t be trusted. But hey, let’s work with him to transfer 30 some billion more of private capital (from mostly those who can least afford it) to that same awful Gov because maybe he’ll spend some crumbs in our districts.
And the IL GOP wonders why it’s heading for its biggest disaster yet in 4 and a half months.
Comment by GOP'er Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:16 am
Steve is right on the tradition of party platforms. But if I were a GA GOPer, I’d listen to this one. I think they’re playing with fire by playing ball with Blago and going along with gambling.
Anti-Blago, anti-gambling expansion positions seem to me to be a couple of building blocks to reinvigorating the base.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:20 am
It’s difficult (almost impossible) for all members of a party to agree about every plank of a platform, but all politicians should agree with most of his or her party’s platform. Watson and Cross should vote according to the views of their districts, concerning gambling.
Comment by PhilCollins Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:26 am
I agree with Word (and Steve) on everything except the fund skimming.
The repubs skimmed all these funds back in 1993. It would be real easy to target them for skimming the funds during the 1993 fiscal crisis; but suddenly when the State is in a dems hands and in trouble deicidng this time to stand their ground? Especially since they have been pushing for a capital plan as well.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:31 am
IGOP shouldn’t cave in and support gambling. It creates more problems than it fixes, and the revenue always seems to get re-routed to a pork barrel
Comment by Ultra50k Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:38 am
No, the platform should follow the leaders’ positions - the leaders are the ones who actually get elected over Democrats! Who writes the platform anyway? Just like the national platform, nobody with any original thought capability could possibly agree with everything in a document that somebody else writes!
Comment by Legal Eagle Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:43 am
You want to snipe at the GOP?
We have a more serious problem than GOP leaders ignoring some planks within their new platform. We have a Civil War in the Democratic Party, which is destroying our state since voters have given that political party control over us.
We live in the cynical days of Blagojevich MOUs. This is partly due to Democrats who have scrapped or have ignored their party’s platforms. The Illinois Democratic Party have ignored their platforms, their MOUs, and now seem to be surprised at their own lack of trust among themselves.
You want to quibble over the GOP, when Jones, Madigan and Blagojevich is taking us all over a Niagara Falls of disfunctional government? Where in their platform does it say to do this? Where in the Democrat’s party platform does it say to shred one another into a standstill?
Pointing out the discrepancies between Watson, Cross and the new GOP platform is less than small potatoes, in light of the Democratic firestorm sweeping Illinois.
If any political party has leaders ignoring their own platform, it has to be the Kamikaze Squadron Leaders of the Illinois Democratic Party.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:59 am
The GOP leaders didn’t follow the anti-gaming expansion plank in their old platform. Why would they start now?? It’s clear that Cross and Watson have abandoned the Republican principle that more casinos is not a desirable way to fund government.
Comment by Reformer Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 10:29 am
Wait.
Skipper told the leaders last week that this wasn’t the “final” platform.
Maybe the final platform will allow GOPs to be for gambling expansion to allow Blagoof to dole out $34 billion in an honest & even handed manner (tee hee) and buy that run down theater in Rosemont.
Then not one more once of gambling.
Ever!
Or until the hustlers who buy the lottery need to make more cash and then the GOPs can authorize a sports book.
Comment by DumberThanUThink Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 10:38 am
I don’t knwo anyone could characterize themselves as Republicans and not adhere to those two particular planks. Moral and social considerations aside, reliance on wished-for expanded gambling revenues and one-time skims from dedicated funds are simply two examples of the worst sort of fiscal irresponsibilty. If Republicans can’t at least hold their ground on fiscal responsibilty, then why exist as a party? The past fiscal sins of Illinois Republican legislators and governors are part of the reason why the GOP has almost collapsed in this state.
Comment by Skirmisher Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 11:02 am
Platforms, at least these days, exist to give the party activists something to do in creating them. They’re only binding if the general GOP (or Dem as the case may be) voters feel strongly about the platform.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 11:05 am
No, if it is something they/their constituents disagre with. Nothing is wrong with bucking your party on principal.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 11:25 am
Cermak
Help me understand which side is lying
Cross & Watson or McKenna? Or does it depend on when they get caught?
I know that was important to all the Ryans as they started the dismantling of the IL GOP.
Comment by DumberThanUThink Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 11:41 am
Great platform. It supports a capital bill but do they advocate a way to pay for it?
I used to think Republicans were fiscally responsible. So there must be a plank that recommends a revenue stream. Right?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 11:53 am
VanillaMan, don’t be so sensitive. Look around at most of the rest of the posts. What do you see? Why, could those posts be about the Democratic infighting? Why, yes, they are.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 11:54 am
Rich, I took your question generally as opposed to these specific planks of this platform, and that’s how I answered it.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 11:58 am
BTW, Skirmisher, who gets to decide which particular planks you have to adhere to to call yourself a Republican and which you don’t?
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 12:02 pm
I don’t think that party leaders, who are themselves candidates or elected officials, are necessarily required to agree with every position in that party’s platform. I think that candidates should identify with whatever party who’s platform they agree with the most; and if they don’t feel that any are sufficient, they should start a new party with a different platform.
The same question has been discussed within the Illinois Green Party. If you recall, Rich Whitney supports open carry of firearms in Illinois; and while he does not personally believe that position is inconsistent with the party platform, I would venture to say that most other Greens do. Nonetheless, I wasn’t aware of any Green who had problems supporting Whitney because of this one issue–in fact, I believe he may have actually convinced a number to adopt his position.
Comment by Squideshi Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 1:33 pm
The leaders would be pretty smart to at LEAST show some movement in the direction of following the platform.
VanillaMan is generally on the right direction in that Dems have more blaring problems than the GOP. It’s like one of the Rocky moview (can’t remember the number) where Rocky and Apollo Creed knock each other out and essentially the first one that stands up wins. The GOP knocked itself out, and now the Dems are doing the same thing. Trouble is, the GOP hasn’t quite taken a hold of the ropes to stand back up yet.
I think if the leaders pushed to really start making some serious cuts in State government, and made it a part of a “deal” that would allow smaller gambling expansion, then I think they would find a relatively congenial party. If they completely ignore the platform and act exactly like the Dems, then there will be trouble.
The phrase from “Austin Powers” comes to mind: “Throw me a frickin bone, will ya”
Comment by trafficmatt Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 2:40 pm
As with every other unenforcible mandate and piece of legislation, etc., what will it’s sponsors and supporters do if it’s not followed?
The most the ILGOP could probably do–and this particular group probably would–is call for the “rogue” Legislator to step down, instruct all “real” Republicans not to vote for him next time, or heck, even call for a recall of one of their own.
If they COULD be successful in doing so, why would we even need a bunch of Legislators then? Might as well follow–was it Asimov or Bradbury’s–storyline and elect one VOTER to choose everyone in office. Or, we could put on spin on the original story line and hire an actor to represent each party who would do nothing but debate issues in accordance with the platform.
The platform is what it is–it’s a guideline and nothing more. To pretend it’s more is freakishly controlling.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 5:33 pm
The more I think about this, the more irritating it becomes. Expecting all of our Legislators to follow the platform is tantamount to taking away their discretion to vote as required by TODAY’s standards and issues.
Not that all Legislators can and should be trusted, but when we elect someone, we elect them to use their know-how to conduct the required research and then cast votes in accordance with their findings.
You can’t tell me that an almost static platform that’s been developed by people we didn’t even vote for should be the key “decisionmaker” when it comes to legislation.
What moxy.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 5:41 pm
I’m developing a program tonight into which we can feed all of the parties’ platforms. Whenever a question arises or a vote is required, someone will just need to click to calculate the number of pros and cons that are written into each platform to make the call.
Version 2.0, which will be released six years from now will be relational in that it will consider all other active questions/issues in the system on that day to determine when the winning vote should be declared a loser a vice verse because of a conflicting question or issue.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 5:51 pm
Follow the platform on these two. Not because it’s a “core Republican” issue, but because it’s common sense. These are flawed proposals advanced by a desperate governor with a 13% approval rating. Tell him to take them and put them where he hid the subpeonas and never be seen again.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 6:11 pm
The GOP Platform should have just been more direct and banned Tom Cross.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 8:05 pm
Candidates are elected as either Republicans or Democrats. Those party labels mean something only if party officials follow the party philosophy. Party discipline is far more lax in the USA than elsewhere in regard to voting the party platform. Should it be so lax that party principle is meaningless?
Comment by Reformer Monday, Jun 16, 08 @ 9:53 pm