April 16, 2006

17th District hopefuls show their stuff at forum

There's already been a lot of yammering about the recent meeting held to introduce candidates to replace Lane Evans to the precinct committeemen who will elect one of them as Dem candidate for the 17th district, but here's a place for it.

There's already been the typical stuff from the usual suspects which lie and distort what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen, the lies which are the stock in trade of this bunch are already being attempted. And this is how these morons think they'll get support for Hare? Amazing. (I'm not lumping ALL Hare supporters in this group, mind you. I'm sure there are many who support Hare honestly and don't resort to such simple-minded tactics.)

There's also a lot of blow-hard spouting about how stupid it is for anyone to even think for a second that precinct committeemen or anyone else will have a voice in this important decision other than Evans and Gianulis. (sometimes the players vary)
The stunning thing is that the clowns that post this stuff are the ones in favor of not allowing anyone to have a voice in the choice, in other words, the handful of people who want to control this process by themselves. They've accused anyone who thinks that it's an open process of being naive and stupid, and boast that it's all over and done and Hare is in already, no doubt to discourage anyone who still wants to do their democratic duty and vote their will freely.

Frankly, 90% of the comments this issue has attracted (which includes several which weren't printed) have been just plain stupid and unproductive, not to mention having about as much thought behind them as a person gives inhaling.

Honest opinions with some reasoning behind them are welcome. Trying to spread goofy rumors or lies isn't.

The D/A has a piece covering the meeting here. It reports that a second candidate forum (which won't be open to the public) will be held at Spoon River College in Canton, IL on April 22nd at 10 a.m.

They've also featured a series of stories profiling those who seek election by precinct committeemen.

John Sullivan
Amy Stockwell
Mike Boland
Mark Schwiebert
Phil Hare
Hal Baine
(Registration required for all articles.)

The QC Times' Tory Brecht provides a taste of the hopeful's pitches.
Speaking first, [Hal] Bayne touted his advanced degrees and knowledge of foreign policy developed from taking dozens of trips around the globe, including to Afghanistan, Iran, Croatia, China and Africa. Bayne said he’d push for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and reverse President Bush’s policy of trying to spread democracy in the Middle East.

"Islam and democracy is an oxymoron," he said. "We should get our troops out of there ASAP."

Boland stressed his name recognition, honed by winning six elections in western Illinois, two of which were in hotly contested, targeted races. He also discussed his legislative record, which he said showed his support of labor, veterans and the environment.

"The Republican nominee is already out there and has name recognition from having run previously and having been a television personality," Boland said. "One of the things I bring to the table is a strong name and vote-getting ability."

Hare — bolstered by a number of applauding supporters including Rock Island County State’s Attorney Jeff Terronez and state Sen. Mike Jacobs, East Moline — said the endorsement he received from Evans is evidence he is the right person to carry on the congressman’s policies.

"If we’re going to win in November, we have to run as Democrats, not as nonpartisans," he said. "I am pro-labor, pro-choice and pro the average working man."

Newcomer Mellon asked precinct committeemen to go against the status quo and take a chance on a fresh face. The Army veteran and teacher said it is in the long-term interests of Democrats to bring new ideas to the table.

"The choice is really one out of two," he said. "The first choice is your standard business-as-usual political appointment. The other choice is something new, something unconventional. I feel I’m the only one that can fit that bill."

Schwiebert said he wants to take his experience building consensus across party lines and accomplishing economic development on a local city level to the state and national level. He also warned that simply picking any Democrat is no guarantee of November victory.

"For anyone who thinks the 17th is safe, look at the results from 2004 when John Kerry won by only 3 points in the district," he said.

Government should be about bringing people together as agents of positive change, Schwiebert said.

"The Republicans think government is bad, and when people that think government is bad get elected, they give you bad government."

Macon County Auditor Stockwell said she’d bring an agricultural and business-oriented voice to the district. She grew up on a farm in Ohio, studied economics and business in college and worked for a large agricultural corporation until she decided to retire due to the company’s anti-labor policies.

"I’m a Main Street capitalist, not a Wall Street capitalist," she said. "Agriculture holds this district together."

Sullivan said despite the fact few in Rock Island County know who he is, he has the best track record of taking on and beating Republicans. As a rookie senatorial candidate in 2002, he took down a 21-year incumbent Republican primarily by knocking on “thousands and thousands and thousands” of doors and getting help from his large family.

Two years later, he won again, this time garnering 62 percent of the vote after raising $800,000 for his re-election bid.

The crowd of Democrats gasped audibly and applauded when Sullivan revealed the amount of money raised and spent on that downstate race.

"I stood in front of a lot of groups of Democrats like this one and told them I wanted to run for Illinois Senate and they told me it was impossible," he said. "But eventually, those Democrats, when they saw how hard we worked and how I talk to the people, they realized I could win."

33 Comments:

At 4/17/2006 12:43 AM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

This is a fair summary to which I would add four things:

1)Stockwell's credentials (Wharton Business School) are pretty impressive, as is her success in Macon County, not exactly boom town;

2) All presenters are not created equal, Schwiebert is a gifted public speaker;

3) There was only one entrance and Hare worked it like a Plant Gate, old time retail politics;

4) Hare was the only one of the 7 who lost his poker face during the Forum. He looked a little impatient while the others spoke, almost as if he shouldn't have to be going through this.

 
At 4/17/2006 9:00 AM, Blogger the underground said...

Sullivans track record in tough races speaks for itself. We are glad to see that he brought it up. Before his first race against Laura Kent Donahue, most Democrats were asking themselves "Who is this auctioneer guy running for IL Senate." Now he has become an unstopable force in Western IL Democratic politics.

It looks and sounds as though the Committemen put on a very nice forum. It appears that each candidate put together some well thought idea's for our area. Sorry we missed it but we plan on being in attendance in Canton.

 
At 4/17/2006 9:19 AM, Blogger diehard said...

Oh I dont think so!! Shweibert looked pretty pale and peaked when Hare did the one-two combonation punch on Riverstone!
And the worst were Rob Mellon, Amy Stockwell, and Shweibert.
The best were in best to worst Phil Hare, Mike Boland, Hal Bayne, Sullivan.

 
At 4/17/2006 10:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is untrue. Sullivan was a much better speaker. Reminded me of Bill Clinton. Schwiebert did a good job though. Good debate club speaker. He even had a zinger to Hare about a self proclaimed C student in the white house. Stockdale has impressive cridentials but not as impressive as Hal Bain's. Boland did a good job. He went over electability and his service for the people. His work for CUB and his E85 tax credit. He appears to be the most green. Hare mentioned Lane Evans as much as he could. He kept harping on the fact that he doesn't have a degree and that he was a C student. He also shored up the big island vote. I think he was trying to be like oh gee golly! It didn't appear that anybodies mind was changed by this forum. You could see that peoples minds were made up and most for Hare. The only thing that I did find interesting was that the Union vote seems to be a big factor in this vote. Boland stated a nearly 100% union voting record. He was the only one with a union made tell piece. Hare didn't have a union label on his tell piece or his buttons. Hares congressional staffs shirts with Lane Evans on them didn't show a union bug either. Mayor schwieberts tell piece didn't have union printing either. I would expect that from a conservative. The big union talk from Hare and none of the sure tell signs of someone playiong to the unions ie.union made products was a problem for me. I think boland walked the union walk and he sealed my vote with it.

 
At 4/17/2006 12:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jacobs has not endorsed anyone. Since when does applauding count as an endorsement?
Jacobs doesn't have a thing to do with any of this.

 
At 4/17/2006 3:44 PM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

Actually Phil Hare did have union bugs on his stickers, and I have two of Lane Evans t-shirts both of which have a union bug on them. I think you should have looked a little closer before you start spreading rumors. As for your 100% union voting record for Boland, yeah try 77% in 2005(vote-smart.org). I'm not a mathematician but I think there migh be a little bit of gap between 77 and 100.

 
At 4/17/2006 3:46 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Anon,

Glad you liked Sullivan's manner. We're pretty proud of him.

Regarding Boland: I certainly came away with the impression he would be a tireless campaigner and would always have a well-conceived stump speech ready.

I agree that Schwiebert's style is kind of forensic/academic, it was still nice to hear somebody use the language as seamlessly as he did.

Really a good event.

 
At 4/17/2006 4:23 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

The D/A is reporting that Evans' brothers have been given "temporary limited guardianship" over Lane's personal and financial matters. The court cites Lane's "intermittent congnitive impairments" as the reason for the guardianship.

 
At 4/17/2006 5:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that the truth of Lane Evans has surfaced it will be interesting to see if John G, Dick "Pig factory" Leibovitz, Jeff Teronez, and Lou Ann Kerr will take there endorsement away from Phil Hare. It is looking more and more like the rumor that Phil Hare has been running Lane Evans for years. Evans has given power of attorney to his brother for property and self. Phil Hare didn't know that Lane was this bad. Please!! He got Lane to stay in and to endorse him when he isn't even in control of his faculties. Kind of reminds me of how Anna Nikole Smith changed her husbands will to try and get in on the money when he couldn't even think anymore. Some people will stop at nothing for power. This is turning into a big mess that will be hard for Phil to clean up. Phil's die hard congressional staff must be in on the con also. Or they are the most naive people that walk the earth. If neither of these are true then we will see if they are still backing Hare. I am a die hard Lane Evans fan and to think how this group of people run by Phil Hare has degraded him and minipulated him for there own job interest shows their ugly side. This has to be stopped.

 
At 4/17/2006 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I got one of Phil Hare's stickers that day. I wore it at the event! It was given to me by Union leader Pat O'Brien and it most certainly did have a union bug on it.

 
At 4/17/2006 6:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about the tell sheet for Evans it states clearly. Made in house. Unless Phil Hares staff has the union labor cards they are not union as Bolands were. Two out of three isn't bad for union work.

 
At 4/17/2006 6:34 PM, Anonymous bigmex said...

Okay...we've got 3 Republicans in this thing...Sullivan, Schwiebert and Bayne....forget them.

Boland is a big joke, both politically in RI County and in the State House with his fellow lawmakers. He's great at self-promotion since that's about all he's done in the last 11 years... use the perks of his (taxpayer funded) office to buy that great name recognition for him and his wife.

Look closer at his claims. He'll claim he supported this or that, but after the TV cameras leave he doesn't do the work to make any of it happen. And most of his sexy sounding give-aways would bankrupt the state even if he could pass them. At best, he's a very minor CO-sponsor on some bills that a few DOZEN others are also on and where somebody else has done all the HARD WORK. But I will give hime this, he is GREAT at claiming credit where credit isn't due!

Besides, with the lack of confidence and trust he has from his peers, he'll never get anywhere in the US Congress with such a late start(64 this year, I believe).

Whether you like some of the players involved or not, there might just be a reason many have endorsed Phil Hare. He's the only REAL Democrat out of the bunch that has the knowledge of, and has put his life's WORK into, the 17th district.

 
At 4/17/2006 6:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought that the public wasn't invited to the forum. Paul Rumler was there and people were speculating as to why he was there. I have heard a couple of different things and have read them on another blog. Is he a precinct committeeman?

 
At 4/17/2006 7:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bayne has great life experiance. Too bad he's a republican.

 
At 4/17/2006 7:15 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I really like and respect Hal Bayne.

Besides being a very accomplished and successful oral surgeon, he's truly well versed and aware of national and interenational events. I have no doubt he'd be an excellent congressman.

I also admire his political guts in endorsing Lane after his defeat in the Republican primary last time around.

I think the guy is obviously extremely intelligent, a hard worker, serious, and committed.

I have no idea where he's at on economic issues such as taxation or social issues which will likely be still wasting everyone's time for years to come. But from what little I know, he's impressive.

 
At 4/17/2006 7:24 PM, Blogger diehard said...

No Paul Rumler is not a Democrat Precinct Committeeman.
But it would be a good place for him to start if he really wanted to change the party!

 
At 4/17/2006 7:25 PM, Blogger diehard said...

I noticed that you have not put up another one of my repiticious postings Dope!

 
At 4/17/2006 9:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rumler was one of the candidates that wanted to speak that was late to the event. He will do a great job in Canton. I think if the Evans people were not so afraid for there jobs they would see that he is another Lane Evans.

 
At 4/17/2006 9:29 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Diehard, I haven't gotten any more comments from you. I'll check and see if one slipped past, but I don't recall getting any that I didn't post.

 
At 4/17/2006 9:35 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Could I ask a question?

What the hell does it matter if Rumler was there, not there, or whatever??

Why does it matter and why have I receieved about a dozen comments just about this irrelevant question?

 
At 4/17/2006 10:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is important because Paul Rumler is the candidate that is the most like Lane Evans. He is young and is a proven vote getter. You just don't get it do you. If you would have seen old Phil Hare at the forum you would know what Rumler would do against him in a debate. Rumler will make a great push for the congressional seat. Whether you ewant him to or not.

 
At 4/17/2006 10:55 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Again, what the hell is it with you people?

You say I don't "get it", when you apparently don't have a clue.

What don't I "get"? And what the hell does that have to do with whether Rumler was at the meeting or not?

Rumler could be the best candidate in the history of the universe, OK? But whether he's a great candidate or not that has NOTHING to do with blabbering on about if he was at the meeting or not. What the hell is there to "get"? That you're high on Rumler? That you think highly of him?

OK, OK, I get it. Fine. Great. Perfect. I'm impressed with him too.

But how that has ANYTHING to do at all with whether he was at the meeting or not is beyond me. That's all I'm saying.

And people wonder why I'm cranky.

Some people seem to be on drugs when they read the blog or else they read at a third grade level.

They read something half way or skim through it, then jump to stupid conclusions and then write in bitching about what they imagine I meant or said or thought or felt or whatever.

Maybe just take a breath, re-read what you're responding to, and then say your piece.

Drives me nuts. If you want to take a whack at me or debate something, try to make it about something I actually have written or a view I actually HAVE. That would be helpful.

Sorry anon above, it's not just you... just frustrated with all the garbage here lately and wondering if there's any intelligent life out there at all.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I don't think I'm expecting some impossible standards, but some of the comments lately make me feel like I'm the only person who made it through grade school.

 
At 4/18/2006 7:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some people are asking what he was there for. I just let them know what he was there for.

 
At 4/18/2006 8:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We mention Paul Rumler because we are buzzed because the rumor is that he is going to announce his intentions to run for congress! Go Paul!

 
At 4/18/2006 12:18 PM, Blogger diehard said...

I doubt that!

 
At 4/18/2006 12:56 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

BigMex,

When you say Sullivan's not a democrat, you have not the vaguest idea what you're talking about. His history of helping local parties and local candidates and his generosity with his own time and Money are unmatched by anybody but Senator Durbin.

I admire all of these candidates but there is one thing I can say with certainty. The very best thing for the local candidates in the District would be to share ballot space and podiums with Candidate,the congressman Sullivan. Nobody is more humble, deferential and generous on the campaign trail to his fellow candidates.

Sure, John's taken some DLC positions but never without leadership's understanding assent. There are a slug of rural dems who waited a lot of years to have a voice. Now they've got John and he's true to his party and his district. Disagree with him all you want. Prefer somebody else all you want. When you say he's not a demcrat you're disrespecting some very honorable service by a remarkable young democrat.

 
At 4/18/2006 5:17 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

Yeah, and don't forget that if Hare gets the nomination, Zinga gets an automatic campaign talking point of Democrat cronyism.
I think it ought to be anybody but Hare. Even Mellon would be OK because he would be the anti-Politburo. But I say this as an anti-partisan, not a Democratic Party faithful.

 
At 4/18/2006 6:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phil Hare doesn't "look" very congressional. Image and physical appearance is important in this business.

Also, is Hare's wife okay with him running?

Just asking.

 
At 4/18/2006 8:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Islam and democracy is an oxymoron,"

I guess he never traveled to Turkey. Someone who makes a statement like that can't be taken seriously.

 
At 4/18/2006 8:12 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Excellent point Anon. That was a rather ignorant statement by Bain.

 
At 4/18/2006 9:55 PM, Anonymous bigmex said...

umrblog,

I appreciate your fine defense of Senator Sullivan, and I appreciate it that he took out a GOP state senator in the lower part of the district. However, a candidate's issue positions on a congressional district scale take on much more importance.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe his recent profile in the D/A showed him to be pro-life, pro-gun and pro-war. I guess he is still a Dem on economic issues, but to many that can also mean the old "tax and spend"...not exactly an asset among many independent and crossover voters.

And just who are these "rural dems?" Are these the ones who will bolt the part as soon as somebody pokes their buttons on a couple of cultural issues? I don't really believe there are a slug of them out there anyhow. There may be some more moderate elements among the dems in the rural areas of this district, but it's hardly Alabama we're talking about here.

It may have been narrow, but John Kerry still carried this district...and his lack of personal charisma and effective campaigning had more to do with it than his issue positions. Lane Evans has been very successful in this district. We don't need the threat that unless we run a Republican with a Democrat label that this district will fall to a weak candidate like Zinga.

I would like nothing more than to support an ambitious, upcoming politician like John Sullivan. I just wish he was better on the issues.

And btw, another concern of mine...has it been determined if he actually lives in the 17th district? I fear the carpetbagger label could be a big liability in the general election.

 
At 4/20/2006 2:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I spoke to Sullivan at the forum and he is most certainly a Republican in disguise.....

He is opposite of Lane's views on most everything. I told him directly to his face he needs to just run as a Republican and be what he is -- and stop the shell game here. The guy even critcized Lane's record which really irritated me!

We don't need another sham democrat like we had for years with Joel B.... This is for the Democrats to decide - not the Republicans. They have their candidate like it or not in Zinga.

We need a real Demoocrat and it's not mr Right winger Sullivan.

 
At 4/23/2006 12:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need another DO NOTHING congressman like we need a hole in the head. If you go to peoria you will see what a congressman with some drive can do for his district. Lane has brought what to this area. I agree with Sullivan. If you people would drive down to peoria you too would be asking where's beef. Sen. Jacobs brought the Mark and the West Rock River bridge. Not DO NOTHING Lane Evans. Trying to not get noticed so you can get re-elected is not what we should be looking for in a congressman. Please vote Sullivan for pork in our area.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home