20 Comments - Squideshi - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 7:22 am: “But even though the idea theoretically could cost him his job, history shows Blagojevich is on safe ground endorsing the recall plan. The odds that a proposed amendment to the state constitution will even make it to the ballot, let alone be approved by voters, are slim at best.” Doug Finke is forgetting that voters will be soon be asked if there shall be a constitutional convention in the State of Illinois. A recall provision could well make it into the constitution, should such a convention be held. A recall provision is a great idea, and I hope it does become law. Voters shouldn’t need to wait 4 years to recall an elected official who deceived their way into elected office. - Squideshi - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 7:38 am: “The Boston Globe noted that two-thirds of the money Obama raised for his state Senate campaign came from political-action committees, corporate contributions or unions — all special interests. The Los Angeles Times reported that Obama has raised $1.4 million from members of law firms and consultants led by partners who are lobbyists. The Washington newspaper, The Hill, reported how he used lobbyists to help build his fundraising base.” Obama is just another corporate-sponsored candidate. What never ceases to amaze me is that the Republicrats seem to always be able to fool the voting public into thinking that each new candidate will be significantly different than those in the past. Hook, line, and sinker, people fall for it every time, despite that history shows that it ain’t likely–I guess that’s called hope. - Duckworth knows - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 7:53 am: You should have seen Duckworth give her speech at the fair Sunday, praising Quinn. When she finished, Quinn got a standing ovation and hearty cheering for quite some time. At a time when the gov and lite-gov are not seeing eye-to-eye, it is significant a state agency director took the time to laud Quinn so extensively. But military folks have a higher sense of honor. One that’s above politics. - Healthcare Worker - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 8:17 am: Okay, why do peiople think that Gun Control will take guns off of the street? Maybe if we LEGALIZE guns people will better be able to defend themselves. (After all, we are one of only two remaining states that DO NOT allow people to carry guns legaly.) If we did pass a Gun Control Bill, what do you think will happen? All you need to do is look at the drug problem (by the way, MANY drugs have been ILLEGAL to posses and sell for MANY, MANY years) to see how affective these bans are. I live outside the Chicago city limits, and can get almost any type of ILLEGAL drug you want within the hour. Do you think GUNS would be any different? and YES, I own a gun. and NO, I DO NOT support the NRA. - plutocrat03 - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 8:43 am: Laura Washington asks where the elected officials are when calls for gun control are sounded. It looks like they are where their voters want them to be. Against further gun control. It appears that most people realize that (paraphrasing the old NRA statement) guns do not kill people, but people kill people. Chicago has had their ban against handgus for decades and arguably this has not had much effect in their gun fatality rate. As far as I can tell, enforcement of the existing laws will do more to solve the gun problem, than creating new laws. (kind of sounds like the immigration issue, doesn’t it) An external entity (government) ultimately has less influence than the social community of an area. As long as criminals are tolerated in their midst, the criminal culture will flourish and prey on the weak and defenseless. Making citizens soley dependent on the police for their protection may not always be the best alternitive. - Pro-Gunner - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 8:43 am: The focus of gun control is to prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Gun control has nothing to do with prohibiting criminals from owning firearms. If it were up to Mayor Daley no one would own firerms, except his bodyguards. - Pro-Gunner - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 8:56 am: Healthcare Worker: It does not matter if you support the NRA. The NRA will protect your Second Amendment Rights anyway. - Pro-Gunner - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 9:07 am: If you have difficulty operating power tools, or walking and chewing gum at the same time, or are not concerned about your personal safety, or do not value the defense of human life, please do not purchase a firearm. If you do not keep your firearms well-maintained, or visit a gun range periodically to practice safe shooting, or do not keep your firearms safely stored away from children. please turn in your firearms to the police or the next gun buyback program. - Super Mega - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 9:38 am: Amen, Dennis Byrne, Amen. - JonShibleyFan - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 10:39 am: Pro-Gunner, It does not matter if you support the ACLU, the ACLU will support your First Amendment rights anyway. That said, as one who equally supports all amendments (including the 1st and 2nd, though I’m most partial to the 21st), I bristle at both the ACLU and NRA. Their methods frustrate me. BTW, welcome back, Paul. - steve schnorf - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 10:57 am: Squid, given your verbiage you must be one of the few people I’ve ever know about who aren’t members of “special interests”. You don’t drive, bowl, pay taxes, belong to the VFW, the American legion, the KCs, the Moose, Elks, or Eagles, you don’t go to church. You don’t have kids, and if you do, they don’t go to school, you don’t own real property, etc, etc. You don’t contribute to or work on behalf of candidates. You don’t support any charities, and on and on. That seems sort of odd to me, but to each their own. Wait, you’re a “Green”, but I know, that’s a “good” special interest, unlike the others. - Ken in Aurora - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 11:46 am: According to Ms. Washington, law abiding gun owners should be stripped of their firearms because a very specific subgroup of the populace can’t seem to keep from killing each other. Not. - Squideshi - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 12:34 pm: Steve, I don’t actually like the term “special interest.” It has never been entirely clear to me exactly who and what is included in this category. I think it’s an overly broad term generally used for the purposes of political smearing. My main concern is corporations, which by law legal persons who do not have a conscious because they are concerned with only one thing–profit. If a corporation places social responsibility above or alongside profit, its Board of Directors are guilty of failing to fulfill their fiduciary duty to the shareholders; yet these artificial legal fictions–these psychopaths–are recognized as legal persons and granted rights similar to those of real, living, breathing, actual people. - Obama Needs that............. - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 12:40 pm: U.S Senator “do nothing” Obama needs that criticism. He has done anything. Point blank nothing for the people of Illinois while in the Senate. His entire Senatorial carreer in the U.S Senate has been nothing but continous campagning. Let em have it! - amy - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 1:30 pm: amen to Obama Needs that….. Just what has he done since he got to the Washington he hates so much? Springfield is in a shambles and his pals are to blame. When Obama was in the State Senate he was soft on crime and absent when half the choice votes were taken. This guy moved to Chicago to run for office and he is just another politician with a progressive veneer and a rotten core. he can’t even stop staring down his nose at others in a debate forum. Obama’s arrogance is stunning. - Squideshi - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 2:21 pm: Let’s review Obama’s record, shall we? Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, he voted for the reauthorization of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, actually seeking to make at least 12 provisions of the Act permanent. Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, he voted for every single budget request from the Pentagon, including over $580 billion in 2006 alone, including funds for the continued occupation of Iraq. He even voted to endorse John Negroponte, the man who oversaw and directed the death squads of Central America, as Director of National Intelligence. I could also go into the things that he has refused to do, like calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for war crimes, or attempting to require some form of majority requirement in federal elections, through reforms like Instant Runoff Voting. No, Obama is not the candidate for me. He does not hold positions on the important issues that best represent me. In fact, on these important issues, he holds essentially the same position as everyone else; and his voting record shows that. - LM - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 2:27 pm: I understand that Byrne is one of the Conservative voices of the Trib. However he’s a total crank. He might be the bitterest “old man” that gets regular space in a major paper. I’m surprised he didn’t bring up the boogeyman as an Obama supporter. About Obama, can Byrne name three members for the Illinois Senate that didn’t take 2/3 of their money from “special interests”? Obama is a politician and wants to win. Why would you tie your hands behind your back in a street fight? - Squideshi - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 4:20 pm: “About Obama, can Byrne name three members for the Illinois Senate that didn’t take 2/3 of their money from ’special interests’? Obama is a politician and wants to win. Why would you tie your hands behind your back in a street fight?” That last question requires only a simple answer–ethics. I can also provide a more comprehensive answer, which speaks to breaking the downward spiral and cycle of cash addition from which so many of our elected officials seem to suffer. There are a lot of good and decent people who go into politics with a sincere desire to change the status quo, but they take the cash “in order to get elected” and subsequently become beholden to it. Ask yourself, why can’t we get these politicians to implement campaign finance reforms like full public funding of public elections? They’ve got cash addictions, that’s why–some need the private money to stay in power (Madigan) and others don’t want to do anything to upset potential future funding sources. We won’t get systematic change by doing the same thing over and over again, which has only proven to be a failed strategy. At some point you need to get smart and start trying something different. We need to break the cycle and start electing candidates who refuse this money from the very start. - plutocrat03 - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 7:29 pm: Just a comment to squid who has been active today. I think I sens a bit of hostility and disdain toward corporations in your post today. I was wondering what you believe a corporation’s purpose actually is? Yep, making money, you bet. The question is what does the corportaion do with it’s money? It is supposed to distribute the profits to the shareholders. To the best of my knowledge, that is you and me and the folks down the street. Corporations ( and businesses of all sizes) are not scapegoats to exorcize some class envy demons one may have. Now if you ask me, I think that the corps spend a bit too much on executive compensation and too much on lofty digs, but that is a problem to be sorted out by the stockholders. As far as social responsibility is concerned, as long as they satisfy the EPA, and the labor forces, it is wrong to force them to do anything more. Ask, cajole, plead……ok - steve schnorf - Monday, Aug 13, 07 @ 8:30 pm: Squid, I have to remind you that MANY people don’t agree with you about public funding of campaigns. I guess the ones who vote most on it are the ones who mark the checkoff on their federal income tax returns, and it is an ever-diminishing number of people. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.