April 13, 2006

...and in other expected news, RI Dem organization backs Hare for 17th candidate

From Kurt Allemeier in the D/A:
Expected to be on hand for the announcement by county officials is Treasurer LuAnn Kerr, Auditor Diana Robinson, State's Attorney Jeff Terronez, Circuit Clerk Lisa Bierman, County Clerk Richard "Dick" Leibovitz, regional superintendent of schools Joe Vermiere, and county board chairman Jim Bohnsack. Mike Huff, the Democratic candidate for sheriff, also has been invited to attend.

"It is for solidarity," Ms. Kerr said. "Definitely.

"We want someone who is available and accessible to people, no matter who they are," she said. "I love what Lane has built up, and I want to keep that going."

Two elected county officials, Recorder Pat Veronda and Coroner Sharon Anderson, aren't taking sides just yet.

"I do believe there should be due process, and we are trying to work through a due process that is kind of unusual," Ms. Anderson said. "We should let the precinct committeemen do their job.

"It ought to be a democratic process, not an autocratic process," she said.

Ms. Veronda wants all the potential candidates to be heard before people start making decisions.

"I wish this had the opportunity to go to voters in the primary," she said. "I think we have several good candidates out there, and appearing like I am influencing committeemen doesn't seem right."

Sheriff Mike Grchan, who lost to Mr. Huff in the primary, wasn't aware of the planned announcement by the elected officials, nor whom they were going to endorse.

Several candidates, including Mr. Hare, are expected to attend a forum at 10 a.m. Saturday at the Moline Township Hall, 620 18th St., Moline.
As expected, Hare's managed to get himself annointed.

Kudos to Veronda and Anderson for remaining independent.

"Gia Pet", a commenter at Capitol Fax offers this thought provoking comment:
The greatest fun, and I hope lots of TV cameras are there for it, will be watching John Gianulis try to run the meeting, that is if he wins the battle at the Board of Elections.

John has been increasingly inacapable of controlling such forums, and he will not only procedurally make a mess of it, but will probably say something that will embarass the party. This is sad for Democrats, and it’s sad for John.

If John had guts he would have said no to Lane, because he would have really been saying no to Phil Hare who manipulated Lane into this decision. Hare is not the best candiate for that district and we all know it–except Phil.

I think there are several talented pols (Phil is no pol) in the district, and most all of them would be more competitive against Zinga in the general that Phillip Hare.

I just had a very sad thought: Phil Hare encouraging Lane to hang on year after year–Lane struggling just to walk from his office to the House floor, increasingly unable to express himself and looking (and probably feeling) confused when talking to constituents and his own staff, a man in need of his close friends to encourage Lane to make plans for his retirement in a way where he could live and work in dignity but instead they lie to him, in short Lane finishing his career in a way that is not representative of his true and stellar legacy–so that Phil Hare could maneuver himself into position and pick the moment, after a primary, when Lane is maximally vulnerable and isolated, and make himself the choice. That’s not just Machiavellian, it’s cruel. And for Phil to think he is worthy of “replacing” Lane, it is pure folly.

Many people play with the idea of the “wisdom” of voters, but I think that is used when convenient by pundits and winners alike. In this case I pray that voters (precinct committeemen) use their wisdom to reject Phil Hare and pick someone who is worthy of working in a district so ably represented by Lane for all these years, and someone able to convincingly beat Zinga in the general.

33 Comments:

At 4/13/2006 3:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thought of Lane being manipulated by anyone is ludicrous. Anyone who knows Lane knows he has always been and continues to be a very independent thinker (read:voting against the war). And the thought of Lane being manipulated by someone who loves him like a brother is malicious and evil. Phil Hare is far too honorable of a man.

 
At 4/13/2006 3:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are always giving the problem without a solution. If not Phil then whom do you support? Try solutions you will look less wishy washy.

 
At 4/13/2006 4:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post that you so prominantly displayed makes me sick. For those of us who know Lane, we know that he was never manipulated into staying in office. Lane has always said that he would continue as long as his health would allow. This decision was his and his alone. If he had any idea that his health would have taken such a stark turn for the worse, then he would have bowed out before the primary. Lane had every intention of running this year and has much more integrity than to try to pull a fast one.

As for Phil Hare, he is the best candidate for this job. He's been in the trenches for 23 years and knows the ropes. Lane would not have endorsed him if he didn't feel that Phil could be an effective advocate for the district in Washington. The party should unite behind Phil and elect him to Congress. If the party wants a true fight, they can have it in the next primary. Hare is the only candidate that can win in November because of his experience on the Congressional level. What the other candidates don't understand is how difficult it is to raise money and put together a campaign for congressional office. Phil is ready and can hit the ground running.

Lastly, I'm tired of certain county chairman trying to play "kingmaker" in this process. It's about time that self-interest be taken out of the equation. The best representative for the district and the Democrats is Phil Hare. Period.

 
At 4/13/2006 4:09 PM, Anonymous SympathyForLeDevil said...

I cannot believe how ignorant Chia Pet is. Knowing Lane and Phil both very well, I can say Pet's thought is nothing more than complete garbage. Phil and Lane grew up together, best friends none the less...if Chia Pet believes thats how a friendship should be, I'm sorry, but the Pet has problems with trust. Phil has never treated Lane unfairly and has never strung him along to run term after term. If that was the case, I'm sure Phil would have been gone long ago. Thanks for the humor though.

 
At 4/13/2006 4:12 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 15:40

I don't have to propose any solutions. I'm not running for anything.
I just report what I see and read.

I don't support any particular candidate, and if I did, I'm not under any obligation to make that public.

Are you saying that if I report on one point of view one day and another on the next, that I'm "wishy-washy"?

I don't have to support your guy, or agree with you or anything else. I wish you'd get that straight.

The candidates and politicians are the ones who are supposed to have "solutions".

But as far as the selection of Lane's successor, my suggestion would be to have all the precinct committeepeople in the 17th district vote according to the number of votes their precinct got in the primary. That's the way the rule reads, and that's how it should be done.

No kingmaking, no blind obedience, just people informing themeselves about all the candidates and making a choice on their own.

 
At 4/13/2006 4:32 PM, Anonymous Bigmex said...

Chia Pet clearly doesn't know the first thing about Lane Evans or Phil Hare. If Lane had been so physically miserable with his Congressional duties years ago, the so-called manipulative Hare would've had him step down two or three terms ago...when Phil would've been in his prime as a candidate. The vitriol being blasted at Phil Hare is just the work of some other wannabe with an agenda.

 
At 4/13/2006 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen, Dope!

 
At 4/13/2006 4:51 PM, Anonymous jojo said...

Lane has always been his own man, right to the end of his political career and it's stupid for someone like Gia Pet to make these commments. Nice of you to reproduce it for us though. Class act as always.

 
At 4/13/2006 5:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who the hell is this gia and where does she get these ideas?

 
At 4/13/2006 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, are you trying to take politics out of this process?
Phil Hare lining up supporters is a very legitimate part of this process. That's what candidates do. That's politics. Senator Sullivan, Mayor Schweibert, Reresentative Boland, Rob Mellon -- whomever -- are all free to try to influence the decisions of the precinct folks by lining up endorsements. Like one of my favorites sings, "It's only Rock and Roll but I like it." Well, this is only politics and let's start celebrating the process our forefathers fought and died for.

 
At 4/13/2006 5:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to see you at Saturday's forum, sitting in the front row, taking good and copious notes.

 
At 4/13/2006 8:59 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 17:26 writes: "Dope, are you trying to take politics out of this process?"

Um, no. Don't know exactly where you got that.

I said, "No kingmaking, no blind obedience, just people informing themeselves about all the candidates and making a choice on their own."

I never said the people who want to be chosen can't campaign for the position, and I'm perplexed as to how you thought I had.

Secondly, it's pretty sickening and the height of disrespect for you to invoke the people who have given their lives for this country in such a trival way.

They didn't lose their lives in some mud hole half way around the world so that two or three autocratic people can pick who gets to represent the people.

They didn't get shot and killed or blown up to defend the arcane rules of Illinois election law, which change like the wind according to circumstances.

If anything, they died for the ideal of democracy, which is the placing of power in the widest number of hands possible.

When some here call for blind obedience and handing over the power given to the committeepeople by law to a few autocratic backroom bosses, then you're anti-democratic by definition.

No one has laid down their lives for the right of some self appointed leaders to dictate to the committeepeople who they must choose.

 
At 4/13/2006 9:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope,

I don't think you can claim that anyone has fought and died for this country in the name of ideal democracy. We have never been, nor did the founding fathers envision, the United States as a democracy. We are a Republic and that is what the founding fathers intended.

Secondly, Lane Evans is one of those people who have served in the name of freedom. His fight for veterans and their families has been a courageous one. As a veteran myself, I will miss him greatly. I know that Phil Hare will continue that fight so that we are taken care of. Phil has the same commitment to veterans and working people that Lane has exhibited for so many years. Go Phil, Go.

 
At 4/13/2006 9:46 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon above...

I concede your point about Democracy vs. Republic. But my point, which I'm sure you get, is that they didn't lay down their lives so that a few party leaders could pick who runs to represent the people. The process which our government is built on, Republic or Democracy or whatever you wish to label it, is that voters get to select whom they want to represent them.

Of course, this is a special situation which requires a special process. But as it happens, the rules for determining the candidate is, as is clear by now, that all elected precinct committeemen are able to cast votes equal to the number of votes cast in their precinct during the primary election.

My point is that I don't think that process is what people fought and died for.

I'm not saying it's a bad process... I think it's fair and equitible and I don't have a problem with it, but at the same time, I would hope that these precinct committeepeople are able to cast their votes in secret and are willing to inform themselves on all candidates and make their choice based on who they feel would be the best representitive for our area, free from the dictates of the usual handful who are accustomed to making these sorts of choices on their own.

 
At 4/14/2006 6:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, no, no, everyday people give their power to the elected bosses. This case is no different.

Lane has spoken, everyone will fall in line and accept Cngressman Hare as their own!

Go Phil! Lane is right.

 
At 4/14/2006 8:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading Hare in the paper say over and over I would votes as Lane did I felt like vomiting. It sickens me to see him use Lane Evans this way. I will choose Amy Stockdale. She is the only woman running. The paper stated they would promo her tomarrow. If she doesn't say anything stupid then I will be calling all the women to cast their vote for the only female in the race. I feel that these men are self serving and that goes double for Hare. Women Unite and give the democrats a shot in the arm by voting for Amy Stockdale for our candidate against Zinga.

 
At 4/14/2006 10:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would agree that there should be no small group of "kingmakers" in this process, but I also think the committeemen should cast their votes in a public manner. The people of their precincts deserve to know who their committeemen vote for as representatives of them.

 
At 4/14/2006 2:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe Phil Hare comparing himself to Lane Evans and Bill Clinton in the paper today is a bunch of balogna. He is not even in the picture with these men. First both were Lawyers. Phil has a 10th grade education. Please denounce this blow hole for anyone with a pulse.

 
At 4/14/2006 2:40 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 6:49 writes:

"No, no, no, everyday people give their power to the elected bosses. This case is no different."

You are dead wrong about that.

And yes, this case is indeed "different".

The rules don't state that the county chairs get to pick this candidate, which due to weighted voting, in essence meant that John G. gets to pick, as he did with Mike Jacobs. We've been down that road before.

But this IS different. This isn't in the hands of John G. or the county chairs, it's in the hands of hundreds of precinct committeepeople.

Thats a BIG difference.

Of course candidates will campaign for support and John G. will do everything he can to try to ensure that he has the influence to be able to crown the new king himself.

But all I'm saying is that the process should be open and committeepeople should be free to vote for whomever they wish.

I had hoped it would be a secret ballot so they could do so without risking the rath and punishment from the party thugs in charge if they strayed from their orders. (sounds mafia-like)

But a commenter here makes the good point that since committeepeople do represent those in their precinct, those people have a right to know how they voted.

At any rate, you can yammer about "good Democrats" and raise that idiotic ploy of appealing to sympathy for Lane in order to get backing for Hare... (disgusting in so many ways) and all the rest.

I just hope that the people, through their precinct committeemen, elect the next candidate and that the process isn't perverted and gamed by anyone.

Sure, politics is involved. Hell, it's ALL politics. And those who want to be appointed have every right and obligation to campaign as hard as they can to get the votes.

But I hope it's the committeepeople and not the bosses who make this call.

 
At 4/14/2006 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree these comitteemen should vote in public. I voted for my committeeman and I would like to know how he votes. To do a mail ballott would be a crime. I for one think the people have a right to know who was bought off by Hare and his henchmen. Dope don't give into these Hare bullies. They think they can keep playing this do it for Lane routine, well it isn't playing here. Give em hell Dope!

 
At 4/14/2006 6:54 PM, Blogger diehard said...

So what are you saying Dope?That Hare should not gather support and let his opponents gather up support?
It is what candidates do when they run for office.
I posted this morning and you did not put it on I'll try again.
You have posted some pretty negative comments about Hare.

 
At 4/14/2006 7:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is that over the years while Lane was away in Washington, he wasn't keeping tabs on the goons back home working for him... and that means PHIL HARE. Phil was getting too involved in local races. As congressional chief of staff, Phil was supposed to stay neutral and stay out of local politics. His job was to oversee exciting things such as flag requests and Social Security casework, NOT to help elect sheriffs and judges and township officials. Instead, Lane's staffers got involved in things that they had no business. Conversely, on issues that WERE important, they sat on their hands and let the bad guys win. So every time Lane says how much he loves and trusts Phil Hare, I can only think of how blind and naive he has been, for a long time.

 
At 4/14/2006 8:55 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Diehard, I didn't post your repetitious comment because you're just not reading what I'm writing.

I quote myself:

"No kingmaking, no blind obedience, just people informing themeselves about all the candidates and making a choice on their own."

And....

"Anon 17:26 writes: "Dope, are you trying to take politics out of this process?"

Um, no. Don't know exactly where you got that.

I said, "No kingmaking, no blind obedience, just people informing themeselves about all the candidates and making a choice on their own."

I never said the people who want to be chosen can't campaign for the position, and I'm perplexed as to how you thought I had."

and.......

" Of course candidates will campaign for support and John G. will do everything he can to try to ensure that he has the influence to be able to crown the new king himself."

and.......

" Sure, politics is involved. Hell, it's ALL politics. And those who want to be appointed have every right and obligation to campaign as hard as they can to get the votes.

But I hope it's the committeepeople and not the bosses who make this call."


Now why do you continually send messages asking if I'm saying that people shouldn't be able to campaign? I've never said I thought that was wrong or improper, and I've said it was fine and expected that people who want Lane's spot should and will campaign for it.

So the answer is, NO, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to campaign for Evans' spot.

Of course they will and they have every right to.

 
At 4/15/2006 10:25 PM, Anonymous HALLWATCHER said...

DOPE,

Since you were not allowed in to hear Congressman Hare, I want to assure you that "the people" loved Phil Hare. Phil made strong points and really impressed everyone in the hall. It was clear why Lane appointed him to congress. Phil has great command of the facts, showed that even thought he didn't graduate from high school that he could still move an audience.

At one point it was as if Lane was speaking through Phil and the crowd really loved it! They stood up an appluaded and shouted in unison, "Thank-heavens for Lane Evans and Phil Hare!"

Lane & Phil have laid down the law and loyal Democrats will rally behind Lane and give him someone that will continue the fight for labor unions, veterans and the less fortunate among us.

Boland and Schweibert are "spoilers" and have no real chance of winning. I talked to a lot of people in the hall and not a single person was for Schweibert.

Boland, although not as polished or well liked as Schweibert, did have some support in the hall. But once you move past Chariman Johnston, Madam M. Boland and Mike's government funded staff, Mike Boland didn't have much support in the Party.

Conmgressman Phil Hare hit Rep. Boland hard for his long record of supporting and endorsing Republicans against Democrats.

I couldn't help noticing that Mike Boland and Amy Stockdale looked like brother and sister? Did anyone know if these two are related to one and other, or if Stiockdale is a "Boland plant" to divide the Souther end of the District?

I aslo noticed that three people came to the door and also wanted to be Lane Evans, but Chairman Johnston turned them away saying, "Sorry, you are not on the LIST OF SACNCTIONED candiates." What does that mean. I think we should let every candidate speak before declaring Phil Hare the winner!

 
At 4/16/2006 2:47 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Hallwatcher,

I assure you that you have NO idea if I was there or not. I can tell you though, that your assumption that I was not "allowed in" to this meeting is completely false.

Your account of the meeting surely shows a vivid imagination and a gift for fiction. Maybe you should write comic books.

 
At 4/16/2006 3:36 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

HallWhacker,

I was there and nothing even vaguely close to what you describe happened. A number of folks, after the program was underway, arrived and wanted to speak. Sponsors had laid out three ground rules for Candidate/Speakers: 1) Send us a letter saying you're a candidate; 2) Send us a letter in advance asking to participate in the forum; and 3) limit yourself to ten minutes. Implicit I guess is a rule number four: freaking show up on time.

At lease one of these folks managed to whiz four out of three rules. Better luck for Spoon River. SCC Johnston correctly and politely told the proctor the late show/no letter/wannabes could not be featured in this particular meeting.

I will be writing about this whole experience at UMRBlog over the next few days. This much I will say, SCC Johnston played this one right down the middle. No clue of preference or favoritism in his introductions or demeanor.

If the wannabe candidates wanted to campaign, an enormous number of committeemen and reporters hung around to talk to the candidates afterwards. Channel 6 interviewed a boatload of committeemen as well.

BTW, there was no "unapproved" list in evidence at the the front desk. All the proctors asked of anyone was to identify themselves as a committeeman or a guest. I am aware SCC Johnston stated in Saturday's paper the meeting was not "Open to the Public" but I was close to the sign in desk the whole morning and I never saw anyone treated rudely or refused entry.

BTW, as an overview, the experienced politicians all had excellent presentation and the Rookie was pretty good too. Only one candidate worked the door as everyone came in. Good idea and a surprise he was the only one.

 
At 4/16/2006 7:04 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Halfwitcher,

Hare never said one word about Boland. Paraphrased, he said "I think we should run as democrats, on democrat issues..." and then he made a list of his issues/positions. I frankly thought he was talking about DLC types and their cautious GOP-lookalike campaigns generally or, if he was trying to defang any other candidate, it was Sullivan.

I just reread your writeup on the meeting. I only saw three kinds of donuts on the table in the back of the room, glazed, sprinkled and chocolate. Now, the suspicion arises that all the Peote-flavored pastries were all gone by the time I got there and you must have scored early.

Guess that's why juries have trouble with eyewitness testimony

 
At 4/16/2006 7:48 PM, Anonymous Gurn Blanston said...

Tell me on what grounds did Phil criticize Boland? What did he say? Question: What Republicans has Boland formally supported other than Bud Ford vs. Denny Jacobs in 1986? Is there anybody else?

 
At 4/16/2006 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I liked when Schwiebert said that we have a self proclaimed C student in the white house and that isn't going to well. He was talking about Hare who said he couldn't get into collage because he was a C student.

 
At 4/17/2006 3:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HALLWATCHER, spells just like Jacobs.....Masters degree, eh? Master of debate!

 
At 4/17/2006 2:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How in the world do you know how someone spells? Duhhhhh!

 
At 4/17/2006 3:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to the time that Hallwatcher wrote his comments, there is no way it was Jacobs who wrote it. Try again anonymous 3:01.

 
At 4/17/2006 6:46 PM, Anonymous not as anonymous as you said...

I made a ttypo and I cen't spell - I muss be Mike Jacobss.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home