![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mojosmomIn other words, I voted.
The most hotly contested race was the gubernatorial race. I've been unhappy over this one for the last couple of years. When he first ran, I voted for our current governor, Rod Blagojevich. Whose spine immediately turned into overcooked spaghetti. With the state facing a serious fiscal crisis, he wants to solve it by a) raiding state employee pensions, b) mortgaging the State of Illinois building (the A-G slapped him down on that one), c) leasing the lottery and/or tollroad. One-shot cash infusions that would just move the problem a few years down the pike.
I thought, well, if Judy Barr Topinka (the State Treasurer) runs, I could probably vote for her. She runs a good office and, despite being a Republican, has decent positions on social issues (she supports gay rights, is pro-choice, etc.). She announced, and then she chose as her running mate the State's Attorney of the county in which I practice law, thus immediately losing my vote. He has extreme right-wing positions on important issues (which is why she chose him - it's called pandering to the right-wing of the party). But more important, he's evil. He cannot be trusted. He doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ethics". I've seen him at work. Don't you think it says something when his employees are vigorously campaigning for him, not because they think he'd make a great L-G, but because they want him gone? Note that he had run for A-G and lost (giving the whiniest, nastiest "concession" speech I can remember), and then said he would not run for statewide office again. Until Topinka recruited him. (He has said that, if he loses this race, he will not run for re-election as State's Attorney. Nobody believes him.) I know there are those who say, "Oh, what does it matter, the L-G has no power anyway." But if anyone thinks that I will take one single solitary step to position this guy for higher office, well, they've been smoking an illegal substance.
So I looked at Rich Whitney, the Green Party candidate. Now, I completely disagree with him on the issue of carrying firearms. However, he supports gay marriage (well, actually, he thinks government should be out of the marriage business and everyone should have civil unions), he's against the death penalty, and he supports reproductive rights, believing that the best way to reduce the incidence of abortion is not to criminalize it, but to address the situations that give rise to the need for it. He's in favor of a universal, single-payer health care system.
But the biggie for me is that his proposal for education funding is what I've been touting for years: reduce the reliance on property taxes and increase the personal income tax (our tax rate is one of the lowest in states that have an income tax). Both Blagojevich and Topinka want to rely, in some form, on gambling (excuse me, gaming). He's the only one with the guts to talk about what's really needed to have a fiscally responsible state budget.
Not to mention that if you visit his website, you'll find that he actually discusses the issues rather than simply post the equivalent of soundbites.
So I voted for him.
Some people will call it a "protest" vote. People who think the only reason to vote for a third-party candidate is because you don't like the other two. Garbage. I voted for him because I think he's the best candidate. Did I waste my vote? Only if you think voting for a losing candidate (and, let's be real, he's the longest of long shots) is "wasting" your vote. By that thinking, we should just let the pollsters decide the election. Telling me that I have to vote for the Republican or the Democrat because only one of them can win (ah, there, Eric Zorn!) is insulting and anti-democratic.
We have several tight Congressional races, though not in my district, where Jesse Jackson, Jr. has only a nominal opponent. But at least three normally safe Republican districts (though one is currently represented by a Democrat) are up for grabs.
Bean vs. McSweeney: Melissa Bean knocked of Phil Crane two years ago. He'd been representing the district forever. But he was getting old, there'd been a bit of a scandal, she was young and vigorous, and the district's demographics were beginning to change. The GOP thinks they can get the seat back, and they may be right.
Duckworth vs. Roskam: Two years ago, Democrat Christine Cegelis nearly defeated Henry Hyde, giving him a close contest in what should have been a walkaway for him, probably one of several factors that led to his retirement. So this one is up for grabs. Cegelis ran in the primary, and got slapped in the face by the national party. They had an agenda (recruiting Iraq war vets) and brought in Duckworth, who doesn't even live in the district. They threw money and faces into the primary, and Cegelis, who had made this opportunity for the party, got tromped. Lots of hard feelings as a result. Roskam and Duckworth have been running very ugly campaigns. Either could win.
Kirk vs. Seals: this one is surprisingly tight. Kirk succeeded his former boss, John Porter, on the latter's retirement a couple of terms back. A moderate Republican (fiscal conservative, moderate on social issues), he has always had big support in his district. But Seals is running unexpectedly strongly, and the Dems have come out swinging in this one the last several days. Lots of $$ and high-profile names.
Some people say the Hastert vs. Laesch race is close, but I think they are indulging in wishful thinking. If Hastert is out pounding the pavement, it's likely because he wants to win big, not because he fears losing.
The usual judicial nonsense. A couple of dozen judges running for retention, and most voters know nothing about any of them. I know a few, so I voted to retain some, and not retain a couple of others. They'll all get retained.
Treasurer: banker's baby boy vs. unqualified legislator. A vote for neither.
County Board Pres: The "toddler" (ex-president's son, anointed by the party to fill his daddy's seat) vs. right-wing ideologue. A write-in for the guy who lost the Democratic primary to the ex-pres who had a stroke shortly before that election.
Comptroller, A-G, Secretary of State: the incumbents are all doing decent jobs. I vote to keep them.
County Clerk, Assessor, Treasurer: ditto
Sheriff: Neither impresses me. No vote.
State Rep & State Senator: good people, keep them in office!
Referenda: all non-binding. Three pointless votes for: a) an assault weapons ban (my god, was this one written in a biased fashion!), b) raising the state minimum wage, and c) a phased withdrawal from Iraq.
I'm thinking it will be a late night.
The most hotly contested race was the gubernatorial race. I've been unhappy over this one for the last couple of years. When he first ran, I voted for our current governor, Rod Blagojevich. Whose spine immediately turned into overcooked spaghetti. With the state facing a serious fiscal crisis, he wants to solve it by a) raiding state employee pensions, b) mortgaging the State of Illinois building (the A-G slapped him down on that one), c) leasing the lottery and/or tollroad. One-shot cash infusions that would just move the problem a few years down the pike.
I thought, well, if Judy Barr Topinka (the State Treasurer) runs, I could probably vote for her. She runs a good office and, despite being a Republican, has decent positions on social issues (she supports gay rights, is pro-choice, etc.). She announced, and then she chose as her running mate the State's Attorney of the county in which I practice law, thus immediately losing my vote. He has extreme right-wing positions on important issues (which is why she chose him - it's called pandering to the right-wing of the party). But more important, he's evil. He cannot be trusted. He doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ethics". I've seen him at work. Don't you think it says something when his employees are vigorously campaigning for him, not because they think he'd make a great L-G, but because they want him gone? Note that he had run for A-G and lost (giving the whiniest, nastiest "concession" speech I can remember), and then said he would not run for statewide office again. Until Topinka recruited him. (He has said that, if he loses this race, he will not run for re-election as State's Attorney. Nobody believes him.) I know there are those who say, "Oh, what does it matter, the L-G has no power anyway." But if anyone thinks that I will take one single solitary step to position this guy for higher office, well, they've been smoking an illegal substance.
So I looked at Rich Whitney, the Green Party candidate. Now, I completely disagree with him on the issue of carrying firearms. However, he supports gay marriage (well, actually, he thinks government should be out of the marriage business and everyone should have civil unions), he's against the death penalty, and he supports reproductive rights, believing that the best way to reduce the incidence of abortion is not to criminalize it, but to address the situations that give rise to the need for it. He's in favor of a universal, single-payer health care system.
But the biggie for me is that his proposal for education funding is what I've been touting for years: reduce the reliance on property taxes and increase the personal income tax (our tax rate is one of the lowest in states that have an income tax). Both Blagojevich and Topinka want to rely, in some form, on gambling (excuse me, gaming). He's the only one with the guts to talk about what's really needed to have a fiscally responsible state budget.
Not to mention that if you visit his website, you'll find that he actually discusses the issues rather than simply post the equivalent of soundbites.
So I voted for him.
Some people will call it a "protest" vote. People who think the only reason to vote for a third-party candidate is because you don't like the other two. Garbage. I voted for him because I think he's the best candidate. Did I waste my vote? Only if you think voting for a losing candidate (and, let's be real, he's the longest of long shots) is "wasting" your vote. By that thinking, we should just let the pollsters decide the election. Telling me that I have to vote for the Republican or the Democrat because only one of them can win (ah, there, Eric Zorn!) is insulting and anti-democratic.
We have several tight Congressional races, though not in my district, where Jesse Jackson, Jr. has only a nominal opponent. But at least three normally safe Republican districts (though one is currently represented by a Democrat) are up for grabs.
Bean vs. McSweeney: Melissa Bean knocked of Phil Crane two years ago. He'd been representing the district forever. But he was getting old, there'd been a bit of a scandal, she was young and vigorous, and the district's demographics were beginning to change. The GOP thinks they can get the seat back, and they may be right.
Duckworth vs. Roskam: Two years ago, Democrat Christine Cegelis nearly defeated Henry Hyde, giving him a close contest in what should have been a walkaway for him, probably one of several factors that led to his retirement. So this one is up for grabs. Cegelis ran in the primary, and got slapped in the face by the national party. They had an agenda (recruiting Iraq war vets) and brought in Duckworth, who doesn't even live in the district. They threw money and faces into the primary, and Cegelis, who had made this opportunity for the party, got tromped. Lots of hard feelings as a result. Roskam and Duckworth have been running very ugly campaigns. Either could win.
Kirk vs. Seals: this one is surprisingly tight. Kirk succeeded his former boss, John Porter, on the latter's retirement a couple of terms back. A moderate Republican (fiscal conservative, moderate on social issues), he has always had big support in his district. But Seals is running unexpectedly strongly, and the Dems have come out swinging in this one the last several days. Lots of $$ and high-profile names.
Some people say the Hastert vs. Laesch race is close, but I think they are indulging in wishful thinking. If Hastert is out pounding the pavement, it's likely because he wants to win big, not because he fears losing.
The usual judicial nonsense. A couple of dozen judges running for retention, and most voters know nothing about any of them. I know a few, so I voted to retain some, and not retain a couple of others. They'll all get retained.
Treasurer: banker's baby boy vs. unqualified legislator. A vote for neither.
County Board Pres: The "toddler" (ex-president's son, anointed by the party to fill his daddy's seat) vs. right-wing ideologue. A write-in for the guy who lost the Democratic primary to the ex-pres who had a stroke shortly before that election.
Comptroller, A-G, Secretary of State: the incumbents are all doing decent jobs. I vote to keep them.
County Clerk, Assessor, Treasurer: ditto
Sheriff: Neither impresses me. No vote.
State Rep & State Senator: good people, keep them in office!
Referenda: all non-binding. Three pointless votes for: a) an assault weapons ban (my god, was this one written in a biased fashion!), b) raising the state minimum wage, and c) a phased withdrawal from Iraq.
I'm thinking it will be a late night.
