Fascinating that you say you’ll “vote … without reservation” for the candidate for governor you yourself describe as “robotic,” “humorless,” and exhibiting “mealy-mouthed cowardice.” Of course you’ll say that you still prefer Pritzker to Bailey, but then Pritzker and his Democratic friends are largely responsible for Bailey being the Republican nominee, aren’t they, having spent so much money and energy to interfere in the Republican primary and make sure that Irwin didn’t win it? This and your reasoning are yet more sad examples of why Illinois remains among the most Democratic but least democratic (with a small “d”) states in the union. By the way, your polling place is in Madison, Wisconsin this year.😉 Don’t forget to vote!
One thing Christian Nationalism fails to understand is that New Testament Christianity is all about the Invitation to Believe, not an imposition of belief. Certainly, there proper places for the gathering together of like-minded individuals into a community of shared beliefs and behaviors (places of worship, places of education, places of fellowship) and even civic communities of moral restrictions (such as “dry towns” of which Wheaton, IL was one in the past). However, the key component of these gatherings is the free choice of joining them. The error of Christian Nationalism in its failure to offer a gentle and respectful set of compelling reasons for all persons to join their community (I Peter 3:-17), but instead tries to impose itself upon a society which it views as “the enemy.”
I really hate debates as a vehicle to choose the better candidate. Yes, seeing them side by side extolling their positions on key issues is enlightening. Unfortunately that is not usually what happens. The interruptions, failure to answer the questions, and spouting campaign rhetoric turn me off. These debates are more like reality show entertainment.
I agree with your assessment that “winning” the debate probably has little correlation to whether a candidate would be an effective elected official. I would much prefer a one on one interview where the candidate can espouse his positions, and point out where he differs from his opponent. Of course, an intelligent, non biased moderator would be key.
"(In the post-debate news conference Pritzker said he should have cited “Go Big or Go Home.” Fine. Clever enough. But it’s an example of what the French call l'esprit de l'escalier.)"
I personally suspect Pritzker will win by a landslide, and then he’ll claim “mandate” when the reality is simply that Bailey is so obtuse. I did not vote for JB in either of his primaries, but I’m stuck with him.
I just submitted my request for a mail ballot. Partly because of the wandering voting locations, but mainly because it gives me a final chance for a thoughtful vote on down-ballot races and amendments (and such). I may switch back in the future, because I also think going to the poll is an important act of community.
I'm so sick of hearing these moron politicians talk about crime. We woke up Friday morning to find that a bullet shot through our front window the night before. The same spot where my daughter sits doing homework. We found the shell casing behind the tv. The gubernatorial candidates talk about crime for sound bites -- and offer no real plans. Our alderman sweeps the exploding crime rates in our Lincoln Square ward under the rug. And the mayor and cook co states attorney point fingers at each other. I'm a Chicagoan - I grew up and am raising my kids in the same zip code because I love this city. But I've lost confidence in the current political leadership. Safety, food and shelter-- get it done people.
I'm having trouble understanding the Bailey rating. He did good because he never strayed from the the usual GOP talking points idiocy? Because he knew how to be rude and interrupt? I understand that JB gave a lot of non answers, which means that this was not even a real debate. But that doesn't mean that Bailey deserves a higher rating.
Help! I’d like your opinion on the retention of specific judicial judges. I haven’t been able to get much info on any of them - except dob, spouse, children etc.
Darren Bailey and others are free to believe whatever religion they choose. Their "sin" - to use a term they would understand - is that they think they have the right to impose it on the state, the country or anyone living here. America was NOT founded as a Christian nation as they often assert - many of the Founding Fathers were deists. But one has to study religion (better yet, religions - as my 7th grade students did years ago) to KNOW what the truth actually is. Sigh. . .
“Once again, I’m left unsatisfied by the format of these joint appearances — the short answers, the rebuttals. I’d like to see the candidates go at one another without moderators, two minutes for one candidate, then two minutes for the other, with a kill switch on the microphone of candidate who doesn’t have the floor. Then, after about 40 minutes of that, I’d let the candidates question one another, 30 seconds for the question, 90 seconds for the answer.”
Eric…your format is no more likely to get real answers than this one. Notice how the questioner asked Pritzker 3 times to answer her question? He didn't and they never do. These “debates” are a joke and a waste of time.
Candidate debates suffer from two problems. The dominant one is that they feature candidates. However, candidates are so committed to their talking points and so intensely self-interested, that I don't see any realistic way to fix this problem directly.
A lesser, but more fixable, problem is the moderaters. Journalists know a lot--about an amazing range of issues--but they aren't experts. In addition, they need to appear fair-minded--which is admirable--but this limits their willingness to be as tough as they need to be. So, out of lack of knowledge or out of an attempt to appear even-handed, journalists lead debates that are worthless. Instead, for moderaters we should try non-journalists: business owners, nonprofit leaders, college professors, hard-nosed high school teachers, etc.
Fascinating that you say you’ll “vote … without reservation” for the candidate for governor you yourself describe as “robotic,” “humorless,” and exhibiting “mealy-mouthed cowardice.” Of course you’ll say that you still prefer Pritzker to Bailey, but then Pritzker and his Democratic friends are largely responsible for Bailey being the Republican nominee, aren’t they, having spent so much money and energy to interfere in the Republican primary and make sure that Irwin didn’t win it? This and your reasoning are yet more sad examples of why Illinois remains among the most Democratic but least democratic (with a small “d”) states in the union. By the way, your polling place is in Madison, Wisconsin this year.😉 Don’t forget to vote!
One thing Christian Nationalism fails to understand is that New Testament Christianity is all about the Invitation to Believe, not an imposition of belief. Certainly, there proper places for the gathering together of like-minded individuals into a community of shared beliefs and behaviors (places of worship, places of education, places of fellowship) and even civic communities of moral restrictions (such as “dry towns” of which Wheaton, IL was one in the past). However, the key component of these gatherings is the free choice of joining them. The error of Christian Nationalism in its failure to offer a gentle and respectful set of compelling reasons for all persons to join their community (I Peter 3:-17), but instead tries to impose itself upon a society which it views as “the enemy.”
I really hate debates as a vehicle to choose the better candidate. Yes, seeing them side by side extolling their positions on key issues is enlightening. Unfortunately that is not usually what happens. The interruptions, failure to answer the questions, and spouting campaign rhetoric turn me off. These debates are more like reality show entertainment.
I agree with your assessment that “winning” the debate probably has little correlation to whether a candidate would be an effective elected official. I would much prefer a one on one interview where the candidate can espouse his positions, and point out where he differs from his opponent. Of course, an intelligent, non biased moderator would be key.
"(In the post-debate news conference Pritzker said he should have cited “Go Big or Go Home.” Fine. Clever enough. But it’s an example of what the French call l'esprit de l'escalier.)"
And, supplied by staff, not his own imagination.
I personally suspect Pritzker will win by a landslide, and then he’ll claim “mandate” when the reality is simply that Bailey is so obtuse. I did not vote for JB in either of his primaries, but I’m stuck with him.
I just submitted my request for a mail ballot. Partly because of the wandering voting locations, but mainly because it gives me a final chance for a thoughtful vote on down-ballot races and amendments (and such). I may switch back in the future, because I also think going to the poll is an important act of community.
I'm so sick of hearing these moron politicians talk about crime. We woke up Friday morning to find that a bullet shot through our front window the night before. The same spot where my daughter sits doing homework. We found the shell casing behind the tv. The gubernatorial candidates talk about crime for sound bites -- and offer no real plans. Our alderman sweeps the exploding crime rates in our Lincoln Square ward under the rug. And the mayor and cook co states attorney point fingers at each other. I'm a Chicagoan - I grew up and am raising my kids in the same zip code because I love this city. But I've lost confidence in the current political leadership. Safety, food and shelter-- get it done people.
I'm having trouble understanding the Bailey rating. He did good because he never strayed from the the usual GOP talking points idiocy? Because he knew how to be rude and interrupt? I understand that JB gave a lot of non answers, which means that this was not even a real debate. But that doesn't mean that Bailey deserves a higher rating.
Help! I’d like your opinion on the retention of specific judicial judges. I haven’t been able to get much info on any of them - except dob, spouse, children etc.
Thank you for your reply and your prospective.
Darren Bailey and others are free to believe whatever religion they choose. Their "sin" - to use a term they would understand - is that they think they have the right to impose it on the state, the country or anyone living here. America was NOT founded as a Christian nation as they often assert - many of the Founding Fathers were deists. But one has to study religion (better yet, religions - as my 7th grade students did years ago) to KNOW what the truth actually is. Sigh. . .
I don't come here to bash, but
have you seen the Trib's new webpage?
What the hell is that?
Every subject is everywhere; new news is mixed in with two-week-old stuff.
It is as though they are purposely trying to make it challenging to navigate.
IMRN (I miss real newspapers)
“Once again, I’m left unsatisfied by the format of these joint appearances — the short answers, the rebuttals. I’d like to see the candidates go at one another without moderators, two minutes for one candidate, then two minutes for the other, with a kill switch on the microphone of candidate who doesn’t have the floor. Then, after about 40 minutes of that, I’d let the candidates question one another, 30 seconds for the question, 90 seconds for the answer.”
Eric…your format is no more likely to get real answers than this one. Notice how the questioner asked Pritzker 3 times to answer her question? He didn't and they never do. These “debates” are a joke and a waste of time.
Candidate debates suffer from two problems. The dominant one is that they feature candidates. However, candidates are so committed to their talking points and so intensely self-interested, that I don't see any realistic way to fix this problem directly.
A lesser, but more fixable, problem is the moderaters. Journalists know a lot--about an amazing range of issues--but they aren't experts. In addition, they need to appear fair-minded--which is admirable--but this limits their willingness to be as tough as they need to be. So, out of lack of knowledge or out of an attempt to appear even-handed, journalists lead debates that are worthless. Instead, for moderaters we should try non-journalists: business owners, nonprofit leaders, college professors, hard-nosed high school teachers, etc.