April 22nd, 2008 06:47pm
Dyanna Chandler
I am very disillusioned with the campaign tactics of the two remaining Democratic candidates. Why doesn’t anyone focus on the issues. We have a crisis in the economy and the focus is on Jeremiah Wright, Mrs. McCain plagarising from the Food Network and Hillary’s embellishment of her trip to Bosnia. Give me a break. I want a candidate who can formulate a plan to combat the food prices, gasoline dependency, the environment, infrastructure, the billions being spent in Iraq.
We need a man like Franklin Delano Roosevelt who could assess the situation, act accordingly and effectively. We, the voting populace, are to blame. We do not demand more effective leaders and accountability.
April 22nd, 2008 01:00pm
Don R. Gugliuzza
Six weeks of campaigning in a state that normally would have no bearing on a primary campaign. In normal years everything would have been decided by this time. Yet, after 15 months of a primary campaign, nothing is decided. All the plans for this country as espoused by the candidates have been offered. Economic plans, Iraq war plans, plans to deal with free (not fair) trade have been put before us, amnesty and open borders are barely addressed and when they are, they are carbon copies of one another. Actually, all the substantive issues are basically the same between Clinton and Obama. So what’s left? Personal attacks on each other. They’re getting so mean that they’re starting to make McCain look good. I’m sorry, fellow citizens, if this is the best the Democratic Party has to offer, it’s in worse shape than even I could imagine. I would look forward to ending all the campaigning in November except that’s when each of us will have a decision to make. Which of the three candidates is the lesser of two evils? Who knows. Pennsylvania won’t tell us. It won’t even settle who will be the candidate for the Democratic party.
April 22nd, 2008 12:33pm
Jon Murray
- I’ve lost some respect for Bill Clinton as he’s delved into recent negative campaigning. Negative campaigning is really distasteful. I hold a former president to a higher standard.
- The long running primary season has almost made me a little numb. I hardly even watch Anderson Cooper anymore. Maybe I will tonight.
- Do I know more about the candidates now than I did three months ago? I’m not sure that I do.
- It will be interesting to see if the long, acrimonious primary campaign will play in favor of or work against the democrats in the general election.
- It is kind of historic that the primary campaign is still alive and we’re almost into May. A far cry from previous years when by the time the Illinois primary rolled around in March and the race has been all but resolved.
- It’s interesting to watch the race in Pennsylvania in so far as the state is demographically somewhat similar to Illinois but the polls show the Obama/Clinton race to a much closer finish than happened here.
- Who’s gonna win? I’m going out on a limb and predict an Obama come from behind victory.
Jon Murray
April 22nd, 2008 09:09am
Don R. Gugliuzza
There’s an old saying in politics, if you don’t want to tackle a problem, create a committee to deal with it. The larger the committee the less chance there is that anything will get done. That kind of describes our county board. There are 28 members to that club. They spend more time squabbling amongst themselves and playing petty party politics than they do dealing with pressing problems. I have never been a big fan of Doug Aurand. I think he is a nice guy but I also think he represents the old school politician that we do not want anymore. However, I do applaud his never ending effort to reduce the county board to 14 people. I believe there may be a political motive behind this effort but it’s something that should be and needs to be done.
A 28 member board is just too big and unweildy. I remember as an only child I envied those who had siblings. They could hide behind and accuse each other when they did something wrong. I couldn’t do that. With 28 members, the county board can point fingers, rat each other out and hide behind one another. Let’s help Doug in his effort to reduce the number of members. And, while we’re at it, let’s reduce the number of elected positions in other areas such as eliminating the Township Board of Trustees and reducing and eliminating some taxing districts. It’s time to remove places for elected officials and party hacks to enjoy the largesse of the local taxpayer.
April 21st, 2008 09:37pm
Don R. Gugliuzza
Our economy is in sorry shape. We have record breaking budget deficits, record breaking trade deficits, oil prices at an all time high, the wealthy getting richer and the middle class getting poorer. How did we get this way? Lack of control.
We cut taxes but never cut spending. Lack of fiscal control. We jumped into free trade agreements that were free but not fair. As a consequence our manufacturing jobs have been sent overseas so that products that used to be made here are made elsewhere and imported here. Part of the record breaking oil prices is due to removing regulation of the major players in the oil market. Another part is the falling value of our dollar (see deficit spending and trade imbalance). And it has been estimated that 20% of the cost of oil per barrell has been caused by speculators and the hedge funds that are no longer regulated. While our Congress has been unable to identify price gouging, I find it very curious that Belvedere, only 12 miles east of Rockford has gas prices ranging from 5 to 10 cents per gallon cheaper than Rockford. With Rockford being the bigger market, how can this be possible? It’s not. Not even if you factor in the slight difference in city sales taxes. If we’re not being gouged in Rockford, I don’t know what is being done to us.
So, the economic predicument we’re in now is a result of failed policies of a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, a Republican President, George Bush and a Congress controlled by either party at various times.
April 21st, 2008 01:50pm
Jon Murray
The issue of gun control is back in the news. It’s pretty clear that there are distinct sides to this issue …of course the pro gun advocates…led by the NRA… are clearly in one camp. The pro gun groups have taken a religious if not paranoid fervor with their position, summed by Charleton Heston’s words..”From my cold, dead hands”. On the other hand are those who wish the government to exercise some control over gun ownership. The control side is seeking a response to violence and killing – a reasonable goal. What’s missing from this debate, however, is the fine art of compromise. You know…that ability to see the merits on both side of the issue and to resolve the matter in a meaningful and long lasting way.
Somehow those who believe compromise is possible have not been heard during much of the debate. It’s safe to say I fit into this category …I recognize the rights of those who enjoy guns…sportsmen, collectors, and for personal protection. What I don’t agree with is the right to obtain the biggest and meanest guns and as many as can be obtained in the shortest period of time. And… I believe there are people who should not own guns and there are communities where guns simply add fuel to the already violent culture.
We have legislators who belong to the NRA and it’s pretty safe to say their vision is clouded by the NRA propaganda machine. It’s unlikely they’re going to have an objective perspective or the ability to understand compromise on the issue. There are also legislators who see no merit to gun ownership and who come up with legislation that’s kind of ridiculous.
This debate really hasn’t changed in over 30+ years. I’d say it’s time for reasonable heads to prevail. We need to learn to compromise. We need legislators who are not so connected to a cause that they lose the ability to lead with intelligence and independence.
Jon Murray
April 19th, 2008 03:21pm
Don R. Gugliuzza
It seems that there are only a few people offering their views in this blog. That’s really too bad. We used to have spirited but civil discourse in here. It’s too bad we can’t have that again. I miss interacting with those who have views different from mine.
Let’s get this thing going again.
April 15th, 2008 06:50am
Jon Murray
There have been a couple of great tributes to Jeff Rushing…but now you conservatives on the panel need to step up to the plate and take Jeff’s place. I probably won’t agree with you but you’re gonna make me think. I mean, how else can I strengthen my arguments if you don’t give me material to work with. We have a lot of great topics to work on…Iraq, environment, choice, spending, immigration, etc….you know what I mean - let’s mix things up a little with some of those hot button topics we like to talk about.
Jon Murray
April 13th, 2008 07:39pm
Caitlin Hanson
My understanding of the U.S. Constitution is thus: there is no real “separation of church and state,” but rather the United States of America shall have no established religion.
So the topic of religion bursting between the Democratic candidates this year is quite intriguing to me, yet it is also quite annoying. Unfortunately for John McCain, he cannot find a real religious group to embrace, as George W. Bush did as a Republican.
Though I am a Christian, I find that my ideals and morals come from common sense and looking at both sides of the picture rather than from my religion. Hence my irritation at the way the media portrays religion to be such a key element to presidential race.
I cannot find any politician to be truly religious — at least not believably religious, regardless of the denomination. All of them are simply after the various factions of the country to win the vote. That is why this November, I will not consider the candidate’s religion whatsoever when I vote for him/her. S/he could be like Jonathon “The Impaler” Sharkey, for all I care; as long as s/he would make a fantastic president, I would be content.
April 10th, 2008 05:50am
Jon Murray
One of my favorite lines from the movie “Big” occurred when Tom Hanks’ character was working as a toy reviewer for his new employer. When he didn’t understand the toy he simply said “I don’t get it”. That’s how I’m feelin’ with the rules of the Illinois Senate. How can the senate president, Emil Jones, have so much power that he’s able to prevent legislation from coming to the senate floor for a vote? Does the senate have the power to override his power? Is this what the writers of the constitution had in mind when the created those rules? These questions have come about as a result of the senate possibly not being able to vote on the recall amendment. It seems contrary to what the American style of government represents to allow one individual so much power. Are there any Illinois Constitutional experts out there who can explain this?
Jon Murray
Next Posts
Previous Posts
