Illinois United States Senator—who I’m voting for and why
I’m voting in the Republican primary this year. The vote for U.S. Senator is more difficult than it was for Illinois Governor. As I’ve stated previously, I use the last man/woman standing approach to selecting a candidate. Who is the last man/woman 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 Mark Kirk who did not answer the questions, all of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senator answered the questions the same. A flaw in the questionnaire process used by the Institute is that it does not ask for the candidates’ intensity factor on each of the issues.
The Illinois Family Institute used Mark Kirk’s voting record in the House of Representatives to answer questions in the questionnaire that he specifically voted for or against. Consequently, Mark Kirk was recorded as supporting Cap and Trade, “Hate Crime” legislation giving homosexuals special protections not given to others (In fact, Mark Kirk co-sponsored the bill), a bill giving “homosexuals and transsexual individuals protected class status in the workplace,” and the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the U.S., and Mark Kirk opposed the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006.”
Even without this information, I had eliminated Mark Kirk even before he officially announced for the office. Mark Kirk voted against the ban on partial birth abortion which was passed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Mark Kirk has received 100% approval ratings from Planned MURDERHOOD. Mark Kirk will not receive my vote in the primary and he will not receive my vote in the general election should he be selected in the primary. Robert Zadek and Tom Kuna withdrew and are therefore eliminated.
Left standing, we have John Arrington, Don Lowery, Andy Martin, Kathleen Thomas, and Patrick Hughes. I set three criteria for who I would vote for as U.S. Senator:
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.
Don Lowery was considered by me for quite awhile. He was born and raised near Morton and is now from Southern Illinois. His general statements on issues seem to be similar to mine. However, it is my understanding that he personally requested to speak to the Morton 9/12 members and then bowed out claiming a conflicting scheduled meeting. Don’t ask for an opportunity to speak before us and then cancel. It’s not a practice to gain my confidence in the competence of your staff. More telling, he did not answer the questionnaire which would have required him to give not only specific answers to specific questions but also reveal his intensity toward those issues. His failure to answer the questionnaire doomed him as far as I am concerned. He is eliminated.
Patrick Hughes is being pushed by Champion News as the best alternative to defeat Mark Kirk in the primary. I don’t know if that is true or not. However, I don’t vote for candidates based upon their likelihood of winning. If people vote for a candidate just because he is most likely to win, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t vote on that basis. I vote based upon their positions on issues and their willingness to be specific and define their intensity concerning those issues. Because Patrick Hughes did not answer the questionnaire and therefore I do not know his specific position on specific issues that are important to me, he is eliminated. Andy Martin is eliminated for the same reason although I have seen nothing that gives him much of a chance to win.
Two candidates answered the questionnaire and therefore are left for consideration—Kathleen Thomas and John Arrington. John Arrington did not make any comments which I would have preferred but did not require. Since it was not required, I’m not going to penalize him for not doing that which was not required.
Looking at the answers to all 16 questions and the intensity level expressed, both candidates basically answered all 16 the same except for intensity levels. Intensity levels are important as I learned when I was taught the proper methods for constructing surveys, questionnaires, and public opinion polls. If the intensity level is higher, more time and effort will be (should be and/or should be expected to be) devoted to achieving the desired results. That’s why all of my questionnaires include the intensity level of the commitment, resulting usually in five choices. Based upon intensity levels more than any other factor, my vote will go to John Arrington unless something changes that position between now and February 2nd.
Therefore, my choice for U.S. Senator is John Arrington.
I’m voting in the Republican primary this year. The vote for U.S. Senator is more difficult than it was for Illinois Governor. As I’ve stated previously, I use the last man/woman standing approach to selecting a candidate. Who is the last man/woman 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 Mark Kirk who did not answer the questions, all of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senator answered the questions the same. A flaw in the questionnaire process used by the Institute is that it does not ask for the candidates’ intensity factor on each of the issues.
The Illinois Family Institute used Mark Kirk’s voting record in the House of Representatives to answer questions in the questionnaire that he specifically voted for or against. Consequently, Mark Kirk was recorded as supporting Cap and Trade, “Hate Crime” legislation giving homosexuals special protections not given to others (In fact, Mark Kirk co-sponsored the bill), a bill giving “homosexuals and transsexual individuals protected class status in the workplace,” and the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the U.S., and Mark Kirk opposed the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006.”
Even without this information, I had eliminated Mark Kirk even before he officially announced for the office. Mark Kirk voted against the ban on partial birth abortion which was passed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Mark Kirk has received 100% approval ratings from Planned MURDERHOOD. Mark Kirk will not receive my vote in the primary and he will not receive my vote in the general election should he be selected in the primary. Robert Zadek and Tom Kuna withdrew and are therefore eliminated.
Left standing, we have John Arrington, Don Lowery, Andy Martin, Kathleen Thomas, and Patrick Hughes. I set three criteria for who I would vote for as U.S. Senator:
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.
Don Lowery was considered by me for quite awhile. He was born and raised near Morton and is now from Southern Illinois. His general statements on issues seem to be similar to mine. However, it is my understanding that he personally requested to speak to the Morton 9/12 members and then bowed out claiming a conflicting scheduled meeting. Don’t ask for an opportunity to speak before us and then cancel. It’s not a practice to gain my confidence in the competence of your staff. More telling, he did not answer the questionnaire which would have required him to give not only specific answers to specific questions but also reveal his intensity toward those issues. His failure to answer the questionnaire doomed him as far as I am concerned. He is eliminated.
Patrick Hughes is being pushed by Champion News as the best alternative to defeat Mark Kirk in the primary. I don’t know if that is true or not. However, I don’t vote for candidates based upon their likelihood of winning. If people vote for a candidate just because he is most likely to win, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t vote on that basis. I vote based upon their positions on issues and their willingness to be specific and define their intensity concerning those issues. Because Patrick Hughes did not answer the questionnaire and therefore I do not know his specific position on specific issues that are important to me, he is eliminated. Andy Martin is eliminated for the same reason although I have seen nothing that gives him much of a chance to win.
Two candidates answered the questionnaire and therefore are left for consideration—Kathleen Thomas and John Arrington. John Arrington did not make any comments which I would have preferred but did not require. Since it was not required, I’m not going to penalize him for not doing that which was not required.
Looking at the answers to all 16 questions and the intensity level expressed, both candidates basically answered all 16 the same except for intensity levels. Intensity levels are important as I learned when I was taught the proper methods for constructing surveys, questionnaires, and public opinion polls. If the intensity level is higher, more time and effort will be (should be and/or should be expected to be) devoted to achieving the desired results. That’s why all of my questionnaires include the intensity level of the commitment, resulting usually in five choices. Based upon intensity levels more than any other factor, my vote will go to John Arrington unless something changes that position between now and February 2nd.
Therefore, my choice for U.S. Senator is John Arrington.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home