71 Comments - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:35 am: I think its ok for family members to hold state jobs, but I think the hiring process needs to be very transparent so that its clear the person is the most qualified person for the job. - HR guy - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:35 am: Yes. It’s a sickening form of nepotism, an ethical conflict of interest, and removes the perception of any consideration given to finding the best qualified people for the jobs. - bored now - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:36 am: no, but it should be the exception and not the rule. if nothing else, you’d think politicians would be more attuned to the perceptions created by these kinds of events. but you keep telling us that illinois is different. and, near as i can tell, illinois VOTERS have a far higher tolerance for corruption (and the perception of corruption) than i’m comfortable with… - Former Card Carrying Repub - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:36 am: Yes to spouses, unless the marriage occurs when both parties are already employed by the state, then you get a grandfather pass. Working for the government is supposed to be a calling, a sacrifice. Your family shouldn’t have any positions with the state, no matter how qualified they are. Think about that before running for office. The appearance of impropriety is as plain as the nose on your face. - OneMan - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:37 am: Not touching this one…. - Levois - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:39 am: Legislative spouses and relatives should be forced to work state jobs on a volunteer basis. - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:40 am: I don’t see how you can. It just needs to be disclosed. - Served - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:41 am: Yes they should. If the spouse is good at his/her job, it should be no problem. The answer to nepotism is not the inverse. If they’re not qualified or are a SNAFU-machine, then raise the ruckus. - Served - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:42 am: I meant no. They should not be forbidden.. Whoops. To the coffee machine! - Niles Township - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:45 am: Yes, it is unfair in a way, but public officials should hold themselves to the standard of avoiding any appreance of impropriety. - Former Card Carrying Repub - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:46 am: I didn’t fully address/explain the nepotism aspect. For every family member who is qualified for a state position, there are probably a handful, at a minimum, who are equally qualified. The argument that a certain family member is the “most qualified” is bunk. Sorry Rich, I know you don’t like double posts on QOTD, but I wanted to make that point. - Obamarama - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:46 am: No. What if a spouse is a state employee and then their significant other gets elected? Jobs should be given AND taken away based on performance and aptitude. - Plutocrat03 - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:47 am: There should be a prohibition to appointed positions because by definition they are not open to every qualified person. Other state/government positions which are selected by an open merit driven process could be open to immediate family, but it becomes difficult to prove the fairness of the selection. - siriusly - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:47 am: I agree with small town. More transparency is good. Some relatives of VIPs are good candidates for these jobs, some deserve their salaries. It’s wrong for Sen. Duffy to just broadly assert that relation makes you unqualified. With regards to the Senate debate. I think that the way that some lawmakers deal with their colleagues and other professionals in the capitol will contribute to their success or failures as lawmakers. Not pointing a finger at anyone here, but I do believe that bad karma comes back to those who exude it. - Will County Woman - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:49 am: Yes, they should be forbidden. The friends’n’ family plan should be banned at all levels of government. As a voter and taxpayer, I would have perfered that Sered not be reappointed. I’m sure there are people out there who can do the job she has done, probably better, who are not related to a sitting state senator. Jeff Schoenburg can can the hysterics and whining, though his being a typical illinois/chicago democrat may make that impossible. He is a perfect example of what is so wrong with the democratic party (at all levels) as of late—the so-called party of the little man is anything but. In truth it never really was. Schoenburg and wife, like so many other self-interested democrats, are in the back eating steak while the masses get the ground chuck and other slop and told to that’s all there is, so just be happy. Rich as per your column/blog entry from the other day, I hope quinn does go the Bill Brady is repub and repubs are “out of touch” with the everyday folk in illinois route. the counter attack on quinn ‘n’ friends (e.g. schoenburg) will be devastating. and ydd et al. before y’all come up with examples of how the “republicans have been at it too,” spare me. the bottom line is the democrats can hardly credibly claim to be so in touch with the everyday/common illinoisans, as a line of attack against brady or any other republican for that matter, anymore. - SangamoGOP - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 10:53 am: If the spouses of lobbyists can’t be appointed to boards and commissions - paid or not - why should legislator’s spouses? If potential conflict is possible with lobbyist spouses, certainly such conflict if possible with legislator’s spouses. Unless Schoenberg abstains from commenting and voting on all legislation possibly related to the Education Labor Relations Board, then he has a conflict. Also, Schoenberg’s rebuttal was pretty shallow. Duffy’s comments were “demeaning and insulting to all women”? Really? Just because it was his wife’s turn in the barrel doesn’t mean Duffy was demeaning all women; all appointees; or all legislators. - VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:01 am: If you want your state government to appear like Hooterville, Crabwell Corners, Bug Tussle, or Paraguay. It reeks. It is amateur. It is embarrassing. - KeepSmiling - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:03 am: I second SangamoGOP. - Amalia - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:05 am: normally, this is the kind of behavior which Schoenburg decries. either you have a good answer Jeff, or you do not. in this case, you do not. why is this ok for your family? - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:06 am: Spouses and Kids to unpaid board positions only or NOT at all. Not paid positions. - train111 - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:07 am: You can’t win a radio contest if you have a relative working for the station. You can not work for your spouse if you get married while both employed at the same department at the samelocation. In the private world there are real rules to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest. In politician la la land, no such rules seem to exist. It’s high time that public officials have the same rules applied to them that every private citizen has to abide by in his/her workplace. train111 - Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:11 am: Is there a way to cut back on all these paid boards and commissions? They seem like sweetheart deals to reward cronies anyways. Yeah, it looks bad to appoint spouses to $100+K gigs that are jobs a whole bunch of people could do. But is it better when it’s campaign contributors, campaign workers and childhood friends? What if half these commissions were eliminated? Half of the remaining ones would be for volunteers only. They would get travel expenses. And then a few of the boards and commissions would get travel expenses plus $150 per day they were actually working. If these positions weren’t so lucrative, maybe we’d get some people who were there out of civic duty, not to make money from their political connections. FWIW, I think Schoenberg should have kept his pie hole shut. - cassandra - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:11 am: If it’s an appointed position, despite the appearance of impropriety, it’s certainly legal. There is no law against nepotism. Given the huge benefits politicians and their families draw from state government patronage, I doubt we’ll be seeing any big push for outlawing nepotism. In these tough economic times, it’s good to know that our state politicians and their families don’t have to worry about unemployment. If they can’t find appointed jobs, they can just create them. There’s no hiring freeze-anywhere in state government, dire financial predictions notwithstanding, although for pols’ relatives, there probably never is. - lake county democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:14 am: Yes — it’s obviously a breeding ground for mischief and just breeds public mistrust and cynicism. There’s ALWAYS another qualified person for these jobs, and usually more qualified. - Steve-O - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:14 am: I also agree with SangamoGOP, Schoenberg’s comments were over the top sensational and irrelevant. There was nothing demeaning towards women in Duffy’s comments and if anything, Schoenberg trying to play that card is demeaning and insulting to women. I think it’s a bad practice to have spouses of legislators getting state jobs and appointments. Congressman Jerry Costello has turned the practice into a fine art down here in the Metro East (his wife is now the president of Southwestern Illinois College). BTW, the “Betsy Hannig” post was hilarious! - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:14 am: No, I don’t think any particular group of people should be excluded by law from state employment, except maybe for convicted felons or otherwise obviously unfit applicants. I wish we could have more confidence that these relatives actually brought qualifications and experience to the table instead of really good references. Some, like Ms. Sered, do (she’s very good and certainly qualified), others don’t. But all of these hires fuel the perception that this is all rigged in favor of the connected. Maybe the General Assembly can devise a secret slush fund like the Chicago City Council has in order to put your family on the public payroll. At least now there’s some transparency there, we can all see what a horrible joke that is. - Ahoy - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:15 am: No, they shouldn’t be forbidden since they might be very well qualified for the job and on a rare occasion even the most qualified. However, they should probably be appointed by different means. - Fed Up - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:16 am: If a family member is employed by the state prior to the election of the official then they should not be pushed out of their job (not sure it would be legal anyway). On the other hand immediate family members should be barred from state employment to eliminate conflicts of interest. - Mongo - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:19 am: I lean towards saying qualifications should rule. When I worked for local government my son couldn’t work for me. He was good at what we do, but he was prohibited from working with me. Now in the private sector, doing the same thing, he does work for me and he is very, very good at it. It was a loss that he couldn’t do this before. So holy cow, Senator Duffy, and and others who want a black and white rule, pu-leeze don’t claim to speak for me. - ExExten - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:25 am: As a former Extension employee I was considered a state employee. At that point, my income from my family farm was considered a conflict since I counseled farmers, and my wife’s commission as a realtor was considered suspect, despite the fact she never dealt with any public agencies. Every year when the annual statement of economic interest had to be submitted, it was rejected for further questioning. And I was at only half of a six figure salary! - Downstater - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:25 am: If you wish for your spouse or child to hold a paid position in state government, simply don’t run for office. It seems pretty simple. - Dirt Digger - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:27 am: “I think is something the people of Illinois have a problem with.” Presumably expressed at the next election. - Iownois - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:36 am: In a time where the state is sinking deeper in to an abyss that it will never recover from, it is real bad politics to be handing jobs (reappoint) to households who are responsible for thousands of other people who are losing their jobs. I’m not sure the Democrats (I single them out because they have unchecked power in Illinois) understand the reality of what is happening. Next year, thousands of state employees will lose their jobs. There is no way around it. In 2012, hundreds, maybe thousands more. While it’s just one job they are talking about, everyone knows that it is a secure job because of her spouse. Wrong, just wrong. I crave balanced power. - dupage dan - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:39 am: I think if a person is sitting on a board or already a state employee I don’t think they should be removed when a relative wins an elected position. I don’t believe a person should be appointed to a board when they have a relative in an elected position. I don’t care how “transparent” the process is, we will only get to see what will make it look ok. The hinkey stuff will be hidden no matter what. Maybe unfair but, then, life. is. unfair. - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:44 am: ===IIRC Michelle Obama pulled in about $300K from the UC hosptial board once Barry was elected to the Senate. Something tells me she wouldn’t have gotten the job unless a Senator’s name was on the resume’.=== She got a raise and promotion with more responsibilty following the election in 2004. She had already been with the hospital prior to that. You’re free to make whatever judgement on that as your political lens allows. But she’s also a Harvard-educated lawyer. I don’t have any stats to back this up, but my instinct tells me that Harvard law school alums do pretty well for themselves in terms of salary. I don’t think you can assume her husband had anything to do with the decision to promote her, but it certainly fits nicely into your idealogical viewpoint, doesn’t it? - Just Sayin' - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:47 am: Anybody have an example of a husband in a similar situation? I don’t want to push the sexism button, but the tone of some of the comments (cough, cough PalosParkBob) seem to be a little biased. Michelle Obama’s qualifications and Patti Blagojevich’s qualifications aren’t exactly an apples to apples comparison. Harvard Law School is a pretty good resume bullet point, no? - Brennan - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:49 am: =Is there a way to cut back on all these paid boards and commissions?= You had me at “cut”. These are advisory positions. They should pay no wages at all. The only thing they should pay is travel expenses. That is if they must exist at all. - Old Milwaukee - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:50 am: They should not be forbidden, but legislators should avoid it all costs. This type of thing is just another reason why the people don’t trust their government anymore. She may be more qualified than anyone, but the perception is bad. And perception is very important for effective government. - Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 11:58 am: People, stick to the question. PPB, you’re in timeout for the day. Act like a child and be treated like one. - Irish - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:01 pm: Once again if it applies to State Employees it has to apply to Legislators. None of my family can hold a job that is under my administration or direction. If I can hire them or even have input into their hiring or direction they cannot hold the job. Therefore no Legislator’s family should hold a job that could be construed as being under their administration or direction.If they are appointed by members under the influence of the Legislator then they should not hold the job. - grand old partisan - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:02 pm: “It’s wrong for Sen. Duffy to just broadly assert that relation makes you unqualified.” Did he actually say that? Is there more to his statement that I’m not reading here? All I see is him saying that some people might have a problem with what is clearly a potential conflict of interest. Is that really so outrageous? Duffy’s comments seem perfectly reasonable to me. Schoenberg’s reaction seems bizarre and over-the-top (how exactly did Duffy insult “all women?” – again, is there more to this story that I am missing???). Such over-defensive posturing suggests to me that Schoenberg knows Duffy is right, that there is something a troubling about this. To answer the question, no, they should not be forbidden. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that (a) such appointments be made on a separate vote so that (b) the legislator in question can obtain from voting without it affecting other non-conflict appointments - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:03 pm: Why don’t we just bar anyone with a family from holding public office? Just kidding. Frankly, I’d RATHER that a family member be on the government payroll. Atleast its fairly transparent and there’s some accountability. Joe Lieberman’s wife works at a private firm that lobbies for the health care industry. Look what that got us. We should be much more worried about family members whose firms get private contracts with government (see: The Daleys, who follow the Lieberman model, or who land a cushy job in one of the industries themselves. Really need to get a bill passed in Springfield? No problem…just have your company offer college scholarships or summer internships to lawmakers progeny. That’s a much scarier thought. - cassandra - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:06 pm: “Next year, thousands of state employees will lose their jobs” What state would that be, Iownois. Not here in Illinois, where Governor Quinn just made an agreement with AFSCME for no layoffs until June 2011. That means that even where efficiencies could occur, they won’t, because there is no point. Nearly all 60,000 or so Illinois state employees are now represented by AFSCME, the primary exception being a few thousand appointed and high level staff. We know they’ll be staying…many are political appointees on four year terms or at will. The other 55,000 or so are completely protected from layoffs because of Quinn’s agreement with their union. They don’t have to take furlough days either. There may be pain, but state bureaucrats aren’t feeling it. - really? ? - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:14 pm: I agree with 47th ward who stated= No, I don’t think any particular group of people should be excluded by law from state employment, except maybe for convicted felons or otherwise obviously unfit applicants. I wish we could have more confidence that these relatives actually brought qualifications and experience to the table instead of really good references. = What should be prohibited is them working in the same office. If not illegal, it could perhpas be unethical, unless they can stay away from doing personal busines on state time or each other’s work, it can be demoralizing for the other employees whose feet are held to the fire for tardiness and after work hours behavior. - So Blue Democrat - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:16 pm: Cassandra, With your expertise with statistics, do you know how many state employees Illinois had 10 years ago compared today? Let’s talk about “efficiencies.” - leo - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:17 pm: Absolutely they should not be allowed appointments. - Captain Flume - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:27 pm: Illinois government has always been a Friends and Family Network and de facto family business. Sen. Duffy’s comments and Sen. Schoenberg’s wife’s appointment/position are neither new nor news. - Budget Watcher - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:31 pm: In my opinion, yes, immediate family members of state-elected officials should be disqualified from any appointed post that requires G.A. approval. While the Senator’s wife may be very qualified, I’ll bet she’s not the only qualified person to hold a labor relations board position and the 6-figure salary that goes with it. I would guess that the labor market is sufficiently large enough to ensure that the State could find other qualified people. My opinion…nepotism continues to be a far greater problem than the discriminatory issues for familiy members of elected officials. However, maybe there could be a compromise. Legislation that says no immediate family member of an elected official can hold a position that pays greater than 50% of the elected official’s salary. - Steve - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:42 pm: Relatives should be banned. Just a another good reason for term limits on all politicians. - Indeedy - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 12:50 pm: Not having heard the exchange, it’s hard to say much about Duffy’s intentions but it is possible, and not too far fetched, to think that the rub for Schoenberg was some implication that his wife was not qualified to hold the post and that she only got the job because of his position. If that’s the case, then yeah, the “demeaning” or “insulting” shoe would certainly fit. Not much chat about whether this person good at their job or not. Does anyone know? - Third Generation Chicago Native - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:24 pm: Legislavtive spouses/family members should have to go through some type of state hiring process and be chosen by someone (impartial) other than the family member, on qualifications, ability etc., and also recieve fair pay, not hired in at a new higher, or adjusted higher rate. - Dan S, a voter and Cubs Fan - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:27 pm: Yes they should be forbidden it’s called nepotism and it leads to corruption. The State of Illinois is a perfect example of why this should not be allowed. - Jake from Crabwell Corners - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:32 pm: I have no problem with family members who obtain jobs through civil service procedures. I don’t even have a problem with qualified family members being appointed to state positions. I have a problem only when the appointment is tied to a prohibited quid pro quo. This is where it get a bit murky, right? - Cook County Commoner - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 1:47 pm: Yes. Family in government jobs gives the appearance of impropriety. Some exceptions should exist such as those holding job specific education such as teachers and doctors. - Say WHAT? - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 2:11 pm: I have been in my position for many years now. I did not get here by who I know, but strictly on my qualifications. I am not related to any lawmakers. In all my years here I have never helped a friend or relative obtain a job. In fact, when I was asked on numerous occasions to “get me a job in the state” I have told each of them that it would be inappropriate for me to favor them over a constituent and help them get a job, or to help them gain an advantage not enjoyed by an average constituent. I sent them away as gently as possible. Some understood, some did not. In spite of having a few less friends, and some relatives who like me less than they used to - I sleep well at night. That legal vs ethical thing can be a real bug-a-boo. - Justice - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 2:12 pm: Legislative spouses and family members should be forbidden from holding state jobs. It smacks of nepotism and favoritism. Our elected leaders should know going in that this is the rule. It ultimately comes down to a matter of trust. I dare say that I have little trust for most of our elected officials. Throw into the mix their spouse of family member getting a job at the state and I have no trust, for either. Isn’t it amazing how much distrust there is for those we have elected. Their performance says bucket fulls about their character. Cronyism at its finest…. alive and well……for now! - Captain Flume - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 2:32 pm: Though not a legislative spouse in the elected sense of the word, Blagojevich got Tim Mapes’s wife canned from her state job, and was criticized for the action. - the Patriot - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 2:33 pm: They should not be forbidden from holding state jobs. However they should be forbidden from getting appointments to jobs. There is a bigger issue here. I don’t mind family members having the job if they are qualified. The problem is we have gone from requiring them to have qualifications to making them have none. The line should not be drawn at family, what about contributors or their family members. The key is that the people need to be qualified regardless of who they are. You cannot avoid nepotism and favoritism in hiring. But you can require qualifications. example: have a technical degree to hold a techinical job at IDOT. - CircularFiringSquad - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 2:33 pm: Capt Fax I believe the chair of the Arts Council is an unpaid position…..But lets not tell Senator Smooth (aka Duffy see if he steps on hi ….) - Brennan - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:19 pm: CircularFiringSquad: Duffy is talking about the Education Labor Relations Board. IAC service is voluntary. - envelop - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:20 pm: I only had a few minutes to skim these 50 posts, but no mention of Shirley Madigan? How can that be??? - Concerned Voter - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:23 pm: Simply put, does it look odd or strange when relatives, especially close relatives of state officials get state jobs, especially appointed jobs? Most people would say yes. Well, in the ethics training that ALL state employees are supposed to take, we are told that if something even looks like it might not pass the smell test, we should probably not do it. - spot on - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:42 pm: I was told once that State Representatives are prohibited from hiring relatives to staff their district offices . . . that should also be the case for other state jobs! - Arthur Andersen - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 3:47 pm: I’m always leery of total, no-exception bans. In the instant case, as others have noted, a ban could keep highly qualified people from holding or retaining a position where their service could make a difference. On the other hand, the lack of transparency promised but not delivered by Quinn in his appointments process does not give me comfort that he will always make merit-based appointments. When I was in a position to make hiring/firing decisions, I chose to state on Day 1 that none of my friends, relatives, or colleagues would be hired at any level above summer intern. Made for a couple unhappy friends who were well-qualified for positions in the office, but I wouldn’t go there. I would not rush to offer a legislative solution, as one would likely not pass anyway. Finally, AA would be remiss in not pointing out yet another moment of blatant hypocrisy by the “Ethical Progressive Reformer,” Jeffy Schoenberg, who as federal evidence revealed, went to Tony Rezko to get Wifey that spot and followed up with a nice contribution to FoB. Duffy’s shot may have been ill-timed, off the mark, indecorous and/or politically incorrect, but AA would rather defend his view to the electorate than Jeffy’s. - Justice - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 4:35 pm: I bet there are a lot of unemployed Illinoians that are out of work that would love to have a job with that salary and are equally qualified for it. I say no, the state is worse off than ever before in their corruption, unethical behavior and nepotism. This state is starting to sicken me and the way they are running small business off, maybe it is time to move. - Chicago Cynic - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 6:21 pm: I realize I may have a bias on this one because I know them both, but I just think a blanket ban is a pretty big overreach. People with common interests and experience often meet and marry. Does that mean they have to lose their careers? In this case, Lynne was very qualified for this position and has been serving well in it since 2003. While I would have much preferred to see my friend Jeff respond in a more rational and intelligent manner, I can certainly understand the emotion of the moment when your spouse is attacked. Plus, I just don’t understand what’s so magical about $100,000 in salary. Would it have been ok if she was making $95,000? - Reformer - Friday, Feb 19, 10 @ 8:24 pm: Duffy has sure learned how to ingratiate himself with his colleagues. He also recently called Millner’s redlight camera bill “worthless.” - Curious - Saturday, Feb 20, 10 @ 8:58 am: You can tell she was trying to sneek one past. Even on the website for the Board, the other members have their spouses names but Ms. Sered keeps her maiden name and no mention of husbands’ name on her bio. http://www.illinois.gov/elrb/board.cfm - anon - Saturday, Feb 20, 10 @ 1:00 pm: Madigan isn’t paid, only reimbursed for expenses. I think she was already reappointed by quinn even though her term wasn’t up. i believe this was shortly after the fumigation bill was first introduced. Pingback Costello Sticks at NO? | Chicago Daily Observer - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 3:17 pm: […] And oh, by the way, this Democrat, Jerry Costello, represents a district that Obama won, 56 percent to 43 percent; Costello hasn’t had less than 60 percent of the vote since 1998. Well, as Teri Davis Newman can attest with her GOP primary win, people are tea party hoppin’ mad down in his district. And he probably wants to keep his wife’s porky job safe back home. […] Pingback Costello Sticks at NO? | Chicago Daily Observer - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 3:17 pm: […] And oh, by the way, this Democrat, Jerry Costello, represents a district that Obama won, 56 percent to 43 percent; Costello hasn’t had less than 60 percent of the vote since 1998. Well, as Teri Davis Newman can attest with her GOP primary win, people are tea party hoppin’ mad down in his district. And he probably wants to keep his wife’s porky job safe back home. […] Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.