Repubs talk tea party issues
Thursday, Nov 5, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Illinois Review live-blogged a GOP gubernatorial debate last night. The debate was sponsored by a so-called “tea party” group in Will County. Here are a few of the questions. Keep in mind that live-blogging is a difficult thing to do, so typos are common…
* “Where do our rights come from?”
Schillerstrom said “from the people”
Proft said our rights come from God
Dillard said our rights come from the Lord
Brady –said our rights come from God to the people
Adam: They come not from another man…but from God himself. A responsibility that we all have to take seriously.
* “Question to Dillard: It is widely know you’ve appeared for a ad for barack obama … BOOS … Do you honestly believe his skills are serving America well as you said in the ad?”
Dillard: No I do not.
I warned people he was a a socialist then — his health care plan when he was in the Senate showed that. But he did work on an ethics plan with me … and I acknowledged it…
* “Question to all from panel: Health care. Do you believe it is big government over-reach. As gov. you would opt out for IL. Would you take same health plan that is forced on everyone else?”
Brady …I opposed Barack’s state-health care plan when he was in the senate and I do now
I believe we’re protected by the 10th amendment … applause … I have sponsored a resolution to embrace the 10th amendment .. I would opt out of the health care plan and would sue the federal government for the freedom to not be in the health care plan, but still get our part for Medicare and Medicaid.
Adam A: he would opt out of the program. He would use every legal pwer to sue the government. His plan is…we have best health care in the world…no rationing…his plan is to stop rationing info. Make doctors and hospitals put price online for surgery etc. Do doc and hospital scorecards. So people can choose. he would also eliminate the health insurance board.
Bob S. - I would opt out and I believe an elected official should live by the same rules as everyone else. if it’s anything important, we shouldn’t let the goverment run it., I am the only one up here that lives it. DuPage is the model of how government should be run. I have a record — I don’t just promise. I run a government. On health care — in dupage oounty, we took 400 thousand dollars to work together in Access DuPage to help people to stay out of emergency rooms. We ask the drug companies to provide drugs. We ask doctors to donate and we serve 10,000 that wouldn’t necessarily be cared for without the the program. That’s the way Republicans deal with health care problems.
Proft: He would opt out. The concern is the medicaid matching funds so we would have to sue. He also thinks we should go after the feds on a number of issue.
Proft - Medicaid is largest expenditure in IL yearly. We must restructure the program. The program is broken. Medicaid recipients have better plan than any politician or anyone in the room.
Wednesday November 4, 2009 8:38 IR Editor
Dillard: If i wanted socialized medicine, I’d move to Europe. I fought obama on this when he was in Springfield. I will work to protect 10th amendment . I would opt out and I think we need tort reform — applause — the federal government should get our liability system back in order. Legislators should be on the same system we force on everyone else.
If state “opt out” is included in the federal healthcare bill, you can bet that it’ll be a big issue in next year’s campaign. The GOP candidates are now all locked in on the issue, except McKenna and Jim Ryan, who didn’t show up.
Also, Dillard, Brady and Schillerstrom said they believed that global warming was not man-made.
* Related…
* GOP gubernatorial candidates to debate
* Suburbs set for more top challenges
* Kane board candidate’s campaign could get boost from appointment
- Montrose - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:01 am:
++I warned people he was a a socialist then++
Really, Dillard? You were telling folks Obama was a socialist when you were in the Senate together?
Holy run to the right, Batman.
- Bill - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:01 am:
These candidate comments speak for themselves.I pledge today that no matter how I feel about the incumbent I will not bash him anymore. No one could be worse than this crew, Dillard included.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:02 am:
LOL. Schillerstrom must not have gotten the red-meat memo as to where “rights” come from.
Nice touch by Dillard to make it “The Lord,” rather than God. That leaves about 3/4 of humanity dangling — but I’m guessing not many of them are pulling Illinois GOP ballots in February.
Jefferson, Deist that he was, preferred the word “creator.”
I don’t recall Dillard warning about Obama’s socialism in that TV spot. Must have ended up on the editing room floor.
This could become a new drinking game if there are televised GOP debates. Do a shot every time a GOP candidate says “socialism.” Make sure you have cab money.
Curious though, I wonder if our farmers — who heroically feed the world (that’s not snark) — consider price supports and tariffs socialism? How about that old S&L bailout, back in the day?
How about incentives and targeted tax breaks to “create” jobs that we hear so much about from the GOP candidates. Isn’t that picking winners and losers, and, dare I say it, socialism?
- The Doc - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:02 am:
More profiles in courage from the GOP candidates -with the understanding that they’re playing to this particular audience and fighting for the party nomination. Where was McKenna?
Are Dillard, Brady, and Schillerstrom acknowledging the existence of global warming, but disputing the source of it?
- Speaking at Will - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:03 am:
Let the Republican Bashing begin!
- Downstate GOP Faithless - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:06 am:
i was there, and it was interesting to watch. dillard’s goofy response on term limits, and then his almost violent reaction to claims that he endorsed mark kirk (now friday night at an event he was all about kirk, but last night he clearly stated he never endorsed him. proft had agreat night. this was his type of crowd-i am not a proft guy, but he was teh clear winner last night. i applaud schillerstrom for going. some of his stances just are not in line the tea party people, but he held his own
- Easy - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:06 am:
Heard they made Gitmo detainees watch the debate. That had to be more painful than waterboarding.
- Angry Republican - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:09 am:
I thought our rights came from the Constitution; I wonder what the candidates would think if someone said our rights came from Allah?
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:09 am:
T-Bag Pander Bears. Going to be a long, intellectually bleak season.
- OdysseusVL - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:12 am:
So much for me idea of voting for a Republican for gov. next November. After that, the only one I would not categorically rule out is Schillerstrom. Nice to see that Dilliard is going far right. I thought he was relatively moderate.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:15 am:
Actually, if you read the Declaration of Indepedence, it certainly was the opinion of the founders that rights came from the Creator. It’s an important distinction philosophically. If rights come from the constitution, the government can change it. For instance, politicians could repeal the First Amendment. The only limit to their power is political expediency and what they can get away with. In Illinois, that’s an awful lot considering politicians routinely ignore the state constitution (see the balanced budget clause, education funding, victims rights, etc). What’s given by government can be taken by government.
However, if they come from a power beyond the reach of government, then they exist “in nature” and cannot be repealed. The politicians could repeal the first amendment, but we’d still have those rights because they aren’t gifts from Congress, they are something we inherently have (aka inalienable rights) that government has no business or power to take from us legitimately.
- colt 45 - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:17 am:
the constitution gives no rights. it protects inalienable rights. it is the framework for government and a safeguard or barrier, if one will, between us and our government at the same time.
i agree with the candidates on this one. just wish they could have articulated it better. perhaps something was lost in the transcription but i doubt it.
- JonShibleyFan - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:18 am:
“I warned people he was a a socialist then”
1) What an idiotic thing to say.
2) Then why on earth would you agree to shoot an ad for him if he was such a socialist.
What is it about guys named Kirk taking every side of every issue.
- Anon - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:19 am:
“Also, Dillard, Brady and Schillerstrom said they believed that global warming was not man-made.”
This doesn’t say anything. At all. Of course global warming was not man-made, it’s a natural phenomenon. The question should have been “Do you believe that activities of man have exacerbated the effects of global warming?” An answer to that question could very well change my primary vote.
- Captain Flume - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:20 am:
From the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”
- Captain Flume - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:21 am:
So it’s really God and Man, like Jekyll and Hyde.
- Montrose - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:23 am:
++However, if they come from a power beyond the reach of government, then they exist “in nature” and cannot be repealed. The politicians could repeal the first amendment, but we’d still have those rights because they aren’t gifts from Congress, they are something we inherently have (aka inalienable rights) that government has no business or power to take from us legitimately.++
++the constitution gives no rights. it protects inalienable rights. it is the framework for government and a safeguard or barrier, if one will, between us and our government at the same time.++
I agree too. It a lot of circles, we call these human rights. Of course, that brings up a full spectrum of rights - including social and economic - that I am confident last night’s panel and their hosts would run from at top speed. Too bad.
- Ghost - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:23 am:
Well Dillard just lost my vote.
So far a number of repubs Ihave been consiering voting for have all come out with such extremist positions that they are persuading me to drop them from consideration.
I think the GOP strategy to pander to the extremists in their party isgoing o get them killed off in an election where they had a good chance. I am not sure why any GOP canidate in IL thinks being a moderate is a bad idea.
Also, the discussion of the 10th ammendment shows a startling lack of constituionla knowledge by these poffered future leaders.
Congress is generally not required to give the States money. Congress can, under the spending calus, offer money to States dependent uon the States agreeing to certain conditions attached to the receiept of the money. Any State may refuse the money and the conditions. The 10th ammendment would not allow a State to ignore the conditions if it wanted the funds
- irv & ashland - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:26 am:
Remember when Stroger threatened not to treat DuPage residents at Cook County hospital, but then (for reasons that are opaque to me) he backed off that threat?
Schillerstrom says he’s running the government the way it should be run. I read that as running government the way suburbanites always think it should be run — pretend your community’s problems are someone else’s and force them to pay your way so you can spend your money on yourself.
- I Want My GOP - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:27 am:
I really don’t see the point in kowtowing this early to the hardest of the hard Conservatives, very few of who represent the Republican electorate in Illinois. Ryan and (dare I say) McKenna, were smart in staying away from this debacle.
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:36 am:
If you believe that rights come from God, how do you reconcile the fact that the meaning of human rights has evolved over time?
Is God changing?
If God is changing, does the Bible need to be updated?
Or do we need to move human rights backwards to match what God really wanted?
Do we go back to the adoption of the Constitution? 1789?
Do we go back to the writing of the New Testament? c. 80 AD
Do we go back to when God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses? When was that?
Seriously, what’s the point of saying rights come from God? How does God being the origin of human rights affect policy in the real world?
- dave - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:40 am:
These candidate comments speak for themselves.I pledge today that no matter how I feel about the incumbent I will not bash him anymore. No one could be worse than this crew, Dillard included.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Even if Hynes wins the primary, he will be infinitely better than the candidates above.
Wow.
- The Prophet - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:40 am:
Great meeting last night. i loved it.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:51 am:
“Where do our rights come from?”
Their answers were sloppy and stupid because the guys who wrote our Declaration of Independance and our Constitution answered it - “inalienable right”. We are born with inalienable rights that are ours from birth. No need to say they come from God, because it doesn’t matter.
We are born with inalienable rights, regardless of your beliefs, politics, gender, race and wealth.
Sloppy candidates and sloppy answers.
I am unimpressed.
- Anon - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:53 am:
Carl, the answer to that question has been heavily discussed heavily throughout the centuries. It’s not a talking point that’s just picked out of thin air to placate the religious right, it’s the foundation of our country and modern democracy. I suggest brushing up on treatises such as John Locke if you really want an in depth answer.
- Louis Howe - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:57 am:
Calling Obama a liberal wasn’t enough; Dillard had to call him a “Socialist.” So Dillard has appeared in a TV ad for a candidate that he’s self-identified as a “Socialist.” What does that say about Dillard’s opinion of the intelligence of the GOP primary voter? Nuts!!!
- I wonder.... - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:00 pm:
if Dillard and Brady will immediately drop their health insurance provided by the state, since it must be socialist, being provided for and run by the state.
- Will County Woman - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:03 pm:
eh,you guys are being too hard on the republicans. some of them were just playing to the right in their responses. no cause for alarm there.
i agree with schillerstrom on the rights question. but i understand where the others were coming from.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:04 pm:
I don’t think anyone should underestimate that these people are very well organized and they are out there in numbers. Highlights from the debate…
BRADY: Chicago Gun Laws Need to be Weakened and deny emergency room care to Children of Undocumented Immigrants
PROFT and ADAM: calling each other homosexuals
DILLARD: Was the first to warn about “Socialist Obama”
ALL: Sue the federal government over health care reform
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:08 pm:
Anon 11:53, you make grandiose claims about “the foundation of our country and modern democracy”. But other than making a declaratory statement, you offer no facts or reasoning to support your argument. You do drop a name, a technique of losers and the ignorant.
Rights exist.
I find the claim that rights come from God scary.
The definition and interpretation of God is up to every individual. The Quakers did their part to ensure that an individual following his conscience is part of the American tradition.
But when an angry mob says rights come from God, I’m worried what they really mean is that they “know” who has what rights based on their personal theology.
I’m a whole bunch more comfortable with someone saying that rights are ideas that originate with the aspirations of humans to better the human condition. These rights have been written into religion, civic and legal documents that are now interpreted by courts.
Rights evolve as our understanding of treating people with respect and dignity evolves.
But rights coming from God? I can see how this makes sense to an authoritarian who is looking to use his/her theology to restrict the rights of others. I don’t see how it makes sense to someone looking to increase the rights of individuals.
- Will County Woman - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:11 pm:
@ Anonymous,
you’re right. and, there are actually a lot of democrats included in those numbers.
- Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:22 pm:
Our only hope is to primary Quinn, and either he shapes up or he loses to Hynes. Because all the Republicans are offering is wingnuttery. I might have considered voting GOP for governor. Not now. Dillard is obviously in deep pander mode, and Schillerstrom already lost me with his support for Colorado and Missouri-style TABOR legislation that went down to resounding defeats on Tuesday night in every jurisdiction in which it was on the ballot.
- The Prophet - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:28 pm:
I went to the GOP gubernatorial candidates debate in Homer Glen last evening with a friend. I would estimate that there was around 1200-1400 people there. It was very well-organized and handled with civility. The main parking lot was completely filled when I got there 45 minutes before the debate actually started. I had to park across the street in a nearby church’s parking lot. I made the mistake of waiting until about 10 minutes before the debate actually started before looking for a seat to sit down in. That was a mistake. As a result, I got to stand up last night through the debate. Adam Andrzejewski was probably the # 2 crowd pleaser there last night. He was a wee bit combative in going after his fellow GOP candidates. He must not have believed in Ronald Regan’s 11th commandment. The candidate that seemed to elict the greatest positive response from the audience was Dan Proft. Proft proved to be a gifted and eloquent speaker. His knowledge of the political issues and his straight forward clarity of how he planned to deal with them made him the candidate that gained the largest applause from the audience. Both Andy McKenna and Jim Ryan would have been wise to have shown up there last night. Bill Brady probably came across as the most politically-polished of the candidates but most of the people that were there did not seem to be looking for another “polished” political candidate. Andrzejewski and Proft were clearly the two candidates that gained the most (based on audience reaction to their thoughts & comments) by appearing at the debate last night. The organizers of this event should be congratulated for the excellent job that they did.
- downstate conservative - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:39 pm:
I have to give credit to Schillerstrom for having the courage to say that he was pro-choice and opposed concealed carry. I strongly disagree with him, but admire his cajones for giving those answers in front of that audience.
Although, I will say that he’s completely clueless on his 2nd Amendment answer. He said it was “the most important amendment”, and then went on to say that he opposed concealed carry laws because, “we don’t need that type of protection out in suburbia”. What??
- Cranky Old Man - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:44 pm:
OdysseusVL, I agree. I’m trying to find a reason to help get some “checks and balances” back in place.
wordslinger, not sure my liver is up to that game.
- TaxThePoor? - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:48 pm:
Well, I can’t wait to hear more from Rich Whitney and whoever else can get into this Governor’s race, because it looks like the Republican and Democrat parties are going to fail the people of Illinois once again with horrible choices representing their parties on the ballot.
I wouldn’t doubt if some operative Democrats help a Wallace or Conservative Party type like Randall Stufflebeam get on the ballot to help counter out LeAlan Jones from the Green Party if they can’t kick Jones off the ballot.
- OneMan - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:08 pm:
==D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 11:09 am:
T-Bag Pander Bears. Going to be a long, intellectually bleak season. ==
Vs. the intellectually deep stuff we are getting from Quinn and Hynes…
No, your tax plan is worse
No yours is…
Liar, liar pants on fire.
- Highland, IL - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:11 pm:
=====Brady ….. I would opt out of the health care plan and would sue the federal government for the freedom to not be in the health care plan, but still get our part for Medicare and Medicaid.======
Is this hypocritical?
- fedup dem - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:11 pm:
It would have been a lot more interesting if one of the questions had been:
“Where did your right to help self-destruct the Republican Party come from?”
Would any of them have given the most correct answer (at least in the views of many), “From my Master, Satan”? Somehow I doubt it.
- Anon - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:13 pm:
Carl, have you ever taken a basic political science class, or are you just playing ignorant in asserting that the foundation of this country isn’t on the belief and philosophy that our rights come not from man, but from a higher source? Suggesting you read John Locke isn’t “name dropping”, his, and some others during his time) work was the backbone of the Declaration of Independence (I’m sorry, is citing that document by Jefferson “name dropping” too?)
- Anon - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:16 pm:
In short, in case you don’t want to read up, rights “given” by man/government can be taken by man/government, and are not really “rights” at all. Rights given to us by a higher power that we are born with cannot be taken by man/government.
- Jackson - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:29 pm:
Global warming is a natural phenomenon and not man made? You’re a genius.
How can a candidate say our rights come by man, but man isn’t affecting our environment?
The 2010 election is going to be scary if candidates are going to try to appease tea baggers?
- TaxThePoor? - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:39 pm:
The term “tea baggers” although more common every day, is indeed considered by some to be an offensive slur against a group of people in the minority. Just sayin’.
Made me giggle a few times, but I’m over it.
- Will County Woman - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:41 pm:
hold on anon. i understand about the classic literature/ libertarian political philosphers, but based on what you wrote how do you explain the notion of the “consent of the governed,” a notion which we hold dear in this country? just curious.
- girllawyer - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:50 pm:
Wow. I can understand that Republican Dillard wants to distance himself from Obama, but calling him a “socialist”? Is Dillard completely determined to alienate all the people who voted for Obama? Seems like that was a substantial segment of Illinois - including many Independants and a fair number of moderate Republicans?
- Champaign Dweller - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 2:48 pm:
I don’t think a discussion of where our rights come from makes these people some kind of freaks baying at the moon, as some suggest. That’s a particularly important point in light of what is going on at the federal level.
Lots of people suggest that we get better candidates–just who would that be? And why would anyone one want to run in this kind of climate? Whether you love or hate Palin, how she’s been treated sends a powerful message that I think has a chilling effect on people running for office.
- jerry 101 - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 2:50 pm:
Bambenek: “If rights come from the constitution, the government can change it. For instance, politicians could repeal the First Amendment. ”
Ummm…WHAT? No. Politicians could not repeal the first amendment. What are you smoking?
Elected officials in the US Congress could pass a bill (one which requires a 2/3rds majority vote in both Houses with a quorum present) to initiate a process to amend the Constitution with a new amendment that repeals the First amendment.
That process would then require ratification by at least 3/4ths of the states - either via a state Convention or via the State Legislature, depending on the stipulations in the amendment’s language.
Alternatively, if at least 2/3rds of the State Legislatures request a Convention, then such a Convention could consider a Constitutional amendment.
This is a MUCH different process than what you insinuate, which is a merely passing a statute to repeal the amendment.
And there is nothing in the process that says that the conventions representatives have to be politicians.
The first amendment is also not one of Jefferson’s unalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence, which has 0 bearing on the law of the land anyway, states nothing about freedom of speech, the press, etc. It does specifically mention the following as being “among these” rights:
all men are created equal (actually stated prior to the unalienable rights passage)
Life
Liberty
Pursuit of Happiness
the right to institute governments
the right of the People to alter or abolish (their form of government) and to institute a new Government
Governments exist through the consent of the people. In the United States, that consent is granted through elections. So, should “the policitians” pass and then ratify a bill to repeal the first amendment, it will be with the consent of the people, as the people are the ones who elected the politicians in the first place.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 2:57 pm:
Elected officials in the US Congress could pass a bill (one which requires a 2/3rds majority vote in both Houses with a quorum present) to initiate a process to amend the Constitution with a new amendment that repeals the First amendment.
That process would then require ratification by at least 3/4ths of the states - either via a state Convention or via the State Legislature, depending on the stipulations in the amendment’s language.
So elected officials aren’t politicians? Who is then?
I didn’t lay out the process, I was making a philosophical point. If Government gives us rights, Government can take them away.
I never talked about the process and I certainly never mentioned they could do it statutorily.
Can the hysterics.
- Tom Joad - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 3:24 pm:
I wonder what Jim Edgar’s reaction is to his favorite candidate’s rightward conversion? It looks like Dillard may beat out Mark Kirk for the “Panderer of the Year Award.”
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 3:47 pm:
–Their answers were sloppy and stupid because the guys who wrote our Declaration of Independance and our Constitution answered it - “inalienable right”. We are born with inalienable rights that are ours from birth. No need to say they come from God, because it doesn’t matter.–
VMan, you are very wrong and very sloppy. You need to read.
“The guys” who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution did so with profoundly different reasons and goals.
The Declaration was a break with Great Britain, nothing more. Jefferson borrowed from Locke:
–We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–
Replace “pursuit of happiness” with “property” and you have it. Taxation without representation, of course, was the big grievance. But Jefferson definitely says those rights are “inalienable” and endowed by the “creator.”
The Constitution, which, of course, comes after the Declaration and is the establishing document for the nation, is very different.
The preamble begins “We the People” for a reason. Read your Federalist Papers.
The people establish the rights, and have the power, through their elected representatives to change them. No creator. Nothing “inalienable.” Just the people.
That’s a fundamental difference. God, or religion, is no longer a pre-requisite for organizing our self-government here on Earth.
Of course, the U.S. Constitution is the most radical document on Earth guaranteeing the rights of those who wish to apply their religous values to government, so it’s not like God is barred. But God is not necessary. Profoundly different from the rest of Western world.
The willful ignorance among some to the differences in the Declaration and the Constitution is similar to those who trot out the dire penalties of Leviticus (Moses’s road trip rules) while ignoring the Gospels (the Words of Jesus). The latter trumps the former.
A very wily Illinois politician, Lincoln, purposely referred to the Declaration rather than the Constitution when declaring the inviolability of the Union. No reading of the Constitution could support an argument against secession. Lincoln knew that, and like the great lawyer he was, he purposely ignored it while pursuing his desired outcome.
The Tea Partiers are trying to tie the GOP candidates to Natural Law. And, whether they believe it or not, or will have anything to do with it once elected, the candidates are going along.
- L.S. - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 4:12 pm:
if it’s anything important, we shouldn’t let the goverment run it., - Bob S.
Unless it’s one of the dozens of public safety,health care, highway, welfare or otherservices included in the $500 million Dupage County budget. I guess it’s appropaite his initals are B.S.
- Johny Lycho - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 5:02 pm:
Dillard was smart, prepared and always on his game. Our best shot to win the Governorship.
- this old hack - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 5:13 pm:
Its really too bad decent folks like Kirk Dillard would take these folks seriously. Pandering to the lowest of the low. I mean, if they could show up at town hall meetings, behave in a civilized manner, and not try to intimidate elected Representatives I would give them credit for political participation (as much as I disagree with it) but the way they act is downright scarry.
- Quizzical - Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 6:50 pm:
I spent a lot of time in Catholic schools and I took a fair amount of religion classes in college. I don’t remember much talk about the rights God gave to us. Maybe Jesus forgot to tell us about them, or maybe my education was inadequate, but I don’t remember, ‘blessed are the humble, for no troops may be quartered in their homes’.
At a certain point, twisting religion to meet one’s earthly objectives becomes sacrilege. As offensive as the pandering is politically, it’s becoming offensive to my (limited) religious sensibilities too.