* My last pre-election syndicated newspaper column focuses on (what else?) the constitutional convention, plus some other observations about the election season. The last column of the election is always tricky to write since there are over a hundred weekly newspapers in the syndicate which will print the column after e-day. Here it is…
Yet another bizarre year of Illinois politics has been duly capped by Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s recent stated opposition to a constitutional convention.
Only in Illinois, perhaps, could voters be shocked into voting “yes” on the convention referendum because their own governor strongly urged a “no” vote.
The big business and big labor opponents of the constitutional convention referendum surely cringed when the governor told reporters last week he wanted people to vote “no,” and said he thanked God that the current Illinois constitution grants him “a lot of power to get around the legislative branch.”
The reality is the current state constitution is absolutely riddled with gigantic loopholes, and Blagojevich has taken full advantage of all of them.
Blagojevich has abused his veto powers by doing things never imagined by the constitution’s drafters.
The governor has called endless special sessions for no special reasons, and took House Speaker Michael Madigan to court over Madigan’s refusal to go along with every single word in the a special session proclamation.
Blagojevich has expanded the concept of executive orders to the point where some of them look a whole lot like laws, and he strongly believes (supported by a too-broad reading of the constitution) that he can create state programs without the General Assembly’s approval.
Recent polls all show Blagojevich’s job approval rating at historic lows, with 60 to 70 percent saying they disapprove of the way he does his job. The feds are chasing him like a cat with a new toy; his only major legislative ally, Senate President Emil Jones, has retired; Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley called him “cuckoo” in public; and almost nobody else wants to get anywhere near him.
Simply put, the man is radioactive.
Despite the polling, the House Republicans played ball with Blagojevich all year, to the chagrin of most Democrats in that chamber who opposed the governor at almost every turn. At one point last summer, Blagojevich told reporters he was frightened by the very real prospect that his own party could win more House seats come November.
But you’d never know the House Republicans were the governor’s bestest buddies by the way they ran their campaigns this fall. “Blagojevich, Bad” was their simple, and pretty much only message in every race.
Over and over and over again, they pounded the message into voters’ heads that a vote for a House Democratic candidate was a vote for “Bad Rod.” They even ran a radio ad urging voters to remember Blagojevich when they cast their ballot.
But it was the House Republicans, and not the governor’s mortal enemy Madigan, who trusted Blagojevich to honestly dole out contracts for one of the largest construction programs in Illinois history. The Republicans did this despite the fact that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating Blagojevich and has succeeded in convicting people close to him for “pay to play” politics.
The irony of the Republicans’ subsequent campaign message that a vote for them was a check on Blagojevich’s power and corruption was deeper than a southern Illinois coal mine, but it was all they had. With Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, using Blagojevich’s spectacular unpopularity was the one thing the Republicans could do that might stop voters from electing Democrats all down the line. Ergo: “Blagojevich, Baaaaad!”
The governor must’ve gotten a big chuckle out of all this.
Imagine the entertainment value for Blagojevich while he watched his fatally wounded public image used to defeat House Democratic candidates - who, if elected, would ally with Madigan against him - in order to elect Republicans who would work with him. I’m sure the Blagojevich headquarters was a barrel of laughs throughout the fall.
Blagojevich: “Didja see this one? The Republicans called me a crook! That’ll teach Madigan!”
Yep. Nonstop hilarity.
It’s also admittedly weird that people like myself who pushed for a “yes” vote on the constitutional convention referendum were giddy as school girls when the governor urged a “no” vote last week. After the governor made his “vote no” comments, I wrote this on my blog: “If he was standing here right now I’d kiss him.”
Yeah. It was a bit yucky. I know. But that’s politics, man. Especially in Illinois. Whatever works. Too bad the governor has never really figured that one out yet.
- SIUPROF - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:09 am:
Even though I am a future pension recipient, I am voting yes
- Hoping for Rational Thought - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:13 am:
I voted yes without hesitation.
First and foremost people should not be afraid to discuss change. Too many people forget that the voters would have to approve any changes and that a Constitutional convention is the only way for citizens to seek change NOT desired by the Sepaker and President since they can control the debate on Constitutional amendments in the GA.
- Captain Flume - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:13 am:
I voted yes. Yesterday I emailed all my family that lives in Illinois and asked them to vote yes.
- Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:16 am:
Voted “yes” b/c I want a graduated income tax. And I’m dissatisfied with the process for amending the Constitution.
Opponents of the Con-Con claim that the problems of the Constitution can be fixed by amending it, but it hasn’t been amended to address the income tax issue.
- Captain Flume - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:16 am:
But I would support any consitutional amendments that would address current “loopholes,” though the prospect of ever seeing such amendments make it to the ballot within at least the next 10 years seems mighty dim.
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:16 am:
Voted yes, do not expect it to be successful.
- Niles Township - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:17 am:
I voted yes on con-con. Somewhat surprised by the fairly average turnout so far in the two precincts that vote in my polling place. Maybe everyone voted early?
- Speaking At Will - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:19 am:
Voted Yes
- Downstate weed chewing hick - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:20 am:
Yes
- Mr. Ethics - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:23 am:
Yes - In keeping with the theme - we need change.
- Chillimon - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:26 am:
Voted yes, but I don’t think the or the casual or the first time voter has a clue however. There will likely be more non votes cast, thus they are a no.
- Macbeth - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:26 am:
Yes with vigor.
- My Knd of Town - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:28 am:
Yes.
- taxmandan - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:31 am:
No
- Toni H. - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:33 am:
NO.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:34 am:
Myself and Mrs. Sleep both voted yes.
- Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:35 am:
===- Macbeth - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:26 am:
Yes with vigor.===
Did you touch the screen really hard?
My vote will be “yes.”
- Steve - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:37 am:
No. Too much would be up for grabs in a con con, including the state’s guarantee to pension holders (i.e., people who have already paid or are currently paying into their pension as state employees and need the funds to be there in their old age). Also, Rod and company would find a way to dominate the convention, and that would NOT result in a strong document that makes Illinois more ethical or reigns in the abuses of the worst governors. Sorry, Rich. I respect your views a lot and usually agree with you, but not on this one.
- Come on, now - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:37 am:
I’m a flip flopper. For months I promoted the line about effective leadership over a new constitution, but when it comes down to it, we need to do something about pensions and the income tax. We need Con Con to force the issue, otherwise it will not get done. IL is liberal enough that I’m not concerned about social issues being on the table. Plus, I want to be part of it.
- Proud Chicago voter - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:38 am:
I was on the fence about the Con-Con, and then I heard that Blagojevich was against it. So I voted “yes.”
- ANON - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:39 am:
I voted YES!
- Loyal Whig - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:44 am:
Yes. The system is broken.
- Bluefish - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:50 am:
Yes
- Anon - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:51 am:
No. What’s the point? The same cronies and crooks would just write the new one. Probably be worse than what we have.
- David - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:51 am:
No. No. No. No. I only voted once, though.
- Jaded - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:52 am:
I voted NO because I don’t agree with the Governor on anything else, so I thought I would give him one. Nice job Governor, you convinced me.
- Kevin Fanning - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:54 am:
Yes with an ear to ear smile. -glad they handed out a flier with the revised language.
- Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:59 am:
I hope this blog portrays a representative sample of the actual Con-Con vote. I, too, voted YES.
- Reddbyrd - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:01 am:
Voted no becuase the ConCon con will correct non of the state’s problems, waste $100 million and force leaders’ who favor common sense over razzle-dazzle, pay to play to fight on 2 fronts.
I am sure Blagoof’s “no” vote will cause problems
I was able to convince many other to ignore Blagoofer and vote no too
Q
- Former Bartender - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:02 am:
YES! Tried to get as many people as a I could to also vote yes. There is no way that the gerrymandering in IL will ever stop without it.
- Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:04 am:
I will be voting YES
- Deep South - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:07 am:
Yes, time for a review. I say lets take a look…push for positive change.
- jerry 101 - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:08 am:
I voted Yes.
I tried to talk the soon-to-be wife into voting yes. I don’t know if she did or not.
The State is broken. Time to start over.
- Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:12 am:
=Blagojevich: “Didja see this one? The Republicans called me a crook! That’ll teach Madigan!”= Oh look, a kitty!!!
- Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:13 am:
Voted yes, but do not expect it to garner the required 60%.
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:14 am:
Hawk Harrelson says: You can put it on the board…YES!
- Q-C Transplant - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:16 am:
I voted yes. I do not believe the hype that pensions will be negatively impacted by a new constitution. Over and over, we hear that the sky is falling. You cannot tell me that should the con-con question be approved, that there will not be a faction of delegates that will have a vested interest in maintaining pension benefits. Also, if power is going to be extracted from the leaders, the only possible way that can be done is through a constitutional convention.
Also, as a side note, I have found that most citizens have no idea how the system works. I explain that voters essentailly get three bites of the apple ((1)yes or no on con-con, (2)election of delegates, (3) yes or no on changes). Most of the folks that I talk to seem to think that if they vote yes, the pension system will be changed and they will not have another chance to voice their opinion. Are others finding this same incorrect information?
- The Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:18 am:
I voted yes as well. (And they did pass out a the supposed-to-be-curative flier at my precinct, too.)
Too bad these comments do not represent a scientific sample.
- Healthcare Worker - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:19 am:
We have three voters in our family, they voted: Yes, Yes, and Yes!
- HoBoSkillet - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:23 am:
I voted yes and I have been encouraging undecideds on the issue to vote yes as well.
- scoot - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:24 am:
Voted Yes.
- Leroy - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:27 am:
I voted No.
Felt so strongly about it, it is the only vote I’ve cast this century.
- MarkC - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:30 am:
Yes. Time to be heard.
- Captain America - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:34 am:
Yes!!!!
- jwscott72 - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:46 am:
Just voted no. I’ll admit that the pension thing had me concerned, but Governor Edgar’s ad sealed the deal. Rod doesn’t factor into any of my decision-making and he’s usually wrong. However, as was stated at work yesterday, even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while.
- Little Egypt - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:47 am:
Yes
- Ken in Aurora - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:47 am:
Yes.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:49 am:
I voted yes and 3 co-workers whom already voted asked me about what that con con was that they voted yes for. Which is a hopeful sign I think.
- Will Co Anon - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:50 am:
Yes,even though almost all my colleagues on both sides urged no votes. There are many systemic problems in Illinois that only can be addressed withe ConCon. It has nothing to do with the dysfunction currently in Springfield.
- GM - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 10:50 am:
I voted this morning in west suburban Cook. Weren’t all voters supposed to receive correct language about the con con? I didn’t, and forgot about it until I came to the recall item. When I asked, someone had to dig a stack of flyers out of a box. When I told the person who produced the flyer for me that I thought all voters were supposed to receive one, he said he wasn’t going to argue with me (I wasn’t being argumentative). When I left, it didn’t look like anyone was making an effort to distribute the flyers.
Am I wrong? Was this language not supposed to be given to every voter?
- Ahem - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:04 am:
I voted yes after noting the infamous verbiage.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:12 am:
Yes.
In addition to gerrymandering and amendatory veto abuse, I’d like to add the judicial election system in Cook County as a reason to vote yes. It’s absurd to think that anyone can have an informed opinion on all these judges.
I skipped voting on the unopposed judges and voted NO on retention except for those whose names amused me: Judge Edmund Ponce De Leon (I predict a long career for this eternal youngster), Judge Love (the Love Judge ) and Judge James Brown (say it loud, I’m a judge and I’m proud!).
And although I like Danny Davis, since his district was tailored just for him under gerrymandering, I voted for the Repub, Steve Miller (may he fly like an eagle to Washington).
- The Doc - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:12 am:
Yes. For those who voted no, I ask you this - if not now, when?
- Even my cats don't like Blagojevich - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:14 am:
I voted yes, for 3 reasons. I was put off by the scare tactics of well-funded forces opposing it. Voters get to weigh in on any proposed changes, so why not? And legislators will fund more in earmarks in a single day than Con Con would cost. Oh, 4 reasons. Rich did a good job of selling it.
- cermak_rd - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:15 am:
I voted no.
- 10th warder - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:25 am:
Eddie asked us all to vote YES, so we did –just like the old days
- leigh - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:27 am:
Yes. Because all the crooks seemed to be against it.
- Pelon - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:47 am:
I voted yes even though it may be against my financial interests as a state worker. Our government is incredibly dysfunctional, and a con-con provides at least a glimmer of hope. I don’t see any significant changes without one.
- Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:51 am:
Voted yes, but don’t expect it to pass. And like another commenter posted, I also didn’t realize that a non-vote equals a “no” vote.
- ben - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 12:06 pm:
I voted yes.
- The Nite Mayor - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 12:13 pm:
Voted Yes! Must balance executive and rank and file legislative power over GA leadership abuse, fix school funding, campaign finance reform, allow for recalls of electeds. Sadly, I predict another 70-30 loss.
- Alison - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 12:27 pm:
Yes — With gusto!
A lot of things have changed since the last time the constitution was revamped. The state is the most corrupt in the nation. The General Assembly is worthless. For the money we pay them, the least they could do is update the official state language — It is American, not English. Must have been a British idea.
- prowler - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 12:28 pm:
Voted Yes, time to limit some power.
- cipher - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 12:40 pm:
Both my Wife & I voted NO!!!! I’m a proud law-abiding citizen & gun owner & this WILL ONLY open up the state for the Chicago Daley Democratic influence to affirm tyranny in this already dysfunctional & corrupt state. You think you have the highest crime rate in the country (Chicago) now? Just wait & watch as the Daley strong-armed corrupt influence severely destructs our right to protect ourselves by outlawing guns for civilians. I know this is cliche’ but if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Then, the state of Illinois will become like Nevada, Utah & California during the gold rush days. All scumbag, gangbanger, & illegitimate opportunists will be flocking to our state to commit their crimes because they know it will be like shooting fish in a barrel & that their victims can’t protect themselves against a criminal with a gun. This convention will only open up a pandoras box of draconian legislation that is going to be heavily influenced by the Daley/Blago crime syndicate!!!!
History shows: Gun control works! Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Musolini & Pinochet.
- whitecollarjob/bluecollarmind - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 12:49 pm:
I voted for con-con and strongly suggested all I talked to about it to do the same. I am a State employee and am not concerned about a new document’s pension effect. The anti-con-con hype is unbelievable. Even well educated people do not have a clue as they have not done their homework properly. Rich, I hope you don’t mind but I sent your various posts on to many friends to support the con-con (of course I insured that the posts were attributed to you as they were well written and well thought out.)
- phocion - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 12:58 pm:
“Aye”
- southsider - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 1:22 pm:
no
- Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 1:24 pm:
yes, and so did my wife
- soccermom - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 1:35 pm:
I voted yes. Even if I hadn’t been for it, the biased language was so infuriating that I would have voted yes just to register my indignation that the ballot was being gamed to such an extent.
- Does this subpoena make my hair look bigger? - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 1:37 pm:
No. And husband voted no as well.
- BigDog - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 1:46 pm:
Voted “YES” vehemently. 20 years is a long time to wait in regret for another chance!
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 1:54 pm:
Absolutely “Yes”. With the gang of miscreants lined up against it, how could I vote otherwise? I convinced a whole lot of other people to vote “Yes” also.
- GA Watcher - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 1:56 pm:
I voted “Yes”. My wife voted “No” when she voted early last week. When she heard the Governor came out with his recommendation to vote “No”, she asked if she could have a mulligan.
- Cheswick - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 1:59 pm:
I voted an emphatic YES.
- foster brooks - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 2:12 pm:
voted no dont want to lose my idot pension i already paid into
- North of I-80 - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 2:22 pm:
Voted No - plenty of fliers w/info taped up, handed out & loose in voting booth.
- Colorado Beverage Tour - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 2:27 pm:
The delegate from the Great State of Euphoria voted YES (and so did Mrs. Delegate).
WCJ/BCM - I couldn’t agree with you more about the hype and how well-educated people are believing it. I almost caused a family feud when I said I voted for the con con while my retired professor in-law was livid about potentially losing his pension benefits. He wouldn’t believe me that if you are drawing benefits now, you are pretty much locked in until death.
- Captain Flume - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 2:33 pm:
What really surprises me is that more state news organizations would not want to see a constitutional convention, and adamantly so. The potential months and number of stories that a convention would generate, and the public interest in those stories, would seem to be an economic boon for news outlets, especially web/print ones that can give the attention to detail that is needed. Plus I would bet there would plenty of vapid yet sensationalist headlines, too, to grab the attention of the less-interested.
- A Citizen - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 2:39 pm:
I like Miller High Life and Rich Miller said vote yes so I just went ahead and did it. Now for the Dry Sack . . . after 5.
- aNOnymous - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 2:48 pm:
No. NO. NO!
Yes, I voted 3 times.
- doubtful - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 2:52 pm:
Yes. A broken train won’t run with a new conductor. Time to fix the train.
- barack obama - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 3:15 pm:
Present.
- Boscobud - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 3:40 pm:
Heck NO.
- Cassandra II - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 3:41 pm:
I voted yes as well as three other members of my family. Trying to get to the others before it’s too late.
- kport - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 3:42 pm:
I voted Yes. We need a change.
- Anon - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 3:51 pm:
I voted Yes for a Con-Con.
- South of I-80 - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 4:14 pm:
Voted yes! We need to revamp the income tax, the property tax, township government and not to mention, state mandates. The sad thing, is that, this is the only way to correct these problems, since the legislature will not address these issues. They need the protection of the convention to correct these and other problems, because if they were to, they would not be reelected.
- some former legislative intern - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 4:27 pm:
I voted YES, Rich.
The fact that Labor AND Business groups opposed it(I called this the “unholy alliance”) combined with the fact that they said that the “politicians in Springfield” would run the convention showed me they were just trying every fear tactic in the book. These are the same groups that support the very same polticians in Springfield that apparently will “run” the convention.
That being said, I worry about the negative impact on public policy that could result if enough crazy populist ideas are adopted (like term limits or recall). Direct Democracy is dangerous.
Specifically, I want to see the Amendatory Veto repealed and something done about the reliance on property taxes; i.e. education funding. A graduated income tax would be good as well.
That is all I am really looking for.
- Hickory - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 4:38 pm:
Yes, The Capitol Fax will hold the delegate’s feet to the fire. Get them Rich.
- Bookworm - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 4:51 pm:
I voted yes. It was probably the only vote I cast that will really make any difference, since everyone else I voted for was Republican!
I am a future state pension recipient also but that did not deter me. I had been leaning “yes” pretty much from the start, but Blago’s dis-endorsement was what clinched it for me
- Randall Sherman - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 5:14 pm:
I voted “YES” when voted two weeks ago.
- Kevin Highland - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 5:53 pm:
As a staunch believer in the Right to Keep & Bear Arms
and
As a Future recipient of a State Pension.
I must say that there are to many things wrong with this state and the only way to fix it is change the rules it is ran by.
I voted YES as did my spouse who also fits the above descriptions.
- chicago publius - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 7:39 pm:
I’ve been voting for 30 years. It took me at least 7 minutes to find the place on the ballot where I could vote FOR con-con. That fact alone justifies a con con.
- Levois - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 8:34 pm:
Yes and I told anyone else I know to vote Yes too!
- will county wiseguy - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 8:51 pm:
I voted NO on Con-Con because we don’t need to spend millions of dollars we don’t have to engage in unnecessary and politically divisive debate about a document that doesn’t need an overhaul. What is needed is the political will to make a few changes (graduated income tax, school funding mandate, recall?) that we can consider on an issue by issue basis.
- Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:09 pm:
I voted yes, precisely for reasons given by will county because I know these will never happen without some restructuring…
- Lynn S - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 9:31 pm:
I voted yes, and told all my friends to vote yes, too (especially the people who were new to this state and voting in Illinois for the 1st time).
- Seeker of Truth - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:18 pm:
I voted “no” as did my wife and others that I know. The unintended consequences of reopening the Illinois constitution was too great a risk. A selling point was the fact that Pat Quinn was a strong supporter of the the “yes”. I consider Pat to be an opportunistic hypocrite. Where was the “consumer advocate” when mortgage brokers ran some of the most outlandish ads on Chicago radio. Why wasn’t he pointing out from his bully pulpit the foolishness of “interest only loans” or “no down payment” deals. He was nowhere to be seen or heard. Wasn’t he instrumental in reducing the size of the Illinois legislature and open the door to the concentration of power in the hands of a few. I don’t trust a word that comes out of his hyptocritical mouth.
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:18 pm:
This little exercise should have been very informative for us as posters here. This site was about 3-1 “yes” and the people of the state are about 3-2 “no”. Might help to explain why many of the posts on here seem to lack grounding in reality.
- Bookworm - Tuesday, Nov 4, 08 @ 11:46 pm:
Well, now that con-con has been defeated, I hope everyone that voted no (and, of course, those who, like me, voted yes) will work harder on getting better people elected and fixing all those problems con-con allegedly would not solve, like pensions, amendatory vetoes, etc.
Maybe we should try for another “gateway” type amendment that would allow voter initiative amendments to articles other than Article IV (Legislature)?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:03 am:
Hey, Steve…
Bite US.
lol
- Lynn S - Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 12:13 am:
Can I second what you said, Rich?
- foster brooks - Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 6:26 am:
thanks everyone for the no vote now i can retire in ten years
- charlestoncon - Wednesday, Nov 5, 08 @ 1:14 pm:
I voted no. It NEEDS to be done but not by the delegates these idiots would intern.