Video Gambling and the Republican candidates for Tazewell County Treasurer
I’ve always taken the position that it is not for me to tell people who to vote for. When I was a member of the Marana School Board in Arizona, we had a board member who often said something similar to “If you are thinking at all, you will vote this way.” Of course, I’m quite capable of thinking on my own and drawing my own conclusions. I didn’t need him to make the decision for me. I wasn’t elected to automatically vote the way he was going to vote. Therefore, I don’t attempt to tell people who they should vote for.
However, I will and have stated who I am going to vote for and why. The readers have every right and duty to take it for what it is worth. I certainly understand that each person needs to do his own research and reach his own conclusions.
That said, as I said in my two previous posts, Mary Burress, one of the two Republican candidates for Tazewell County Treasurer, spoke to the Morton 9/12 Project group on December 8, 2009. After speaking, she answered questions from the audience. One question was very specific. She was asked if she would vote to ban video gambling or not. (By the way, I did not ask the question. Of course, at that time we were working as a group to have the Morton Village Board ban video gambling which it did at its December 21st meeting.) It was a yes or no question. Yes, she would ban video gambling or no, she would not ban video gambling. Her answer was “yes” she would ban video gambling.
The day before our January 12th meeting, the leadership team met to plan the meeting for the next evening. We usually meet earlier but the adverse weather had delayed the meeting. At that leadership meeting, we were told that Russ Crawford had a conflicting meeting on the 12th and would not attend our meeting. In fact, our agenda for that night stated “Due to a conflict in schedules, Don Lowery (a Republican candidate for the Illinois U.S. Senate race—my addition) and Russ Crawford will not be here tonight.” (I changed one word that was misspelled on the agenda page. Shorthand is everywhere these days—my addition.)
Note: This event was not recorded, at least by me. I believe everything stated from this point on is factual. However, it may not be exactly as it occurred. Without question though, the lack of a specific answer—yes or no—is absolutely true.
To my surprise, Russ Crawford was at the meeting. He was going to speak to us first and then attend his other meeting. He spoke and then the floor was opened for questions. He was asked and answered one question. Then, it seemed no other questions were forth coming. So, I spoke up. I asked him 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. 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.
Surprise, surprise. 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.
A short time later as he continued to waltz around the question, I said, “The question I asked.” He cut me off by stating that he knew the question I asked and that I knew his answer. With that, he left the room to attend his other meeting, I guess. And yes I did know his answer. He was NOT going to vote to ban video gambling but he was also NOT going to specifically say that he would vote “NO” to the question of banning video gambling.
Mr. Crawford said he had been a teacher for a time after graduating from college. So was I. Mr. Crawford said he had taught at Pekin Community High School. So did I. (Undoubtedly, he taught at Pekin longer than I did.) I imagine that during his time as a teacher he asked a few “true or false” questions (the equivalent of the yes or no question that he was asked) on tests. I know that I did. And if a student answered a “true or false” question by writing a paragraph or more about the question without ever answering “true” or “false,” I would have marked the answer as wrong. I don’t know what Mr. Crawford would do in the same situation.
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!
I’ve always taken the position that it is not for me to tell people who to vote for. When I was a member of the Marana School Board in Arizona, we had a board member who often said something similar to “If you are thinking at all, you will vote this way.” Of course, I’m quite capable of thinking on my own and drawing my own conclusions. I didn’t need him to make the decision for me. I wasn’t elected to automatically vote the way he was going to vote. Therefore, I don’t attempt to tell people who they should vote for.
However, I will and have stated who I am going to vote for and why. The readers have every right and duty to take it for what it is worth. I certainly understand that each person needs to do his own research and reach his own conclusions.
That said, as I said in my two previous posts, Mary Burress, one of the two Republican candidates for Tazewell County Treasurer, spoke to the Morton 9/12 Project group on December 8, 2009. After speaking, she answered questions from the audience. One question was very specific. She was asked if she would vote to ban video gambling or not. (By the way, I did not ask the question. Of course, at that time we were working as a group to have the Morton Village Board ban video gambling which it did at its December 21st meeting.) It was a yes or no question. Yes, she would ban video gambling or no, she would not ban video gambling. Her answer was “yes” she would ban video gambling.
The day before our January 12th meeting, the leadership team met to plan the meeting for the next evening. We usually meet earlier but the adverse weather had delayed the meeting. At that leadership meeting, we were told that Russ Crawford had a conflicting meeting on the 12th and would not attend our meeting. In fact, our agenda for that night stated “Due to a conflict in schedules, Don Lowery (a Republican candidate for the Illinois U.S. Senate race—my addition) and Russ Crawford will not be here tonight.” (I changed one word that was misspelled on the agenda page. Shorthand is everywhere these days—my addition.)
Note: This event was not recorded, at least by me. I believe everything stated from this point on is factual. However, it may not be exactly as it occurred. Without question though, the lack of a specific answer—yes or no—is absolutely true.
To my surprise, Russ Crawford was at the meeting. He was going to speak to us first and then attend his other meeting. He spoke and then the floor was opened for questions. He was asked and answered one question. Then, it seemed no other questions were forth coming. So, I spoke up. I asked him 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. 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.
Surprise, surprise. 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.
A short time later as he continued to waltz around the question, I said, “The question I asked.” He cut me off by stating that he knew the question I asked and that I knew his answer. With that, he left the room to attend his other meeting, I guess. And yes I did know his answer. He was NOT going to vote to ban video gambling but he was also NOT going to specifically say that he would vote “NO” to the question of banning video gambling.
Mr. Crawford said he had been a teacher for a time after graduating from college. So was I. Mr. Crawford said he had taught at Pekin Community High School. So did I. (Undoubtedly, he taught at Pekin longer than I did.) I imagine that during his time as a teacher he asked a few “true or false” questions (the equivalent of the yes or no question that he was asked) on tests. I know that I did. And if a student answered a “true or false” question by writing a paragraph or more about the question without ever answering “true” or “false,” I would have marked the answer as wrong. I don’t know what Mr. Crawford would do in the same situation.
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!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:43 AM
2 Comments:
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.
The "question" also reveals the integrity of the candidate. The integrity of a County Board Member transcends to the intergrity 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.
Post a Comment
<< Home