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!
I think most people are getting pretty tired of the old trope that democrat funding is the reason that so many radicalized right-wingers we're nominated by *republican* voters in this year's primaries. It is a stale, lame attempt to blame others for the widespread failures of the republican party.
Sure, democrats paid for commercials for those radicalized right-wingers. There is nothing wrong way taking out ads before a primary pointing out that a particular candidate is just too radical for IL, or for Western MI in the case of one nearby GOP rep who lost to a primary challenger.
But it was *republican* voters who nominated them.
Don't like the results? Grow a pair, why doncha? Fix your own party, and quit beefin' about the other guys.
John N: it’s not a trope; it’s a demonstrable fact. Pritzker spent millions during the primary season railing against Irwin in ways that, if Republicans had done it, would have been decried as blatant Racism against a Black man. The ads themselves in the fine print said so, and sources including NBC, CBS, US News, the Associated Press, and the Chicago Tribune all reported on it. But you seem to contradict yourself: “Sure, Democrats paid for ads for those radicalized right-wingers.” As you say, fix your own party before you start blaming others. And consider stopping with the insults while you’re at it before you give everyone in your party a bad name.
"...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..."
Did all that "interference" - more accurately described as "defining your opponent" - cause all those poor helpless republican voters to trudge to the polls and nominate a radicalized right-winger?
The people "largely responsible" for the nominee are the ones who voted for him. And those are all republican voters. As I say, grow a damn pair and fix your party, rather than decrying what the dems did.
The reason Bailey is your nominee is because republican voters *chose* him. That's your tribe. Those are your peeps, your posse, your running companions. Own it. Then, if you want to try, go ahead and fix it.
But quit with the nonsense that it is all the fault of "Pritzker and his Democratic friends" cuz that just makes you look like a whining crybaby.
John, the only flaw in your logic is that they paid for a smear campaign on the less radical, less far right, more like them, former democrat candidate. Hysterical that their focus was; “Irvin has been getting rich by putting violent criminals back on our streets.” Yeah, the accused probably shouldn't get a defense attorney. I wonder what JB's definition of "rich" is? :)
"Grow a pair, why doncha?" To quote Shaun H. from last week comments; "It is an indignity to vilify him simply for his position on the issue. To me, denouncing him seems not only wrong on principle, but it is obviously a form of verbal abuse."
Your reply makes no sense because it ignores facts in evidence. Remember that the first major candidate was the black mayor of Aurora, backed by the richest man in Illinois. It was a creepshow from the start. Many did not even believe he was a true Republican. Pritzker had no real reason to fear Irwin. He would have lost half the votes downstate just by being black. Bailey got the nod by default because the GOP ran a crew of non-entities before the primary. You're blaming Pritzker? Who made the voters vote for Bailey? Did Pritzker and his minions want Bailey? Probably. If you were running a race for money, would you rather run against a sprint champion or a one-legged cripple?
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.
You found a bullet hole in your front window, and then you found the shell casing "behind the tv" - is that it?
Hate to tell you, but if both of those statements are true, the shot came from inside your your home, not outside. Assuming this was a handgun and not a rifle, if the casing was found behind the TV, whoever shot that gun was standing right in front of the TV when the gun was fired.
Thanks for the input. Police came to the house-- entry point on the front window screen confirmed. Second bullet entry point through the front of our house into the basement wall.
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.
I’m sure there are those who will disagree with me, but I vote no on retention for every judge every time. It is virtually impossible to get an incompetent judge removed from the bench. Over the past years, there have been a few instances where the Tribune editorial board and other organizations have railed against certain judges and tried to rally “no” votes to remove that person from the bench. To the best of my memory, those removal efforts all failed.
A competent judge has virtually zero chance of being removed from the bench by these votes. Unfortunately, unqualified judges have the same results.
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!
I think most people are getting pretty tired of the old trope that democrat funding is the reason that so many radicalized right-wingers we're nominated by *republican* voters in this year's primaries. It is a stale, lame attempt to blame others for the widespread failures of the republican party.
Sure, democrats paid for commercials for those radicalized right-wingers. There is nothing wrong way taking out ads before a primary pointing out that a particular candidate is just too radical for IL, or for Western MI in the case of one nearby GOP rep who lost to a primary challenger.
But it was *republican* voters who nominated them.
Don't like the results? Grow a pair, why doncha? Fix your own party, and quit beefin' about the other guys.
John N: it’s not a trope; it’s a demonstrable fact. Pritzker spent millions during the primary season railing against Irwin in ways that, if Republicans had done it, would have been decried as blatant Racism against a Black man. The ads themselves in the fine print said so, and sources including NBC, CBS, US News, the Associated Press, and the Chicago Tribune all reported on it. But you seem to contradict yourself: “Sure, Democrats paid for ads for those radicalized right-wingers.” As you say, fix your own party before you start blaming others. And consider stopping with the insults while you’re at it before you give everyone in your party a bad name.
LOL, nah, it is a trope. you wrote:
"...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..."
Did all that "interference" - more accurately described as "defining your opponent" - cause all those poor helpless republican voters to trudge to the polls and nominate a radicalized right-winger?
The people "largely responsible" for the nominee are the ones who voted for him. And those are all republican voters. As I say, grow a damn pair and fix your party, rather than decrying what the dems did.
The reason Bailey is your nominee is because republican voters *chose* him. That's your tribe. Those are your peeps, your posse, your running companions. Own it. Then, if you want to try, go ahead and fix it.
But quit with the nonsense that it is all the fault of "Pritzker and his Democratic friends" cuz that just makes you look like a whining crybaby.
John, the only flaw in your logic is that they paid for a smear campaign on the less radical, less far right, more like them, former democrat candidate. Hysterical that their focus was; “Irvin has been getting rich by putting violent criminals back on our streets.” Yeah, the accused probably shouldn't get a defense attorney. I wonder what JB's definition of "rich" is? :)
"Grow a pair, why doncha?" To quote Shaun H. from last week comments; "It is an indignity to vilify him simply for his position on the issue. To me, denouncing him seems not only wrong on principle, but it is obviously a form of verbal abuse."
AP article description of the strategy:
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-richard-irvin-aurora-springfield-crime-cdbeccc6952adc713ab6beb99f6dc28e
Your reply makes no sense because it ignores facts in evidence. Remember that the first major candidate was the black mayor of Aurora, backed by the richest man in Illinois. It was a creepshow from the start. Many did not even believe he was a true Republican. Pritzker had no real reason to fear Irwin. He would have lost half the votes downstate just by being black. Bailey got the nod by default because the GOP ran a crew of non-entities before the primary. You're blaming Pritzker? Who made the voters vote for Bailey? Did Pritzker and his minions want Bailey? Probably. If you were running a race for money, would you rather run against a sprint champion or a one-legged cripple?
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.
I would also include a fact check/BS meter, to help voters filter out the nonsense included in politicians' responses.
Perhaps that’s where the expertise of the moderator comes in.
"(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.
Most likely
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.
You found a bullet hole in your front window, and then you found the shell casing "behind the tv" - is that it?
Hate to tell you, but if both of those statements are true, the shot came from inside your your home, not outside. Assuming this was a handgun and not a rifle, if the casing was found behind the TV, whoever shot that gun was standing right in front of the TV when the gun was fired.
That's how most handguns work.
Thanks for the input. Police came to the house-- entry point on the front window screen confirmed. Second bullet entry point through the front of our house into the basement wall.
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.
I’m sure there are those who will disagree with me, but I vote no on retention for every judge every time. It is virtually impossible to get an incompetent judge removed from the bench. Over the past years, there have been a few instances where the Tribune editorial board and other organizations have railed against certain judges and tried to rally “no” votes to remove that person from the bench. To the best of my memory, those removal efforts all failed.
A competent judge has virtually zero chance of being removed from the bench by these votes. Unfortunately, unqualified judges have the same results.
I usually go here to do my research on judges:
https://www.injusticewatch.org/interactives/judicial-election-guide/2022-general/en/
Thank you.
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.