Conservatives Present Unified Questionnaire
It is often said that conservatives like to stand in a circle and shoot at each other.
Today, many Illinois social conservatives announced a unified questionnaire for candidates running for state office. You can read what is on their agenda in McHenry County Blog by clicking here. And, here's my take on 2005's best and worst, plus the take of Patrick Ouimet, the man who gave the 2004 scare to appointed State Senator Pam Althoff, on the Democratic Party upsurge in McHenry County.
15 comments:
Who decides that these "conservatives" speak for the party? Who are they? What are their real agendas? Why don't they just admit they're desperate for power, like every other politician.
Interesting...but seeing the names of Jack Roeser, Fran Eaton and Jill Stanek all listed make me realize I really have no political party to call my own. The problem isn't the combine, it's idle old men and bitter women trying to tear the party apart. They know who they are.
They are not speaking for the party, the are speaking for themselves. I don’t see one reference to the Republican Party on this document. And you know exactly who they are - they signed their names to it! And I don’t think they are very shy about their agenda (btw, who are you and what is your “real agenda?”)
As for being "desperate for power, like every other politician," I don't know what you are trying to say. Yes, they are seeking power and influence, so that they can advance their agenda. I don't think they are trying to mask that issue....but thanks for trying to make a legitimate part of the democratic process sound more nefarious than it really is. These people have every right (some might argue a responsibility) to find out where candidates stand on issues important to them (especially before they open their pocket books). And is this not a service for everyone. No matter where you stand on these issues, don’t you want to know where the candidates come down. Wouldn’t a favorable rating or endorsement by these organizations be the kiss of death for a candidate trying to portray themselves as moderate? What are you complaining about?
a responsibility?????? says who, you? Please...you're as bad as they are.
C'mon anon, they're out there with their positions stated and deserve some credit for talking about real stuff.
I do remember a time in Chicago when Democrats in Chicago were pretty socially conservative too by the way.
The problem for me at least, is putting this out there as a political test.
I'd much rather see these turned into a contract as to what a candidate will do once elected.
Maybe that seems trivial, but it changes the focus for me.
It's not do you agree with me as much as what will we do if you get elected. You think about things slightly diffently in that frame of mind.
But maybe I've been goofing around with my vacation sitting in front of computers too much.
Someone will doubtless chime in and agree with that.
Anon 2:23, I don't see why you think I would be insulted by that since I don't think they are "bad" to begin with. I don't agree with them on every issue, or even every tactic....but Bill is right: they have an agenda, are willing to publish it and sign their names to it, and are simply asking that candidates tell them how they feel about the issues they care about. Some (including myself) might argue that their methods may be a little counterproductive and frustrating for the leadership of the Republican Party, but I don't think that makes them "bad." At the worst, perhaps they are misguided. But there is certainly nothing immoral, unethical, or remotely sinister about this, as the hostile and paranoid tone of your post suggests.
And while I'd hate to reduce the level of discourse on this site anymore than it has already slipped in the last few weeks, do you realize how stupid you come off asking "Who are they? What are their real agendas" in an anonymous post? (and before you say it: I admit, in the stricted sense, I too am anonymous. But I at least give people an idea of who am I, where I am coming from, and what my beliefs are).
I think it's great that groups of similar vein try to cut down the number of advocate mailings sent to candidates.
The problem with ALL of them is that the questions are so tightly couched -- rarely in synch with the legislation presented a legislator -- that an unqualified truthful answer can hardly be made.
Still, they are good guidelines as to where a candiate stands.
GOP, you are missing the point with these folks, which is surprising, given that they have been operating for years without change.
They are narrow-minded single issue litmus types. That's fine.
They will attack, quite often viciously, anyone that does not agree 100% with their position on the "key issue" they have adopted. That's not fine.
They have no concept that this is a society, that we all have to live together, like it or not. That's not fine.
They refuse to accept that others in the society may not agree with their supposedly "morally superior" view. That's not fine.
In the end, these types want to impose their views and their morals upon the rest of us, which makes them suspect from the start. That's downright frightening.
They are exactly what the GOP and the Conservative Movement (whatever that is) DON'T need.
Anon 4:12 PM - assuming that you are Anon 1:05 – that is not what you were saying in your original post. You questioned whether these people were misrepresenting themselves and had some sort of hidden agenda, and implied that they were seeking power simply for its own sake – and you were wrong on all counts. They are who they say they are. Their agendas are clear and well known. And they are seeking power in order to implement that agenda.
I said before, I do not necessarily agree with their positions or tactics. As someone who comes down more on the side of partisan hack than ideological zealot, I feel that they are counterproductive to the IL GOP’s political viability in many ways. In fact, I think it may be safe to say that I probably agree with you on many points. But they are morally superior to you (and, indeed I) in one important way: they are willing to stand up and say “this is who we are, and this is what we believe in”. For that, they deserve a little respect.
This debate has gotten me thinking about something I hope to expand upon in a future post here: the schism between “ideological zealots” and “partisan hacks” in today’s party politics (and the need to BOTH sides to learn to live together or risk losing both moral and tactical superiority). I look forward to your thoughts on the subject when I finish that post. Please, feel free to make up a user name in the meantime so that I know it’s you!
Anon 4:12
Your description of the authors of this question follows:
"They are narrow-minded single issue litmus types. That's fine.
"They will attack, quite often viciously, anyone that does not agree 100% with their position on the "key issue" they have adopted. That's not fine."
I know some folks who call themselves "pro-choice" who could use the same words to describe Personal PAC.
I imagine if Judy Barr Topinka wins the GOP primary, she will be thinking the same thing about Personal PAC.
Included in the coalition are
· Concerned Women of America (Kathy Valente and Jill Stanek),
· Illinois Family Institute (Paul LaBarbera),
· Illinois Right To Life Committee (Mary Ann Hackett & Bill Beckman),
· Eagle Forum (Penny Pullen),
· Family-Taxpayers Foundation (Jack Roeser),
· Catholic Citizens of Illinois (Mary Anne Hackett),
· Culture Campaign (Sandy Rios & Sonja Dalton),
· Challenge Consulting (Fran Eaton), and
· One Nation Under God Foundation (Paul Caprio).
Those aren't conservatives. Those are weirdos who call themselves conservatives. They are like televangelists that give religion a bad name.
GOP - wrong assumption.
Sincerely,
4:12
Hey Cal, does Personal PAC have anything like the "Topinka Tattler" hate pieces run by Roeser on Renew Illinois, or the hate filled pieces of Peter LaBarbara on gays?
The difference is that with these so-called "conservatives." With them, it's not about "family" despite what they say - that's just a smoke screen. It's all about the hate . . . and the fear. These guys are a long, long ways away from William F. Buckley.
I would be listening to Paul Caprio, he was right on for the last 3 election cycles
Be patient.
I'm pretty sure I know the attack that Personal PAC is going to make on Topinka. Let me complete my research and I'll share my prediction.
Post a Comment