air your democratic beef.

i have thought about proposing a game called 'defend your dem' whereby we can bitch about our elected dems, but also match those beefs with accomplishments. both beefs and defenses must be clearly articulated and specific, preferably with a link to a reputable news story. you can air your opinions, but you don't get any points for them. just the facts, ma'am. electability could only be considered with a link to a current reputable poll, which, i guess, would require some consensus beforehand. like, there is another post here about a rasmussan poll, which i thought was a crap company. :shrug:

anyway, what got me thinking about this this morning was that thread about blago. so, i ask, out of curiosity, that people try this with blago.
air your specific beef, and let's talk about our governor in a concrete way. whatcha think?

why he is supposedly so bad.

i guess i'm stupid.

I owe him a great deal. He is also pro health care and pro disabiltiy benefits. I wont cut off my nose to spite my face in the name of purity. Sure Blago has done one or two things that I dont like but ask yourself one question, will Judy Topinka be able to - or willing to- stand up to the religious right? I don't think so. I also don't want to see any repuke take over my state. That's why I'll proudly fight and vote for Blago. If nothing else I'll vote straight Democrat this time as a way to protest this damn Bush administration.

I hope this fits into what you had in mind, mopinko. It is a beef I have, but not with Gov. Blago...Bla.. Gov. Smith.
I'm in Downstate and being asked to push for Mangieri in my precinct. The argument is that we need a Downstater on the ticket when general elections come around to appease the Downstaters, who perceive that Chicago is running the state. I finally see he has a website, but I still only see that he's a lawyer, who vows to secure and protect our state's and the citizens' financial interest, or something like that. Ok, I can see that as half the battle. But, wouldn't that be something the Attorney General could do? On the other hand, Giannoulias is proven to be adept at making money with money. I should think we want that too. I'm inclined to want to go for the money maker. But, I don't want to make the mistake of passing on a Downstater, if these guys are right about their strategy. Does anyone have any insight on this situation?

Here's a link to their website: www.indcam.com. Hope that helps you make your decision.

:hi:

The questionaire responses are a good resource in general for several candidates. So, thanks. I hadn't noticed before that Giannoulias has a law degree. But, I just looked again and it's there at the website, too. That just adds more weight for Giannoulias, in my opinion. :hi:

It just hit me this morning. Since he refused to move to Springfield and be the Downstater, is it possible that their strategy is to compensate for that by putting someone from Downstate somewhere else on the ticket? It wouldn't matter to me. But, would other people really accept that trade off? I guess we'll see. :shrug:

but I think the governor should live in the state capitol and try to establish a healthy relationship with the whole state. Downstaters should have a voice and should be heard. IF Blago only wants to relate to Chicago, he should run for mayor. His whole attitude to downstate is insulting.

And then there's the pension stuff---I have a lot of teachers in my congregation, and they hate him! And they pay my salary, so...B-)

I'm a Downstater, but I don't completely understand what the big deal is either. And I actually do want to understand that sincerely. That's why I was asking about why Mangieri is so important. I care more about the qualifications of the candidate than where they live. So, in referring to Gov. Blablabla, I think he's been doing a lot of good things for the state. He gets around here now and then, goes to Springfield like everyone else when they all go. Doesn't he? Am I missing something? And we have our own pipeline through Jay Hoffman in the Metro East. But, that's not the entire Downstate. So, I'm going back and forth about him. I know he's being stubborn about resolving the issue of creating revenue in order to make sure everything is being funded adequately. But, on the other hand, I don't know what to expect with Eisendrath. He's another Chicagoan. I'm not sure if he has any established pipelines to Downstate. He seems to be right in line with all the typical Democratic approaches to the issues. I think what I'm planning to do in my precinct walk is, have the info ready for these guys who aren't endorsed and therefore not in the campaign literature that's been handed to me. I have Democrat neighbors who are so fed up with the machine-style politics spoon feeding them their candidates. So, I need to let them know what the alternatives are to keep them in the process.

I came back after 5 years in Iowa, and can only say that I deeply miss the caucus process. It's true democracy, and could clean up a lot of the crap in Illinois...which is why it will never be attempted. I just see Illinois politics as corrupt from top to bottom. But, the Chicago machine is a major part of the problem. I'm not fond of Eisendrath, either.

My ancestors have been in Champaign County for 6 generations, and it feels disrespectful of them for the governor to behave as if Downstate is beneath him. I really find that despicable, and it's left me with a bad taste where Blago is concerned. Again, if he wanted to be chief exec of Chicago, he should've run for mayor.

I've heard from my bruhbruh about the disenchantment in Champaign with the Gov. We've got some of that frustration here, too. I think he needs to back off of his promise to not raise taxes and find the revenue to fund everything that needs to be funded. He's already proven he's tougher than the Republicans on this. So, I don't see what the problem is.

Anyway, if I understand them correctly, I'm with you on the caucuses. I think they would do a lot to clear up the process. For one, I don't think you would get away with hiding candidates from the constituents. I think it would also reduce the influence of independents wandering back and forth between parties during the primaries. It would also eliminate their confusion about what the primaries actually are. I know that there are people out there, who see them as just another general election, but they just have to choose which party's ballot they want to vote with "this time".

I was a delegate to the County Convention, because a neighbor nominated me at our local caucus. Then I was delegate to state convention because I was nominated and elected at county. Caucuses are well-publicized, so no "backroom dealing" as to who gets into leadership positions. Here, I'm having trouble connecting with the county org. In Iowa, all you do is show up at caucus.

It was also good to see other Dems face to face. When I first moved there, I thought I was the only Dem around. Then I went to my caucus, and saw lots of familiar faces. We joked that we could have held our congregational annual meeting there!

And then there's the platform issue. Anyone can come to their caucus and recommend a platform plank to be sent on to county and state. I had one parishioner who always came with a long list of environmental planks. I have no idea how the platform is formed here.

On every level and in every way, caucuses are better than primaries!!

How does that work? We have got a seriously ugly Dem primary going locally in a County Board district. Right now, it is a lot of party "regulars" pissed off at the two incumbents.

While I don't have an issue with a primary, I am curious to get a better feel for how that is resolved in a caucus setting. In our local setting what you have is a few very vocal folks from outside that district who are driving a very ugly race (lots of name calling from the one side and quite a bit of dishonesty and hypocrisy.)

My general thinking in a primary is, it allows the "non-regular" party members a voice. As I'm sure you know, we have a core group of folks who are showing up for everything and a block of voters that shows up (faithfully) to vote and little more than that.

My sense is that a caucus really is mostly just about the "usual suspects" rather than the folks who show up and vote. While I'm all for getting into the trenches and doing the work, I do feel that the folks who show up to vote deserve every opportunity to have a voice.

How does that actually work in a caucus setting?


Laura

and "the folks who show up and vote". A caucus is a town meeting, in effect. Anyone in a precinct (Eagle Grove, where I lived, actually did it by wards, and there was a slight difference in boundaries, but usually it's precincts) is welcome to attend a caucus. All you need to do is be a Democrat (or Repug, at their caucuses)--and you can declare yourself when you check-in at the caucus site. Then you gather with everyone else from your ward/precinct. There's a caucus chair, a voter in that precinct appointed by the County Committee, who acts as moderator. The caucus usually begins with the chair giving a little cheerleading speech--especially in presidential or gubernatorial election years. Then there's some party business, announcements from the county and state orgs, that sort of thing.

What I liked about the caucuses is that it IS the meeting of the party for that precinct. There's no place else for "party regulars" to meet in backrooms and make decisions. The apparatchiks meet in the same room with the "non-regulars". It balances out who is and who is not active in the party. If you want to vote in ANY party business, including nominating presidential and gubernatorial candidates, you MUST attend the caucus. There's no voting booth to go into, make a quick vote, and leave. To vote in a "primary" in Iowa, you must make the commitment to be at your caucus site, set aside the hour or so it takes to participate, listen to nominating speeches (I gave the one for Howard Dean), and vote by show of hands (no secret ballots--one must take a public stand, very healthy imo). Sure, there are people who don't attend either party caucus, but fewer than you'd think. Ordinary people, who in Illinois wouldn't know when the party org meets (as I can't seem to find out here in LaSalle Co.), go to the caucus, submit platform planks, make and listen to nominating speeches, and vote.

Iowa's early settlers were New Englanders, who came either at the time of the Missouri Compromise to make sure Iowa stayed a free state, or after the Civil War, when they were given veterans' benefits of
40 acres of uncleared land. They brought with them the town meeting model of government. Most towns went to less directly democratic forms over time, but Iowans have always been strong populists, and the memories of that model re-emerged with the reintroduction of caucuses in the 1970's. It's a great model because it brings party business out into the light of day. If every "party regular" in a precnct shows up at a caucus, there's still a good chance they'll be outnumbered by ordinary folks who only attend the yearly caucus. And thus, they might get their collective party organizational ass handed to 'em on any number of issues. It's hard to make backroom deals when everybody is welcome in the back room.

Really, the caucus model would go a long way toward ending Illinois's problem with corruption. And again, I think that's why it'll never be used here.

And why I miss Iowa.

Peace,

L