37 Comments - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 11:59 am: “Cheryle Jackson showed up late.” - TTL, III - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:05 pm: Honestly, why should any of us take Cheryle Jackson seriously when she can’t even show up to a debate on time - and not just any debate, but the Tribune debate?! I would be absolutely mortified if I were her. - Big Policy Nerd - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:09 pm: Proft had some good “one-liners” last night that were well received by the crowd. Bill Brady just asks for it when he talks about term limits and career legislators. I don’t recall exactly what Proft said, but something along the lines of “With all respect to Senator Brady, but how long do you have to be in Springfield before you are a career legislator? Eighteen years isn’t enough?” - Big Policy Nerd - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:11 pm: p.s. What was Cheryle Jackson’s excuse for being late??? Was she filling out her FEC ethics forms? - Coach - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:18 pm: Of all the GOP candidates for governor, Brady is the most heavily focused on downstate. Downstate is his base, and if he has any chance of winning the primary then downstate must vote in force and vote for him. Downstate probably also happens to be the only area that cares about high-speed rail. Why would anybody in Chicago or the suburbs care about high-speed rail? They have the (rather effective) Metra, the CTA, Pace and relatively easy access to two airports. Downstate, people want high-speed rail both because it will help create jobs (at least in the short term) and because downstate residents could use a faster, more reliable means of traveling into Chicago and elsewhere (Amtrak is neither fast nor reliable). I would suspect that this is more the basis for Brady’s support of high-speed rail than the simple fact that high-speed rail would travel through his home town. High-speed rail is a message that resonates with much of his base. While we’re on this topic, I’d like to second the point that Dan Proft made about high-speed rail during the debate. As Proft noted, our elected officials are getting behind a high-speed rail plan that would move trains only about 30 mph faster than the Amtrak already moves its trains. Is that really high speed? No, clearly it’s not. The question that we all ought to be asking is: Why on earth are we preparing to spend potentially billions on a plan that will shave only a half hour off a trip from Springfield to Chicago? Seriously, if we’re going to spend this money then shouldn’t we be talking about making a significant change for the better? If this is just a backdoor plan to help the freight lines, then Durbin, Quinn and the rest of them ought to be ashamed of themselves for insulting their constituents by arguing falsely that this is about moving people around more quickly on “high-speed” rail. - David Ormsby - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:21 pm: Late? Sheesh. - OdysseusVL - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:23 pm: Have to love Brady’s message: No taxes. Just borrow and spend. And he’s the conservative? - Shore - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:35 pm: Kirk is vulnerable on Afghanistan in a regular debate. if hughes was half as smart as he thinks he is, he would have asked mr. kirk why we are still struggling in afghanistan if Kirk has been involved with the issue from day one? jackson has a typically ignorant urban position on foreign affairs which is interesting because chicago is a lot more vulnerbale to the war on terror than say lake forrest or west texas. She doesn’t seem to realize that her base is a lot more vulnerable to a terrorist attack than say midland. There’s a reason the senate is full of congressional veterans and not chicago sun-times gossip columnist faves. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:41 pm: ===jackson has a typically ignorant urban position == You’re gonna get a time out if you keep writing crud like that. Enough. - Some Guy - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:48 pm: Jackson is not late, just on the same clock as her old boss:-) - train111 - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 12:54 pm: Coach The problem with the high speed rail isn’t the rural areas that it will run through. It is the attrocious terminal conditions in Chicago and St. Louis that eat up the time and will cause it to run only a bit faster than present day Amtrak. Until the terminal situation in Chicago and St Louis is sorted out and fixed, then yes it is a bit of a boondogle. If the problems on either end are fixed, then it can be a success. train111 - Shore - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:01 pm: Her point is that we need to do nation building at home rather than abroad. To which I ask, how did the Blago State building at home go? The most anti-war on terror politicians are urban- kucinich, jackson, barney frank, when it’s cities that are generally the most at risk. It’s something that is unexplainable. I get the opposition to funding rule of law projects in tashkent, we have issues at home, but this makes no sense. - skhicks - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:13 pm: Sen. Brady: Thanks for reminding everyone that fumigation should not be brushed aside with the traditional Illinois shoulder shrug. Improper hiring, career advancement, salary “adjustment” and undeserved pension windfalls are akin to swindling the taxpayer. It’s also refreshing to hear a GOP candidate acknowledge that questionable personnel actions pre-date Rod Blagojevich. Hopefully, people like Sen. Brady and Mr. Fitzgerald can keep this issue alive, expose these greedy parasites, and send them packing. - Big Policy Nerd - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:19 pm: @ Shore - Kirk is vulnerable on Afghanistan in a regular debate.— Shore, I am interested in your thoughts about how Kirk’s position relating to Iraq and Afghanistan plays with the Jewish community…Of which Kirk seems to have regular support from. When Kirk starts talking about his foreign policy credentials, I think he is open to shots about how his unwavering support for Bush-Iraq policies has weakened Israeli security. Specifically that our involvement in Iraq has strengthened Iran, put it on the road to acquiring nuclear weapons, which has increased the threat to Israel. Just interested in your thoughts… - Bob - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:19 pm: Hoffman definitely did the best in the debate — articulated his points very well - Coach - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:23 pm: Train111, According to all the promotional material put forward by the proponents of the so-called “high-speed” rail plan under consideration, the trains would run at about 110 miles an hour, give or take a few miles an hour. That’s about 30 miles an hour or so faster than the Amtrak trains, in some cases, already run. I routinely take the Amtrak between Chicago and Springfield, and I can tell you that the Amtrak often outpaces the vehicles traveling on I-55, so the train is therefore cruising along at about 70 or 75 miles an hour. I’m quite certain that the “high-speed” rail plan under consideration has little in common with the bullet trains that exist in parts of Europe and Asia. Those trains travel upwards of 200 mph, and here in Illinois we’re staring at a plan for trains to travel 110 mph or so. This is well established. Moreover, I would guess that many people who are very excited about the prospect of high-speed rail in Illinois are under the mistaken impression that we are planning a true, state-of-the-art high-speed rail program such as those programs that move trains at 200 miles an hour. The proponents of the plan in Illinois presumably recognize that people suffer from this misconception, and they have done nothing in my view to correct it. If they actually explained to the public that these trains won’t move much faster then the Amtrak, then any public support that may exist for the plan would certainly diminish. You may be referring to another issue - and yet another reason to be skeptical of this so-called “high-speed” plan - when you mention congestion in the urban centers. But that would be an issue independent of the fundamental problem that I described, which is that we’re planning to spend billions for trains that won’t move much faster than the Amtrak. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:30 pm: All Bill Brady has to offer GOPers is his unconditional anti-tax pledge. Depending on how high a priority that is with GOPers, he just might end up winning the nomination with that simple pledge. If we weren’t in this smoldering fiscal disaster, weren’t suffering under some of the most incompetent governance in Illinois history, reading about Rod Blagojevich’s trial, or Roland Burris’ indiscretions, a simple “no new taxes” pledge might sound realistic. But it isn’t. So, is Brady playing conservatives like me as fools? He is a state senator. He knows better. The fact that he is willing to campaign on this simpleton theme demonstrates an unwillingness to address Illinoisans as intelligent adults. We know better too. I want a conservative governor who will use every means available to get us out of the black holes Blagojevich, Madigan and Jones allowed us to fall into with their maladministration and petty civil wars. I don’t want another governor pledging to stick needles in his eyes before he considers raising taxes or fees during this crisis. We cannot afford another governor who is willing to win this election without considering how their pledges may ruin their governance. I am not anti-tax. I am anti this historic embarrassment of a state government. My wallet is closed until we witness a change in this drunken charade under the Dome. The next governor needn’t be hamstrung by silly pledges because the next guy will have to have every tool available to keep Illinois functioning. So Bill Brady, stop playing me like I am a rat that is expected to dance to your Pied Piper tune. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:33 pm: Amtrak’s Acela competes with airlines and autos and suceeds because the train can do a competitively priced 3-hour trip between downtown NY and downtown DC. It operates on dedicated amtrak-owned right-of-way with no roadway grade crossings. It cost a staggering amount of money and took decades to build and it is still not a bullet train. What is being proposed for the Midwest does not come close to the northeast corridor. The country does not have the political will to make the substantial capital investment required to make either regional high speed rail service or long distance city to city rail services a reality. - so... - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:37 pm: Hoffman said that he would let Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, if the economy is recovering - pretty much what you pasted from the questionaire.. how was what he said different? I thought Hoffman was quite strong in this session. - Full Disclosure - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:38 pm: I was at the debate last night. All of them agreed that raising taxes was not the manner in which to get the State’s finances on sound ground. All of them had a laundry list of cuts that needed to be made to get the ball rolling. The no taxes pledge is not unique Brady issue. As a conservative, we never take any option off the table in time of defense of our nation. We should also not take options totally off the table when it comes to our finances. We can choose not to utilize the means of raising taxes, but never say never to anything. That is just not rational thinking. - Shore - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:39 pm: @NERD the jewish donor community backed kirk with more money than almost any other candidate in the country over the last decade and that was during the bush years, that was during Iraq, schiavo, ect. They pick and choose their battles and Kirk gets the A+ from them-ask dan seals how easy it is to get the jewish vote from kirk. Kirk had an op-ed in the jerusalem post this morning. You could write a poli sci dissertation on his success in the jewish community. Sadaam Hussein paid suicide bombers, housed abu nidal and launched scuds at Israel. There were no tears on the kibbutzes with him gone. Iran is a new matter. Kirk has been a leader on it from the get go. On afghanistan, Kirk is wrong on the narcotics trade it’s not hundreds of millions of dollars its 80-160 million and the narcotics trade is still a big deal because the military didn’t want to fight the drug war there. Alexi and Hoffman are more media superstars than mega-policy wonks and so I don’t expect them to beat him up. - suburbanite - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:56 pm: I don’t see how Hoffman’s comments contradict what was in the questionairre–in both, he said he would let the tax cuts expire after the recession. He also seemed to come off strongest in the debate–clearly had his thoughts together, and knew what he needed to say. - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 2:00 pm: Most intelligent sounding of both groups? Hoffman (D) and Kirk (R). What happened to the other Republican candidates? Do they go on another day? - shore - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 2:02 pm: Louis, hoffman is a republican. - Bill - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 2:35 pm: shore, He sure is and a lot more conservative than Kirk. - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 2:45 pm: ==Louis, hoffman is a republican.== I know that. Just grading them how I see them! - shore - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 2:55 pm: Bill, probably. Boren who he worked for was pro-life and he worked for rehnquist. Kirk worked for porter who was pro-choice. - Michelle Czarney - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 3:46 pm: I was at the debate yesterday and I have to say- the only reason Brady brought up fumigation was because Adam started with it. All the other candidates have also been caught stealing ‘his’ spending cuts that he’s publicly mentioned before… - cassandra - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 4:04 pm: So, Ryan hasn’t ruled out raising taxes and he might not fumigate much either. He may need the tax increase because if he doesn’t fumigate, he’ll have to raise taxes to pay for his band of expensive Republican hacks to hire, on top of Blago’s (I mean, our Pat’s) current high-level, highly paid Democratic appointees in the agencies. After a long public employment drought, there will be many, many Republicans and their pals knocking on his personnel door. I guess the best hope we have is that it will be such a tight race (Quinn vs. Ryan) that Quinn will be afraid to inflict his income tax increase on the middle class…or even bring it up. That takes us to November, 2010. One year at a time. Will the state finances fall off the cliff?. Of course not. Only the politically uninformed believe that. The feds will gallop to what rescue is needed….the 2010 election is a ref on Obama too, and boy do they know it. Every step they take… - georger - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 6:31 pm: Shore: With regard to Hoffman’s clerkship at the Supreme Court, Rehnquist should be off the table in this discussion. Any newly minted lawyer would jump at the opportunity to work with any Supreme Court Justice. In that role he/she would complete any assignment to the best of his/her ability. In either case, with Rehnquist or Boren with there were many other important issues to deal with. - Anon - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 9:31 pm: georger, That is just silly. Read about SCOTUS hiring. Judges, especially since the 1990s, hire based on ideology. Since Hoffman keeps saying he was always a Dem., either Hoffman lied to Rehnquist about his views or he’s lying to us now. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 11:43 pm: === He *Hughes* also seemed to come off strongest in the debate…. === Hmmm. I thought Hughes “rambled on” quite a bit–and got called on it a few times. Plus he seems to know an awful lot “for a fact” but never quite comes up with the arguments to support his “facts”. (Seems to always be saying: “Trust me; I know for sure”–and based on his experience (or lack thereof), leaves one wondering how he possibly could.) He also spent alot of time promoting himself and his campaign–including his ?mailings?, took quite a few swings at Kirk, cut Kirk off several times, and even tried to start a brawl with Kirk–on camera. Plus, if distribution of the vid were higher, Hughes would probably lose alot of votes just on his Closing alone: “Soul of the Republican Party”? Kirk did extremely well. Very focused, extremely polite, and only took a shot at Giannoulias–even after Hughes did his best to try to get him riled. Convincing Closing, too. Great job. I think the “intro” says alot about these guys, too. Kirk was obviously very comfortable, smiling, acknowledging what was being said, etc. Hughes was stonefaced and looked like he didn’t want to be there. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 11:57 pm: Mea culpa. Suburbanite’s comment was re: Hoffman–not Hughes, but my comments still stand re: GOP vid. Haven’t watched the D vid yet. - georger - Wednesday, Dec 16, 09 @ 12:00 am: Anon: Abner Mikva, during his endorsement of Hoffman, stated that he, as a Democrat, hired some conservative clerks and they learned from each other. He knew Rehnquist, and why he would hire Hoffman… because a judge would hire the smartest to be a clerk. And Mikva should know. He served as Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. - Anon - Wednesday, Dec 16, 09 @ 2:08 am: georger, 1) Abner Mikva was on his court well before the 1990s; 2) Abner Mikva was never on SCOTUS; 3) SCOTUS, especially after 1990, is known for their ideological hiring; and 4) Rehnquist is on record in the late 1950s saying that conservative judges shouldn’t hire liberals. Mikva also said he played poker with Rehnquist . . . so what. Hoffman is a Republican or sell out — take your pick — from Boren to Rehnquist. No progressive would do what he did in his career and no progressive would vote for him for doing what he did. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 16, 09 @ 8:44 am: What law school grad wouldn’t clerk for the Chief Justice of the United States? That’s supposed to be a negative somehow? That’s just rabid partisanship. - Jerry Vachaparambil - Friday, Dec 18, 09 @ 12:31 am: I wish Adam Andrzejewski’s comments were brought up. He started the conversation on fumigation and had some real interesting comments about community colleges. All the other candidates are just rehashing his ideas and even the spending cut’s he identified as you can see from reviewing the debate with previous forums/articles… Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.