Illinois Governor—who I’m voting for and why
I’m voting in the Republican primary this year. The vote for governor is relatively easy. As I’ve stated previously, I use the last man standing approach to selecting a candidate. Who is the last man standing?
In both of the political party training camps that I attended, we were taught to select three or four basic issues that we believed would resonate well with the voters and emphasis those issues. We were also taught not to commit to specifics but rather to speak in positive generalities for our proposals while pointing out the flaws in our opponent’s positions and proposals. Consequently, since most campaign literature tends to follow that pattern, I don’t consider such literature to be very helpful in making an informed choice. The same, of course, is true with TV and radio advertising—30 second sound bites.
I also don’t place much emphasis on newspaper articles about the candidates or their endorsements. I know from my own experience running for political office that such articles are easily slanted to favor certain candidates over others. For example, in my 2nd run for the Arizona House of Representatives there were numerous omissions and misrepresentations.
Two quick examples:
I earned both my B.S. and M.S. while attending college for five years. In two different articles the reporter failed to report that I had an M.S. degree. The M.S. degree was in political science. Even after assuring me that he would include the degree in his second article, he did not.
I had been a high school government/economics teacher and a school board member before running for office. My major campaign issue was improving the State education system—unlike many candidates, I gave specifics on how to do so. In every campaign stop but one, the first issue I discussed was education. I was endorsed by the Arizona Education Association. When the newspaper article discussed the two major campaign issues of each candidate, education was not even mentioned as one of my issues. During joint campaign appearances, my opponent only spoke of education once and that was about education at the university level. And yet, the newspaper article stated that education was one of her two main issues. Newspapers and their reporters pick and choose which information is presented and how it is presented. It is generally easy to predict who the newspaper will endorse just by reading the articles, if you are familiar with all the candidates. Do I trust newspaper stories to be unbiased? Absolutely NOT!
Questionnaires and/or surveys can be beneficial. I have a copy of the Illinois Family Institute 2010 Voter Guide. However, except for two candidates all of the Republican candidates for Governor answered the questions the same. Kirk Dillard gave a “conditional support” response to supporting video gambling. He was eliminated. Dan Proft gave a “conditional support” response to supporting illegal immigrants receiving an Illinois driver’s license certificate. He was eliminated. Andy McKenna was eliminated because he had been the leader of the Republican Party in Illinois and as “the buck stops here” leader is responsible for the present weakness of the Illinois Republican Party. Robert Schillerstrom has dropped out of the race and is eliminated.
I voted for Bill Brady in the 2006 primary but will not this election. Although he voted against video gambling his vote was meaningless because the issue was passed by a large margin in the Senate—the vote was 47 to 12. Now, I don’t know why he voted against it but it is a political fact that if push comes to shove on a specific issue some representatives will vote differently than if the legislation would pass or fail regardless of their particular vote. I don’t know if that came into play in this case or not but I do know this. One of his early backers in Tazewell County is a member of the County Board of Supervisors and he is opposed to banning video gambling and video gambling is State sanctioned stealing. Who your backers are says volumes as far as who you are. I would not support a candidate who is supported by Planned MURDERHOOD and I will not reward a supporter of Bill Brady who will not support the banning of video gambling if there are other acceptable alternatives. And there are.
Another problem I have with Bill Brady is that according to WGN he seems to be backing an across the board budget cut of 10%. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that across the board cuts are economically stupid. Bill Brady as a businessman should know this. An across the board cut is a declaration that every budget category is of equal value and that is just nonsense. Good economic budgeting demands a setting of priorities and the allocation of money accordingly. That means some budget categories need to be eliminated completely and other budget categories need to be cut much more deeply than others. Some categories may even receive more money although in the State’s situation that would be difficult to justify.
One of Illinois’ main problems as a government is that they are trying to do too much and that causes them to do poorly in many different areas. The new governor needs to set priorities and then budget accordingly. Otherwise, we will continue to be in the same budgetary mess year after year after year. No thank you, Bill Brady!
Left standing, we have Jim Ryan and Adam Andrzejewski. I set three criteria for who I would vote for as governor:
1) answer my questionnaire—as I’ve said before it shows courage (not what is taught in campaign camps) and integrity—willing to be specific and to identity the intensity of one’s stance on major issues.
2) the actual answers to the questions—I would not support a candidate who answered the questionnaire but whose answers were in opposition to my positions.
3) the candidates positions on other issues not covered by the questionnaire.
Jim Ryan did not answer the questionnaire. Therefore, I have no way of knowing his position on these issues or the intensity of his position on these issues. I know of no other issues that he supports in very specific terms that would convince me to vote for him. Jim Ryan is eliminated.
The winner is Adam Andrzejewski. Adam Andrzejewski is the only gubernatorial candidate who had the courage and integrity to answer the questionnaire. More importantly, I agree with most of his answers although not all of his answers. I particularly support his answer to number 8 which sets him apart from all other Republican candidates as far as I know since no other candidate choose to answer the questionnaire.
“8) As Governor, I will automatically veto any bill that is passed contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which currently requires three readings on three different days. Changing the contents of a bill to a totally different subject after one, two, or three readings will not be accepted.
His answer: strongly agree
Comment: I am on record as the only candidate promising the end of the ‘shell bill’ practice.”
The clear choice for governor, in my opinion, is Adam Andrzejewski.
I’m voting in the Republican primary this year. The vote for governor is relatively easy. As I’ve stated previously, I use the last man standing approach to selecting a candidate. Who is the last man standing?
In both of the political party training camps that I attended, we were taught to select three or four basic issues that we believed would resonate well with the voters and emphasis those issues. We were also taught not to commit to specifics but rather to speak in positive generalities for our proposals while pointing out the flaws in our opponent’s positions and proposals. Consequently, since most campaign literature tends to follow that pattern, I don’t consider such literature to be very helpful in making an informed choice. The same, of course, is true with TV and radio advertising—30 second sound bites.
I also don’t place much emphasis on newspaper articles about the candidates or their endorsements. I know from my own experience running for political office that such articles are easily slanted to favor certain candidates over others. For example, in my 2nd run for the Arizona House of Representatives there were numerous omissions and misrepresentations.
Two quick examples:
I earned both my B.S. and M.S. while attending college for five years. In two different articles the reporter failed to report that I had an M.S. degree. The M.S. degree was in political science. Even after assuring me that he would include the degree in his second article, he did not.
I had been a high school government/economics teacher and a school board member before running for office. My major campaign issue was improving the State education system—unlike many candidates, I gave specifics on how to do so. In every campaign stop but one, the first issue I discussed was education. I was endorsed by the Arizona Education Association. When the newspaper article discussed the two major campaign issues of each candidate, education was not even mentioned as one of my issues. During joint campaign appearances, my opponent only spoke of education once and that was about education at the university level. And yet, the newspaper article stated that education was one of her two main issues. Newspapers and their reporters pick and choose which information is presented and how it is presented. It is generally easy to predict who the newspaper will endorse just by reading the articles, if you are familiar with all the candidates. Do I trust newspaper stories to be unbiased? Absolutely NOT!
Questionnaires and/or surveys can be beneficial. I have a copy of the Illinois Family Institute 2010 Voter Guide. However, except for two candidates all of the Republican candidates for Governor answered the questions the same. Kirk Dillard gave a “conditional support” response to supporting video gambling. He was eliminated. Dan Proft gave a “conditional support” response to supporting illegal immigrants receiving an Illinois driver’s license certificate. He was eliminated. Andy McKenna was eliminated because he had been the leader of the Republican Party in Illinois and as “the buck stops here” leader is responsible for the present weakness of the Illinois Republican Party. Robert Schillerstrom has dropped out of the race and is eliminated.
I voted for Bill Brady in the 2006 primary but will not this election. Although he voted against video gambling his vote was meaningless because the issue was passed by a large margin in the Senate—the vote was 47 to 12. Now, I don’t know why he voted against it but it is a political fact that if push comes to shove on a specific issue some representatives will vote differently than if the legislation would pass or fail regardless of their particular vote. I don’t know if that came into play in this case or not but I do know this. One of his early backers in Tazewell County is a member of the County Board of Supervisors and he is opposed to banning video gambling and video gambling is State sanctioned stealing. Who your backers are says volumes as far as who you are. I would not support a candidate who is supported by Planned MURDERHOOD and I will not reward a supporter of Bill Brady who will not support the banning of video gambling if there are other acceptable alternatives. And there are.
Another problem I have with Bill Brady is that according to WGN he seems to be backing an across the board budget cut of 10%. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that across the board cuts are economically stupid. Bill Brady as a businessman should know this. An across the board cut is a declaration that every budget category is of equal value and that is just nonsense. Good economic budgeting demands a setting of priorities and the allocation of money accordingly. That means some budget categories need to be eliminated completely and other budget categories need to be cut much more deeply than others. Some categories may even receive more money although in the State’s situation that would be difficult to justify.
One of Illinois’ main problems as a government is that they are trying to do too much and that causes them to do poorly in many different areas. The new governor needs to set priorities and then budget accordingly. Otherwise, we will continue to be in the same budgetary mess year after year after year. No thank you, Bill Brady!
Left standing, we have Jim Ryan and Adam Andrzejewski. I set three criteria for who I would vote for as governor:
1) answer my questionnaire—as I’ve said before it shows courage (not what is taught in campaign camps) and integrity—willing to be specific and to identity the intensity of one’s stance on major issues.
2) the actual answers to the questions—I would not support a candidate who answered the questionnaire but whose answers were in opposition to my positions.
3) the candidates positions on other issues not covered by the questionnaire.
Jim Ryan did not answer the questionnaire. Therefore, I have no way of knowing his position on these issues or the intensity of his position on these issues. I know of no other issues that he supports in very specific terms that would convince me to vote for him. Jim Ryan is eliminated.
The winner is Adam Andrzejewski. Adam Andrzejewski is the only gubernatorial candidate who had the courage and integrity to answer the questionnaire. More importantly, I agree with most of his answers although not all of his answers. I particularly support his answer to number 8 which sets him apart from all other Republican candidates as far as I know since no other candidate choose to answer the questionnaire.
“8) As Governor, I will automatically veto any bill that is passed contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which currently requires three readings on three different days. Changing the contents of a bill to a totally different subject after one, two, or three readings will not be accepted.
His answer: strongly agree
Comment: I am on record as the only candidate promising the end of the ‘shell bill’ practice.”
The clear choice for governor, in my opinion, is Adam Andrzejewski.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:44 AM
1 Comments:
You're wasting your vote. Good luck with that. Enjoy the McKenna candidacy this fall.
Post a Comment
<< Home