Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Here come the cuts…
Next Post: Vendetta
Posted in:
* Subscribers know that I did a long analysis today of Sen. Bill Brady’s legislative voting record. One of the things I forgot to mention was that Brady voted against the Smoke Free Illinois Act, which banned smoking in public places.
Brady also unveiled some proposed constitutional amendments yesterday…
The GOP gubernatorial front-runner Wednesday proposed changing the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, make it more difficult to pass state tax increases, impose term limits on lawmakers and overhaul the process of redrawing legislative boundaries.
“I’m trying to give the government back to the people,” said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), when asked what the package says about him as a candidate for governor.
The same-sex marriage prohibition would prohibit gay marriages and civil unions.
He’s proposed many of these same ideas before. The gay marriage ban is one thing, but I’m not sure how the ban on civil unions will go over too well in a general election with Democratic-leaning independents. Without those votes, he can’t win this state. The smoking ban is just another item on that list.
* Related…
* State voters will be looking for leadership
* Bernard Schoenburg: Money only 1 part of a winning mix, says Plummer: “There’s been a whole lot of things that I’ve done in my life that aren’t on the biography,” Plummer responded. “I think that my biography is probably understated, to be honest with you.”
* NRCC Looking at Illinois’ 10th Congressional
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Here come the cuts…
Next Post: Vendetta
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Brady’s agenda sounds like he is trying to get the support of the Tea Party types. Voters know little about him, so this is his first impression on a majority of Illinois voters. It doesn’t look like he is moving to the middle!
Comment by Tom Joad Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:36 am
The R’s never learn. Illinois will not elect a conservative - unless someone has “pictures” on Quinn- he will win in a landslide/ Dillard would have at least afforded the R’s the chance to recapture the Governor’s office
Comment by Steve Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:36 am
Would love to see that long analysis but my subscription request hasn’t been answered. I know, Im impatient, but this election drama has been better than anything Hollywood has come up with in years.
Comment by Downstate weed chewing hick Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:38 am
Is he going to start conservative and then move to the middle? I don’t know, but the first item on the agenda being a social issue has already got me going. Brady has a lot of good ideas… but banning same-sex marriage as a top priority is not one of them.
Comment by Heartless Libertarian Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:39 am
Precisely. Assuming he will soon be the nominee, this is a clear indicator of how the campaign will look. A great deal of attention paid to social issues to the detriment of economic and state fiscal management issues which are potential Democratic weak points.
Another example of how Pat Quinn has, well, the luck of the Irish.
Comment by cassandra Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:51 am
Oh noes, teh GAY! Run away! Run away!
Craven bigotry from the GOP?! Shocked, I am. Simply shocked. Iowa, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, and the entire country of Canada are doing just fine with legalized gay marriage. The sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, and anyone’s marriage stands or falls on its own merit — not because of who is sleeping with whom next door, across the street, or across town. And since the same arguments were used 50 years ago against overturning bans on inter-racial marriages, perhaps Brady should be asked for his view of those unions, too.
Gratuitous crap like this makes it easier to vote for Quinn come November.
Comment by Northsider Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:52 am
Tea Party like it’s 1899.
keep it up, Brady.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:55 am
He’s a gift to Quinn.
In his commercials, Quinn can say “I might not be very well organized, but imagine would would happen if this guy gets elected,” and then play a video of Brady making one of his far to the right proposals. I suppose the ad could end with “What is he thinking,” but that is so 2006.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:56 am
It’s one thing to be “painted” as “too extreme”, but its another to “paint yourself too extreme”. Brad doen not need to pander by any stretch, but Rich hit on that he is losing more votes in a general election with this today than gaining …it’s February for cripes sake and now Quinn and Co. have all summer to hammer this “policy” …
Fiscal issues are going to win this race. If someone is out of a job, the could care less WHO gets married/civil unionized! The one thing they will care about “So, I am looking for a job, I get on the interne to look and on the news side of the page, the Guv. candidate is worried about civil unions? …”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:56 am
Would Brady’s amendment prohibit counties, school districts and municipal government from deciding they wish to give domestic partner benefits?
Does he think it’s a good use of taxpayer money to litigate whether his amendment is even in compliance with the U.S. Constitution?
Here’s a novel idea. Maybe Brady should address the big issues, like the budget, in his campaign and leave the pandering to his base until after he’s addressed the important stuff.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:59 am
Against the “Smoking Bam” strike 1, Against Civil Unions, strike 2 and strike 3. I can understand the marriage issue, on the basis of religious beliefs, but to punish someone because of sexual orientation is completely bogus. That alone would cause me not to vote for Brady. “I’m happy but not gay and I won’t vote for Brady on election day”!
Why in the world would he lead out with a position such as this right out of the gate?
Good grief, we need jobs, need to balance the budget, need better schools, and need an infrastructure rebuilding program….and one of his first priorities is to hammer gays…? Rather odd…?
Comment by Justice Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:06 am
Sorry but in October/November..
If unemployment is at or near 10% (or even about about 8.5%) and the state’s financial apocalypse is still on-going (a very likely situation). The middle that needs to be attracted for Brady to win is going to care less about proposed constitutional amendments, civil unions or anything else.
Here is what his (and the entire GOP) theme should be.
Are you better off than you were 8 years ago, 4 years ago? Is this state?
That’s all it is going to take. When schools have had to cut significantly, when social service agencies have shut down, when people find out how much of their taxes are going to pay debt this state got into in the last 8 years (or even the last 2) they are not going to be concerned about social issues.
Also don’t forget we are going to have a summer of the Rod show where as part of his defense I suspect he is going to try to make Madigan and the leg the bad buy (I had to try an cut a deal with Madigan to make anything happen, I wanted to do good, he wouldn’t let me). It’s going to make the George show look like the Jr. High version of the Wizard of Oz I was in…
But if you want to tell yourselves that Bill Brady’s views on civil unions are going to be his downfall , go ahead, in fact campaign on those issues….
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:08 am
“I’m trying to give the government back to the people,” said Sen. Bill Brady”
Then get your government out of my bedroom!
Comment by ilvalleygal Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:08 am
I’m pro marriage but anti sexing by sames. Why can’t we just legislate that gay people can marry but not have sex after marriage? It works for lots of straight couples .
Comment by Sacks Romana Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:08 am
Hmmm! When gay marriage was made an issue in California on a ballot, it turned out a lot of minorities, including African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asians voted against it.
That factor needs to be taken into consideration.
The reform issues on gerrymandered districts and term limits also resonate strongly with voters. In my area, thanks to gerrymandering, Lake Forest is represented by a bunch of Democrats. Yet Lake Forest votes solidly Republican. Even native resident Susan Garrett struggles in Lake Forest during elections. Look at the lines drawn and you will see how that became possible.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:09 am
Just curious: Is it possible to subscribe without submitting a fax number, and just receiving it via email? Many of us in the private sector don’t have personal fax machines anymore.
Comment by Prospective Subscriber Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:10 am
Also if civil unions is such a winner politically why isn’t it the law of the land in Illinois?
Again, you don’t need a single republican vote to make it happen…
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:12 am
Leading off with a civil unions ban? Is that from the Karl Rove 2004 playbook — rather than move to the middle, seek to squeeze every vote from your base? It just worked — barely — nationally then, but in Illinois today?
And after such a long stretch in the GA, proposing term limits is kind of self-parody, isn’t it? Like giving tuition waivers when you oppose them?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:14 am
OneMan,
The goal of Brady is to grow the number of voters he can secure in his column that are independents (as you know, just setting this up), but coming out of the box, 1st thing, and laying out a Constitutional Amendment (not even a law, or bill to become a law after being open to debate, and giving room) how is that NOT going to gin up people who may not be interested? When you are looking for a job, and in the debates, 1 month out or less, Brady defends this CA and says things like “its the foundation of the family we are fighting for here”, sweet jeez, he is going to be fighting back a world of hurt “I can’t find a job and he is telling me about this stuff?”
Abortion, Civil Unions, Immigration, and at the Fed level, Social Security … when you open those cans …wow, be ready.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:17 am
The economy will make it close, but a hard-core conservative like Brady will not win in Illinois with these types of stances.
Civil unions aren’t the law of the land because Democrats are chickens. This “bi-partisan” nonsense is killing them here and nationwide. If the Democratic Party actually fixed something while they have all this power, I’d be surprised AND they’d have the permanent majority that the Republicans sought in the 00s. The only ones with any cajones are just looking for more $ for their PACs and campaign war chests.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:20 am
Right now Brady is in fundraising mode, not his strongest suit.
He has to decide where he’s going to get his money.
He can court the unions, but that will prevent him from making of any of the reforms necessary to regain fiscal sanity in state budgeting and attract jobs to Illinois.
Trial Lawyers Association? They’ve already bought a Governor and legislature, the ones in power, and they don’t need anyone who creates a risk to those massive contingenecy fees and sweetheart real estate reductions for their clients.
AMA? Maybe. But he’d have to make tort and insurance reform and speeding medicaid payments a priority for that to happen.
He has supported public construction boondoggles like the $31 million “capital bill” and the ridiculous “high speed rail” project, so he may get some of the “Cellini” and contractor money.
The most reliable funding source for him would be the Christian right, and putting the gay marriage and abortion issues to the forefront early should get the checks flowing.
It’ll be interesting to see which special interest he’ll pander to to get the rest of his funding. If Quinn really crashes and burns in the polls after he proposes his budget, the “usual supects” might start changing the names on their campaign contribution checks.
Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:20 am
The ban on Gay Marriage is a bad move for Brady. This not only hurts him with Democratic leaning independents, it discredits him with independent Republicans.
Comment by Ahoy Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:21 am
Yes he is. He really is as bad a candidate as I thought he would be.
Then there is Plummer to boot.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:25 am
VanillaMan,
You know my take on “Jay-Jay”, and that quote by “Jay-Jay” to Bernie in the SJ-R:
===”There’s been a whole lot of things that I’ve done in my life that aren’t on the biography,” Plummer responded. “I think that my biography is probably understated, to be honest with you.”===
I am at a loss … just wow
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:28 am
Dear Bill,
I just wanted to send you this post-it note thanking you for being the bright spot in my day, make that week, no, month, actually, year. Well, you get the picture.
Love,
Pat
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:28 am
Brady’s record includes:
93rd GA
“YES” on SB1239 +$240 million more om Blagojevich pork during state fiscal crisis
“YES” on HB4266 +$396 million more to bloated school bureaucracy during state fiscal crisis
“YES” on SB60 taxpayer paid tuition to illegal aliens
“NO” to Cook County Assessor’s successful ‘7% Assessment Solution’
94th GA
“YES” on HB3471 giving additional employment protection to ‘Day & Temp Labor Service,’ when of the 400,000 illegals in Illinois are of this very service, and the bill provides NO SCREENING
“YES” on ‘Consular ID Cards’
“NO” on SB1682 property tax referendum reform
Comment by X None of the Above Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:29 am
Here’s what’s odd in my book: Bill Brady will not have a base problem. So why go so hard to the base?
I’m going to suggest that he’s laying down his base markers for the 80% of GOP voters and others who did not vote for him or who don’t even know him –getting his dog whistle politics out of the way early.
We know he holds these positions. He knows Dems will communicate his positions to the voters who will find them abhorrent. So secure the base and move on, right?
Could even be baiting Dems, but that might be a stretch.
It defies logic that he’ll run a base campaign until November. He and his running mate may be true believers, but I have to think they’ll move to a more mainstream issue set as the campaign moves on.
Comment by JonShibleyFan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:31 am
Brady voted “no” on extending property tax assessment caps?
LOL. He better be good at explaining complex tax policy b/c that’s an easy vote to demagogue.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:35 am
Reorded history against the 21st century lefties.
Guess who the public will relate to.
For once, the Republicans aren’t saddled with the Combine soaked sell-out candidate for the number one job.
All the outrage, just like with Palin, is because the lefties are afraid of the public having a say.
Comment by True Observer Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:41 am
Senator Brady proposed some great ideas that will help him get votes from moderates. Many voters, all of parties, support low tax rates, term limits, and reforming the redistricting process.
Comment by Conservative Veteran Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:59 am
If this is how Brady wants to lead on his campaign he is making a poor decision. While I understand why some people don’t want marriage to be associated with same sex couples I don’t understand why someone would ignore public sentiment and agree to civil unions that would guarantee the same rights for everything except the name. That is a compromise that would make more people comfortable with someone with Brady’s personal views. If Brady sticks with this PQ will win. If he sticks with a campaign which addresses the issues most are concerned about - fiscal responsibility - that would allay the concerns people have over his more strident social views. Big mistake, Brady! Change the tune or prepare your consession speach. You will lose.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:04 am
CV - then why lead with the social agenda? Don’t wave the finger in the face of the people you desperately need to win - independents and fiscal conservative democrats. It is a stupid move - STUPID. You can’t do that in Illinois and win. I want the GOP to WIN, not be “right”. It is meaningless if you can’t gain office. STUPID.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:07 am
TO - the public in Illinois is not against civil unions. Besides - it is not what people want to talk about now. They want assurances that the Gov will address the horrific fiscal situation we are in. Lead with that, minimize the social stuff. His opening gambit is STUPID.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:09 am
“CV - then why lead with the social agenda?”
The silent, seething, majority will finally have something to vote for instead of against.
They’ll be coming out in droves.
Comment by True Observer Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:13 am
*The silent, seething, majority will finally have something to vote for instead of against.
They’ll be coming out in droves.*
Really? There is a silent, seething majority against civil unions in Illinois? That is news to me.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:16 am
TO -
Wow, with Unemployment over 10%, a state broke both moentarily and governmentally, with businesses folding because the state is 90 past due on payments to those said businesses, and you think leading with social issues out of the box will drive that “silent, seething, majority” and they “will finally have something to vote for instead of against.” Wow.
This is why TO’s, or True Believers, on both sides of the aisle, love to say “we won the battle this time, but sadly, we lost the war.”
Polling is showing people are voting with their pocketbooks and resumes’. If you can’t eat, you get foreclosed on, can’t get to college because of $$$, etc., you really truly think this CA is going to put him over the top?
Wow.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:21 am
He has to spin this gay marriage/civil union issue on economic and budget terms.
Our virtually bankrupt state has pensions and employee benefits as a major obstacle to solvency.
He should point out how much this will increase the deficit, both short and long term, and say he wants to avoid increasing the benefit base until we’re out of this fiscal “man-made disaster” in Illinois.
That’s fiscally responsible, and makes the moral issue moot.
Of course, given the Dems fiscal “brinksmanship” policy, there will NEVER be a time in the forseeable future where funds will be available for expanding this entitlement.
He should present his position as a prudent, emotional choice.
“Do we pay the low wage bills for home care for the ill and elderly, or do we provide extended pension survivor and health insurance benefits to gay couples? I say we take care of the under-paid, selfless caregivers and elderly first.”
Do we pay for our education system to teach our children the math and science that is necessary for them to compete for jobs in the 21st century, or do we use the resources to teach the advantages of “same sex” marriage as was forced on Massachussetts schools after they legitimized gay unions? I say educating the children for success is more important.
You get the point, take the moral controversey off the message, and make it “about the economy, stupid!” and achieve the same goal.
Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:24 am
Brady is a weak candidate in many ways. He’s one of the few Republicans Quinn can beat handily in this environment right now.
The Dems will have a field day producing ads blasting some of Brady’s stands - stands that I don’t think Brady has the intellectual heft or even core beliefs to really defend. Brady has said a lot of things over the years as he pandered for votes. Whether even he himself really believes some of the stuff is another question.
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:33 am
Those of you who think the 39% moderate voting block will break for Quinn four to one to offset the 36% conservative block in this current very anti-Democratic climate are crazy. There is no way people are gonna send back the same people that have given them so much misery these past eight years.
Comment by Segatari Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:33 am
*“Do we pay the low wage bills for home care for the ill and elderly, or do we provide extended pension survivor and health insurance benefits to gay couples? I say we take care of the under-paid, selfless caregivers and elderly first.”*
And what would Brady’s response be to the statement “So you are saying you will support civil unions once our fiscal house is in order?”
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:33 am
I agree with some obviously sympathetic posters who believe Brady/Clarke are getting the ugly stuff out of the way early. Does anyone here think those commercials won’t get played on the northshore against Brady anyway? He can talk about economy all he wants (and, I assume, he will) but Dems will always want to bring it back to “extreme” issues. Get it out there under the lights now and let the blogs, newspaper comment sections, gas station attendants and the interest groups air it out. In the meantime, build the field, get small-dollar contributors going, let the Dems hike taxes and fees or borrow billions this spring and see where the I’s start to move. Hire someone good in the city to milk what you can out of Cook and ‘burbs. Work for big margins downstate and not to get crushed in the North. It’s a long time ’til November and Obama ain’t on the ticket.
Comment by Ugliness Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:34 am
Score one for TO for referring to Illinois’ “Silent Majority.”
Nixon Lives!
Comment by JonShibleyFan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:50 am
When will Republicans stop with the gay bashing?
You know, many of us who are gay agree with thier positions on other issues (I, personally am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, think that the death penalty should be not only reinstated, but the crimes for which it is an option should be expanded, I’m a fiscal conservative and tend to be more pro-business than pro-labor), but we continue voting for Democrats because we know, while they may not do much for us, they will at least not enshrine discrimination against us in the constitution.
I can’t stand Quinn….but he has both my and my partner’s vote.
Comment by Mountain Man Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:01 pm
Brady’s going to feel the donation love from a lot of like minded folks across the country. Illinoisans will be the ultimate deciders in Nov., but right now it’s all about the early fundraising, people!
Illinois took a political hit (couched in humor) in the NYT today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/opinion/11collins.html?ref=opinion
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:05 pm
Brady is taking a stand that would have been popular in 1910. Not so much in 2010.
He needs support from the center, if he wants to get elected in November. Pushing regressive stands that please the Republican right wing and alienate the center isn’t the way to do it. Perhaps he’ll bring up that creationism should be taught in public schools and seal the deal.
Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:09 pm
The last serious push for the one man/one woman constitutional marriage amendment thing in Illinois was in 2005/06. Brady didn’t do much on it then and has been MIA on the issue since.
Clearly he’s thinking that having the question on the ballot this year would help his campaign. It would bring people out, a majority of whom (yes even in Illinois) would likely support such a referendum if it was actually on the ballot. But of course it’s way too late to hope it could get on the ballot by this November.
I’ve always thought Bill Brady was a big phony. This is more evidence.
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:12 pm
Clearly Brady must have been reading from his wrong hand. While it may give his base a nice warm feeling, such rhetoric will rouse more gay and gay-friendly activists to Quinn’s campaign who wouldn’t otherwise have any reason to be active. Such liberal/move on participation can be a big boon for Quinn grassroots.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:21 pm
Am pretty hardcore on 2nd amendment, but Brady is too far right to support, and these latest antics prove it. Would have voted for Hynes, but not Quinn. Guess I’ll throw my vote away-there is a third choice. Maybe enough others will do the same….
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:24 pm
Oswego,
I usually disagree with you but I agree with your statement:
“Fiscal issues are going to win this race. If someone is out of a job, the could care less WHO gets married/civil unionized! The one thing they will care about “So, I am looking for a job, I get on the interne to look and on the news side of the page, the Guv. candidate is worried about civil unions? …”
I am one of those social conservatives but if you don’t have a job, the rest is water under the bridge. Talk bread and butter issues because if you don’t get elected, you can’t help us.
He needs to commit more to finding jobs for people here. Until that happens, I am afraid the middle will go for Quinn (sreams). C’mon Bill. You know these issues are important. I don’t want 4 more years of the insqane quinn.
Comment by Cutiemomma46 Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:31 pm
If Brady is serious about term limits of ten years, he is just about out of time as a state senator. Bill was appointed in 2002 to take John Maitland’s place and then won election in 2006.
Does that mean he won’t be my state senator after 2012?
Shouldn’t he set an example and not run for re-election if he believes so strongly about term limits?
Comment by Nearly Normal Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:32 pm
Brady didn’t put banning gay marriage at the top of his agenda. The media did. It was one of several items on a list, several of which were substantially more important like term limits and redrawing legislative maps, but items that won’t sell print and online subscriptions. He has to take the hit for having it on there at all, but the level to which he is “pushing” this stuff is blown way out of proportion by left-leaning individuals here and else-where.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:33 pm
Quinn is not pro-gay or gay friendly. Moving forward he’ll probably pretend to be just for the sake of getting votes from gays, though .
He had to bite his tounge to get words “I support civil unions” out. Come on, don’t tell me you guys didn’t notice that.
Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:35 pm
I’m with D.P. Gumby. I voted for Hynes in the primary and am exceedingly lukewarm about Quinn. But if the opposition is hardcore anti-gay, I’m going to have to get excited and open my wallet for Quinn.
Comment by ChicagoRick Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:35 pm
Can’t wait to see if Brady picks up the Blagojevich endorsement. Maybe that will bring some democrats on board.
Comment by Moving to Oklahoma Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:38 pm
I get that maybe this isn’t on the top of Brady’s agenda but one has to wonder why it is on his agenda list at all. If the question is asked, say that social issues are not the focus, the economy is, and move on. Creates a target where none should be. I remeber when Poshard didn’t address the issue early on and it became huge in the press. He never connected with the urban northeast and failed in his bid. Myabe you can’t compare 1 to 1 here but it is worrisome.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:52 pm
I guess I always look at it pretty simplistically, but here it is. If Quinn gets the Ds and Brady gets the Rs and they split the independents 50-50, Quinn wins, because there are more base Ds than base Rs. So his battle is to either win a sufficient majority of the independents, or cut into Quinn’s D base without losing any of his own base.
I sure would focus on the budget, economic issues, and jobs in that fight, not social issues. But, we have a long way to go. Brady’s job will be to be conservative without being scary. I personally think he can do it, but we’ll see.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:57 pm
@ Louis Atsaves,
It is important to remember that in the California referendum, the issue was an amendment that banned gay marriage. Here the issue is a candidate who supports a ban on gay marriage. Very different. Would Chicago African Americans vote for a white downstate conservative (who supports the ban) they don’t know or PQ (who will likely obfuscate the issue), a known quantity? I don’t pretend to know the answer but you can’t compare what happened in CA to what is going on here.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:59 pm
Montrose:
I’m not Brady (or in ANY way associated with his campaign, I didn’t even vote for him) but I’d respond to that question by saying that as long as no one in Illinois is coerced into legitimizing or subsidizing that lifestyle choice, or promoting it in schools or the public sector, economics is the primary issue and any civil union legislation must be addressed as such.
It should be considered in concert with issues such as including siblings, parents, grown children and other closely related people as part of a “union” for receiving government employee entitlements.
It should be noted that many private companies already provide “civil union” eligibility, so for them this is a moot point.
Why should benefit priviledge and entitlement be given to two men having relations and cohabiting, and not two brothers or a parent who lives with a 30 year old offspring?
If the test here is a “loving and committed relationship” there is no reason the same priviledge should not be extended to non-sexual relationshsips.
I’d be primarily concerned about extending health insurance and death benefits to people in a “civil union of convenience” to have the state pick up the tab for expensive HIV treatment while leaving the patients’ wealth intact.
I know this can be ruinously expensive through a state health insurance program rather than Medicaid after financial need for treatment is appropriate.
As a person who values freedom and liberty, I strongly believe that it is not the goverment’s business to interfere with what happens between two consulting, competent adults.
I also believe that the government has no business taking food off my family’s table to subsidize priviledge to such relationshsips.
Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:00 pm
steve schnorf,
I hope you are right. PQ as gov would be an unmitigated disaster.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:00 pm
A gay marriage ban has passed in other democrat states in the last 4 years such as California, Maine, Washington and Wisconsin so I do not think it is a loser for Brady but on the hand I dont think its an issue that will drive people to vote for him as they are already with him. His other 3 are excellent ideas.
Comment by Lewis Grad Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:07 pm
“I also believe that the government has no business taking food off my family’s table to subsidize priviledge to such relationshsips.”
If that’s true, I want a refund of all my tax dollars that went to subsidizing heterosexual relationships. Gay people pay taxes too.
Comment by ChicagoRick Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:08 pm
I usually vote Dem but in November If Dillard was the candidate, he’d get my vote, Brady - never, no matter what he campaigns on.
Comment by JT Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:24 pm
*“I also believe that the government has no business taking food off my family’s table to subsidize priviledge to such relationshsips.”
If that’s true, I want a refund of all my tax dollars that went to subsidizing heterosexual relationships. Gay people pay taxes too.*
I think ChicagoRick sums it up nicely. As fancy of an economic argument you make, at the end you just using lots of smoke and mirrors to justify discrimination.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:36 pm
===I’d be primarily concerned about extending health insurance and death benefits to people in a “civil union of convenience” to have the state pick up the tab for expensive HIV treatment while leaving the patients’ wealth intact.===
Truly one of the most presumptuous and offensive things that I have ever read here.
Comment by Obamarama Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:38 pm
Steve, I agree with you. Republicans don’t have a statewide mandate of any kind. if republicans are thinking that recent GOP wins in NJ, Mass, and Virginia are for them they are wrong. the truth of the matter is that independents and moderate dems do not agree with or like republicans all that much, otherwise we would republicans. we vote republican when we are not happy with the democrats, either in whole or in part. I would suggest that the Brady camp keep this in mind going foward.
next…
gay people need to understand that there are a lot of dems who are not supportive of gay issues. i think the dem party by default gets more credit than it actually deserves on social equality issues. in fact there’s a lot of racism, sexism, homophobia etc. in the democratic party.
as a moderate dem, I am not all interested in gay issues. I don’t support gay marriage nor do i support repealing don’t ask, don’t tell. Like quinn I support civil unions. i support hate crime legislation.
Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:39 pm
===As fancy of an economic argument you make, at the end you just using lots of smoke and mirrors to justify discrimination. ===
Exactly. And there’s hardly any smoke there. It’s all pretty darned transparent. Go back to the drawing board, dude.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:45 pm
I don’t know … my take is that Brady, earning only 20& of the primary vote (and only getting 20,000 more people to vote for him than he did 4 years ago) might make him feel that he has to make sure he gets the conservative vote before he worries about the moderate or cross-over vote. That could spell big problems. How long does he have to keep tossing Republican red-meat to try to lock up those votes? Does it take too long and draw too much attention and provide too much ammo for Quinn?
Or does he really think that he is the next Brown. The next Republican Miracle? Does he really buy into the Illinois GOP mantra “Illinois Is Next”? If so, it could be a lot of fun to watch between now and November.
If he’s the Bill Brady those of us in Normal know, he’ll likely say whatever he thinks people want to hear. He’s always big on talk, not always big on doing anything. It’s easy to do that when you’re safe in your seat without a challenger for years.
Comment by Normal Redefined Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:48 pm
PPB, I just don’t think trying to make gay marriage/civil unions an economic issue works. It sure doesn’t move me.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:56 pm
20% of the vote for a winner in a primary is rather ridiculous. An important office like governor should have a run-off such as is done in other states!
Comment by storman norman Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 2:09 pm
Maybe Brady is trying to get Quinn into an open argument on social issues. Quinn is as far left as Obama and look at whats happening to the independents as they start to understand where he really stands on taxes and crime and who he appoints to different agencies. Quinn is way more left from the average voter in Illinois then Brady is on the right.
All you need to do is to get Quinn to start talking about his ideology and he will dig himself a hole. He has done it before.
Comment by Votecounter Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 2:19 pm
Votecounter … so Quinn is as “far left” as Obama. The same Obama that carried Illinois?
And Quinn is way more left from the average voter than Brady is right? Really? Based on?
Here’s the difference … Quinn is smart enough to not be an idealogue. The jury is still out on Brady’s intelligence and self control on such matters. Many of us still remember a radio interview he did in the 06 cycle and his not-so-intelligent discussion of Intelligent Design, for example.
Comment by Normal Redefined Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 2:34 pm
I knew Brady was going to be a gift to Democrats, but I never dreamed the Christmas season would start so early.
Earlier polling by Equality Illinois showed that two-thirds of Illinois voters oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I’m told the stack of extremist remarks he’s made on the floor of the Senate rivals Terry Parke and Cal Skinner.
Can. Not. Wait.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 2:36 pm
Mr. Brady is running for governor of another state, not Illinois.
The political presentations he has made during his political career, won’t open doors in Chicagoland. He might as well show up wearing a white shirt and black polyester pants and telling folks who actually answer their doors about some weird religious cult. His agenda might as well be written in Pig Latin.
Brady allows himself to be stereotyped into a candidate attractive to small communities isolated in the desert southwest. You know the kind. Off the main highway. No cable. No phone service. Tumbleweeds rolling by an old horse trough. Dead horse. One Dairy Queen open during the summer months.
Now, if Illinois had, say, about two million of these kinds of towns, then perhaps he’d have a chance. But we don’t. Except for Papineau. Yeah - Brady will win big in Papineau.
Worse, throwing the gay marriage issue into the mix is just plain tone deaf. So, maybe I was a bit hasty saying he’d win Papineau.
Last week I posted that I didn’t think Brady would win because I thought he was a loser. I needed to have been a little clearer - he is not a loser among the Republican voters last week.
He is just a loser in the real world.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:04 pm
You guys DO NOT GET IT. Quinn is gonna need at LEAST 80% of the moderate voting block to win this election. The 36% conservative voting block is gonna go to Brady, they are not gonna stay home this time. And Quinn starts with a disadvantage where his voting block of liberals is only 26%. And every vote that peals off and goes to Rich Whitney of the Green party is gonna require Quinn to get two more votes from the moderate block to make up for those on the liberal end that break away.
And the 26/39/36 ideological split comes from this very blog site.
Comment by Segatari Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:58 pm
I may be wrong but I don’t think so. I believe that voters could care less about what Bill Brady or Pat Quinn think about people’s sexual preferences this year. The same holds true about smoking or any of these other distractions. The Illinois voters (Republican, Democrat, and especially Independents) are focused on the fiscal health of Illinois and the current state of the Illinois economy.
Don’t count on the union leadership being able to lead and control their normal flock of lemmings. The union “rank & file” have had a belly-full of being told by their union leaders “who or what” to vote for. Look where it has gotten them. These union “rank & file” members are literally “withering away on the vine” along with their wives & kids while watching the jobs go next door to Indiana. The Democrats and Pat Quinn have had ample opportunity to do exactly what the Governor of Indiana has been doing. Yet, the elected officials and Democrat incumbents down in Springfield have chosen instead to “look out for their own careers” first and Illinois voters “last” at the expense of the rest of us living in Illinois.
Let me summarize by saying: Bill Brady is “not stupid” (although sometimes a little “different”). He was last seen driving a pick-up truck off of a used car lot down by Bloomington. Does that tell you anything? Is he sometimes a little odd? Yes! But, you don’t think Pat Quinn also doesn’t “march to a different drummer”?
It is the economy, Stupid! Brady knows that fact and he plans on being the Governor of Indiana’s “worst nightmare”. If you are “out of work” or are in fear of losing your house to the bank, who do you think that the union “rank & file” are inclined to listen to? Yeah, a successful businessman named “BILL BRADY”. Union members and their (and my) family can’t afford “not to”.
Comment by Potted Plant Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:13 pm
PalosParkBob:
The problem with your whole argument that we must constitutionally ban gay marriage and civil unions for economic reasons is those things are ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Illinois doesn’t save one penny constitutionally banning gay marriage or civil unions.
Try again.
Comment by Hisgirlfriday Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:28 pm
NR
Based on almost any poll you want to show. Illinois outside of chicago is on the conservative side. Obama was the most liberal Senator in the state but the media didn’t do the work of the GOP. Obama ran against Keyes for Senate his record was never vetted keyes was treated (rightly so) as a joke. Obama would have had some explaining to do on some of his far left stands like
In April 2002, he voted against a bill to protect babies born alive after a failed abortion procedure.
In 1997, Obama twice voted “present” on an Illinois partial-birth abortion ban. he absented himself from a third vote on the measure. In 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to notify parents when their minor children seek an abortion. he also voted against a cloning ban in 2000, although he voted for it in 2001.
In 1999, Obama voted against requiring school boards to put Internet pornography filters on school computers meant for students’ use. In 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 10 ,0 000 feet of schools and churches. In 2003, he voted in the Health and Human Services Committee for a bill requiring “age appropriate” sex-education for students in kindergarten through fifth grade.
In 2001, he twice voted “no” on a bill to let school districts require unruly students to complete suspensions before they can be shuffled into a new school district. he voted “present” on an almost unanimously passed bill requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds.
In 2001, he voted against a bill that added extra penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of gang activities. he also voted against a bill making it a criminal offense for accused gang members, free on bond or on probation, to associate with known gang members. In 1999, he was the only state senator to vote against a bill prohibiting early prison release for criminal sexual abusers.
Ever one of those stands are far to the left of the voters in Illinois and were never reported on. Pat Quinn is as far left as Obama on crime even Hynes used his early releas as a campaign issue. Quinn will expand the governmental healthcare set up by Blago even though they can’t tell anyone who or even how many people are on it!
Comment by Votecounter Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:46 pm
C’mon Rich….Palos Park Bob is permitted to post an anti-gay screed on this board (as if all gay people have HIV? Have straight marriages of convenience been a problem when one partner develops cancer?) and you don’t remove it? If that isn’t an “Excessively rabid comment”—what would be, that we are child molesters?
What other minority group would you permit to be a target of this type of slander about?
Comment by Mountain Man Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:51 pm
The Democrats need to get off the fence and pass a civil union bill. I blame them for this direction of the republican Brady. Your in power democrats be a leader for the state.
Comment by state worker Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 5:06 pm
Great-Brady comes out of the box leading with social issues. I supportted Dillard as the only republican who can win the general election because of his ability to work with competing interest groups and recognize that it is Economy-Jobs-Ethics. Who cares about right wing socialissues when 80% of the adult population is up half the night worrying about paying friggin bills.
Brady will not be able to fill Wrigley Field with enough supporters. Oh, by the way; thanks to Jim Ryan for dusting himself off last minute and jumping-or crawling into the race.
Enough of my rant–I have to go clean my gun.
Comment by Samarai Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 6:15 pm
How long before Brady drops out?……
Comment by scoot Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:05 pm
Chicago Rich, if you don’t want your family hurt to “subsidize” spending for hetero’s and things like the “marriage tax” portion of the income tax, that’s fine. Oppose it when it comes to a vote in the legislature.
Montrose, we married people have a tremendous disadvantage against us in income tax law, and it’s likely to get worse under Obama. Do you think that that “discrimination” is fair? If so, I guess that you believe that “some people are more equal than others”. That’s REAL and institutionalized discrimination.
Obamarama, you obviously don’t have a clue about how the “civil union” health care abuse has taken place where such practices are allowed. This was a big scam in many L/G communities back when HIV/Aids was less effectively treated.
Thankfully, treatments have become much more effective and isn’t the problem it once was in the US.
Actually take the time to read what I wrote. NOWHERE did even infer “presumptuously” that every case of tailgating onto a partners health involved HIV or aids. If you took offense at the thought that some might use “civil unions” to abuse the system in that manner, I’m sorry.
Steve Schnorf, I’ve never seen actual numbers concerning the cost impact on public or privately funded benefits for gay marriage or civil union benefit extension. Has anyone actually had the guts to quantify this?
If so, I’d really appreciate a link.
Mountain Man, there was nothing “anti-gay” about any of my statements. I know the gay lobby is really big into intimidation and silencing any opposing points of view (not to mention “special” punishments for thoughtcrime ala 1984), but misrepresenting “slander” about “all gay people have HIV” in what I write is flat out dishonest. That’s utter nonsense, at least in the US where prevention seems to be becoming more effective.
Please take your “hetero bashing” elsewhere!
Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:15 pm
Driving a pick up truck off a used car lot by Bloomington? lol
That will go nicely with the Porsche he keeps at his $400,000 home in Florida; the one with the legislative plates on it.
Comment by Normal Redefined Friday, Feb 12, 10 @ 9:36 am
Leave those Palos comments right where they are, Rich…..we all need to know what people are thinking– even if it is small-minded, ill-informed and hateful. I, for one, wanna know what
I am up against.
By the way, I’m just lookin for equality — not special priviledge.
Comment by gayguy in lakeview Friday, Feb 12, 10 @ 11:19 am