Mary Burress—criteria for supporting
Update: I downloaded a PDF from a conservative Illinois taxpayer organization that has endorsed candidates that support a conservative tax policy in government. I had written who I was going to vote for and why before I downloaded the information. I’m posting the information dealing with the three offices that I discussed. The information with minor changes to fit my format:
From http://www.ntui.org/
“Tax Accountability
407 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1170
Chicago, Illinois 60605-1150
Phone: (312) 427-5128
Fax: (312) 427-5139
E-mail: ta@NTUI.org
CANDIDATES ENDORSED FOR FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PRIMARY ELECTION (by Tax Accountability the political arm of the NTUI—my addition)
GOVERNOR
Adam Andrzejewski—Republican
LT. GOVERNOR
Dennis Cook—Republican
Jason Plummer—Republican
Randy White—Republican
U.S. SENATE
John Arrington—Republican
Robert Marshall—Democrat”
In the following section, all material that is in parenthesis and says “my addition” was added to the quotes tonight for clarification purposes. They were not in the original quotes.)
On my January 14th post entitled “Video Gambling and the Republican candidates for Tazewell County Treasurer” I said I was going to vote for Mary Burress for Tazewell County Treasurer. A portion of that post said, “I asked him (Russ Crawford—my addition) the same yes or no question that Mary Burress was asked. Yes, he would ban video gambling or no, he would not ban video gambling. (At an earlier meeting, Mary Burress said she would ban video gambling—my addition.) Of course, Russ Crawford, as a current member of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors, is in a position to actually vote yes or no on that specific question if the vote comes before the Board sometime this year.” I finished the post by stating, “Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Crawford did not answer the question. Furthermore, his attempt to skirt the question resulted in an incorrect answer. I will be voting for Mary Burress for Tazewell County Treasurer on February 2nd. Mr. Crawford has failed the test!”
Tonight’s post contains two anonymous comments generated from that January 14th post and, at the end of those comments, my response to the first anonymous post.
I received a comment which said:
“Anonymous said:
So your going to vote for a candidate based off them not answering a question on issue that the office they are running for has no poor over? Here an idea how about voting for the candidate that would make a better treasurer and do a better job of investing and managing the counties money. Not on who gave the answer you like to an issue they have no control over.
9: 50 AM”
That comment from the first anonymous post led to a second comment from another anonymous reader. It said:
“Anonymous said:
The ‘question’ also reveals the integrity of the candidate. The integrity of a County Board Member transcends to the integrity of Mr. Crawford as Treasurer. If he isn’t willing to be upfront and honest as a County Board Member, what does that say on how he would be as Treasurer? Since he is running for Treasurer on his resume only—he than should be judged on his resume including his current position as County Board member. Crawford has repeated his resume over and over again. He has not once, not one time in a public forum explained his knowledge of the Treasurer’s office. (Due in fact that he has none). We know more about Crawford’s grandparents, his homecoming queen wife and all of his involvement into just about every organization in the area, but we have never heard a word uttered, in particular, a positive word, regarding his knowledge and goals for the Treasurer’s office. He is running his campaign like Mr. Vance as described, just like an old-fashioned ‘politician’—the very people Americans are protesting about and wanting to throw out of office.
Mr. Crawford is a resume builder, a cheerleader—he talks the talk, but does not walk the walk. He is the epitome of what groups like 9/12, Campaign for Liberty, the Convervative Party and normal everday Joe; Jane Six-Pack Americans are complaining; protesting about, and have targeted to drive out of OUR, I repeat Mr. Crawford, OUR government.
Your support of video gambling contradicts your so-called conservative fiscal values. Tazewell County taxpayers have footed the bill for the Gambling boat and many of the businesses including hotels around the boat. Why in the world would we want to place 1000 competing gaming positions around the County to compete against our own investment? There has been millions of dollars that have not gone to our schools, parks, libraries and towns because of sweetheart deals ‘politicians’ just like Crawford have crafted. You know, just like the one Crawford was involved in with the Peoria Museum. In the end, with people like Crawford, taxpayers get it in the end.
If his record as Tazewell County Auditor (of which he is touting in his resume and as a reason to vote for him) is a barometer of how he will treat the Treasurer’s office, then we must reject him. Journal Star records show that he admitted to excessive absenteeism for a solid 6 months and would often disappear from the office without anyone knowing of his whereabouts. Crawford, the man of fiscal conservative values and the self-anointed ‘taxpayer watchdog’ kicked the County’s external auditor of his office telling them that know one tells him how to run his office. It is time to retire this guy permanently—his performances at public appearances qualifies him for a job as a Wal-Mart Greeter only.
I am voting for Mary Burress—you can’t get any closer to the goals of Americans today to finally get people just like us into OUR Government. It is time we take back our County and send them one of us, a ‘Jane Six-Pack’, someone that is humble, upfront, honest and certainly not in any way full of themselves like her opponent. To me, Mary is the symbol of why I started to fight back, the reason I got back involved again—she is worth fighting for and I will on Tuesday, February 2nd.
8:12 AM”
My response in relation to the first anonymous comment:
First, the last comment of the anonymous writer is incorrect. It stated: “Not on who gave the answer you like to an issue they have no control over.” Mr. Crawford does now have some control over the issue as I stated on the original post—“Of course, Russ Crawford, as a current member of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors, is in a position to actually vote yes or no on that specific question if the vote comes before the Board sometime this year.” How he votes or does not vote on issues is relevant to judging his possible performance as our Treasurer. He, himself, boasted of his five terms as a member of the Tazewell County Board. It’s relevant and it is my most important issue. Don’t I have the right to determine how I will vote based upon my criteria not someone else’s?
Second, as the second anonymous writer correctly and accurately stated, this issue deals with the integrity of the candidates. Integrity not only based upon how he would vote but also how he answered or did not answer the question. As I wrote for the first post, “Even though he was intent upon leaving and attending his other meeting, he never did give a yes or no answer. Instead, for what seemed like five minutes, he danced around the question. During a brief pause, in exasperation, I said ‘You are a politician!’
Now, I was a politician once upon a time. I don’t normally use the term in a negative sense. To me, the second anyone runs for a political office, he becomes a politician whether or not he actually ever wins an election. This time though, I did mean it in a negative sense: someone who responses to a question without ever actually answering the question.
By the way, during the two times that I ran for state-wide elective office (Arizona House of Representatives), I attended two ‘party campaign training camps.’ They actually taught us to answer a question by talking around the question and focusing on the positive points that we, as the candidate, wanted to emphasis. In short, we were taught NOT to give yes or no answers that might alienate a portion of our audience. Our goal was to gain as many votes as possibly without losing any vote, or, at least, losing as few as possible. Talk positively but don’t give a specific yes or no answer.” That is exactly what Mr. Crawford did that night. And I have every right to penalize him for it. It is my vote!
Along the same lines, if you would check Mr. Crawford’s résumé posted on January 12th, his last listing under “community commitment” was “Church Board of Deacons; Cursillo Community Assistant Rector.” If you would check the title of this blog, it is “Christian Gunslinger.” Whether or not Mr. Crawford is a Christian is between him and GOD. However, since he used “Church Board of Deacons” as part of his résumé, I have the right and the responsibility to question whether his refusal to ban video gambling is something that a Christian would do. As I said at the Morton Village Board meeting the night that video gambling was banned, video gambling is State sanctioned stealing. Stealing is condemned as sin in both the Old and New Testaments. If Mr. Crawford will not ban video gambling as a Tazewell County Board member and he has not, I have the right and responsibility to question his integrity and his willingness to support Christian principles and values. And I do. It, again, has to do with integrity. And after all, it is my vote!
However, just because I did not speak of other issues on my post when I stated I was voting for Mary Burress, that does not mean that I didn’t consider other factors. For indeed, I did. I was trying to be as gentle as possible to Mr. Crawford. I saw no reason to mention other things. However, since the first anonymous writer questioned the way I decided to vote, even though it is my vote, I will.
The anonymous writer declared “Here an idea how about voting for the candidate that would make a better treasurer and do a better job of investing and managing the counties money.” My question to the anonymous writer is: “Did you read the two résumés posted on January 12th and the 13th?” Mr. Crawford has ZERO experience as Tazewell County Treasurer—NONE. Mary Burress according to her résumé has “21 years (of experience—my addition) as Deputy Treasurer (in Tazewell County—my addition).” Mr. Crawford did not challenge any item on her résumé when speaking before us. Thus, I’m taking a wild guess and am concluding that her résumé is correct. She has 21 years MORE experience than Mr. Crawford working not only in the Treasure’s office but as the number two in command. What do you think? Does that seem fair?
When I was attending the two ‘party campaign training camps,’ it was suggested that at gatherings where an audience could ask questions that we place people within the audience to ask us “softball” questions to allow use to “hit home runs.” (No, I never personally did that. I’ve never had any problems answering any question I’ve been asked while running for office.) I’ve known of candidates who have done so. Now, I don’t know if that was the case on that night, however the first question Mr. Crawford received was a “softball” question. (Remember, he was only asked two questions. And, he only answer one of those two questions.)
The question was why he was running for the Treasurer’s office—were there problems within the current Treasurer’s office? His answer was that there were problems and then he seemed to blame Mary Burress for those problems. However, that night he also stated that he had been asked by Republican leaders to run for the office. According to him, he was asked to run for the office before the current Treasurer decided not to seek reelection. He turned down the request stating that he would NOT run against the incumbent. He only decided to run after the incumbent said he would not run.
There are at least three major problems with his attitude with this issue. First, and foremost, Mary Burress is NOT responsible for any current problems within the Treasurer’s office. The person responsible is the “buck stops here” person who is in charge of the office and that is the current Treasurer. And yet, he, himself, said that he WOULD NOT run against the current Treasurer. So, the second problem is this: Is he now running because he thinks he can win the election against a non-incumbent while he thought he would lose to the incumbent? Is he running because he wants to solve the perceived problems or is he running to win an election? Finally, at least on the night he spoke to us, he NEVER gave one example of how he would solve the perceived problems or even how he would improve the office. Mary Burress, when she talked to us at an earlier meeting, gave specific examples of how she hoped to improve the office.
I was not able to ask him a second question that I wanted to ask because he left before he had answered my first question. Looking over his résumé, he listed his five terms as a member of the Tazewell County Board. Taken directly from his résumé that I posted on the 12th:
“as their representative on the County Board for 5 terms:
1976-1980 (District 2)
1988-1992 (District 3)
1992-1996 (District 3)
1996-1998 (District 3)
2006-2010 (District 3)”
Did you notice anything unusual about his five terms on the Board? I did. During his fourth term he only served for 2 years. I wanted to ask about that but did not have a chance—he left without answering my first question. It could be totally innocent. However, when an elected official does not serve out his term, I want to know why.
Finally, to be quite frank, I’m as qualified as he is, if not more so, to serve as the County Treasurer. I have a M.S. degree in political science with a strong emphasis in economics. I taught at high schools. I was an elected public official serving on a five member Board which gave me much more influence that he has as one County Board member on a 21 member Board. During my time on the Board, we build 3 elementary schools, a junior high school, and a high school. I worked at Caterpillar. I was born and raised in Tazewell County. I was a licensed real estate agent in both Illinois and Arizona. I was a church Treasurer. I was a Treasurer for a second nonprofit organization. I taught Bible classes from K-adult. Something he has not done according to his résumé, I had absolute, legal financial control of a million $ plus estate of one of my clients. I was and am a business owner. I am a published author. Okay. One of my businesses published the book but I am a published author. Maybe next time, I should run for the office. Wait. I may not be as qualified as Mary Burress.
Do you think this explanation, satisfies anonymous 1 or should I give more reasons. Oh wait, here’s the best reason of all—IT’S MY VOTE!!!
Update: I downloaded a PDF from a conservative Illinois taxpayer organization that has endorsed candidates that support a conservative tax policy in government. I had written who I was going to vote for and why before I downloaded the information. I’m posting the information dealing with the three offices that I discussed. The information with minor changes to fit my format:
From http://www.ntui.org/
“Tax Accountability
407 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1170
Chicago, Illinois 60605-1150
Phone: (312) 427-5128
Fax: (312) 427-5139
E-mail: ta@NTUI.org
CANDIDATES ENDORSED FOR FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PRIMARY ELECTION (by Tax Accountability the political arm of the NTUI—my addition)
GOVERNOR
Adam Andrzejewski—Republican
LT. GOVERNOR
Dennis Cook—Republican
Jason Plummer—Republican
Randy White—Republican
U.S. SENATE
John Arrington—Republican
Robert Marshall—Democrat”
In the following section, all material that is in parenthesis and says “my addition” was added to the quotes tonight for clarification purposes. They were not in the original quotes.)
On my January 14th post entitled “Video Gambling and the Republican candidates for Tazewell County Treasurer” I said I was going to vote for Mary Burress for Tazewell County Treasurer. A portion of that post said, “I asked him (Russ Crawford—my addition) the same yes or no question that Mary Burress was asked. Yes, he would ban video gambling or no, he would not ban video gambling. (At an earlier meeting, Mary Burress said she would ban video gambling—my addition.) Of course, Russ Crawford, as a current member of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors, is in a position to actually vote yes or no on that specific question if the vote comes before the Board sometime this year.” I finished the post by stating, “Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Crawford did not answer the question. Furthermore, his attempt to skirt the question resulted in an incorrect answer. I will be voting for Mary Burress for Tazewell County Treasurer on February 2nd. Mr. Crawford has failed the test!”
Tonight’s post contains two anonymous comments generated from that January 14th post and, at the end of those comments, my response to the first anonymous post.
I received a comment which said:
“Anonymous said:
So your going to vote for a candidate based off them not answering a question on issue that the office they are running for has no poor over? Here an idea how about voting for the candidate that would make a better treasurer and do a better job of investing and managing the counties money. Not on who gave the answer you like to an issue they have no control over.
9: 50 AM”
That comment from the first anonymous post led to a second comment from another anonymous reader. It said:
“Anonymous said:
The ‘question’ also reveals the integrity of the candidate. The integrity of a County Board Member transcends to the integrity of Mr. Crawford as Treasurer. If he isn’t willing to be upfront and honest as a County Board Member, what does that say on how he would be as Treasurer? Since he is running for Treasurer on his resume only—he than should be judged on his resume including his current position as County Board member. Crawford has repeated his resume over and over again. He has not once, not one time in a public forum explained his knowledge of the Treasurer’s office. (Due in fact that he has none). We know more about Crawford’s grandparents, his homecoming queen wife and all of his involvement into just about every organization in the area, but we have never heard a word uttered, in particular, a positive word, regarding his knowledge and goals for the Treasurer’s office. He is running his campaign like Mr. Vance as described, just like an old-fashioned ‘politician’—the very people Americans are protesting about and wanting to throw out of office.
Mr. Crawford is a resume builder, a cheerleader—he talks the talk, but does not walk the walk. He is the epitome of what groups like 9/12, Campaign for Liberty, the Convervative Party and normal everday Joe; Jane Six-Pack Americans are complaining; protesting about, and have targeted to drive out of OUR, I repeat Mr. Crawford, OUR government.
Your support of video gambling contradicts your so-called conservative fiscal values. Tazewell County taxpayers have footed the bill for the Gambling boat and many of the businesses including hotels around the boat. Why in the world would we want to place 1000 competing gaming positions around the County to compete against our own investment? There has been millions of dollars that have not gone to our schools, parks, libraries and towns because of sweetheart deals ‘politicians’ just like Crawford have crafted. You know, just like the one Crawford was involved in with the Peoria Museum. In the end, with people like Crawford, taxpayers get it in the end.
If his record as Tazewell County Auditor (of which he is touting in his resume and as a reason to vote for him) is a barometer of how he will treat the Treasurer’s office, then we must reject him. Journal Star records show that he admitted to excessive absenteeism for a solid 6 months and would often disappear from the office without anyone knowing of his whereabouts. Crawford, the man of fiscal conservative values and the self-anointed ‘taxpayer watchdog’ kicked the County’s external auditor of his office telling them that know one tells him how to run his office. It is time to retire this guy permanently—his performances at public appearances qualifies him for a job as a Wal-Mart Greeter only.
I am voting for Mary Burress—you can’t get any closer to the goals of Americans today to finally get people just like us into OUR Government. It is time we take back our County and send them one of us, a ‘Jane Six-Pack’, someone that is humble, upfront, honest and certainly not in any way full of themselves like her opponent. To me, Mary is the symbol of why I started to fight back, the reason I got back involved again—she is worth fighting for and I will on Tuesday, February 2nd.
8:12 AM”
My response in relation to the first anonymous comment:
First, the last comment of the anonymous writer is incorrect. It stated: “Not on who gave the answer you like to an issue they have no control over.” Mr. Crawford does now have some control over the issue as I stated on the original post—“Of course, Russ Crawford, as a current member of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors, is in a position to actually vote yes or no on that specific question if the vote comes before the Board sometime this year.” How he votes or does not vote on issues is relevant to judging his possible performance as our Treasurer. He, himself, boasted of his five terms as a member of the Tazewell County Board. It’s relevant and it is my most important issue. Don’t I have the right to determine how I will vote based upon my criteria not someone else’s?
Second, as the second anonymous writer correctly and accurately stated, this issue deals with the integrity of the candidates. Integrity not only based upon how he would vote but also how he answered or did not answer the question. As I wrote for the first post, “Even though he was intent upon leaving and attending his other meeting, he never did give a yes or no answer. Instead, for what seemed like five minutes, he danced around the question. During a brief pause, in exasperation, I said ‘You are a politician!’
Now, I was a politician once upon a time. I don’t normally use the term in a negative sense. To me, the second anyone runs for a political office, he becomes a politician whether or not he actually ever wins an election. This time though, I did mean it in a negative sense: someone who responses to a question without ever actually answering the question.
By the way, during the two times that I ran for state-wide elective office (Arizona House of Representatives), I attended two ‘party campaign training camps.’ They actually taught us to answer a question by talking around the question and focusing on the positive points that we, as the candidate, wanted to emphasis. In short, we were taught NOT to give yes or no answers that might alienate a portion of our audience. Our goal was to gain as many votes as possibly without losing any vote, or, at least, losing as few as possible. Talk positively but don’t give a specific yes or no answer.” That is exactly what Mr. Crawford did that night. And I have every right to penalize him for it. It is my vote!
Along the same lines, if you would check Mr. Crawford’s résumé posted on January 12th, his last listing under “community commitment” was “Church Board of Deacons; Cursillo Community Assistant Rector.” If you would check the title of this blog, it is “Christian Gunslinger.” Whether or not Mr. Crawford is a Christian is between him and GOD. However, since he used “Church Board of Deacons” as part of his résumé, I have the right and the responsibility to question whether his refusal to ban video gambling is something that a Christian would do. As I said at the Morton Village Board meeting the night that video gambling was banned, video gambling is State sanctioned stealing. Stealing is condemned as sin in both the Old and New Testaments. If Mr. Crawford will not ban video gambling as a Tazewell County Board member and he has not, I have the right and responsibility to question his integrity and his willingness to support Christian principles and values. And I do. It, again, has to do with integrity. And after all, it is my vote!
However, just because I did not speak of other issues on my post when I stated I was voting for Mary Burress, that does not mean that I didn’t consider other factors. For indeed, I did. I was trying to be as gentle as possible to Mr. Crawford. I saw no reason to mention other things. However, since the first anonymous writer questioned the way I decided to vote, even though it is my vote, I will.
The anonymous writer declared “Here an idea how about voting for the candidate that would make a better treasurer and do a better job of investing and managing the counties money.” My question to the anonymous writer is: “Did you read the two résumés posted on January 12th and the 13th?” Mr. Crawford has ZERO experience as Tazewell County Treasurer—NONE. Mary Burress according to her résumé has “21 years (of experience—my addition) as Deputy Treasurer (in Tazewell County—my addition).” Mr. Crawford did not challenge any item on her résumé when speaking before us. Thus, I’m taking a wild guess and am concluding that her résumé is correct. She has 21 years MORE experience than Mr. Crawford working not only in the Treasure’s office but as the number two in command. What do you think? Does that seem fair?
When I was attending the two ‘party campaign training camps,’ it was suggested that at gatherings where an audience could ask questions that we place people within the audience to ask us “softball” questions to allow use to “hit home runs.” (No, I never personally did that. I’ve never had any problems answering any question I’ve been asked while running for office.) I’ve known of candidates who have done so. Now, I don’t know if that was the case on that night, however the first question Mr. Crawford received was a “softball” question. (Remember, he was only asked two questions. And, he only answer one of those two questions.)
The question was why he was running for the Treasurer’s office—were there problems within the current Treasurer’s office? His answer was that there were problems and then he seemed to blame Mary Burress for those problems. However, that night he also stated that he had been asked by Republican leaders to run for the office. According to him, he was asked to run for the office before the current Treasurer decided not to seek reelection. He turned down the request stating that he would NOT run against the incumbent. He only decided to run after the incumbent said he would not run.
There are at least three major problems with his attitude with this issue. First, and foremost, Mary Burress is NOT responsible for any current problems within the Treasurer’s office. The person responsible is the “buck stops here” person who is in charge of the office and that is the current Treasurer. And yet, he, himself, said that he WOULD NOT run against the current Treasurer. So, the second problem is this: Is he now running because he thinks he can win the election against a non-incumbent while he thought he would lose to the incumbent? Is he running because he wants to solve the perceived problems or is he running to win an election? Finally, at least on the night he spoke to us, he NEVER gave one example of how he would solve the perceived problems or even how he would improve the office. Mary Burress, when she talked to us at an earlier meeting, gave specific examples of how she hoped to improve the office.
I was not able to ask him a second question that I wanted to ask because he left before he had answered my first question. Looking over his résumé, he listed his five terms as a member of the Tazewell County Board. Taken directly from his résumé that I posted on the 12th:
“as their representative on the County Board for 5 terms:
1976-1980 (District 2)
1988-1992 (District 3)
1992-1996 (District 3)
1996-1998 (District 3)
2006-2010 (District 3)”
Did you notice anything unusual about his five terms on the Board? I did. During his fourth term he only served for 2 years. I wanted to ask about that but did not have a chance—he left without answering my first question. It could be totally innocent. However, when an elected official does not serve out his term, I want to know why.
Finally, to be quite frank, I’m as qualified as he is, if not more so, to serve as the County Treasurer. I have a M.S. degree in political science with a strong emphasis in economics. I taught at high schools. I was an elected public official serving on a five member Board which gave me much more influence that he has as one County Board member on a 21 member Board. During my time on the Board, we build 3 elementary schools, a junior high school, and a high school. I worked at Caterpillar. I was born and raised in Tazewell County. I was a licensed real estate agent in both Illinois and Arizona. I was a church Treasurer. I was a Treasurer for a second nonprofit organization. I taught Bible classes from K-adult. Something he has not done according to his résumé, I had absolute, legal financial control of a million $ plus estate of one of my clients. I was and am a business owner. I am a published author. Okay. One of my businesses published the book but I am a published author. Maybe next time, I should run for the office. Wait. I may not be as qualified as Mary Burress.
Do you think this explanation, satisfies anonymous 1 or should I give more reasons. Oh wait, here’s the best reason of all—IT’S MY VOTE!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home