Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: This could take a while
Next Post: Wrigleyville protest? Don’t do it
Posted in:
* Since the SouthtownStar has published my syndicated newspaper column since 1996, I’m often asked about the paper’s editorial positions and about its columnists.
One question I often hear from Democrats is whether political columnist Kristen McQueary is a Republican.
While we don’t always agree (which is the point, after all, of a columnist) she’s almost always pretty darned fair to both sides. They get whacked when they deserve it.
Her last piece on the Debbie Halvorson vs. Marty Ozinga congressional race was even-handed and soberly reasoned. I may have disagreed a bit with the conclusion, but that’s life, man.
* Now, however, Republican Marty Ozinga’s campaign wants McQueary removed as the moderator of an upcoming debate. From a press release…
It would be hard to imagine a presidential debate moderated by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. Similarly, we cannot imagine a congressional debate moderated by Kristen McQueary.
Oh, please. Spare me the hyperbole.
* The Ozinga campaign proposes these alternatives…
We propose one of two options to rectify this problem: 1) for balance, have fellow Southtown Star opinion columnist Fran Eaton to serve as the comoderator with Mrs. McQueary; OR 2) have an objective news reporter familiar with the race, such as the Joliet Herald News’ Patrick Ferrell, to serve as the sole moderator.
No offense, but Fran Eaton is such a partisan Republican and so far to the right that adding her to the program would not be “balance” in any imaginable way. You don’t balance “fair” with “unfair.” Ferrell is a darned good reporter, but I can’t possibly imagine why anyone would say Ferrell is far and away a much better choice than McQueary.
* Here is one of the campaign’s reasons for opposing McQueary’s choice…
McQueary’s second column about Ozinga ran the day after his official nomination. We granted her a 40-minute in-person interview, and she chose to focus the article solely on negative questions about Ozinga (rather than write a nice profile piece, like she did on Halvorson the day after she announced). McQueary questioned his integrity and his ability to “stay clean.” Of course, she has never asked that question of Halvorson, even though she’s in the leadership of that famously pure body known as the Illinois General Assembly.
And here are the cherry-picked excerpts…
–“Can a person with those ties, landing those deals, floating in that stratosphere, stay clean?”
–“In the meantime, Ozinga is sticking to a script when asked about the minority program involvement, which the Chicago Tribune detailed in an unflattering 2005 expose. He didn’t break any rules, operate under the table or spur investigations. It was all done aboveboard with good intentions, he says.
–“After 40 minutes, I wasn’t entirely convinced. For railing against the system, Ozinga is doing pretty well within it, running a multimillion-dollar company and befriending politicians on the charity and fundraising circuit.”
I remember that piece and Ozinga got the coverage he deserved.
What a buncha whiners.
*** UPDATE 1 - 12:30 pm *** I just spoke with the person at the Southland Chamber in charge of the debates. They have denied Ozinga’s request, citing McQueary’s fairness and even-handedness and her expertise on Southland politics.
McQueary, apparently, offered to step aside last night, but was asked to stick to her guns.
Good for the Chamber, and good for Kristen.
And, once again, this was a supremely dumb idea by the Ozinga campaign.
*** UPDATE 2 - 2:30 pm *** The debate’s rules have McQueary reading questions submitted by the Southland Chamber and making sure no candidate exceeds their allotted time.
So, Ozinga made a big stink about absolutely nothing.
Ridiculous.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 9:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: This could take a while
Next Post: Wrigleyville protest? Don’t do it
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Would you want to see Obama debate McCain in a forum moderated by Pat Buchanan? McQueary’s columns have a decidedly Democratic slant (whomever accuses her of being a Republican can’t be too bright), and when a Democrat is also a woman, McQueary can’t help herself but to help her fellow woman.
An no, her coverage of the Halvorson-Ozinga race has not been “balanced.” She has gone after Ozinga like a pit bull, while in yesterday’s column she absolved Halvorson of all of Emil Jones’ sins (yes, she attributed Halvorson’s legislative manipulation to Jones!) and gave her just a tad of blame (a “sleeve” on an entire “jacket,” per her analogy) so as to APPEAR fair and balanced.
Listen, I’m no Ozinga fan. I don’t think we need another rich guy awash in government contracts representing us. But fair is fair, and we don’t need another Democratic Machine hack, either. Call the race down the middle. Hell, Halvorson is a known legislative quantity, and we’ve seen how she’s executed her judgment: to ask, “How high, Sir?” when Emil Jones yells, “JUMP!”
If anything, Ozinga should be given the benefit of the doubt by an “objective journalist” (although I wouldn’t give either one of these “better of two evils” candidates that courtesy).
Whiners? This debate could be the deciding factor in the race, Rich, and whether you think so or not, McQueary has at least shown a subconscious bias, if nothing else.
The only dif between Eaton (rabid right wing Republican) and McQueary (closet left wing feminist) is that Eaton doesn’t pretend to be what she is not. At least give the woman that.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:04 am
I went to school with Kristin McQueary, and my friends have been lambasted by her to, if you want to say that she’s a “Closet left Wing Feminist” that’s really quite the stretch by a long shot…
Although my allies have been hit by her, I have always found her to be a straight shooter, she doesnt’ pull any punches, but in the same breath she doesn’t go out of her way to ambush folks either
she calls it down the line, plain and simple, I think the Ozinga folks should really grow up, this is really childish
Comment by I'm just saying Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:08 am
Hmm, no mention of Jason Wallace, the Green Party candidate?
Comment by Voting for Wallace Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:09 am
Snidely, your blatant partisanship is showing through. There’s a huge difference between Eaton and McQueary. Don’t be silly.
Your argument holds no water.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:14 am
>>I’m just saying - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:08 am:
I went to school with Kristin McQueary, and my friends have been lambasted by her to, if you want to say that she’s a “Closet left Wing Feminist” that’s really quite the stretch by a long shot…
Although my allies have been hit by her, I have always found her to be a straight shooter, she doesnt’ pull any punches, but in the same breath she doesn’t go out of her way to ambush folks either
she calls it down the line, plain and simple, I think the Ozinga folks should really grow up, this is really childish
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:16 am
and your point is?
Comment by I'm just saying Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:19 am
Lost the back part of the post (sorry).
Saying: McQueary didn’t just pull her punches, she threw the fight in her column yesterday. Not partisanship, Rich. I like to at least think I call a spade a spade. I’ve criticized George W. like a “Clintonista” on this blog (and the guy deserves it).
My point with McQueary as relating to Eaton is that Eaton is very open and honest about her bias, and McQueary is not. Her bias always finds a way to show through, even though I do agree that she probably does really try not to let it.
But I do know that even you agree that her column’s conclusion yesterday was way too soft, and McQueary is not a stupid person. So, WHY did she give Halvorson only a “sleeve?”
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:21 am
You know, Rich, I’ve just reread my initial post, and for the life of me, I can’t see how it’s partisan, let alone “blatantly” partisan. Can you explain?
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:24 am
Ozinga must have concrete for brains.
Sure, find the one Republican who is willing to help Ozinga ignore all the money he and his company have given to Blago and Daley, and all the contracts he’s gotten at the same time.
Anyone can see through this desperation move.
Comment by GOP'er Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:25 am
Buchanan may be nearly as critical to McCain as he would be to Obama.
They are putting the Fran Eaton thing out there knowing it is so ridiculous (nice lady, but hardly unbiased). She has much more of an agenda (as she does not hide hers) than McQueary may have. It is so ridiculous that the Pat Farrell idea (not familiar with im) may actually stick as it seems to be a reasonable idea in comparisson.
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:26 am
===I’ve just reread my initial post, and for the life of me, I can’t see how it’s partisan===
Umm….
===Would you want to see Obama debate McCain in a forum moderated by Pat Buchanan? McQueary’s columns have a decidedly Democratic slant===
If you can’t see the partisanship in that, then you’re blindly partisan.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:27 am
GOPer, what Ozinga does as a businessman is for his business. He gave Blago money as it would likely result in projects/income for his company. It is not like he is the president of Planned Parenthood.
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:27 am
Well, then, I’d say we disagree, Rich. But, whether you view it as “partisan” or not, I stick by my opinion that McQueary shows a Democratic bias in her columns, just as Kass at the Trib shows a Republican bias in his columns. I don’t see what’s partisan about telling it like it is, but, to each his own.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:30 am
Rich, does this mean you are out of contention to moderate the debate?
Comment by Heartless Libertarian Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:39 am
When McQueary got the nod to be the solo moderator for this high stakes US Congressional race, she scored big. It is quite an accomplishment for her career and she is a big winner. This will build her image and help her career.
The entry fee for gaining this exposure is becoming someone to be talked about by the movers and shakers in the field, and by those she writes about. When you become Madam at the cat house, you can no longer attract clients with claims of virginity. Regardless of the beefing, she is still a winner and this is the price she pays.
It doesn’t matter if she is actually biased at this point. We have a high stakes multi-million dollar US Congressional race and both candidates represent an enormous investment for both parties. It would be ridiculous for either Halvorson or Ozinga to saunder into this event as though they are ordering pizza. It is their job to present their supporters in the best possible way.
Exceeding expectations requires a lowering of expectations. Candidates achieve this by claiming illness, exhaustion, and other excuses. Another great way to accomplish this is to bash the moderator(s). Every moderator should consider themselves a campaign pinata that needs to be bludgeoned with a baseball bat in order to produce any goodies for any debate participants. Bias has nothing to do with it.
The Ozinga staffers who are complaining about McQueary are doing their jobs. Should their candidate slip up, wet his pants, or stammer, they have a ready excuse to add to any of the other excuses waiting in the bag of spin. If Halvorson’s staffers aren’t making similar preparations, they should be fired. No one knows how these things play out. All debate participants require their staffer’s ability to form a safety net should something go wrong. These campaigns are too expensive and high stake to leave to amateurs.
Congratulations Kristen! You are in the big time! Do whatever it takes to keep this gig! Backpedal, flip-flop, or sign waivers - you need this exposure for bigger things ahead. Don’t get miffed about any bashing. It is part of the game!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:42 am
Actually, Pat Buchanan would probably do a decent job. I don’t think he likes either one of them.
Ozinga looks like a scaredy-cat. Really off message. I don’t know what good it does him.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:45 am
Ozinga campaign: Now you Washington folks may not know this, but Fran doesn’t exactly have “fair, but conservative” credibility here in the great state of Illinois. Allow me to give you a little history.
There once was a candidate for Senate in 2004. His name was Jack! and Fran worked on his campaign (along with my good buddy Bill Pascoe). Unfortunately, he refused to tell his own party about things that “don’t play well in Peoria.”
Jack! decided to leave, and the IL GOP picked Alan Keyes (over my other good buddy Jim Oberweis) to run.
Fran went to work for Keyes– an understandable move for people who want to work for conservatives but not aware of the criminally insane nature of the man.
In due time, the mental instability became evident. He advocated for the legalization of machine guns for all, prophesied on the voting habits of Jesus Christ and remarked that the people of Illinois shouldn’t even have the right to vote him to the US Senate. There was much more, but long story short, 26% of the state decided to vote for him.
26%, one of which was undoubtedly hers, and she continued to work for him.
Now, you are free to work the refs (though I agree with Rich about looking like you doth protest too much), but when you advocate for someone whom we can reasonably extrapolate 74% of this state disagrees with, you strain your own credibility.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Comment by Tom B. Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:46 am
==Hmm, no mention of Jason Wallace, the Green Party candidate?==
Nope…and not the Constitution, Libertarian, Communist or any other one. Getting on the ballot is one thing, being relevant to the outcome is quite another.
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:48 am
What we have been witnessing over the past ten years, and especially over the past ten months is the devaluation of journalism. The sooner we recognize this, the better we will understand how people now relate to journalists.
Anyone still thinking that readers, listeners or viewers of news regard their journalist sources as an oracle, need to take a closer look at today’s world. Walter Cronkite himself would get heckled. Being the town crier no longer gives a person the credibility it used to.
Respect? Don’t expect it by default with a college degree in journalism. Like trial lawyers, congresspersons and pimps, society is knocking journalist off their pedestals.
When publications as esteem as The Atlantic drag pregnant teens through the political mud in order to attack their parents’ political opinions, we have entered a new reality. Crying foul over it doesn’t seem to do anything except tell smirking attackers that they have hit their target.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:54 am
Setting her sharp insight and prior columns aside, I don’t think most objective people could argue that her columns with respect to this race have been anything other than biased in Halvorson’s favor. Opinion writers can present any argument they want no matter how biased - that’s their job. But they need to be held accountable for these opinions particularly in the context of a non-partisan debate.
Comment by underdog Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:56 am
Tom B - I don’t think it’s a big secret that Eaton worked for Jack! and Keyes, nor that she is a Republican political consultant. And, in my typical partisan fashion
, I will interject my opinion that, as such, she should not be given a column in a general circulation newspaper. There is aboslultely no chance for objectivity there, and the uninformed reader may not be aware of that. When you look for Eaton’s column (or Rich’s, or McQueary’s, for that matter) on the Southtown’s site, it is categorized under “news.” That implies objectivity and absence of opinion to me.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:58 am
===When you look for Eaton’s column (or Rich’s, or McQueary’s, for that matter) on the Southtown’s site, it is categorized under “news.”===
Actually, it’s categorized under “columnists” with the subheading of “news.”
If you continue along these lines, I’m gonna put you in moderation. I don’t have time to police your every word today.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:06 am
Here’s the question at hand
When KMQ attacks Frank Zuccarelli, is she being a left wing feminist,
When KMQ attacks Larry Walsh is she being a left wing feminist,
When KMQ attacks Emil Jones is she being a left wing feminist,
I could go on and on and on
I hate to say this and I happen to like Kristen, she’s an equal opprotunity pain
as I said before she calls it as she sees it,
and I dont’ relish when I get a call with a 633 prefix coming out of 708 as It may be her
Comment by I'm just saying Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:13 am
No question, McQueary would be a fair moderator. Please remember, though, that this is a three-person race: Jason Wallace is running for the Green Party in the 11th district.
www.electwallace.us
Comment by Patrick Kelly Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:19 am
Snidely, I’m not sure Marty’s campaign people know that, hence my little history lesson.
I have no problem with her having a column. I’m all for diversity in opinion and free speech.
I just think the Ozinga folks completely miss the mark when they push for her as someone who will improve the discourse of this debate.
She’s not only hopelessly partisan, but as her past work history shows, fringe in her beliefs. The district’s voters would not be well-served by her presence.
Hence, the problem with their argument. If McQueary is so hopelessly partisan that she cannot fairly serve, you don’t advocate for another hopelessly partisan advocate on the other side.
Then the debate is about R vs D, instead of the voters’ concerns.
Comment by Tom B. Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:19 am
You people are still taking Ozinga’s complaints seriously. Ozinga’s staffers are just lowering their candidate’s expectations by claiming that the debate moderator is biased.
It’s nothing against McQueary.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:29 am
Tom B - Very nicely said.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:31 am
VM, no, I’m questioning the sanity of their strategy.
There is an easy way for the campaign to lower expectations without aggravating the moderator, angering the press whom have worked with and read her for years, and without embarrassing themselves by advocating for Fran to be the balancing force.
I mean what’s next, ask Tom Roeser to step in? Maybe fly Alan Keyes in from MD (he’d have to take a break from his 4th presidential campaign) to moderate?
You know if they’d asked for Bill Cameron and not put out an oppo document on McQuery this wouldn’t have happened.
Comment by Tom B. Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:50 am
Interesting dialogue, as always . . .
May I correct a couple of blatant errors?
First, I never worked for Jack Ryan. At the time I was writing for Illinois Leader, and we endorsed Steve Rauschenberger for US Senate.
Second, I volunteered for the Keyes campaign for one month, until I made the unpopular decision to resign after I saw how incorrigible he was personally and how his candidacy would hurt the conservative cause.
One issue that the letter brought up that deserves addressing is that Mrs. Halvorson’s husband Jim Bush is the immediate past President of the Southland Chamber of Commerce. Together with Kristen McQueary’s outfront antagonism towards Ozinga, the campaign would have been mistaken to walk into the debate without acknowledging the unfair set up.
Thanks, Rich, for the venue.
Comment by Fran Eaton Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:58 am
I like Kristen’s columns. I think she’s pretty good and often quite entertaining.
Wah, wah, wah, Ozinga. Get over it.
I still support a Rich Miller moderated debate.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:06 pm
Fran,
I apologize for the misinformation. I guess my memory may not be what it used to be. Would I be correct, then, if I guessed that Dan Proft worked for Jack!?
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:06 pm
The Ozinga campaign made several assumptio s about this event that are not accurate. A simmple phone call to the Chicago Southland Chamber of Commerce would have cleared up a lot but they chose to notify the chamber and the press late last evening.
Ozinga’s campaign manager now claims he wanted approval of the moderator but that was never mentioned or implied when they agreed to take part in this forum.
Apparently, they don’t like the pitcher and they are taking their ball and going home. If the Ozinga camp has this kind of lack of confidence in their candidate, that says a lot to me.
Comment by anon Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:16 pm
After reading Fran Eaton’s post, I checked over at Illinois Review and found a lot of allegations over the debate (presented by Southland Chamber of Commerce, where Halvorson’s husband is immediate past president and a current board member; site of debate Halvorson’s alma mater) that, if true, seems to merit Ozinga’s withdrawing from the debate.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:25 pm
Snidely, this discussion is about Ozinga and Halvorson and I’m well aware Rich stays on point.
I can’t imagine Halvorson’s people willingly walking into a debate at Trinity College (where Ozinga has donated thousands of dollars) to a debate hosted by a group presided over by Mrs. Ozinga and moderated by me, can you?
If they did, it would be an insult to the voters who might attend hoping to make an informed decision.
The word “whine” wouldn’t have been used in the headline of such a discussion, I can assure you.
Comment by Fran Eaton Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:28 pm
The point of the exercise is to ask the candidates questions that will permit the public to gauge respective viewpoints. I have no doubt that Ms. McQueary is more than suited for the task. Mr. Ozinga, quit lowering your expectations!
Comment by Jake from Elwood Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:31 pm
Snidely…..again the facts aren’t correct. Halvorson’s husband is not the immediate past president of the Southland Chamber. There have been two others since but he is a current board member. He has had absolutely no involvement with the planning or organization of this forum.
Give me a break on the location. Working with a limited budget, there was a small list of venues available. That excuse is a total stretch.
Comment by anon Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:34 pm
Anon, I did say, “if true.” Still, assuming what you set forth is true about his being twice-removed from the Chamber’s presidency but still sitting on its board, I stand by my opinion that it seems unfair.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:41 pm
The Chicago Southland Chamber of Commerce, despite its 501(c)(6) tax-exempt status, is acting in a highly partisan manner. That’s not surprising, as I understand that Halvorson’s husband is a past President of the organization.
Not only are they jeopardizing their own tax-exempt status, but they may also be creating problems for Governor’s State University, a taxpayer-funded state university where they propose to hold the debate, by attempting to exclude Jason Wallace, the Green Party candidate in this race.
While it’s true that the FEC does allow 501(c)(6) organizations to sponsor debates, assuming that they establish objective participation criteria in advance, the IRS says that such criteria is not reasonable if inviting all legally qualified candidates in the same class is reasonable.
There are only THREE legally established major political party candidates in this race, and it would present no undue burden upon the Chamber to simply invite all three candidates in this class. They have designed the criteria to exclude Jason Wallace, in a highly BI-partisan manner.
“Nope…and not the Constitution, Libertarian, Communist or any other one. Getting on the ballot is one thing, being relevant to the outcome is quite another.”
The Green Party hasn’t only gotten on the ballot–it has achieved established party status statewide–something that no other political party has been able to do in Illinois in nearly a century. There’s a BIG difference between simply getting on the ballot and becoming established.
The people of Illinois, though their elected representatives, have defined the standard for determining the “viability” of political parties and have divided them into two categories–new political parties and established political parties. There is absolutely no reason for the Chamber to adopt any other standard different from the one already written into Illinois law.
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:47 pm
Squidish, where are you coming from? Jason Wallace was invited and has agreed to participate.
Comment by anon Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:55 pm
Fran, my apologies for the misrepresentation.
However, I think my point still stands. Volunteering certainly suggests you were an advocate for his election and I’ll assume you voted for him (please feel free to correct).
Snidely, Proft was Illinois Leader back then too, I don’t believe he ever went official. Only Pascoe.
Comment by Tom B. Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:04 pm
If I’m not mistaken, don’t most chambers of commerce tend to support Republican leaning positions? I would think Ozinga would be anxious to take part in this forum.
Comment by anon Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:11 pm
Come on Wumpus, you said: “what Ozinga does as a businessman is for his business. He gave Blago money as it would likely result in projects/income for his company.”
Isn’t that kinda the textbook definition of pay-to-play?
So all of a sudden he becomes a Congressman and it’s gonna stop? Get worse is more likely.
Comment by GOP'er Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:41 pm
Squideshi, What does that have to do with the topic that Ozinga is weaseling out because he’s afraid of the moderator?
If Ozinga makes it to the big time, he’s going to have to face much tougher critics and will be called many names. He should participate in the forum because it appears he needs practice in not fearing the enemy.
I have to agree with anon in that I would think appearing before a group of fellow business people that he would look at this as being among friends.
Comment by who says Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:49 pm
The suggestion of Eaton is interesting.
I’ve found her (and her website) often to be beyond offensive. It is the website that offered up for ridicule a photo of Sen. Obama’s young daughter, because the child allowed a flag to touch the ground. The fact that Eaton would permit that is repulsive.
Ozinga’s suggestion that she is worthy as a moderator should be a warning sign to any moderates that this is a race that matters. It is a sign that he might be a closet extremist as opposed to the moderate businessman that he’s been portrayed as.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 2:55 pm
Rich,
Did you know about Mr. Halvorson’s connection to the Chamber before writing your post? If not, does that change you opinion about Ozinga’s objections? If the family connections were reversed, would criticize Debbie for objecting?
Comment by Anonie! Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 3:35 pm
maybe not such a bad move by Ozinga.. im guessing they knew the rules of the debate, so they couldnt hurt themselves - in terms of teeing off the moderater either way. however they get some free press in questioning Halvorson’s ties to the “famously pure body known as the Illinois General Assembly”, as they state it.
Comment by anon Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 3:48 pm
“Not only are they jeopardizing their own tax-exempt status, but they may also be creating problems for Governor’s State University, a taxpayer-funded state university where they propose to hold the debate, by attempting to exclude Jason Wallace, the Green Party candidate in this race”
Huh? That’s ridiculous, The Chamber can invite and participate with anyone they choose, in any type of forum. It will not jeopardize anything. As far as the University, thats even more of a stretch, they can do the same (which they are not, they are merely supplying a forum) and not jeopardize their state funding for any reason other than the GA deciding not to give them any.
Don’t play a “pretend Lawyer”, unless you are trying out for a sitcom.
Comment by Moderate Repub Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 3:59 pm
Rich,
Did you know about Mr. Halvorson’s connection to the Chamber before writing your post? If not, does that change you opinion about Ozinga’s objections? If the family connections were reversed, would criticize Debbie for objecting?
Let me stab at this. First, it isn’t going to change his mind, that wasn’t even what his post was about. Those of us insiders understand why the Ozinga camp did it; if it was me I would have done the same. Ozinga doesn’t know the issues the way Debbie does (regardless of who is smarter Debbie has been around to understand way more if just through osmosis), so you want to lower the expectations of the debate. We get it.
It doesn’t change the fact that the Moderator (which is who the Ozinga camp objected to, not the Chamber) will only read questions, created by the Chamber, and man the stop watch.
If the Ozinga camp wants to now turn on the Chamber, and say that’s who they object to, go ahead, but its a bad play. Don’t criticize a local chamber as being bias because I guarantee there are members that are on the other side. Besides, if your problem is with them, you need to get people in the chamber who support you to submit questions (campaign 101).
So to answer the question on if it would concern the Ozinga camp, well sure it would, but that’s what campaigns are all about every day for the last 90 days. Ozinga has already been labeled a whiner; I wouldn’t give any more credit to it.
I mean Rich is saying they are whinning about the moderator, and your going to softball him this question? Can you say home run.
Comment by Moderate Repub Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 4:15 pm
Ozinga agreed to do the debate knowing the Halvorson connection to the board. So, to answer your question, it would not have changed my mind whatsoever.
This objection is just goofy.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 4:17 pm
“Squidish, where are you coming from? Jason Wallace was invited and has agreed to participate.”
If that is true, I haven’t heard about it.
“The Chamber can invite and participate with anyone they choose, in any type of forum. It will not jeopardize anything.”
You’re wrong. The Chamber is exempt from federal income tax in accordance with Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS provides, “Participating directly or indirectly, or intervening, in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office does not further exempt purposes under section 501(c)(6).” While 501(c)(6) organizations may to a limited extent engage in political campaign intervention activities, any related expenditures may be subject to tax under Section 527(f). In other words, they’re free to exclude 1 out of the 3 legally qualified, established party candidates from their debate; but should they do so, they can’t use their tax-exemption to further that purpose and need to pay the taxes!
“As far as the University, thats even more of a stretch, they can do the same (which they are not, they are merely supplying a forum) and not jeopardize their state funding for any reason other than the GA deciding not to give them any.”
I said MAY because I do not yet have the terms under which the forum was provided to the Chamber. If the chamber RENTED the room, fine; but if it’s being freely GIVEN to the Chamber, the university can’t allow a partisan activity like this one, even if BI-partisan.
All that is being requested here is a little fair and equal treatment. If the Kankakee County Farm bureau, and other organizations, can manage to invite all three candidates in the race, then the Chamber can CERTAINLY do it.
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 9:28 pm
The Ozinga campaign is run by amateurs. Who is Andy Sere and what has he ever won? Esp. in Illinois?
Comment by Amateur hour Saturday, Sep 20, 08 @ 3:56 am
I am a conservative Republican. I have read Ms. McQuery’s articles in the past. I believe that she would be a fair and balanced moderator.
Fran Eaton is correct. She quickly left the Allan Keyes ship when she (and others) realized that Mr. Keyes is not the man that they thought he was.
Mr. Proft was originally connected with the Keyes campaign. He also was deceived by the Keyes retinue that came to Illinois from Maryland. Proft stayed on “because he had given his word” to the Keyes retinue to help them. It was a painful time for him but with Dan Proft, “His word is his bond” so he fullfilled a committment that he made that he wished that had not made.
Vanilla Man is correct about the Ozinga “whiners”. They are just doing their job of trying to stack the deck in their bosses favor. Halvorson’s staffers would do the same thing. Ms. McQuery is “the correct choice” for this political debate.
Comment by Rich Saturday, Sep 20, 08 @ 6:58 am
It is the Chicago Southland Chamber’s intent to host a forum that provides an educational forum for District 11 constituents, business people and any others interested in hearing the candidates’ positions on issue of importance to our region I am sorry if I disappoint you, but this will not be an ambush. We are not doing this for any candidate or attention on the web. We will not be making any endorsements as a result of this event.
This all began when a member and supporter of Ozinga suggested to me that we host a debate. That person got me in touch with the Ozinga campaign manager, Andy Sere. Sere said the date was fine, but made no requests about location or moderator. We then called Debbie Halvorson’s office to get the event into her schedule; and later added Jason Wallace.
Not knowing how large of a crowd the event would draw, we turned to GSU because it is within the district and has a performing arts center with a capacity to fit 1,100. Thanks to the latest publicity on the web, we have received a tremendous amount of additional registrations today, so I think we made a good choice.
For this event, we only need one moderator to ask questions within an hour time. As for Kristen McQueary, she may have opinions that she shares as a columnist, but she is a capable, professional and knowledgeable journalist. Serving as a moderator and serving as a columnist are two different roles, of which she has experience doing both. When asked to participate, she stated that she wanted it to be objective and have no slant toward any candidate. Furthermore, this is the chamber’s forum, so we will be providing the questions. They will be fairly basic ones on issues of importance to the Southland and business, such as the economy, health care and the South Suburban Airport.
I invite you all to attend and hope all the candidates will do a service to their district by participating in the forum to educate their constituents.
Comment by Lisa Zeigler Monday, Sep 22, 08 @ 2:13 pm