« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

***UPDATE***There is Hope for the Illinois GOP after All

By: barry915barry (Diary)  |  March 11th, 2009 at 10:14 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

MY original diary is here:

http://www.redstate.com/barry915barry/2009/03/10/there-is-hope-for-the-illinois-gop-after-all/

Here is the committee vote on Illinois SB600:

The committee voting record on SB 600 was:

Voting “Yes”

David Luechtefeld (R)*

M. Maggie Crotty (D)

Terry Link (D)

Michael Bond (D)

James T. Meeks (D)

Voting “No”

Dale A. Righter (R)

Dan Rutherford (R)

Randall M. Hultgren (R)

Louis S. Viverito (D)

*Senator Luechtefeld (IL-58) was a co-sponsor of the bill.

Senator Rutherford (IL-53), whose office made it clear on  Monday 3/9 that he supported the bill apparently had a “change of heart“, due to an amendment that was filed on that same day.  The actual committe vote was Tuesday at 1pm (3/10).  I spoke to **** who was unable to point to what specifically was so objectionable.

How about the fact that after an unsuccessful run for IL-SOS in 2006, He is now poised to run for State Treasurer in 2010.  With obvious ambitions for higher office, see here:

http://www.pantagraph.com/blogs/main/?p=3681

With US Senator Burris (D) heading for a contested primary in 2010, This is an opening that Rutherford simply cant pass up.

It would appear that the good senator Rutherford simply doesn’t want to upset the “Combine” apple cart.  Nothing in Illinois is accomplished without the approval of the Combine.  The good senator is obviously willing to sell out the party and the people, for his own selfish ambitions.  We know what the good senator’s excuse is; What about the other 3 R’s on the committee?  What is THEIR  excuse for selling out the base?  For selling out the PEOPLE?  I have not been able to reach them for comment.  Stay tuned.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Brian Hibbert

    The amended bill is totally unacceptable. Lauzen’s original bill was a direct election of people based on abilities. The amended version makes the sex of the candidate a more important criteria than their abilities.

    • barry915barry

      First, I believe that you and I are on the same team and want what is best for the Illinois GOP.
      Second, I am aware of the amendment and specifically referenced the gender part in my “updated” update.
      Third, I agree with you that it would appear that the gender issue is a deal breaker for some. However, I think that is a cop out. Here is a link from Champion News via GOPUSA; That goes into a great deal of detail on SB600

      http://www.gopusa.com/illinois/news.shtml

      Both Richter (IL-55) and Hultgren (IL-48) were previously sponsors of this amendment. State senator Rutherford was NOT. Hultgren “mysteriously” dropped his sponsorship back on 2/25.

      It is clear from the proceedings of this bill and its predecessors history in 2005, the GOP ESTABLISHMENT is not on board. Other than the obvious threat to their power, they have little reason to derail an IMPROVEMENT in the way the Illinois GOP is run.
      My take, Brian, is that if you are party of the party and you are hunkerin’ down to KEEP the status quo, then there is a problem. In this case, with the IL GOP, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
      It has been well publicized the on-going problems with the IL GOP. Senator Rutherford, may be a good man, but I DO NOT see him as part of the solution right now.
      What I know for sure, is that what we are doing right now IS NOT WORKING. SB600 may not be perfect, but unless we(the party) change, we are doomed to be the minority party for MANY election cycles to come. I say (in a very friendly way, Brian,) that the party establishment needs to either get on board or get off the tracks because the train is coming! Barry

      • Brian Hibbert

        And I don’t see any reference to the Democrat crap on the bill in your story above. Only a dump on Rutherford. What’s your game?

        This bill as it now exists is NOT an improvement on the current system. It’s an abomination. Lauzen’s bill was a good one. It was straight forward and allowed primary voters to select their representative in the state committee. This new bill will allow too many games with even more Democrat sleepers to sneak into our inner circle.

        Read the bill.

        • barry915barry

          OUR diaries, and the posting of Warner Todd Huston. MY “game”, as you ask, is to move conservatism forward here in Illinois. I think that the way the politics are set up here, the best vehicle right now is via the GOP. I do continue to believe that giving the people back the vote to elect the SCC is the best option for the party right now, and therefore the best way to advance conservatism. I do not see why you think there is “…Democrat crap on the bill.” . What specifically are you referring to? If you think that the issue with cross-over voting in the primaries will complicate things, well, then we will simply have to agree to disagree. You had the same disagreement it seems with WTH when he first started posting about SB600.

          Here in Illinois, we can NOT be in much worse shape than we are right now. The Dems hold every statewide office, are veto proof in the house and just 3 votes from being veto proof in the senate (37-22). I say, if the R’s aren’t on board with THE IDEA of SB600, THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. I.E. The Combine.
          Lets BOTH work to make this amendment better, but lets get it passed!! Power to the People, Brian, power to the People!

          • Brian Hibbert

            Read the diary I wrote about the bill if you want to see the Democrat crap. Someone amended the bill to look JUST like the Democrat alternative for selecting state committee members. It’s gender based. We as conservatives DON’T select people for jobs based on their sex, race or religion. We select them on their abilities.

            THAT is the problem with this bill. It forces us into identity politics in the manner of Democrats. And THAT makes me angry.

            P.S. You still owe Rutherford a retraction.

          • barry915barry

            Then I have to make dinner. I will read your response(s) later.
            You write that “I think the current system is serviceable, but I

          • Brian Hibbert

            And the amended bill is bad legislation. If it was Lauzen that made the amendments to the bill then he killed his own idea. The bill that passed out of the elections committee was completely different than the one that Lauzen originally submitted. If he had left it alone, at least Rutherford had committed to voting for it and I believe the other Reps on the committee had as well.

            I agree our party is badly broken. Unfortunately this isn’t going to be the magic bullet that fixes it. You and Warner convinced me that the Dems aren’t any more likely to corrupt the elections using dead voters using this bill than they do now. I also agree that direct elections are preferable to the representative election from a PR point of view. I don’t think it’s going to replace the old guard. The only way to do that is by recruiting more members and getting them to support your candidates.

            And again I think you should retract your statements about Rutherford because he had agreed to support the original bill. The thing that passed is a complete rewrite.

          • barry915barry

            We clearly do not agree on some issues, and that is fine. We can agree to disagree. As I mentioned previously, there were additional “R” sponsors that withdrew (including prior to Mondays amendment).
            And, senator Rutherford never WAS a sponsor.

            I question Senator Rutherford’s commitment to reforming the state party.

            I talked with **** in his office this morning. She stated that she would have the senator call me back. I am currently awaiting his call. I will reserve final judgment until then, Brian.

            Lastly, as I have previously stated, lets work together for the betterment of the party and for the furthering of conservatism!

          • Brian Hibbert

            Most of the co-sponsors of the bill removed themselves when it was amended. Rutherford committed to supporting the bill as it was originally written (which was actually a good bill). Sponsorship is not everything.

            If you want to work together, quit bashing good conservative Republicans. From all the crap you’ve written it certainly doesn’t look like you’re reserving judgment. If you’d have had reasonable cause to write it, I’d say nothing or even join in, but you’re attacking someone over and issue when you didn’t and don’t have all the facts.

          • barry915barry

            Sorry about the Kowaski, AGAIN. Sheesh.

  • itrytobenice

    Those suckers need sunshine. And bleach.

  • Brian Hibbert

    It really sucks now. It makes the Republicans do thing the Democrat way.

    As I wrote about here: http://www.redstate.com/brianh/2009/03/11/illinois-sb600-no-longer-what-we-wanted-it-to-be/