Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Tone it down, please
Posted in:
* It goes almost without saying that politicians are often portrayed as one-dimensional cartoon characters by their opponents, the media, even themselves. But Bernie’s piece today ought to remind us that candidates can have more than one facet…
Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady says that, if elected, he wouldn’t alter policies that allow same-sex domestic partners of state workers to receive state health insurance and similar benefits. […]
“These provisions in past AFSCME contracts were negotiated in good faith. Extending them was a question of basic fairness at the time. As governor, Bill Brady’s initial focus will be on helping to pull Illinois from the recession, ending the record deficits built up by the insiders in Springfield and fumigating state government. He has no intention to alter or eliminate these existing provisions.”
And even though the statement talks of Brady’s “initial focus,” that doesn’t mean the policy might change later, [Brady spokesperson Jaime Elich] said.
“No, we are not suggesting in any way that, as governor, Senator Brady will change the policy later,” Elich said.
Now, you could make the cynical argument that Brady doesn’t want to create yet another wedge issue when he’s trying to focus on the economy and governmental mismanagement. You might even be right. But even if that’s so, this is a pretty big step for somebody who once sponsored a constitutional amendment that would’ve permanently outlawed any state-sanctioned relationship between gay people that could result in these very benefits.
Anyway, something to think about.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 9:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Tone it down, please
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Thanks for posting this. It is a really good reminder that issues are always more complex/nuanced than we often make them out to be.
I am not about to go out and campaign for Brady, but it is good to have pieces like this one that force you to take a deep breath and keep things in perspective.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:02 am
Unfortunately, Brady also has a track record of going back on his statements and even denying he ever made them.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:04 am
He’s moving to the middle, casting aside another hot issue in order to appeal to moderates. Pretty standard.
I’d still like to see a one-page budget outline. He is running for governor, after all.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:09 am
Hey, Pot, he’s in good company with ole flip flop, then. Seems like this cancels each other out.
Brady had to make this statement. Accepting a political reality is necessary here if he wants to keep the campaign focused on the important issue of the day, week, month, year, decade.
It’s the budget, the budget, the budget. All else, while having some import, is secondary. PQ/MJM/GA want to keep kicking the mess down the road until after the election. We must NOT let them get away with it. Fumigate!
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:10 am
Though I appreciate him saying it, I can’t help but feel uneasy about his commitment to actually following through. His way-right social positions are just way too common. The last thing I want is a repeat of what’s happening in Virginia. (Tack to the middle and ignore social issues during the campaign and then a big swing to the right and executive orders directed at harming same-sex couples.)
Comment by Served Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:13 am
It’s about time someone got rid of all those George Ryan holdovers.
Comment by George Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:20 am
It is common sense. He can’t back out of a contract that was negotiated. I suspect this was a big social, not physical issue. Brady probably knows he would have to pony up some big carrot to AFSCME to get that provision out. Becomes a loser on an issue, most people really don’t care about.
I will dispute Brady’s back tracked on statements. Most of you have seen a 3 or 4 minute clip and not heard him speak or sat down with him.
You have to quit listening to Pat Quinn, who by the way is the actual sitting governor and still has not Constitutional budget plan, and never will!
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:24 am
For some reason this reminds me of the governor of Virginia.
He espoused some whacked-out Right Wing social ideas in his academic writings.
When confronted with his ideas during the campaign he explained that he had changed or evolved since his academic years.
But after he got elected? He used the governorship to advance his whacked-out Right Wing social conservatism.
I know the people who believe they should be prosecuting women who get abortions for murder will spin a Brady win as proof that hardline social conservatism is viable. They will say Brady’s views were clear and on display.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:25 am
I’m with wordslinger, he’s finally realizing he can’t keep making his right wing beliefs public and hope to win over moderates. It seems to me that he’s taking a pretty cautious approach at this though, he doesn’t want to upset the tea partiers and other wingnuts too much that they don’t send him money.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:26 am
Introducing a bill as a state legislator is to _____ as making a statement about a wedge issue as a candidate for Governor is to _______
Comment by Siriusly Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:26 am
===I will dispute Brady’s back tracked on statements.==
Dispute all you want, but you’re flat-out wrong.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:30 am
What this demonstrates is how outrageous his original proposal was (and is) and what cartoon characters are those who are propounding such positions. Ironic that this is out at the same time Laura Bush comes out saying she favors same gender marriage and is pro-choice.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:31 am
How this patriot - “I have never once said across-the-board. Go find it on tape”
Also, “..and still has not Constitutional budget plan, and never will!”
Um, what?
Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:34 am
Sorry, meant How’s.
So, do you mean he does not have a constitutional budget plan, or he hasn’t introduced a constitutional budget plan? Or he will never sign a constitutional plan?
Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:38 am
No rational politician from either party would try to alter these provisions, but it does signify some interest in losing his image as a far-righter on social issues.
Having said this, he needs to take television appearance lessons. I saw him on Channel 11 earlier in the week. Now, Carol Marin is not what you’d call an unbiased interviewer when you consider the interviewee. She seemed to be gritting her teeth through parts of the interview. So much for unbiased journalism.
Brady, however, smiled too much and seemed to be trying to placate her. His proposals lacked detail and he let Marin stay on the offensive regarding his plans for the state budget. After a couple of decades of Clinton and Obama, the ultimate fluent pols, the bar has been raised
for politican presentations on policy issue. Brady is so not there yet.
He has a real chance in this election, and not because of his or our Pat’s intrinsic characteristics. Folks are irritated. Throw the bums out fever is getting stronger, by many accounts. So, he needs to practice for the media appearances and find some tough critics. Never say anything unscripted.
He’ll know he’s improved if he sits down later in the campaign with Phil Ponce and survives.
Comment by cassandra Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:38 am
Trust. Do we trust him? Based on his record, Brady is an anti choice homophobe. I cannot trust him with my rights.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:39 am
Lester Holt - I’m certainly not sure what thePatriot’s garbled post means either, but maybe the next time he sits and talks with Brady he can see if Brady has ANY budget plan.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:41 am
Siriusly: Book/Cover
Comment by Way Way Down Here Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:41 am
Quinn did have a constitutional budget plan.
It isn’t going to pass.
Comment by George Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:43 am
- Throw the bums out fever is getting stronger -
Never mind Brady has been one of the “bums” for roughly 15 years. And for the record, your constant use of “our Pat” is really obnoxious, just my opinion.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:44 am
–I suspect this was a big social, not physical issue. –
Well, I guess it could a physical issue in a manner of speaking, but I suspect you meant fiscal, LOL.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:46 am
So NoTaxBill is a little soft on the antigay stuff
Tinfoilers,Bagger, CaribouBarbie and JasonTheLumberJack might get a little queasy on this one. This could bring SweatyPalmsCal out his cave too.
Lucky you did not roll this out before SaraCuda launched in Rosemont
We hear she is buying land in AR so she can rid America of those illegals.
BTW the flipflop does show some common sense. Scary to admit that.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:57 am
I am not sure wedge issues have ever worked to the gop’s favor in illinois. the more the focus is on social issues where the party is at odds with most illinoisans, the more the party has suffered.
The focus this year has been by the party on economic issues and surprise surprise the wall street journal today publishes a poll saying the gop is winning suburban women again for the first time in years.
Lights out, Alexi.
Comment by shore Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:01 am
Whether you agree with his “tax raisin’” political style (or not), you gotta agree that /uinn’s just a terrible speaker. It’s hard to watch (or listen to) all the time.
Palin means nothing to Illinois except that she provides an opportunity for democrats to change the subject from the fiscal disaster they have wrought on all of us for the past 7+ years.
Comment by Joe from Joliet Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:13 am
–”Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady says that, if elected…”–
Did you get your intern out to get it on tape, Rich? We’d hate to be told later ’show me the tape’.
Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:38 am
I imagine
Please allow me to use your posting for a comment. It doesn’t reflect on what you said, but I would like to borrow it for a moment.
You mean, “guess”. I guess Brady will backtrack on it, I guess, in about a month because John Wayne’s American probably, I guess, won’t have room for homosexuals, because I guess, John Wayne is someone Brady talked about, so I guess, that means John Wayne would, I guess, backtrack on it too.
Right?
So, how could Brady be allowed to dispute my cartoon image of him? Someone, I guess, should ask him.
That isn’t what you wrote, I know. But take a look at what Brady said, and how you interpreted it. You are not running for office, I know. On the other hand, what you wrote is similar to many other comments here - and I wish to thank you.
Sorry if I offend by doing so.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:02 pm
Brady opposes equal rights for same sex couples, but says he won’t retroactively eradicate some of those rights because they were negotiated in good faith as part of union contracts, but does want to retroactively eradicate pension benefits that were negotiated in good faith as part of union contracts.
That’s a double-flip-flop that would make any Olympic diver green with envy.
Is anyone from the media — mainstream or otherwise — going to call him out on it?
Rich, I agree with you that Bill Brady can’t be easily reduced to a cartoon. But that’s because he won’t stand still long enough for anyone to sketch him.
Its a strategy that was put to good use by George Ryan. In 1998, he campaigned in Chicagoland as a moderate. In downstate, he told voters he was a true Conservative. The media let him get away with it (Tribsters apparently don’t read the Belleville News-Democrat, and vice versa), but in the Age of the Internet, I’m not sure this is a viable strategy.
Of course, telling a Central Illinois reporter that you’ll defer to union contracts is smart. But what will Mother Tribune think? Is this another case of a Republican having a winking agreement with the Tribune?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:15 pm
Notice some craftily phrased words in their….negotiated in good faith and at the time…. i.e. Brady is not saying he would agree to those provision when the next contract is negotaiated in good faith in 2012. That at the time has an ominous sounding ring. To me it sounds like he is hiding his disagreement by going with the current contract, but at the time of the next contract will not agree to such a provision.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:19 pm
==I will dispute Brady’s back tracked on statements.==
There were those pesky bills he sponsored and then jumped off of back in February. It’s a long list. (Quinn has a similar track record.) The reason it’s a problem here is that if he wants to break the “cartoon image” there has to be some trust that he won’t back off his new, nuanced stance.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:28 pm
It’s not a “big step.”
It’s “semantics.”
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:32 pm
Illinois has been governed by the far left for so long that even the center looks radically right.
You can pick apart Brady’s record and imply all kinds of evil doing, but at the end of the day he will do less damage to the State than the machine that has been running the state in the ground.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:35 pm
==== You can pick apart Brady’s record and imply all kinds of evil doing, but at the end of the day he will do less damage to the State than the machine that has been running the state in the ground====
yeah look at his record, he will save us from gay marriage and humane treatment of animals. but then again he have his business record of going under before the economy tanked and his though out strategy to do across the board 10% cuts regardless if the program is income generating and the cut reduce more income then it saves etc.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:41 pm
Rather amused me last week to read how the Senate Republicans whined and carried on ‘but but but we negotiated, we had an agreement’ … but seem to have no problem with trying to stomp all over, demand opening contracts and to heck with negotiations and agreements when it comes to others negotiations and agreements. Rather seems to be a double standard. Their little backroom packs are ’solid’, everybody else’s…eh, not so much.
Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:45 pm
=== You can pick apart Brady’s record and imply all kinds of evil doing, but at the end of the day he will do less damage to the State than the machine that has been running the state in the ground ===
Brady voted to provide tax-subsidies for companies that move jobs out-of-state. I don’t see how that’s going to help turn Illinois around.
He voted to allow insurance companies to require you to take a DNA test in order to get health care coverage. That’s not implied evil-doing. That’s eugenics.
He wants to cut funding for elder abuse prevention, child abuse prevention, support for victims of domestic violence and rape. If you don’t want to call it “evil”, what do you want to call it, because you sure can’t call it “responsible.”
On the budget, the Republicans essential argue that we need to look at the big picture, and I don’t disagree with that. But they also want us to ignore the little picture — how decisions in Springfield affect individual communities, individual families, real people. And I do have a big problem with that.
In the press conference with the IFT which Capitolfax linked, the IFT was essential asked why we shouldn’t wait until November or January to pass a tax hike, given the Big Political Picture.
They pointed out that waiting to pass a tax hike means that those revenues wouldn’t start arriving until next Spring at the earliest, too late to prevent the lay-off of 20,000 teachers, too late to protect the education of our children for the coming school year. That’s a lot of little pictures that are too important to ignore.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 1:58 pm
YDD: “Brady opposes equal rights for same sex couples, but says he won’t retroactively eradicate some of those rights because they were negotiated in good faith as part of union contracts, but does want to retroactively eradicate pension benefits that were negotiated in good faith as part of union contracts.”
The media won’t call him out on it as you suggest because it’s flat out false. Brady’s never said he wants to retroactively change any pension benefits, because he doesn’t. To suggest that he does is a stretch of AFSCME propaganda-like proportions. Of course, if you believe ANY reform of the pension system is “retroactively eradicating pension benefits” then I could see how it would be so easy to make that leap. That would explain a lot.
Frankly, I find it interesting the the media doesn’t report on how far the unions have been going to rile up their membership with these kinds of accusations against Brady that go far beyond good political spin. Nothing new really, but if there’s really some “calling out” to do, there’s plenty of room for it.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:36 pm
@Amuzing Myself:
Um, from Bill Brady’s campaign website:
“Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, long a proponent of moving away from pensions, has said he will introduce legislation this spring that would mandate all new state hires be in a defined contribution plan,
‘We can no longer afford to provide a defined benefit (or pension) program,’ he said.”
In case you are confused, new hires are covered by the current contract, but Brady wants to retroactively undo that contract.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:23 pm
Well, Amuzing Myself …
How far have the unions been going to rile up their membership with “these kinds of accusations” against Brady? Enlighten us.
I wouldn’t say that YDD’s claim was “flat out false” … Brady did introduce legislation a year ago though that would “allow” current members of the State’s pension systems to opt-in to a 401k style syste. He’s been a long proponent of defined contribution plans (he ignores the fact they would actually cost the state MORE into the forseeable future), which he now calls “employee-owned pensions” … and he calls the recent reform to pensions (severely reducing benefits for all new employees) a “baby step” which would indicate he’d like to see a lot more done. And it’s not a stretch to believe that “more” would mean having it retroactively apply to current members as well.
Certainly, I admit, these are issues of semantics.
One could argue, for example, that your statement “never said he wants to retroactively change any pension benefits, because he doesn’t” is flat out fale. He may have never said directly he wants to, but it certainly isn’t because he doesn’t want to. The correct statement might be “never said he wants to retroactively change any pension benefits, because he CAN’T”.
That little constitution thing would get in the way.
Comment by ShadyBillBrady Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:29 pm
Dog, we are going to have to cut funding for all those things, regardless of who is Governor–maybe cut some more, some less, but we don’t have any money to pay for them, and we’re not going to. As Edgar said in Bloomington, if the cuts are done right everyone in the room is going to be unhappy, and he’s no social conservative. He worked on increasing funding for those very programs. But before he did that, he got the house in order and that ain’t happening now.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:37 pm
If someone be a governor of two states at the same time, I’m voting for Christie.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:40 pm
VM-Hefner?
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:44 pm
@Schnorf -
We do have to cut, but we don’t “have to” cut those programs.
We could sunset the tax expenditures for corporations and save $1.6 billion, restoring most if not all cuts to human services. Certainly the aforementioned programs that deal with public safety.
We could close the internet sales tax collection loophole and net another $1 billion.
We could close Western Illinois, Northern Illinois, and Eastern Illinois Universities, recognizing that if we’re not going to fund MAP Grants, we’ve got alot of extra capacity in our university system.
I agree with you that its going to take a combination of new revenue, cuts and borrowing to balance the budget for the short-term.
But I do think that the “across the board cuts” being proposed by Brady and others, including Quinn in the past, are lazy and bad public policy.
Across the board cuts make no more sense to me than across the board spending increases. We should go through the budget program by program and invest in programs that are meeting vital needs, and dump the ones that aren’t part of our state’s core mission.
But nobody seems to want to be the guy who decides that a program, the special interests who backed it, the lawmaker(s) who instituted it that their day is done.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 5:27 pm
=== As Edgar said in Bloomington, if the cuts are done right everyone in the room is going to be unhappy ===
Again, this is lazy leadership, not judicious policymaking.
Judicious policymaking preserves programs that work and eliminates those that don’t. It doesn’t whack successful and unsuccessful programs evenly.
Moreover, it doesn’t cut programs like homecare for seniors, early childhood education, job training, or higher education that provide a massive return on investment to the taxpayers.
Penny wise, pound foolish as the saying goes.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 5:33 pm
@ShadyBillBrady
Senate Bill 303 (Brady) allowed current state employees to opt-out of their union-negotiated defined benefit plan.
But Senate Bill 304 (Brady) forced new state employees out of their union-negotiated defined benefit plan.
You can look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 5:38 pm
YDD,
Actually we could close U of I and leave the regionals open and still save money. NIU,WIU,and EIU offer an undergraduate education far superior to UI where most undergraduate courses are taught by underpaid TAs and Grad ass’ts and where the President makes $1 million per year.
Comment by Bill Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 6:10 pm
==. But before he did that, he got the house in order ==
You must mean when he set the pension time bomb to go off a decade or two in the future when he was safely out of office.
Comment by Bill Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 6:16 pm
Or maybe when he signed legislation preventing collective bargaining by Chicago teachers.
Comment by Bill Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 6:17 pm
He could have gotten the House in order by losing to Dawn clark Netsch but she was too honest while Edgar lied to the voters about taxes.
Comment by Bill Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 6:19 pm
Touchy subject, Billy boy? Just sayin…
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 6:21 pm
Yeah, he was not my favorite governor.
Comment by Bill Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 6:23 pm
I think it’s important to note that our next guv will be negotiating the next AFSCME contract covering the majority of state employees, including the thousands of mid level supervisory/manager employees whom our Blago let into the contract, along with substantial pay hikes for most. The current contract (29 percent salary increases over 8 years, including during the Great Recession) expires in 2012.
The thought of the Democrats, who owe so so much to employee unions, negotiating that contract is pretty scary. The last one–Blago gave away the store. Would Quinn do differently? No? But he already signed an accord with AFSCME promising no layoffs until July 2011. I think we can make
some reasonable predictions.
Comment by cassandra Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 6:25 pm
Dog, I’m used to a lot of people on here sounding like they’be been smoking the funny weed, but not you. Of course we “could” do all those things, but we’re not going to close Western et al and we’re not going to do most of those other things either, whether your Gov or mine. We have to deal with that which can be done.
Bill, be as angry as you wish, Edgar was the Gov we needed at that time, and someone like him is probably what we need now; disciplined.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 6:55 pm
Cass, would you care to acknowledge now that many of those AFSCME employee clear down to the little peons are currently taking volunteer furlough days? Or that they agreed to defer parts of the next two raises?
Or do you just prefer to droan on about what greedy horse’s behind you find us? Perhaps while you bash dems negotiations abilty you’d like to remember it was a Republican govenor that back in the early 90’s decided to was a good idea to make our pension contribs ‘for us’ in place of a raise?
Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 7:33 pm
Today’s back and forth between YDD and Steve Schnorf is one of the more intelligent budget discussions going on in Illinois as far as I’m concerned. Excellent points on both sides, as usual. Thanks.
If only the “real” budget debate was as thoughtful and well presented.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 9:17 pm
@Schnorf -
Your argument basically boils down to “Politically, its easier to cut programs like child abuse prevention, elder abuse prevention, drug treatment, job training, home care for seniors, etc…than it is to cut taxpayer subsidies for corporations.”
I don’t know that I can agree with you, because so far we haven’t even had a debate about cutting taxpayer subsidies for corporations.
I do know that last year, when there were plans of deep cuts in human services, the political backlash was so fierce that Republicans backed a — GASP! — borrowing plan instead.
The year before that, when Blagojevich targeted drug treatment programs, the Chicago media referred to the cuts as, among other things, “dumbest budget cut ever.”
According to the Paul Simon Institute, 73% of voters oppose cutting programs for poor people, and 85% oppose cutting programs for people with physical or mental disabilities. Only 32% support cuts to higher education, the most “popular” cut proposed.
If you think 85% of voters oppose cutting tax subsidies for corporations, you’re not talking to the same voters I am.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 14, 10 @ 12:46 pm
@47th Warder
Thanks. Even though we occasionally (rarely?) disagree, I find Steve to be one of the smartest on most insightful posters from the Republican side of the aisle on this blog.
He’s a real asset to the state — maybe we can lease him?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 14, 10 @ 12:49 pm