* Rick Pearson at the Tribune rightly points to a very real problem with passing the gay marriage bill: African-American House members…
With the measure a dozen votes or less shy of the 60 required for final approval, advocates on either side of the issue consider the 20 black House members key swing votes in the spring session.
The traditionally liberal black caucus, however, has not uniformly lined up in favor of gay marriage, even as home-state President Barack Obama switched course and backed it. Only one of the 14 House co-sponsors is black.
Some African-American lawmakers are uncomfortable with characterizations of gay rights as the latest front in the civil rights movement.
Others fear political repercussions, saying ministers opposed to same-sex marriage have warned legislators who vote for it to never come back to their churches, where politicians traditionally campaign on the final Sundays before an election.
“To be honest with you, it’s a little disheartening,” said Democratic Rep. Will Davis of Homewood, a black caucus member who has not made up his mind as he works out whether gay marriage is a moral or public policy issue.
“There are so many large-scale issues important to the black community, but you’ve never heard from them,” Davis said of the churches opposed to gay marriage. “This doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t create opportunities and, for the most part, they are silent on helping African-Americans getting job opportunities in this state. They are silent on the increasing prison population.”
* And on that same note, we have two competing press releases…
AFRICAN AMERICAN CLERGY COALITION TO MEET WITH CARDINAL FRANCIS GEORGE TO DISCUSS LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS AGAINST PENDING REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BILL
BISHOP TROTTER, PASTOR MEEKS AND BISHOP DAVIS TO LEAD OTHER AFRICAN AMERICAN DENOMINATIONAL LEADERS INTO MEETING WITH CARDINAL GEORGE
Friday, April 5th, 2013@ 11:30 AM (Press Conference)
Archdiocese’s Archbishop Quigley Center, 835 N. Rush St., Chicago, Illinois
Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago in his role as chairman of the Catholic Conference of Illinois and members of the newly formed African-American Clergy Coalition (AACC) will join to express opposition to redefinition of marriage legislation at a press conference at 11:30 a.m. Friday, April 5, at the Archdiocese’s Archbishop Quigley Center, 835 N. Rush St.
Senate Bill 10, which changes the state’s legal definition of marriage from “between a man and a woman” to “between two persons,” has passed the Illinois Senate and is under consideration by the Illinois House. The House returns to session on Monday after a two-week spring break, while the Senate returns on Wednesday.
Cardinal George earlier this year issued a letter to parishioners on redefinition of marriage efforts, and also sent a letter with other faith leaders representing more than 1,700 faith communities to every Illinois lawmaker, urging a “no” vote on any redefinition of marriage legislation.
The African-American Clergy Coalition formed last month and announced a public relations/lobbying effort against redefinition of marriage that includes radio ads, a website, field operations and robo-calls. The Catholic Conference of Illinois supports AACC’s efforts. (africanamericanclergycoalition.org)
The following clergy are confirmed to be joining Cardinal George (in alphabetical order):
Bishop John Bryant, Presiding Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME)
Pastor Byron Brazier, Senior Pastor of the Apostolic Church of Christ
Bishop Lance Davis, Senior Pastor of the New Zion Christian Fellowship Church of Dolton
Pastor Kenneth Giles, Senior Pastor of the Greater New Mount Olive Baptist Church
Pastor James Meeks, Senior Pastor of Salem Baptist Church of Chicago
Bishop Horace Smith, Presiding bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World
Pastor Steven Thurston, President of the National Baptist Convention USA
Bishop Larry Trotter, Presiding prelate of the New Century Fellowship International
* And…
African-American Clergy Urge Immediate Passage of Marriage Equality Legislation in Illinois Pastors, Faith Leaders Call on General Assembly to Act Now in Approving the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act
Who: Prominent African-American Clergy and Faith Leaders
What: Faith leaders call on Illinois General Assembly to grant equal protection to all Illinoisans and their families.
Where: Screening Room II – 3rd Floor
Allegro Hotel
171 W. Randolph Street, Chicago
When: Thursday, April 4, 2013
10 A.M.
Discuss.
…Adding… In other related news…
Conservative Republican state Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove) — who was a chief critic of Illinois Republican Party Chair Pat Brady’s embrace of gay marriage — had a different take on U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk’s surprise backing of same sex marriage on Tuesday.
Oberweis said there’s enough room in the Republican tent to embrace differing beliefs.
Oberweis, who raised objections to Brady, said that was not due to the underlying issue, but because Brady on his own took a position against the party platform.
As for Kirk’s future in the party, Oberweis’ response: “Mark Kirk is a smart guy. I assume he made some political calculation that this was OK or would help him. I have no idea, I didn’t talk to him,” Oberweis said. “Mark is usually pretty careful, and pretty political. I assume that he made a calculation that he believes it helps him not hurts him.”
Interesting.
- Downstate Illinois - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:16 am:
When it comes to Sen. Kirk we expected it. We knew from the beginning that he could easily end up as the Illinois version of Arlen Specter.
His saving grace is that we be assured that of all the times he would betray conservatives, at least he wouldn’t vote for Harry Reid as majority leader (the first go-around).
- Levois - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:18 am:
How do I find out who sponsored this bill? I have a hunch who may be the only Black legislator who’s a sponsor.
- Seriously? - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:22 am:
“Oberweis, who raised objections to Brady, said that was not due to the underlying issue, but because Brady on his own took a position against the party platform”.
Come on Jim - Mark Kirk acted against the party platform too! Guess it’s more convenient to go after a volunteer GOP leader than an elected GOP leader.
Seriously, when will the conservative wing of the GOP stop contradicting itself on the “underlying issues” whatever they are?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:22 am:
–“Mark is usually pretty careful, and pretty political. I assume that he made a calculation that he believes it helps him not hurts him.”–
Or, you could take him at his word. If it was a cold, political calculation, where’s the parade of GOP lawmakers joining in?
Is Kirk’s “F” rating from the NRA politically calculated as well?
Are supporting gay marriage and bucking the NRA the keys to success in today’s GOP?
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:23 am:
This is nothing new. the black vote that is heavy D is also very christian… most people think the popular votes in california went the way did often because of that vote (the black community voting against a liberal initiative).
They have to represent their community, not just what a specific party has on their wish list.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:28 am:
So is that the official attitude of the IL GOP? That being pro-civil rights for all is a betrayal?
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:37 am:
“Mark is usually pretty careful, and pretty political. I assume that he made a calculation that he believes it helps him not hurts him.”
Yes, he is pretty political, Jim Oberweis. But, unlike you, he has a long string of election victories — often in very difficult districts for the GOP. He doesn’t spout nonsense, ride around in helicopters in embarrassing t.v. commercials, constantly contradict himself in the media, or single-handedly rent hotel rooms for meetings that never happen.
Perhaps you should take a clue.
- xxtofer - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:38 am:
I must say who gave African-Americans (in general) or pastors specifically to “decide” if this is a civil rights issue or not. It is. Whether you want to extend the right of marriage to gays and lesbians does not make it any less of CR issue by definition.
Have the guts to stand up and say you oppose it and not hide behind that argument. Furthermore, some of those members mentioned in this posting may well be reminded that at one time, CR arguments also glossed over their interests, and they they were joined by whites in pushing their “agenda” as well.
It appears a bit disheartening that some members of the Black Caucus seem to have a “we got ours” mentality, and that their concept of civil rights is not broad enough to encompass non-race, and specifically, non-African-American causes.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:40 am:
African American ministers have a great deal of political power in their communities. I can see why African American Representatives, like mine, are fearful of voting against their wishes, but I don’t approve.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:42 am:
RonO, are you claiming that supporting marriage equality is inconsistent with Christian values?
- dave - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:00 am:
I’ve been waiting for someone to say this — the obstacles to passing marriage equality have had little/nothing to do with the Speakers targets/freshmen. It has always been folks in the black caucus and downstate caucus.
- shore - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:06 am:
Downstate, Specter got the Alito and Roberts nominations through the judiciary committee when he was a Republican and was much different kind of politician.
That was a good catch on the Oberweis quote-shows he fears Kirk a lot more than brady and is more a bully than a believer.
If memory serves on the california prop8 thing, the black backlash against same sex marriage there was a key part of why conservatives won that vote. Republicans in other states have tried extremely hard for years to use this issue to convert black voters, especially men without much success. I think it’s an interesting test for the obama legacy here.
- Ghost - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:08 am:
Someone needs to run an add showing married couples standing next to civil union couples, then put all the black clergy in the background and run the caption, “separate but equal.”
Maybe we can have water fountains gay couples can use so they don’t taint married couples…. some separate schools….
Given that marriage law sets civil rights for couples when it comes to property, children, divorce, health care and inheritance this is a civil rights issue. It seems a bit segregationist to redefine civil rights so as to claim a discriminatory animus towards gays is not a civil rights issue.
- phocion - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:12 am:
Perhaps the strong proponents of gay marriage in the General Assembly should take a page out of the black caucus playbook - threaten to withhold support from any program or legislation that assists minorities until the caucus supports gay marriage. There are several such bills in the hopper now that would do the job nicely.
- Ghost - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:15 am:
one more
Martin Luther King Junior… I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, or by the content of their character, but by the gender of the person they choose to marry.
- Amalia - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:25 am:
sick of the anti gay marriage bias from so called Christians. I’m a Christian and since I know Jesus was all about love, they should know better.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:28 am:
I just looked at some polls that show conflicting results on African-American support of gay marriage. One new poll shows 51-37 support for gay marriage, and another published yesterday shows the reverse, 60-35 against gay marriage.
Right now the infighting is going on in the GOP. If Republicans can get themselves to do it, they can help create discord among Democrats. Obama offered cutting Social Security, which is not popular among many Democrats. If Republicans can relax a bit on taxes and accept ending some tax breaks for the wealthy, and if they can get behind gay marriage and immigration, maybe there would be some discord in Democratic constituents over SSM and cutting safety-net benefits.
- corvax - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:36 am:
It’s a civil rights issue because you’re born of a certain race or ethnicity (or combination thereof, as arbitrary as concepts of ‘race’ might be) and you’re born gay or straight (which isn’t to say civil righys issues can’t arise from voluntary conditons, like choosing to change gender)
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 12:00 pm:
“I’m a Christian and since I know Jesus was all about love, they should know better.”
I think this is a nice comment. In one of the Gospels, Jesus was reported as saying that it all comes down to loving God and loving others as you love yourself. Plus, religious books were written a very long time ago. Why should our attitudes be frozen in time? If some of the religious figures of the past were around today, some of their attitudes would also change.
- titan - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 12:19 pm:
@ Grandson of Man - I don’t think you really understand religion. It isn’t a poll driven thing, it purports to be focused on eternal truths (granted, some hold to things that are actually false…and the sincerity of the adherents varies and all). Many of those with religious objections carry them somewhat reluctantly, but precisely because they believe they must hold to unchanging truths.
@ Amalia - While Jesus was all about love, He was also about turning away from sin. People were forgiven, but also instructed to go and sin no more. Many of those who believe don’t see themselves as being able to condone sinful behaviour (despite the oter erosions of marriage that have slide through already).
- Chris - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 12:19 pm:
“which isn’t to say civil righys issues can’t arise from voluntary conditons, like choosing to change gender”
Or, you know, religion. Being Christian is a *choice*.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 12:26 pm:
–Many of those who believe don’t see themselves as being able to condone sinful behaviour (despite the oter erosions of marriage that have slide through already).–
But they feel free to cast stones and use the levers of government to discriminate against this particular class of alleged “sinners?”
What about the rest of us? Shouldn’t government punish us, too, for our “sins.”
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 12:31 pm:
Or perhaps Jim, he re-evaluated his position and came to a new conclusion. Judging by the change in support for the idea over the last 10 years, he isn’t the only one to do so.
- Esquire - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 12:35 pm:
One seldom hears about Proposition 8 (now before the US Supreme Court) being given broad support by California’s black voters. It is easier to blame the Mormons. There is strong opposition to SSM in many black churches.
- Ghost - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 12:53 pm:
-Many of those who believe don’t see themselves as being able to condone sinful behaviour (despite the oter erosions of marriage that have slide through already).–
Two comments. First marriage is a civil construct, not a religious one. We use marriage and the licensing of marriage and laws around marriage to govern our social structure. After all, non-religious people can marry individuals…. judges, magistrates, ship captains etc. Historically we saw marriage used to identify property (the wife), and later dowry’s, and who had inheritance rights. It was also used later to avoid things like inbreeding etc.
Second, if you wish to say marriage started as a religious construct that is also fine (setting aside history) but in our society it is a legal construct no a religious one. People without religion can marry, people who are not religious can marry people, and so forth. So if a certain religious sect is opposed to marry just one person, or opposed to same sex marriage, then they do not have to participate. But forcing their religious viewpoint on others, that is the antithesis of the concept of America.
Would you be ok if a dominate religion sprang up and decided to use social law to define your religious practices? say it was a law you had to pray 12 times a day, and tithe 10% of your income to the head State church…. would that be ok because otherwise that group would say you are sinning if you don’t comply.
after all, if a religion says it is wrong to celebrate holidays or Christmas, drink caffeine, walk with your head uncovered, eat meat etc. shouldn’t we have laws prohibiting all of those acts so that no one since under someone else’s religion?
- Judgment Day - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 1:24 pm:
Honestly, what else is Obie supposed to do/say? Man’s not stupid, and he’s trying (best he can) to extradite himself out of this political ‘glue trap’ that is SSM and move back onto the important economic issues.
Obie’s pretty good at business, so focus on business related issues. Treat the other stuff as ‘noise’. If people want his support for their position on SSM, let them come talk to him about why he should support their position.
- Skeptic - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 1:28 pm:
Amalia: (Sarcasm on) “But the Bible says [insert one out-of-context sentence from a thousand+ page book that supports the premise.]” (Sarcasm off) You’re right, it boils down to the Golden Rule. “Do unto them as you would have them do unto you.” The sooner we start living that way, the sooner we’ll have a better planet.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 1:38 pm:
Sen. Kirk’s view of SSM is a breath of fresh air.
Kirk also announced support of Obama’s proposed study of the brain, which will be funded by federal dollars.
I am seriously rooting for moderate Republicans to make a comeback.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 1:42 pm:
Well! Senator Oberweis!
How should we in the ILGOP treat United States Senator Mark Kirk, like Pat Brady?
Nope.
===“Mark is usually pretty careful, and pretty political. I assume that he made a calculation that he believes it helps him not hurts him.”===
So …
Can’t Senator Jim Oberweis say the same about Pat Brady? That sound you hear is the ice cream melting …
The “politcal this or that” in Oberweis’ quote is also a bit self-serving and demeaning, “allowing” and “giving a pass” to Mark Kirk, but Kirk is making it a “political move”, shrugging it off as disingenuous.
Politcal move? Well, it ain’t a dance move, Jim Oberweis! What a Dopey assessment.
Further, if its a political, … sorry, “calculated” move, and Jim Oberweis can’t say “big tent” enough, why go down the road in the first place, Jim Oberweis? Your typical …tin ear … failed you again.
Oberweis backtracks more than a swimmer swimming the mile, doing the backstroke, looking for a life preserver!
Time will tell if Jim Oberweis believes what he is saying, or if the “Slytherin House Pure Blood” will be hypocritical when it comes down to having a truly “Big Tent.”
- Judgment Day - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 1:58 pm:
“Can’t Senator Jim Oberweis say the same about Pat Brady? That sound you hear is the ice cream melting …”
Unlikely to happen. Internal politics, I’m told. Nothing to do with SSM, except it was convenient to use to beat up on Pat Brady (really stupid, but convenient).
- just sayin' - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 2:02 pm:
Oberweis is very skilled at making delicious and incredibly fattening dairy products. Politics, not so much.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
- Judgment Day -,
With respect, I was being snarky, and I was making a point that Oberweis would vut off his nose to get at Pat Brady and using SSM as that instrument was great … until it backfired so badly, that Oberweis looked like the Dope he can be when Oberweis thinks he is the smartest Political Operateve in the room, (less all his loses, but, I digress…)
Pointing out a failed political “calculation”, with sanrk, knowing Oberweis’ personal aganeda, mixed in with SSM against Pat Brady runs against the Kirk statemet.
With respect…
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 2:38 pm:
People who transition are NOT changing their gender. They’re trading in the equipment that doesn’t go with their gender for a set that does.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 3:50 pm:
==Others fear political repercussions, saying ministers opposed to same-sex marriage have warned legislators who vote for it to never come back to their churches==
This, I think, is one of the big factors holding back votes from the SSM bill. It’s also being used by Catholic priests across the state.
Personally, I find this kind of coercion incredibly offensive. Have the priests and ministers used this to push abolition of the death penalty? How about any other issue where the churches have taken a stand? I know a few have tossed it around on the abortion issue, but the direct assault on legislators considering the SSM bill would seem to be unprecedented in recent memory.
While it may work in the short term, such an oppressive technique is likely to have a serious backlash in the long term.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 4:04 pm:
- One seldom hears of AA or Muslim opposition to same sex marriage. -
This whole post is about African American opposition, and there have been many others.
How do you type if you apparently can’t read?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 4:43 pm:
=Come on Jim - Mark Kirk acted against the party platform too! Guess it’s more convenient to go after a volunteer GOP leader than an elected GOP leader.=
=How should we in the ILGOP treat United States Senator Mark Kirk, like Pat Brady?=
Man, Oh, man. It’s like trying to communicate with brick walls–or people who obviously don’t get (or more likely, want to deny) just how diverse Republicans really are.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 4:48 pm:
=That was a good catch on the Oberweis quote-shows he fears Kirk a lot more than brady and is more a bully than a believer.=
Seriously, shore? The “fear” thing again? Do you do Tarzan yells while pounding your chest, too?
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 5:12 pm:
Anon, I feel like I’ve asked you this before, but what is your point? You defend Obwerweis for going after Brady on SSM, and you defend him for defending Kirk on SSM.
Can you explain to us brick walls why Oberweis should go after Brady but defend Kirk?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 5:16 pm:
Because, STL, Republicans are generally more grounded in principles of the business world. Therefore, they expect official Leaders to support, and especially when in doubt, to refer back to their “operating procedures” if you will (in other words, their platform) regardless of what their personal beliefs are. If you don’t like that, then there are either proscribed or informal procedures for changing the rules.
Candidates, on the other hand, have more flexibility.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 5:19 pm:
–I know a few have tossed it around on the abortion issue, but the direct assault on legislators considering the SSM bill would seem to be unprecedented in recent memory.–
Some denied communion to John Kerry, Patrick Kennedy and Joe Biden because of abortion.
No U.S. Cardinal dared deny Ted Kennedy; they knew where their bread was buttered, and how much water he had carried for them for decades for the Catholic hospitals and universities.
There was a beef in the U.S. Catholic press when Pelosi and Biden received communion at Pope Francis’ mass. Pope Francis didn’t seem to care.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 5:27 pm:
Well Anon, at least you explained your position. I don’t really agree with that line of thinking, but I’m all for GOP infighting so let it rip.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 5:31 pm:
The reason we’re more prone to “in-fighting” is BECAUSE of our diversity and it’s also why Republicans DEMAND strong leadership. Very sorry, to those who would like to continue to perceive themselves as the latest “innovative” saviors of “Their” Party who are going to help us realize we need to BECOME a big test.
We already ARE and have been for decades.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 5:32 pm:
Sorry…that was obviously “big TENT.”
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 5:35 pm:
And if those self-proclaimed “saviors” would just consider that possibility, rather than ranting on and on, they’d realize that their efforts are merely contributing toward changing the party into one that marches “lockstep” with ONE individual’s beliefs. As IF that’s what this Nation was built upon or has made it thrive the way it has.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 6:12 pm:
- Anonymous -
Do you agree that Pat Brady should to removed on his SSM beliefs?
Pretty. Straight. Forward.
===Anon, I feel like I’ve asked you this before, but what is your point? You defend Obwerweis for going after Brady on SSM, and you defend him for defending Kirk on SSM. ===
What a great question STL … will we get an answer .. doubt it. lol
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 6:17 pm:
B-r-i-c-k.walls.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 6:25 pm:
Or, a Dem Operative.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 6:32 pm:
- Anonymous -,
Never. answers. questions.
- wordslinger - is right.
Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.
lol
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 6:43 pm:
@Willy:
Hypocrisy is uniquely human. Celebrate it.
Neither computer nor animal nor any “intelligence” I am aware of except mankind can hold firmly and passionately to contradictory views.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 6:50 pm:
- YDD -
So wise … Like a Internet “Buddah” lol. Well said.
You owe me some Cannoli on the Davis race. How about Funnel Cake at State Fair and we will call it “even”?
- Skeeter - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 7:07 pm:
“The reason we’re more prone to “in-fighting” is BECAUSE of our diversity and it’s also why Republicans DEMAND strong leadership.”
Our nameless friend is right.
The ILGOP comes in many shades of white Christian male. They include one or two white Christian females.
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 8:12 pm:
Whoa, with a Potential 20 “No” vote coming from this Caucus, open to meeting with an obviously strictly, and overtly, opposed Francis Cardinal George, such a Meeting would almost definitely result in this huge Reps.’ Voting Block hunkering down against it and very well WILL become the Death Knell to any hope the Proposal ever had of passing…has anyone noticed that the “News” out of Springfield on this Issue just keeps getting worse for the Proponents (barring U.S. Sen. Kirk’s newfound support, which may have little or virtually no effect in the IlliNOIS Legislature)…!
- Jim Oberweis - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:17 pm:
I have tried to make this clear to every reporter I have spoken to: I believe it is OK for any Republican, including elected officials, to have some differences with the party platform. However, if you are the “CEO” of the state party, it is not OK to lobby against the state party platform. If the State Party Chairman feels so strongly in opposition to the party platform, then he/she should resign from the position as chairman since it will be very difficult for him/her to then lead a unified party. I’m not happy that Mark Kirk or Jason Barickman took a position that differs from our party but that does not mean that they are not good Republicans.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:39 pm:
Jim, what you apparently don’t get is that when it comes to discrimination, no one cares what your “official” party platform is. Sleep in the bed you make, I’m sure at least your dairy products will be remembered favorably.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 11:01 pm:
===I’m not happy that Mark Kirk or Jason Barickman took a position that differs from our party but that does not mean that they are not good Republicans.===
Senator Jin Oberweis,
Is Pat Brady a Good Republican, just not a good “CEO” … since you do not agree with Mr. Kirk or Mr. Barikman, and they are good Republicans, very specfically?
Further, if the platform must be followed 100% by the Party Chairman, no matter what, and the Chairman is also the “Face” of the Party, how can the Chairman, and YOU Sen. Jim Oberweis be welcoming to anyone, if you MUST follow it so rigidly?
Also, Sen. Oberweis, sent you chose to post, how do you feel about the Reagan Rule of 80% and how that factors into being a Good State Chairman?