Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Morning Shorts
Posted in:
* If you didn’t get a chance to see Gov. Pat Quinn debate state Sen. Bill Brady last night, you can now. Watch it…
I’ll post news stories here in a bit.
…Adding… The Tribune skimmed over a few things, which I suppose is necessary in any debate roundup. But they were pretty important. For instance…
The candidates also clashed on social issues, which have become a hot-button topic in the last week following remarks by state Sen. Rickey Hendon that Sen. Brady was “racist, sexist (and) homophobic.”
Asked by moderator Carol Marin if his stance against civil unions for same-sex couples promotes a hostile environment for gays and lesbians, Brady said “not at all.”
Marin also asked Quinn about his statement to a gay lifestyle magazine that Bill Brady would rather gay people “not exist.” Quinn said he never said that and claimed he called the reporter yesterday to tell him so. That took Brady a bit off-guard. He was obviously preparing to pounce.
And here’s another important Trib skim…
Quinn found himself on the defensive over the state’s legalization of video gambling as a way to pay for a massive statewide construction program. Quinn said he didn’t like the idea but made sure cities and counties could opt out.
Brady said Quinn’s willingness to go along with the plan is a failure of leadership.
What the Tribune omitted was Quinn’s claim (which is verified) that House Republican Leader Tom Cross came up with the video poker idea and wouldn’t support other revenue schemes. Brady said he’d never heard that. He must not have been reading his Capitol Fax.
* Chicago Public Radio also skimmed over something important…
When discussing the state’s fiscal situation, Quinn touted a “landmark” budget accountability plan known as “budgeting for results.”
Brady jumped in. “Budgeting for results means balancing the budget, a part of the Illinois Constitution that you seem to have failed to follow,” he said.
Quinn also noted that Brady voted against the proposal. And it is a landmark plan. No scare-quotes needed. Even so, that was a heckuva comeback by Brady.
* The Sun-Times didn’t skim over this part…
Brady repeatedly tied Quinn to Blagojevich, his two-time running mate and now-convicted felon, leading up to perhaps the debate’s nastiest exchange.
“You were Gov. Blagojevich’s partner for eight years. You can’t blame it all on him,” Brady said.
“He never talked to me. Everybody knows this,” Quinn answered, to some laughter from the debate’s audience. “I mean, as a matter of fact, he announced to the whole world that I was not part of his administration. I led the effort to recall.”
“Is that why four years ago you called him a decent, honest and honorable man?” Brady said.
“He lied,” Quinn said.
“Wait a second, governor, you knew he was under investigation at the time,” Brady continued, before Quinn turned the tables.
“What did you tell George Ryan? When George Ryan was running and even after those six children died, what did you say to him?” Quinn said, pointing to Brady’s support of Ryan in 1994 and 1998.
But, I don’t see why they didn’t skip over this. TMI.
* ABC7 directly contradicted one of Brady’s debate comments, but split up its story to separate the comment from the actual facts….
Brady began the day with questions about his campaign’s finances after several Chicago TV and radio stations, including ABC7, pulled his commercials because of unpaid bills.
“It was a glitch. It’s been taken care of and everything’s back in place,” said Brady.
” I don’t know about that. Sounds like you didn’t pay your bills,” Quinn responded.
After four grafs about social issues and the other candidates came this…
ABC 7 received a payment from Brady’s campaign for ads late Thursday afternoon. Those ads purchased by Citizens for Brady will be back on the air Friday.
* Something you can’t see on the Internet but can see on a big screen is that Brady’s upper lip was covered in sweat for much of the debate. Not sure if that’ll matter much.
…Adding More… For a blow-by-blow account, check out our live-blog. Our commenters, as always, did a heckuva job, although it just wasn’t the same without shore’s efforts.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 8:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Morning Shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
At the beginning, Pat Quinn was down right rude, and the moderator sucked. Things were much better in the latter half of the debate. The absolute best part of the debate was after it was over, and we got to hear the candidates interact on a personal level (I am unsure if they knew they were open mic).
I found Quinn’s behavior at the beginning so off-putting that I am not sure the average citizen would have been turned off. It also seemed like Quinn had a half dozen talking points he kept throwing in whether or not they were relevant to the discussion.
Brady seemed week for about 5 minutes in the middle of the debate where he lost focus on what he was trying to say.
All in all, I think this debate was a wash and will have little or no effect on the election. I would have liked to see a series of these debates starting earlier in the fall. I also would like to see an hour of these guys talking off the record like the very end of the debate where we could be flies on the wall while they shoot the bull. That would be fascinating.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 8:53 am
“All in all, I think this debate was a wash and will have little or no effect on the election.”
Agreed, but man was this brutal to watch. I actually, about 10 minutes in, was yearning to see Kirk and Alexi. By comparison, as somebody mentioned in a previous blog post comment, the two would-be Senators looked like Lincoln and Douglas. It was THAT hard to watch both Quinn and Brady.
Comment by ChrisChicago82-Independent Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 8:56 am
I saw a completely different debate. Pat Quinn was calm, focused and smart. Brady was bumbling…..he actually said “land of the law” twice…..and evasive. Quinn was, of course, on the attack, but he did it reasonably and with detail. The moderator actually tried to moderate, and why not, Marin was the moderator.
the reason why you may have yearned for Kirk Alexi is that both of those candidates seem more intelligent than Brady. Am I the last person to hear that he is considered not bright? Apparently
this is so. He really showed it last night, totally evasive…how to cut budgets, well, it will just happen…property tax raises naturally, oh, I didn’t say that. I don’t see any way if one has been following the campaign that you consider Brady anything but evasive and disingenuous. and spectacularly lacking
in introspection.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:04 am
Where was Rahm during the debtae? how come he wasnt included?
Comment by Ghost Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:09 am
If two governors debate in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, do they make a sound?
Comment by Nick42 Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:11 am
It is now out…Amalia is actually Pat Quinn. Won’t we miss her/him/it when Brady wins.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:22 am
Spin away kiddos. Convince yourselves. The debate was banal from beginning to end and was mostly unwatchable. It is obvious that neither are close to top tier candidates and our state has been, and will continue to be, in a world of hurt regardless of whether Quinn or Brady is elected next week.
Comment by Responsa Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:27 am
Hey Amalia, when Pat Quinn spoke did he turn into a burning bush? My goodness you are not only drinking the coolaid, but you might be making it.
As for me, I would rather watch a turtle race than another Quinn v Brady debate.
Comment by Jaded Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:29 am
My summation of what I saw last night was this:
You are!
No, you are!
I am not! Yes you are!
I’m gonna tell!
No I’m gonna tell!
You could see the same exact thing on any playground where 4 and 5 year olds play.
No wonder neither has a plan. They aren’t mature enough to know what a plan is!!
And this is our choice. Welcome to Illinois. I think Abe wants to take his name off the license plate.
Comment by Irish Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:31 am
Both candidates looked weak– one was desperate and rude, and the other ineffectual. Whitney is the far-away smartest candidate– too bad he is not viable.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:31 am
Most debates in the TV age are unwatchable. Everybody’s trying to land a zinger or force the other guy to put his foot in his mouth.
The ones between Paul Simon and Charles Percy were pretty juvenile and those guys were very sharp.
The Lincoln/Douglas debates were different because they were:
– Long. The candidates talked for hours and in detail on the issues of the day.
– Literate. People weren’t watching TV and playing video games back in those days. They were well-versed in the issues through their reading, as the printed word was the only media.
Candidates today would have been booed off the stage with their simple-minded talking points and catch phrases.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:43 am
Going back to a previous debate with Word…. I found the John Steward Obama interview to be more useful then the Gov debate for discussion of political issues.
This debtae was a waste of time/oxygen. Just glad I had my video game handy so I could multi-task while sitting through it.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 9:50 am
lol, Irish. That was pretty fair and funny.
On that note, I am going to miss all the fun for the rest of the day.
Have a great weekend, All!
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 10:02 am
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were pretty silly at times, too. Let’s not over-glorify the past. There were great moments of eloquence but there were long dry spells of negativity and stupidity in there. As well as some of the most abject pandering and embarrassing comments Abraham Lincoln may have ever made on the subject of race relations.
Comment by ZC Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 11:04 am
If more people watached these debates, Brady would definitely lose, by a lot. He’s terrible when he goes off the talking points Jerry Clarke or whoever gives him.
Comment by just sayin' Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 11:04 am
dear blog bullies: land of the law hurts, doesn’t it?
Comment by Amalia Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 3:03 pm
After watching this “forum”/debate last night, how could any one in their right mind logically support Brady? If you are a woman, if you have a daughter, wife, sister, or mother, if you are gay, if you are hard working and not extremely wealthy, if you are a minority, please, logically explain why you would still want to vote for this Republican? He is full of cotton candy. Last time I checked, you usually find cotton candy at the circus.
Comment by VoteNovember2 Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 3:07 pm
After watching Carol Marin lose control over what ever it was last night, clearly it was not a debate, I think we can all agree the informal format of having the candidates seated next to each other does not work. I think the format should have been far more formal, Brady and Quinn are not capable of having a rational discussion sitting at the same table together.
But I think one thing the debate shows for sure is that our State is in big trouble regardless of who wins. Neither Brady nor Quinn really know what to do about the deficit. This crisis will end when the Bond rating agencies push Illinois bonds to junk level and our state’s creditors effectively take control over the budget.
I expect eventually the creditors will create an oversight authority and tell who ever is the governor and the General Assembly either accept our directives for cuts, tax increases, medicade reform, pension reform or no more money. The plan will look a lot like what the Civic Federation has alredy put out.
Comment by Rod Friday, Oct 29, 10 @ 4:59 pm