110 Comments - Thomas Westgard - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 11:55 am: Reasonable. Politicians play a switcheroo game with their spouses. The spouse is fair game when it helps the candidate (kids too, for that matter), but when the family becomes problematic, suddenly privacy matters. If Mrs. Brady is competent to talk about jobs, she’s competent to talk about abortion. And if she’s not fair game for questions, she should stay home and be quiet. Because that’s what privacy looks like. - Bring Back Boone's - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 11:56 am: Why does it matter what Nancy Brady believes on abortion? She isn’t running for public office, and won’t be making decisions about the matter. I think Eaton took it too far, and that it must have been a slow news day… - Confused - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 11:57 am: Completely, totally, absolutely inappropriate and out-of-bounds. Mrs. Brady is not a candidate. Her policy views have no relevance. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 11:58 am: Given that it’s Fran Eaton asking the questions, sure they are reasonable. What I find amazing is Fran taking comfort in the “we’re a solid Roman Catholic family” quote as it applies to the sanctity of life. Yes, Catholics believe in the sanctity of life and find common ground with Eaton on abortion. But Fran can’t be bothered with supporting the U.S. Conference of Bishops and its calls to end the death penalty and support social justice issues such as immigration and poverty. For people like Fran, the only issue that matters is abortion. She’ll use Catholics to serve her ends in that regard, but won’t lift a finger to help Catholics lobby for the rest of the Catholic agenda. It’s a one-way street with her. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:01 pm: Personally, I’m always a little skeptical of any politician who’s political stances are the polar opposite of their spouse’s on core issues. Spouses have no reason to lie, politicians have every reason to lie. And the question of “When does life begin?” is such a core issue, I don’t know how you could reconcile that within a marriage. So I think what Fran is really getting at is: “Can we really trust a politician who says he’s pro-life but is an Pro-choice marriage?” My guess is she’s probably right: Brady’s political rhetoric does NOT match his personal beliefs. He’s just saying what he says and voting the way he votes to get elected. Does that mean his public position on abortion is going to change if he’s elected Governor? Maybe, maybe not. George Ryan’s did, in part because the political reality of Illinois is that you would be tarred and feathered for signing legislation that outlawed abortion even in cases of rape or incest or when the woman’s health is endanger. And that is Brady’s current public position. The better question is: “Senator Brady, if your daughter were raped, would you force her to carry her rapist’s child?” Because that’s what he says the law should be. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:03 pm: Westgard makes a good point too. If Mrs. Brady is qualified to talk about job creation, she ought to be able to handle the abortion question. - JonShibleyFan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:04 pm: Not out of bounds, but pablum. - Conservative Republican - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:07 pm: Eaton’s question was ideal — for a political activist who wants to sabotage the ticket she/he professes to support. Great going, Fran. And why don’t you launch into the question of “is Kirk gay?” while you’re at it. Eaton’s question helps buck up Democratic confidence, particularly in an environment where the Dems already view state GOPers as a circular firing squad. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:10 pm: Reasonabale - However, only reasonable if you go out of your way to campaign for other candidates, make clear WHY you are there supporting that other candidate at an event where any specific issue is addressed, anyone has the right to ask, “So are you ‘favor/oppose’ this issue?”. In this instance, and on this issue as a follow-up, - reasonable. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:11 pm: Irrelevant. Since Mrs. Brady has no constitutional authority, it doesn’t matter. It would be pretty unusual for any couple to agree on everything, even potential hot-button issues like abortion. What about every other issue? Do we need to ask her position on spending cuts vs. tax increases? What would we think if the AFL/CIO or the Chamber of Commerce sent questionnaires to the candidate and their spouse? - Irish - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:16 pm: Out of bounds and irrelevant. Abortion rights are not going to be decided by one candidate or one candidates wife. It’s the budget/economy dummy! Any other topic other than the budget, jobs, the economy, and the deficit, is moot at this point. If the State ceases to function who cares what the Governor’s wife’s position is on anything? Does this lady believe that the thousands of out of work folks care about Mrs. Brady’s view on abortion? The ship of state is sinking, the decks are awash with red ink, and this woman is standing ankle deep making an issue out of nothing pertinent. - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:17 pm: Just trolling for a splashy headline. A pathetic attempt to create news vs reporting on what is happening. - Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:21 pm: When I hire someone, I don’t hire their spouse. When I need my septic serviced, I don’t base my decision on how knowledgable their spouse is. While the spouse can answer the phone and tell me why I should do business with them, I don’t decide based on how well the spouse knows how to clean my tank, even though they advocate their spouse’s service to me. This is how I see a candidate’s spouse in a campaign. Yes, they can advocate, but they are not running. Yes, Ms. Brady can tell us what a great job her husband can do, but her views are not important. If we did this, we would be having a different standard for candidates that are divorced from candidates who are single, and candidates who are married. We don’t do that, because that would be silly. We hire among the candidates. Their spouses are personal references only. To those who wish to point out that Mr. Brady cannot get an abortion, please remember that as human beings, we are fully capable of empathy. As human beings, we don’t have to actually be a mother to appreciate motherhood. We don’t have to be African American to appreciate the challenges of racism. We don’t have to be married to appreciate the challenges within marriage. We don’t have to be a woman to appreciate the challenges of pregnancy. We are humans capable of being more than we are and have a long history of empathy with groups different from us. So, claiming that we need to know Ms. Brady’s view on abortion, because gender prevents Mr. Brady from speaking knowledgably about this issue, is ridiculous, in my opinion. As to being her response referred to her Church, it is not for us to challenge her or her interpretation of her church’s stands on abortion, or any other issue. It isn’t our place to question her integrity based on our interpretation of her church’s stands, or to claim that our interpretation of her church’s stands on abortion are superior to her’s. Why? Because she is not the candidate. Fran overstepped here. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:22 pm: - Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:21 pm: That is me. - Irrelevant. - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:22 pm: I’m sorry, who is running for office, Nancy or Bill? When Bill votes for bills in Senate does he call Nancy to get her ‘ok’? …probably/hopefully not. Who the heck cares? I’m with Bakersfield. People moan and groan that we’re losing jobs to MO and IN left and right and finally when a Campaign is focusing on the ‘main’ issue, you go after an issue that she will have no influence on. Brady is pro-choice. Even if he wasn’t, his voting record is. This is a general election, who are you rooting for? Seems like you’re trying to start a fight within a party that is already quite divided. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:24 pm: ==When I need my septic serviced…== Excellent analogy. LOL - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:25 pm: It was intentional. - OneMan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:28 pm: YDD– Wow, that’s some interesting viewpoint there. As for in bounds or out of bounds… I don’t see the relevance, then again I suspect Fran would ask Brady’s postman and complain if he wasn’t pro-life. - Responsa - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:28 pm: Out of bounds by a mile. We are not electing a joined at the hip couple. Or a robot. We are electing a nominated candidate who should be forthright when asked these questions. History is rife with loving couples who in both public, and in private, were known to have disagreed on many issues. As noted, Laura Bush for example, is known to be pro-choice while her husband was not. So. What. It’s reasonable that a family member will stand with a candidate and be out on the campaign trail. That’s what families do to support each other. But, to drag a candidate’s spouse (or significant other) or child unwillingly into statements of policy –or to judge a candidate on the quality of the other’s response– automatically would seem to give a candidate who is single, or not in a relationship, a bizarre advantage with the press. With the Fran Eatons of the world running around, it’s no wonder so many qualified and good citizens think twice about the effect on, and intrusion into their families should they be considering a run for office. - Justice - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:31 pm: I would say neither. I don’t see it as relevant at all but it does stir the pot. He should be asking why Dillard isn’t running as an Independent? Now that is relevant. - Thomas Westgard - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:33 pm: If the septic service guy shows up with his wife and she starts providing an analysis of parts of your system, you should consider her as a part of what you’re hiring. Equally, if the wife is really and truly out of it, you shouldn’t be hearing from her at all. - Amalia - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:35 pm: The question is reasonable given the recent Laura Bush revelations. The answer shows they are trying to have it both ways over on the R side. Nancy is not hiding a thing. she has probably been coached not to mention abortion so those of us who don’t want the government to meddle in our reproductive lives can have some mystery or hope about her. Make no mistake about it, a vote for Brady is a vote for reproductive oppression. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:35 pm: If Mrs. Brady is qualified to talk about job creation, she ought to be able to handle the abortion question. That kind of thinking gives credibility to people within specialties of which they have no credibility. You don’t ask a former vice president for their advice on global warming. You don’t ask an accountant for their advice on solar energy. You don’t ask a politician for their advice on how to make solar energy profitable. Experts have their limits of knowledge outside the fields in which they are acknowledged as expert. A handyman’s knowledge is more valuable in the real world than a professor who studies the impact of sanitation on societies. - Gregor - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:36 pm: Not out of bounds to ask in any official sense, but yes, irrelevant and also lacking in taste, something clearly designed to gin up controversy, as if we needed more of that. I’m not a Brady fan, but this is one of those “view all thru the narrowest telescope of my single-issue organization” deals that help nobody and illuminate nothing. - Adam Smith - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:37 pm: The question is fine. The response is fine. And that should be the end of it. Of course, to the single-issue crowd, there is never enough purity. Typical that they get the first true pro-life nominee in a generation and the lifers (Fran is indisputably among their leaders) want to undermine his cred. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:40 pm: ===the first true pro-life nominee in a generation=== More than that. A lot more. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:41 pm: VMan, answer the question, please. Your nonsensical post was not an answer. Nobody asked Mrs. Brady how to perform an abortion, they asked where she stood on the issue. No expertise required. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:43 pm: Justice, Dillard can’t run for governor as an independent because he lost the primary. There’s a law against those things here. Move along, please. - jonbtuba - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:45 pm: It’s not an out of bounds question. Spouses frequently help their husbands/wives campaign. Given that Brady is strongly against many womens’ issues (his stance on no abortions even in cases of rape or incest, his belief that there should not be equal pay laws to help out women in the workplace), having his wife’s opinion would be relevant. If she had simply agreed with her husband’s stance, that would probably be the end of this issue. Yet, in a pattern becoming typical of the campaign, she dodged the issue and thus created more of a media frenzy than she needed to. Between this and Plummer’s taxes, not a good PR day for Brady - Levois - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:45 pm: Do I think Mrs. Brady should be answering questions as if she was running for office? No she probably should have said nothing and not answer with jobs. Do I think Eaton’s questions were reasonable? No. I don’t think in the long run the political views of a spouse matters unless they seek a visible and vocal role in political and policy matters. Case in point Hillary Clinton during the health care debate during her husband’s Presidency. - N'ville - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:47 pm: “The answer shows they are trying to have it both ways on the R side” Ok…so what’s Pat Quinn’s ex-wife’s position on…anything? - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:49 pm: If she’s going to be in campaign commercials shouldn’t she face some scrutiny too? Or is she just a prop? - A.B. - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:53 pm: Spouses have differing political ideologies all of the time. Heck I know multiple spouses, from both sides of the aisle, who cancel out the vote of their elected official spouse every election. (except for hopefully voting for their husband / wife) The reason this question is ridiculous and irresponsible is because it is not their name on the ballot. Plain and simple. We don’t vote for spouses opinions, we shouldn’t care about the kids report cards, or where the grandparents stood on civil rights in the ’60s. These people cannot make laws, nor are they trying to. Does anyone here really think that Bill Clinton is telling Hillary what to do? Shouldn’t she be judged on her merits and beliefs, rather than Bill’s? - zatoichi - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:53 pm: Since many political spouses end up on the stump and part of a civic group somewhere along the way, it seems a reasonable question. Still the basic one sidedness of this particular issue is clearly for a headline. If Mrs Brady is going to be a part of the campaign in some way then her views on 20 other topics should be equally important. That does not seem to be the goal for Eaton. Mrs. Brady is not the candidate, but you know they talk about the basic ideas somewhere. These kinds of issues are part of the turf they have agreed to step into by Mr. Brady deciding to run for office. - A.B. - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:54 pm: Michelle - Should we then get the opinion of every extra who is shaking hands with a candidate, or standing behind him or her? - just sayin' - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:54 pm: Mrs. Brady’s not the candidate so I think it’s a distraction. You can’t control your relatives, least of all your spouse. Men certainly understand that, or they come to that understanding pretty quick if they know what’s good for ‘em. Conservatives should be more worried about Mr. Brady. When the Dems and the pro-choicers start running ads reminding people that Brady opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest, just wait for Mr. Brady to say something like, “While I’m personally strongly pro-life, my priority will be jobs and the budget. Legal abortion is the law of the land and I will not revisit this issue as governor.” Then watch all Republicans, including hard right conservatives, remain silent. Brady will get a pass on any backtrack. After 8 years shut out of the Mansion and all the related jobs and contracts, there is so much pent-up greed in the IL GOP right now that a body could be found in Brady’s trunk and no one in the GOP would care. Principle took a powder a long time ago. This race is really just a fight for patronage spoils. That’s really where the only energy is coming from for these 2 lackluster candidates, Quinn and Brady. Quinn’s people wanna keep it, and the Brady people want it. - Justice - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:54 pm: Sorry bout that. I was cleaning my mouth and it went off! - Me - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:56 pm: It’s totally irrelevant what ANY candidate and/or actual elected official believes thanks to the US Supreme Court: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion is determined by the stage of pregnancy, AND THE STATE CANNOT PROHIBIT ABORTION BEFORE VIABILITY. The Court rested these conclusions on a constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process DISALLOWING MANY STATE AND FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:58 pm: === Personally, I’m always a little skeptical of any politician who’s political stances are the polar opposite of their spouse’s on core issues. === Without commenting directly on this particular situation, I think YDD has a bit of a point, but I’d take it a step further. While spouses do not have consitutional authority, as Pot, pointed out, I think Voters would rather not be faced with the possibility of having to deal with someone (in an office where spouses are generally “high profile”), who has an “activist” spouse who is going to go out of her way to make news each week opposing her husband’s views. (Which, BTW, I do NOT believe Nancy Brady would EVER do.) The reasons for that should be obvious. While Mrs. Bush might have stumbled a couple of times, you always had the feeling that she’d first try to avoid issues upon which she might have disagreed with her husband–because she seemed to feel that her primary role was to support HIM and NOT to make a “name for herself”. (Some might even argue that when it comes to wives, that could be a general difference between liberal and conservative women (i.e., the role they play in their husband’s careers.)) And, if pushed further, Mrs. Bush seemed to be able to provide an answer that shed a bit of light on “personal” feelings related to the plight of those affected–without stating a position in opposition to her husband’s view or providing enough detail to even imply that she opposed him. (e.g., from what I remember, when asked about same sex marriage, she didn’t provide a direct answer. I believe her response was that she believed it was a healty conversation for the Country to have, which was an honest and valid answer for a spouse with no constitutional authority.) - Loop Lady - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 12:59 pm: I agree that she is not running for office and this is should not an be an issue…where her husband stands on the issue is highly relevant, and if he is a still believing and practicing Roman Catholic, I would venture a guess that the Brady family is not pro-choice. This is fine with me as long as he doesn’t restrict access to safe, legal abortion which is a woman’s right under current law…your view does not have to be the law in IL… - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:05 pm: I’ll add, too, that both Barbara and Laura Bush seemed very happy to focus on working to promote programs that were “closer to home” (e.g., programs to help our Country’s children) without stating their political views. They didn’t seem to want to get involved in other–what some might consider–”meatier” issues because they were aware there was plenty to do to be supportive in their primary areas of interest. - Cousin Ralph - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:06 pm: Bill Brady has a solid, pro-life voting record. If he was not committed to that position, we would have seen him watering it down to attract “moderates” and “suburban women” by now. The only thing this line of questioning of the wife can do is to distract voters from the important issues in the race. George W Bush was President for 8 years and a Governor for about that. Now that we know Laura was supportive of abortion and gay marriage, can we not see how irrelevant or distracting that would have been in trying to guess how true Bush was to his pro-life stance. Never waivered. Made no difference, would have contributed nothing to the debate. Leave it to Fran to live in the footnotes of the real story. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:08 pm: ===and if he is a still believing and practicing Roman Catholic, I would venture a guess that the Brady family is not pro-choice=== But you’d assume he’d be against the death penalty then too, wouldn’t you? And yet Brady supports capital punishment despite the long standing opposition by his church. - Jake from Elwood - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:09 pm: Unless a political candidate’s spouse is convicted of a crime, arrested for a crime, is or has been a member of a “hate” group or has unsavory or inappropriate business connections, I don’t think these sorts of inquiries are appropriate. The spouse does not cast votes nor sign bills into law. Their opinions on social issues are no more important that the opinions of those doing the reporting. - train111 - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:11 pm: Irrelevant. It’s kind of like asking the guy running for your county’s Register of Deeds if he’s pro-life or not. Who cares?? It doesn’t matter what his stand may be because he is not in a position to have any effect on policy one way or another. Same for Mrs. Brady–she will not be the governor. She may have some sway on her husbands decisions, but in the end it’s Bill Brady, should he be elected governor, who may or may not have an impact on ‘pro-life’ issues in Illinois train111 - shore - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:12 pm: Out of bounds. The pro-life/social conservative movement has not served the gop well anywhere at anytime and this sort of witch hunt is why it needs to be marginalized in the party and will be after the first tuesday in november. Point in case former congressman mark souder, unquestionably aok in their book for his prolife views, unfortunately he had an affair with his staffer like so many other members of the pro-life 1994 house gop winners. She’s not on solid ground at all, and her behavior is reprehensible. - siriusly - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:13 pm: I think the question is out of bounds for respectable journalists. I don’t categorize Fran Eaton that way, so she’s of course free to ask whatever she wants. As a voter I could care less about the political positions of the candidate’s spouse. I suspect that the Brady people are quietly putting the message out there that Mrs. Brady is pro-choice to help convince moderate / independent voters that he won’t be as extreme as Quinn says. Good strategy actually. But Eaton and her readers are “single issue” on abortion so I fully expect her to pursue those types of questions, just like she did with Rutherford. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:16 pm: Dog, there is no doubt in my mind that Brady’s position on abortion is sincere, heartfelt, and straightforward. I’ve talked with him about it more than once and he has me absolutely convinced. As you know, I don’t agree with him on that question. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:17 pm: I just want to clarify - I do not care what the non-officeholder beliefs are, and frankly, I have yet to meet a married couple that agreed 100% on anything. I still come from the relevent position by the face value of Mrs. Brady at events, and the events had issues up for discussion by candidates, and Mrs. Brady is then open to a question. My second clarification - Mrs. Brady doesn’t have to answer anything either! We can question her at the event, if it has significance to her, but, she has zero obligation to answer. - siriusly - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:18 pm: As I typed “good strategy” it reminded me of the way the Blago people would behind the scenes tell organizations that wanted to see a tax swap / tax increase “we say we’re against taxes now but we’ll take care it when we win.” Yeah, he took care of us real good. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:19 pm: ===Personally, I’m always a little skeptical of any politician who’s political stances are the polar opposite of their spouse’s on core issues.=== You can’t help who you fall in love with, YDD. - Loop Lady - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:21 pm: 47th: this position of most pro lifers (anti choice/pro capital punishment) has always baffled me…I just don’t get it… - Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:21 pm: People like Fran Eaton who try to make every election about this singular issue, which no singular individual can proclaim law upon, are Pat Quinn’s best bet for re-election. - Knome Sane - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:23 pm: @Me: I think you are mistaken. States have altered “Roe” by limiting when in the pregnancy a woman can be terminated, look at the “parental notification” laws on the books. And this Supreme Court has had no problems in overturning previous Supreme Court decisions. Look at campaign finance laws if you don’t believe me. - Knome Sane - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:25 pm: oops, meant to write “when a woman can terminate a pregnancy”. Sorry about that. - Ghost - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:28 pm: It was a reasonable question. VM when you hire somone to service your septic system, they are not setting policy which controls your household operation; more to the point, you septice service providers spouse is not able to use their husbands/wifes job as a platform to push policy and agenda intiatives. The wife of the Gov has a status which garners media coverage and is a position that can and has been used to advocate for various policy initiaves of the spouse. She would not hav the coverage or voice but for the job her husband may carry. Your analogy is pure crap. A person hired to provide a limited service is not comporable to an individual who sets and guides policy which impacts your life; and the spouse of a service provider gains not status or influence from such a marriage. - EIRE 17 - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:33 pm: Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. Period. Until the Governor of Illinois is allowed a vote on the United States Supreme Court it does not mean jack how the candidate views the issue because he/she can do virtually nothing about it. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:35 pm: === You can’t help who you fall in love with, YDD. === That’s absolutely true, Rich. However, I also believe that couples also need to consider their needs and “team dynamics” when it comes to their careers, especially when running for office. Example: while hard times might call for changes that no one would ever expect, someone who needs to have a spouse around each day of the week probably should realize they won’t be happy for too being married to someone who is gone most of the time. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:37 pm: That should have read “…won’t be happy for too LONG…” - Smitty Irving - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:39 pm: If the septic man’s professional advertisements include his wife, the wife is fair game. If a politician doesn’t mention his family / use them as props / have campaign spots with the family, the press should leave them alone. - Old Milwaukee - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:39 pm: Out of bounds. Why don’t you ask what his kids believe, or his brothers, or his parents? It is not relevant. Why don’t we ask Quinn’s wife about her positions on issues? Oh, never mind. - in the know - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:40 pm: Shame on Fran for asking. Whatever Mrs. Brady’s position, and especially if she isn’t a “true believer”, this is hurtful and damaging. As others have commented, its as if she WANTS to cause damage to the CANDIDATE, HER candidate. As Joe Scarborough said in his book, elections will be won on fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism. Its another example of the axiom that its better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. She and her ilk would rather lose to the biggest bungler in modern politial history than have a SPOUSE! not be ideologically pure. Can we send both sides crazies to the moon? - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:47 pm: Smitty, that’s silly. If spouses didn’t appear in commercials or on the campaign trial, people would be asking whether there are probs in the marriage. Perfect example: what we now know about Obama’s Senate Race in 04. - Fan of the Game - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:53 pm: I guess they are reasonable questions if you care about the opinions of someone who is NOT running for office. Who cares what Ms. Brady’s opinions are on anything? - Chad - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:56 pm: A cheap way to keep the Abortion issue on the front burner. If Mrs. Brady answers, she will continue to be asked about other issues in the future. Let’s see, what is her position on pension funding? - Loop Lady - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:58 pm: Fan: Because women who are married to politicians can profoundly affect policy decisions made by their husbands. See: Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton and by all means Michelle Obama… - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 1:58 pm: === Who cares what Ms. Brady’s opinions are on anything? === That’s probably carrying it a bit too far. People probably want to know that she adores, respects, and fully supports her husband; and that she cares about the people of this State. And she demonstrates that through her actions and behavior. - Liandro - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:03 pm: Unless the spouse is taking an active role in advocating or creating policy there is no reason to question him or her on the issues. There is certainly no cause to grill them. Family can be expected to appear in ads and support the candidate–that doesn’t put the family in-bounds for grilling. Only explicitly advocating issues or creating policy puts a spouse in play, and then usually in a narrow focus. - Liandro - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:08 pm: Loop Lady- Nancy Reagon, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Obama were all given explicit support from their office-holding spouses to take the lead on certain topics. Therefore, on those specific topics, they are fair game for questioning and even, at times, grilling. Nancy was the drug war, if I remember right (before my day, really). Hillary on health care and certain other issues. Michelle on personal health/child obesity, and to government policy as it relates to those issues. Can we ask them questions on those topics? Absolutely, and they would want us to I’m sure. To my knowledge (and I could be wrong), Mrs. Brady hasn’t taken, or been given, any such role. - dupage dan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:15 pm: I was going to compare this issue with the whole pet euthanasia business in a similar vein inserting the family dog in place of spouse. When I wrote the sentence it seemed so inflammatory I was sure I would get deleted - or worse! Irrelevant. Period. I like the explanation that few spouses agree with their mate on many issues. It frequently is a continuum with views being tempered by time. I do not retain the services of anyone, car mechanic or a member of clergy based on what their spouse believes in. Couch it in whatever language you want to, it is not relevant. - Smitty Irving - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:16 pm: REAL - Not necessarily. If a public figure doesn’t want to show off their family, I don’t take that as proof positive something is wrong. Perhaps they just value their privacy and leading a normal life. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:16 pm: Liandro, you may indeed be wrong. Did you even read Eaton’s column? Mrs. Brady is being encouraged by her husband’s campaign to talk about jobs. She mentioned the fact that she visits her father in Indiana and notices the economic development there that should be replicated here. So if she’s advancing the campaign’s message in this area, it seems like fair game to ask her opinion about other areas. And Fran Eaton is the pre-eminent pro-life advocate in Illinois. Brady’s campaign knows her very well, as do most other political professionals in Illinois. If you take her call, you know what the question is going to be, and you know your answer will soon be on the front page at Illinois Review. - dc - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:17 pm: Laura Bush went on the Today show to promote Harriet Myers for the Supreme Court. There was much speculation at the time about Mrs. Bush’s pro-choice stance that didn’t match her husband’s political position. I think you could argue her opinion influenced the Republican President to first nominate a pro-choice candidate for the court. It’s highly relevant. - KeepSmiling - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:26 pm: Reasonable. Voters should be familiar and comfortable with their potential first spouse. Gov. Schwarzenegger went through this in his election and he and his spouse, as we all know, have quite different views on many things. On the abortion issue specifically, it may have been more helpful to Brady if his wife held a moderate position, as that would demonstrate a tolerance of different viewpoints. I think she did a good job in responding with the context of her religious beliefs rather than as a political or policy matter. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:29 pm: === Perhaps they just value their privacy and leading a normal life. === I can POSSIBLY understand that statement as it applies to children who might prefer to shy away from the public spotlight whenever they can–and to parents who would want to protect their children’s privacy as much as possible to help keep them “grounded” maybe–but it doesn’t sound like a very practical desire for a spouse to have. - Loop Lady - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:42 pm: Liandro: I’m not talking about their public “pet projects” at all…please read up on political campaigns of late (i.e. “that woman will never be Vice President” Nancy Reagan filling in for Ronnie to reporters when his Alzheimer’s made him forgetful, etc.) and start talking some sense… - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:45 pm: === On the abortion issue specifically, it may have been more helpful to Brady if his wife held a moderate position, as that would demonstrate a tolerance of different viewpoints. === If that’s the case, I’d agree. And as I’ve often stated on IR before, that “tolerance” often leads to the ability to come up with more approaches and solutions to various problems. If that–and I need to emphasize that I have NO idea what Mrs. Brady’s position is–WERE her position, there’s nothing that says she couldn’t help (if she wanted to) with efforts to e.g., educate women re: options they may have available to them. Much better–if it’s something they both agree she should tackle–than opposing a spouse’s position in the press because it’s the quickest way to draw attention to the issue. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 2:49 pm: And, it goes without saying, that what I said in my 2:45 would work ONLY if it were true–winning honorably, and all. - Amalia - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:01 pm: N’Ville at 12:47: the fact that you would bring up the ex wife of Quinn shows your cards. he’s divorced. it’s a legal option in the state of Illinois. it’s a scary thought that it is not an option in some worlds. we don’t want that kind of thinking for Illinois. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:09 pm: === N’Ville at 12:47: the fact that you would bring up the ex wife of Quinn shows your cards. === True, especially if the former spouse is doing nothing today to draw attention to herself within the context of Quinn. - wordslinger - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:25 pm: Out of bounds. She’s not running for anything. She can pick and choose her spots, just like you and me. Fran, who do you work for again? You understand that whole “most votes win” thing, don’t you? Or is it just more fun being out of power — all talk, no walk? - Captain Flume - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:36 pm: Not out of bounds. First ladies, state and national, are often involved in social issues and lend their names to particular causes such as reading, obesity, littering/environmental. Should Nancy Brady become a first lady, who knows to what issues she may be asked to lend the weight of her standing. Whether she has political standing or not does not disengage her from having social influence. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:47 pm: Your analogy is pure crap. It would have been better if you just wrote that. - BradyFan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:48 pm: I don’t care where Mrs. Brady stands on the issue. I am not voting for her, but for her husband. There is no doubt that she supports Sen. Brady’s campaign, and just take a look at his record. - Knome Sane - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:52 pm: Rich, Did I miss something or is Sheila Simon running for First Lady? I thought she was running for Lt. Governor… Fran Eaton says that there has “been a curiosity as to whether Mrs. Brady shares her husband’s views”. A curiosity? Really? More like someone not minding their own business. Last time I checked, the First Lady doesn’t sign bills into law. - Ghost - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:58 pm: === I also believe that couples also need to consider their needs and “team dynamics” when it comes to their careers,==== Carville and Matalin make Riches point and pretty much toss the rest of this as hooey - Fan of the Game - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 3:58 pm: @Loop Lady: ===47th: this position of most pro lifers (anti choice/pro capital punishment) has always baffled me…I just don’t get it…=== The argument I would make for this is as follows: The unborn are innocent and should be given their chance to live. Those who have been sentenced to death have had their chance to live. In doing so, they overstepped the rules of society (depriving others of the chance to live)–rules they know in advance–and have, thus, forfeited their opportunity to coninue. - siriusly - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:01 pm: The bounds are not invisible to me. Apparently Fran doesn’t realize that Mrs. Brady is not the candidate. Governor Quinn was also the one who was driving the tax return issue. None of the candidates are out there talking about their family members and their issue positions that I know of. This is Fran’s issue alone as far as I can see. - Amalia - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:01 pm: there have been some comments on this thread that the position on reproductive choice of Brady does not matter because of federal law on choice, see Me at 12:56, etc. here’s why that is wrong, starting with the health care bill. several states are making it difficult for private health care insurance to cover the reproductive choice of abortion. legislatures are making decisions supported by governors to limit what kind of insurance can be purchased. and then there are those pesky orders which a governor can sign, you know, like about the pill, etc. the anti choice supporters of Brady, in particular two groups, have tons of links that purport to show the link between the pill and breast cancer, opinions against assisted reproduction techniques like invitro fertilization. the anti choice movement is not just about abortion. many in that movement would ban the pill and take away the right to create children with the assistance of doctors in the lab. they adhere to the opinions of the Vatican on this issue. do not be fooled. Brady is not for reproductive freedom, whether his wife comes out and says she is against it or not. and, yes, it does matter whether we have a governor who will protect the rights of women, as Quinn will, or if we get someone like Brady, who will not. - siriusly - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:02 pm: Knome Sane - “Last time I checked, the First Lady doesn’t sign bills into law. ” The last time I checked our last first lady was telling her husband to hold up an IFA deal over campaign contributions. - Larry Mullholland - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:07 pm: It is out of bounds. Spouses may disagree about many things. She is not the candidate. Should we ask the opinion of a candidates children also? Michael Reagan had some strong opinions. What is the position of Governor Quinn’s wife on these matters? Oh wait…hmmm okay, how about his girlfriend instead? Where does it end? - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:11 pm: I like both Carville and Matalin, and think it’s great that their marriage is as strong as it is considering how much they oppose one another. (And again, there’s nothing wrong with being “opposites”.) Now that you’ve brought it up, however, wonder how much James would be able to “tone it down” if he were a “first spouse”, And, if he wasn’t able to do so, how long the public would find what they do in their current line of work amusing while they’re trying to run a state or our Country. - just sayin' - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:11 pm: Eaton plays the gender card. Very lame. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:15 pm: How in heaven’s name is Fran playing the gender card, just? - CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:20 pm: Good Job Capt Fax Ms Brady, please join The Lumber Jack at the SPI GOP office to get yout CFS Golden Bullseyes anyone who has ever been around a campaign knows the spouse is Adviser #1 in any campaign. Thanks Fran for changing the subject Quinn Wins 2010 - Really?? - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:25 pm: =Experts have their limits of knowledge outside the fields in which they are acknowledged as expert.= What a crock. You don’t have to be an experty in the field of health care to have an opinion about abortion. That is like saying I can’t have an opinion about what food I like to eat b/c I’m not a nutritionist. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:33 pm: @ Fan of the Game, My original point wasn’t to suggest people can’t be both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty because clearly many are. Rather, my point was, in response to Mrs. Brady mentioning they are Roman Catholics, that the Catholic Church is anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. So by using that as her answer to Fran’s question, I’m simply pointing out the implications for other sanctity of life issues. You can beleive what you want on these and other issues, but the Catholic Church is pretty clear. I thought Mrs. Brady’s answer was curious given that simple fact. - David Ormsby - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:48 pm: If your name appears no where on the ballot, you can answer or refuse to answer questions as you please. If Mrs. Brady prefers to ignore some busybody’s question, she has that right. Good for her. - A.B. - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 4:54 pm: =there have been some comments on this thread that the position on reproductive choice of Brady does not matter because of federal law on choice, see Me at 12:56, etc. here’s why that is wrong, starting with the health care bill. several states are making it difficult for private health care insurance to cover the reproductive choice of abortion. legislatures are making decisions supported by governors to limit what kind of insurance can be purchased. and then there are those pesky orders which a governor can sign, you know, like about the pill, etc. the anti choice supporters of Brady, in particular two groups, have tons of links that purport to show the link between the pill and breast cancer, opinions against assisted reproduction techniques like invitro fertilization. the anti choice movement is not just about abortion. many in that movement would ban the pill and take away the right to create children with the assistance of doctors in the lab. they adhere to the opinions of the Vatican on this issue.= Seriously? Someone opposing public funding or forcing insurance companies to pay for abortions doesn’t automatically define them as pro-choice / life. Same with a contradictory medical opinion on the safety of birth control pills. And are your really going down the path of invitro? You realize this is the same nation where some people believe there are black helicopters spying on your every move and others who think Pres. Obama should be a dictator. The point is that these crazies, on both sides of the aisle, end up supporting someone, whether the candidate likes it or not. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 5:27 pm: === Good for her. === Absolutely. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong within the appropriate context in saying “Sounds like a policy issue, so you should ask my husband if you don’t know what his position is.” That should nip similar questions right then and there, and give her an opportunity to bring up a topic that she wants to discuss. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 5:28 pm: David, I agree with you that she has a “right” to not answer the question. But Rich asked whether it was out of bounds and over the line. The simple reality is that as we’ve seen here and on a national level, except on rare occasions (Howard Dean’s wife in 2004), a spouse is an integral part of a campaign operation. They are used by the campaign to spread the message, raise money, appeal to voters, etc. As such, they are totally fair game for folks to ask questions about issues that are likely to affect their spouses. Once asked, voters can judge for themselves how important the answer or refusal to answer is. But of course the question is fair game. - Amalia - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 6:39 pm: A.B. at 4:54: just what is the point of your paragraph on black helicopters and crazies? and my point is that Brady is the darling of the anti choice movement, the choice of both of the largest anti choice groups in Illinois, the activists, who supported him in the primary. and their positions are extreme. including the birth control position ( are YOU really going to dispute the safety of the drug?) and, yes, I’m going to the in vitro position, because they are against in vitro fertilization. Brady’s website showed these groups backing him. and if you check their websites you will find all manner of woman scaring nonsense on reproductive options. you see, to them, anti choice is anti choice. and, yes, I believe that Brady is interested in supporting his, and their positions against reproductive freedom. and that they have to be exposed on a consistent basis. - Its Just Me - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 7:54 pm: Well, nobody ever accused Fran Eaton of being reasonable before. Why start now? - Peggy SO-IL - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 8:03 pm: I think the question is fair–especially before the conservative husband is elected. While I love Laura Bush, she was a detriment–as have been all GOP First Ladies–frankly, to GOP US Presidents’ social conservative agenda. It is important what the wife thinks. My recollection is that Mod Rod’s contraception agenda (requiring Plan B by all pharmacists) was largely driven by his wife’s agenda for it. For 47th Ward: Abortion is the murder of an innocent and is intrinsically evil–wrong at all times. Death penalty is not intrinsically evil, though JP2 did articulate reasons why he thought it should be dispensed with in modern times. Amnesty for illegal aliens is not the position of Rome and is most certainly not clearly discussed in the Catechism in any way. The USCCB is ignoring distinctions between legal and illegal aliens. The staff of the USCCB in DC is dominated by political liberals and must be taken with a grain of salt when we get outside of intrinsically evil and immoral things that have been articulated from Rome or have clear basis in teachings in the Magisterium. The pro-life movement in many states is on guard. Even in the MO auditor’s race, which would seem to be unrelated, one GOP candidate emphasizes he’s pro-life and groups are openly saying we need to be sure b/c these positions are always stepping stones to bigger things. Can’t give a pro-abort person a lift up the ladder. It’s hard to get rid of them down the road. - Bubs - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 9:18 pm: This just seems fairly obvious. 1. Fran Eaton reads the Laura Bush book, and sees that Ms. Bush’s response on Roe caused headlines. 2. Fran decides to gain attention by trying to pull the same trick on Nancy Brady. 3. Unfortunately for Fran Eaton, Nancy Brady has also read the Laura Bush book, and is not falling for it. 4. Desperate that a big story is not emerging for her, Fran tries to turn the non-response into a story. She must have been short on material for the week. In short, a hack, IMHO. - Excessively Rabid - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 9:40 pm: I’m with Bubs, and by the way, although I try to be respectful of others’ beliefs regarding this issue, I am outraged that anyone would try to drag it into the governor’s race in a state with as many urgent problems as Illinois. This is not on the agenda, period, either way. Take care of business and sort out the budget. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 9:49 pm: === Well, nobody ever accused Fran Eaton of being reasonable before. === Sorry, Me. But I’ve known Fran for quite some time and she’s quite reasonable–and I’ll add, one of the most caring and loving people I know. - Brennan - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 10:55 pm: =legislatures are making decisions supported by governors to limit what kind of insurance can be purchased= What exactly do you think the Federal law just did? Please leave your island. - The Irish Guy - Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 10:19 am: It is unnecessary and unreasonable. Why do “reporters” want to make news. Mrs. Brady is not a candidate and her views on abortion only take away from the real issues that she is trying to campaign on. If a volunteer came to the door and you asked “are you pro-life or pro-choice” rather than asking about the candidate’s stance, what good would the answer do you? - wordslinger - Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 2:57 pm: – While I love Laura Bush, she was a detriment–as have been all GOP First Ladies–frankly, to GOP US Presidents’ social conservative agenda.– LOL “That’s just, like, your opinion, man,.” The Dude, Name one GOP president who let his wife rattle him on social policy. Or one who didn’t disappoint the far right? The smart money on the far right knew they had been played about halfway into Reagan’s second term. Bush I just confirmed it. Like John Mitchell told the boys on Wall Street about Nixon’s southern strategy: ” Don’t listen to what we say, watch what we do.” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.