Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** VETO SESSION COVERAGE
Next Post: *** UPDATED with video *** Getting personal
Posted in:
* The Sun-Times has a story on the potential political consequences for Republican gubernatorial candidates…
“Rauner will get a series of questions on the social issues that he’s refused to take a position on,” [political consultant Don Rose] said. “The guy who won’t take a position is always going to get the same questions. Very few people get away with ducking, particularly on hot-button stuff.” […]
Both Dillard and Brady said they voted against the measure on Tuesday because they believed it was unconstitutional.
Dillard said: “I believe in traditional marriage, which is a tenet of my religious beliefs. The Hinsdale Republican added: “I don’t know whether having gay marriage behind us changes anything in the governor’s race. Only time will tell what the gay marriage vote will mean politically.”
Dillard said it was too soon to know whether he might suffer voter backlash from a no vote.
Brady, a Bloomington Republican, took a shot at Rauner.
“He’s dodged every issue. He’s got to come to grips with the fact that you can’t run for governor and not tell people what your views are,” Brady told the Sun-Times Tuesday. As for the race, Brady said his voting ‘no’ again: “doesn’t change our campaign at all.”
* Mark Brown took a quick look at Rep. Tom Cross’ “Yes” vote…
Cross, who recently gave up his post as the House Republican leader to run for state treasurer, had been another mystery before the vote.
Even though it only makes sense for him as a statewide candidate to show that he’s got some compassion, it still couldn’t have been an easy vote for Cross considering he is facing a GOP primary opponent.
* As did Greg Hinz…
Mr. Cross — call him brave or foolhardy, depending on your view
* And the Daily Herald looked at a couple of House races…
And state Rep. Tom Cross of Oswego, just weeks ago the House’s top Republican, joined state Reps. Ed Sullivan of Mundelein and Ron Sandack of Downers Grove as the only House GOP members to vote “yes.” […]
Earlier this year, former Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady of St. Charles was nearly ousted after Republican state Sen. Jim Oberweis of Sugar Grove and others objected to his lobbying in favor of same-sex marriage.
Both Sullivan and Sandack face potential primary election challengers that don’t share their support of same-sex marriage, and at least one conservative political action committee is looking to put money behind those challengers.
Sullivan’s primary challenge in particular has been one of the more visible signs that same-sex marriage remains controversial in the suburbs, but he spoke at length on the House floor Tuesday about his gay mother-in-law and his decision to vote “yes.”
“If I vote against this bill, a bill I believe in, that I believe is the right thing to do, how do I face my children? How do I tell them that there’s something wrong with their grandmother?” Sullivan said. “Well, I can’t, and I won’t.”
Your thoughts?
* Related…
* Log Cabin Republicans Congratulate GOP lawmakers for supporting gay marriage
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** VETO SESSION COVERAGE
Next Post: *** UPDATED with video *** Getting personal
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Obviously the vote yesterday has to seriously trouble a fine upstanding man like Kirk Dillard. I mean here is a man who treasures traditional marriage so much he’s on his second one.
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:12 am
For Brady and Dillard to call it “unconstitutional” simply shows they don’t know what the word means.
There could be many reasons to vote against this bill, but that ain’t one of them. It’s just a cop out to avoid explaining what they are for or against.
Tom Cross and Ed Sullivan have proven themselves once again to be the kind of people who built the GOP into a great party up through most of the 20th Century, but the party has been recently abandoning them and many other great Republicans, on social issues.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:24 am
Rep. Sullivan nailed it, and his statement should be a clarion call for all those who truly want to do the right thing on this issue. LGBT are people who deserve equal rights and a promise of non-discrimination in the workings of government. The rest of the culture will follow.
I’ve got a 10 and a 12-year-old. We are perfectly comfortable talking about gay marriage, love between 2 people of the same gender, and how the world is changing to end the marginalization of our LGBT friends, neighbors, and family members.
As the governor put it, IL is on the right side if history now.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:26 am
As many posters have said in the past: in a few years, people will wonder why there was so much controversy over this vote. Once gay people appeared on TV as likable characters, all of the public opinions seemed irrelevant.
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:29 am
Couple thoughts, broken down …
First, “58-3″
Fifty-eight Democrats. Fifty-eight is not sixty.
There is a great scene in “Eight Men Out” with the pitcher Eddie Cicotte looking for his bonus for a 30 win season, but eddie was held out of 5 games, leaving him one win short, thus, no bonus;
“29 is not 30, Eddie.”, Charles Comiskey tells Eddie.
58 is not 60…
Rep. Sandack, Rep. Sullivan, Rep. Cross, Republicans, made the difference. Those are nt wasted votes, those votes, are the margin of victory, critical in passage. You can only have symbolism if the votes don’t matter, but guess what, those votes …matter.
So to those who want to “primary” Rep. Sandack, or “take out” Rep. Sullivan, what are you saying about the ILGOP? That diversity is … bad? Standing up for what you believe is an act of treason? Are only those who are “pure” given the luxury of “principles to stand up for”?
When …when did being outside an “ideal”, cause so much … hate?
Tom Cross knows that facing Bob “Grogran” is going to happen, and with the $50K Bob loaned himself, and Jason Plummer on the “Bridge of the ship”, Tom Cross needs to run a clean (of erorrs) race to get to Sen. Frerichs. Cross’ vote is so much more about Frerichs than anything else except the inner struggle mr. Cross had, and that should have been enough to vote YES, even with Frerichs in the wings.
The HGOP needs to celebrate some diversity, because on the other side of the Rotunda, 1-18 screams of intolerance, and reeks of a lack of diversity in action and thought. It is up to Leader Durkin to build … build on the foundation these votes by Rep. Sullivan and Rep. Sandack, and make their 2 … grow.
Tom Cross now joins a ticket with Judy Baar Topinka, and the party of Mark Kirk and many others who try to speak when facing pitchforks and torches, begging for uniformity at the expense of Majority.
Fifty-Eight …is not … 60.
Three votes made the difference, and how My Party approaches that reality will be telling;
Embrace the votes, the margin, and watch the Party grow…
Destroy the diversity, need the purity, while needing irrelevence in governing.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:32 am
At least the bobbing, weaving, slipping and sliding can stop by the GOP Governor candidates on the SSM issue. Hey, the legislature spoke and SSM is the law of the land of Lincoln, just as it is the Law in the enlightened states of California, New York, Iowa and Minnesota. Enough said. Now about the Medicaid and pension crisis.
Comment by Samurai Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:35 am
Is Rauner going to get hurt in a GOP primary for not taking a position? The people who would change a vote based on that position are never going to vote for a guy alleged to be Rahm’s friend anyway.
Rauner is walking a tightrope. If he comes out against marriage equality, he may as well acknowledge that he’s spending a lot of money to, at best, lose to Quinn. If he come out for it, he’s going to have a tough time in a primary. Better to simply be accused of not taking a stand.
GOP voters are going to have to decide if they want a social conservative or if they want to defeat Quinn.
They can’t have both.
Rauner knows it. Do GOP primary voters know it?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:35 am
I listened to the debate yesterday and I found Rep. Sullivan’s speech to be very moving and also a great rebuttal to the claims that SSM will hurt children.
I’m a bit perplexed why Dillard and Brady think that the SSM bill is unconstitutional. I’m assuming their thoughts are that it violates religious freedom, even though it absolutely does not.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:36 am
Please GOP Candidates.Do not now jump on the SSN is Unconstitutional bandwagon and make an issue of the passage of the bill. Simply stated: By the vote if the legislature and controlling judicial decisions; the unconstitutional argument is a loser and will be your campaign. You may not like it, but it is.
Comment by Samurai Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:40 am
Proof reading is a virtue not to be ignored—SSM and by vote of…
Comment by Samurai Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:42 am
I don’t understand running candidates against GOP members that voted for SSM. Best case scenario in their view would be Sullivan and Sandack lose in the primary. It won’t change anything and funds were spent that could’ve been used in the general to gain seats.
I’m neutral on SSM; the party is big enough for both views. It’s the law now, so let’s move on.
Comment by SirLankselot Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:43 am
I think it’s important to remember that this issue was languishing on life support this time last year. The courage of people like Pat Brady and Reps. Sandack, Williams, and Cross need to be honored by the party of Lincoln in order for it to grow and be successful in Illinois. Oswego Willy’s line of “58 is not 60″ is very relevant and people need to remember it was support from the Republican side of the aisle that made this happen.
Comment by eastsider Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:44 am
To the GOP Governor candidates,
The mitigating factor for me is HOW the “too extreme” paintbrush can and will be wielded.
If Jim Oberweis IS that paintbrush, with Political Ice Cream handed out to those with pitchforks and torches, and Sen. Brady and Sen. Dillard, who voted with Jim Oberweis on SB10 are … the Nominee… then there is goig to be big problems.
Big.
Dan Rutherford and Bruce Rauner do not get a pass with Jim Oberweis heading the ticket. If you are part of the Rutherford or Rauner Crews and are in the General, you are having to atone for Black Helicopters, and SSM votes and talking points and “non-votes” to the SCC.
When do you have time to try to “take on” a Pat Quinn who may have $4-5 million to paint them …intolerant. You don’t.
Politcs is an Art. An art of addition, while trying to keep the subtraction from your addition… minimal.
Get one group, lose another, lose 3 groups, get a large voting bloc. The Math is real, and the game requires the Math be the “addition” kind…
Brady, Dillard, Rauner, Rutherford … they will all face the “sins” of a lack of diversity, but what brush … what instrument …what images are going to be used to try to frame “too extreme” to any of them, come April.
“The Gentleman from Kane”, and the irony …Kane, Charles Foster ….might be the biggest, broadest, most complete brush to paint, no matter what canvas My Party gets to have as its Nominee come April, 2014.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:44 am
It passed. It will become law 6/1/14. That being said, I’m still undecided myself on this. I surely understand the desire of the SSM supporters. I understand the other side too. There will be a lot of issues coming before courts in the next few years that will have to be decided in setting a new precedence for how to deal with a newly defined version of marriage. The notion that in 2 years everyone will wonder why it took so long is a little off in my view. We’ll be coping with this one for a while, for better or for worse- pun intended. People who have invested a lot in marriage as a sacrament have a valid point. The fact they feel they are protecting something precious shouldn’t be cavalierly cast aside. Nearly all of the gay people I know tend toward a very compassionate bent. I think they see why it might be a difficult issue for people they love and care about, but disagree. Nobody should be spiking the ball. Both sides agree that “marriage” is something worth fighting for. Here’s my measuring stick; anyone who calls it a no-brainer, is a no-brainer and will not get my support. Thoughtful people who may have voted either way will.
Comment by A guy... Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:48 am
Someone PLEASE get all the gop candidates on record now as to whether they favor repeal.
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:01 am
There needs to be a libertarian wing of the Illinois GOP, if it’s going to ever retake the majority of the statehouse.
Maybe not the majority of the GOP. It is in bulk a socially conservative party now. But libertarian positions on things like marriage have traditionally had at least some place at the table in Reagan’s (fraying) “big tent.”
If the GOP decides to excommunicate all its libertarians (meaning fiscally conservative but socially more liberal), it’s gonna have a harder time winning votes north of I-80.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:07 am
2Putz still only has his two main accomplishments to hang his hat on. Leading HR’s to a super minority status, that couldn’t block SB10, is one of them. The other, crippling HRO finances, dumps a huge internal housekeeping task on Jim Durkin, and will make it harder to provide campaign support for HR’s.
Sullivan and Sandack delivered the votes fairly bought by the gay lobby. Any primary opponent might ask how many other issues/votes they have for sale, but they’re pretty much back in step now that SB10 is in the rearview mirror.
Past that, let the spin begin!
Comment by Toure's Latte Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:21 am
==- A guy… - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:48 am:==
Well put.
Comment by Toure's Latte Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:25 am
interesting that the one republican trying to win a general election voted for the bill while the ones focusing on the primary voted against it.
Republicans, winning primaries to lose the general election is just a waste of 8 months.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:26 am
===Sullivan and Sandack delivered the votes fairly bought by the gay lobby. Any primary opponent might ask how many other issues/votes they have for sale, but they’re pretty much back in step now that SB10 is in the rearview mirror.===
Um, - Toure’s Latte -,
Both … both Sandack and Sullivan made it very clear, crystal clear why they voted as they did, and if you think a Mother-in-Law is a “sellout” reason, for example, then you are a Dope for not understanding Edmund Burke and what a Representative brings to a Chamber for votes like these and to the Chamber’s collective body.
The support that both Snadack and Sullivan are getting from those supporting SSM is in response … to those thinking “Purity” is needed in the ILGOP, and Primaries … are required.
No one was “bought”, but if you want to “sell” that “spin”, try it, others like me are going to be right here to make sure diversity and Edmund Burke’s belief of what a Representatve needs to consider, get more sunsine, then your dark beliefs of intolerance.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:31 am
Do not take the bait from too obvious!! GOP Candidates: DO. NOT. START. TALKING. REPEAL.
It is the law and the Supremes can deal with the issue when and if presented.
Comment by Samurai Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:32 am
Now I know why the very persistent Cross for Treasurer telephone solicitor was so insistent last week that my donation be made within 48 hours of receipt. Clearly there is a fear of reprisals from his planned flip on the SB10 vote.
Comment by Jake From Elwood Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:34 am
- Ahoy! -
Very astute! Well said.
- Samurai -,
Agreed. That is going to be the next “Litmus Test”, but here is the hope, at least for me. I beleive that Leader Durkin and the serious candidates for Governor, will walk away from these “repeal” calls, and try to manage what the poltical ladscape gives any/all them.
Exacerbating this thought of “being Right” leads to Majorities, like this talk of “repeal” would be best tempered by a Leader Durkin and I think that will happen, at least with the HGOP.
Brady, Dillard, Rutherford, and Rauner … they know… they know …. going that far after two of them voting against SB10…. would be way, way beyond overkill.
I could be very wrong, I am wrong very often, but I hope that Leader Durkin and the “four” keep all these thoughts in mind, along with - Ahoy! -’s reminder, which was spot-on.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:39 am
Rauner doesn’t get hurt with this vote. He didn’t vote.
Comment by Downstater Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:17 am
- Downstater -,
Um, yeah, he can be, either way;
“Mr. Rauner, if you were Governor, and SB10 came to your desk, as passed, would you sign it?”
Same to Rutherford, who didn’t vote either way.
It is not hypothetical, a Passed SB10 is at the Governor’s Desk, would any of the 4 sign the Passed Bill into Law?
No passes, - Downstater -, doesn’t work that way.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:21 am
I haven’t voted for a Republican in decades and can’t imagine doing so in the near future. Nevertheless, I’m going to throw some money to the primary campaigns of Ed Sullivan and Ron Sandack.
And I humbly encourage honorable persons pleased with the outcome of yesterday’s vote to do likewise.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:27 pm
==People who have invested a lot in marriage as a sacrament have a valid point.==
I wish I knew what that “valid” point was.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:40 pm
=I haven’t voted for a Republican in decades and can’t imagine doing so in the near future.=
Not even Judy Baar Topinka? I agree with most of what you comment on here, which is why I am surprised you’d just write-off all Republicans without considering them individually.
Comment by Kruse Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:55 pm
Willy:
I give Sandack, Sullivan and Cross their due, although in many ways this is a much easier vote for a suburban Republican than many Democrats.
That said, anyone who honestly believes Madigan could not have found two more votes is plain wrong.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 4:09 pm
==That said, anyone who honestly believes Madigan could not have found two more votes is plain wrong. ==
I’m not sure that’s the point. This shouldn’t have been a partisan issue. I understand why it was but it shouldn’t be.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 4:12 pm
To - Juvenal - and - Demoralized -’s points,
HDems - 58 out of 71
HGOP - 3 out of 47
So?
58 divided by 71 = 82% of the HDem Caucus.
3 divided by 47 = 6% of the HGOP Caucus.
“The Reagan Rule of 80% dictates…”
Yikes!!!
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 5:04 pm
BTW, 44 out of 47 in the HGOP voting “No” is then at a 94% clip, on the “flip”, leaving the image of the Caucus unified, but at what cost of image?
6% is much less than 18%… when looking at it through a diversity prism.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 5:52 pm
Cross was, IMHO, pandering for votes in the upcoming primary. I vote in every primary. I will not vote for Cross because of the pandering - not because of the way he voted on SSM.
Comment by Jechislo Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 6:01 pm
If Cross had a serious GOP opponent, he may have been seriously tested in a Primary by the Party’s Powerful Conservative Wing. But since that’s not the case, his shocking vote FOR SSM yesterday will now HELP him win over Liberals and Independents in the General, very well guiding him toward victory. Strictly from a PoLITical perspective, his QUITE-surprising (even outright beFUDDling to many) vote yesterday, was incredibly shrewd in the BIG picture for him in his State-wide Race, even BRILliant…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 7:18 pm
Remember the AIDS could rear it Head AGAIN !
Comment by Lincoln16 Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:30 pm