HUGE SCREW-UP by Illinois State Rifle Association [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : HUGE SCREW-UP by Illinois State Rifle Association


volsbear
01-22-2010, 06:29
If you haven't read or heard of it, the ISRA (and NRA) both endorsed Kirk Dilliard as governor. Dilliard is NOT a friend of the 2nd amendment though he claims to be. My understanding is that the ISRA went with a "safer" candiate (meaning, one that is more likely to win) than long time friend and CCW proponent, Bill Brady.

IMO, this is a genuine betrayal to Bill Brady who has proposed legislation that would allow CCW year after year after year.

Please take a moment to write the ISRA and your displeasure to be heard in the loudest possible way.

ChaneyD
01-22-2010, 07:04
If you haven't read or heard of it, the ISRA (and NRA) both endorsed Kirk Dilliard as governor. Dilliard is NOT a friend of the 2nd amendment though he claims to be. My understanding is that the ISRA went with a "safer" candiate (meaning, one that is more likely to win) than long time friend and CCW proponent, Bill Brady.

IMO, this is a genuine betrayal to Bill Brady who has proposed legislation that would allow CCW year after year after year.

Please take a moment to write the ISRA and your displeasure to be heard in the loudest possible way.

Glad to see Chicago politics still at work. Don't know why the NRA would back ANY politician from this state for ANY office.

:rofl:

MakeMineA10mm
01-23-2010, 07:39
Bill Brady has always been my one and only choice. In addition to his staunch pro-gun positions, he's a former Coroner, a down-stater, and pro-balanced-budget.

I can't find anything about the guy NOT to like.

I'm sure the ISRA had their reasons for picking Dillard, but I think it's a bad idea to endorse candidates in primaries period. I think it would be much better to point out who is risky/we should NOT vote for, and let us choose among the rest. That way, there's lower risk of alienating someone in high office some day...

05FLHT
01-24-2010, 06:45
Ryan and Mckenna ARE AGAINST right to carry. Brady is way behind (along with Andzrejewski). Dillard will sign a right to carry bill, and is in the top three (with Ryan and Mckenna).

Personally, I like Andzrejewski. However, I am not sure he can pull out a win considering how far back he is at this point. It may (and probably will) come down to the fact that I DO NOT want Ryan or Mckenna, and Dillard is the only viable choice.

volsbear
01-24-2010, 07:03
Dilliard will NOT sign that bill even if it passes. And even more importantly, he will NOT use executive influence to get the bill called for a vote.

Dilliard's "law enforcemenet advisors" is the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police - CALEA strokes who heavily oppose concealed carry.

Davegrave
01-24-2010, 07:20
Bill Brady...what an unfortunate last name for anyone trying to run on a pro 2A platform.
:rofl:

05FLHT
01-24-2010, 09:36
Dilliard will NOT sign that bill even if it passes. And even more importantly, he will NOT use executive influence to get the bill called for a vote.

Dilliard's "law enforcemenet advisors" is the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police - CALEA strokes who heavily oppose concealed carry.

Information from -

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,3863385.story

QUESTION: "Would you sign or veto legislation allowing concealed-carry for handguns?"

REPUBLICANS
-- Adam Andrzejewski: "I would sign it. ... Law abiding citizens have this right."

-- Bill Brady: "Constitutional rights should be afforded to eligible, law-abiding Illinois citizens,
and therefore concealed carry should be legalized.

-- Kirk Dillard: "With proper training and thorough background checks, and dependent upon
the exact language drafted in the legislation, I could support allowing concealed-carry for handguns
as almost every other state in the nation has done."

-- Andy McKenna: "I am opposed to concealed-carry legislation."

-- Dan Proft: "I would sign right to carry legislation."

-- Jim Ryan: "I would veto. I believe reasonable people can differ on this issue but on balance,
drawing from my experience as a law enforcement official, I believe we are better off without concealed-carry."

-- Bob Schillerstrom: "I would veto legislation allowing concealed carry for handguns.
I am a supporter of the Second Amendment; however, I do not believe that concealed carry is a solution
for reducing crime in the State of Illinois."

Schillerstrom is out - good. Proft, Brady and Andzrejewski are running pretty far back. Ryan and Mckenna are DEAD SET AGAINST right to carry. Dillard is in the running and is not against right to carry. It looks like the realistic choice is between Ryan, Mckenna and Dillard. Did Dillard say he would sign an assault weapon ban or veto right to carry legislation - NO. There is a reason the ISRA endorsed Dillard, you just may need to read between the lines at this point for the answer.

volsbear
01-24-2010, 19:16
Dilliard says yes, but puts contingencies and conditions. He's not on the level and up until a few years ago was adamantly opposed. He's got an agenda, and that agenda is to kiss ass within the chiefs of police throughout the state. He won't sign it unless it gives supreme power to the cops to decide who gets a permit and who doesn't.

05FLHT
01-25-2010, 06:32
With the primary about a month away, in a field of six, Brady is not in the top three. Just because Dillard "says" there are stipulations to him signing a RTC bill, or not signing an "assault" weapon bill, does not mean he is anti gun. Just my speculation, but perhaps he would not sign a "may" issue bill, preferring a "shall" issue bill.

Unfortunately, I am not, at this point, privy to information that the ISRA and GAT Guns have for endorsing Dillard. The ISRA and GAT are very pro gun, pro 2A and there is a reason for their endorsement. Personally, I think that Andrzejewski is a great candidate with an excellent platform, but with out the name recognition of Ryan/Dillard or deep pockets of Mckenna, his odds of success are slim and none.

Setting ideals aside, we are realistically looking at a choice between Ryan, Mckenna and Dillard. Ryan and Mckenna are against RTC and for an "assault" weapon ban. A vote solely on gun issues, going to any other candidate will split the vote and ensure Ryan the primary. Dillard may not look the best to you at this point, but he is actually electable, and would be a hell of a lot better than Ryan (or Mckenna) vs Quinn or Hynes.

volsbear
01-25-2010, 06:39
I actually like Andrezejewski and what he has to say. He's still way too young politically to have a realistic shot. I really thought he should've run for Leiutenant Governor first and then for Governor later. Ryan will be hard to beat and will be a stab to the heart of every concealed carry advocate.

And the primary is like 1 week from now.

05FLHT
01-25-2010, 14:54
I actually like Andrezejewski and what he has to say. He's still way too young politically to have a realistic shot. I really thought he should've run for Leiutenant Governor first and then for Governor later. Ryan will be hard to beat and will be a stab to the heart of every concealed carry advocate.

And the primary is like 1 week from now.

Yeah, I caught that after I posted. Here is an editorial on Dillard which touches on the RKBA issue.

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/like-reagan-kirk-dillard-has-only-99-44-party-purity-is-it-enough-for-illinois-republicans,118932

Like Reagan, Kirk Dillard Has Only 99.44% Party Purity: Is it Enough for Illinois Republicans?
THOMAS F. ROESER 21 JANUARY 2010 10 COMMENTS
As an old retired officer of a major grocery products company (Quaker Oats), I remember an everlastingly popular slogan from one of our competitors: “Ivory Soap—99 and 44/100ths percent pure. It floats!”

The story behind the slogan is this. In 1878, the company was producing just another kind of hand soap which it called…unoriginally… “White Soap.” Kind of catchy, huh? Well, it wasn’t. There were many kinds of white soap.



One day a factory hand left his big soap kettle bubbling while he attended to a very personal need. Then he got involved in a conversation with some buddies. When he came back, he saw that he had been gone for far too long. The soap bars had changed drastically in constituents and in fact were bobbing up and down on top of the steaming liquid. The slag had melted away which had held the bars settle on the bottom of the kettle. He was about to empty the kettle and toss the mess down the drain when he got another idea.

He salvaged the bars of soap and took them past his immediate foreman supervisor to the office of the plant manager. The plant manager was intrigued. They got hold of John Proctor, the owner. The boiling process had removed almost all of the very normal impurities that affected and afflicted every other bar of soap. Proctor decided intrinsic integrity, which soap manufacturers today continue to call purity, warranted a new name and a slogan. Voila! a major chapter in entrepreneurial history was opened. To signify purity, a new name was given: Ivory. And a new slogan “Ivory Soap—99 and 44/100ths percent pure: It floats!” (The factory worker was immediately promoted upstairs and died 39 years later a rich man—rewarded for his brilliant insight).

What sold John Proctor and what sells Ivory today is its sublime test. Just short of perfection.

“Yeah but Dillard Did This and That!”

Every so often I bump into somebody who says: “You’re for Kirk Dillard but he’s not perfect on…” and he goes on to elucidate one position out of the 24,000 a state legislator must vote on every legislative session…and one of 1,245,000 statements made in the extent of a long political career where fallibility can be perceived.
Dillard not perfect? No he isn’t. Neither is the Dillard critic. But then I was taught by my old theology professor, Father Ernie—with whom I spent 4 years in his rigorously meticulous classes (from age 17 to 21)—a valuable insight.

“Gentlemen,” he said once, “you are very attentive but you are not perfect. That’s because of the nature of the human condition—which is what, Mr. Roeser?”

In my 1st year I was stumped—which proved Ernie’s point. After the 2nd year, I could rattle this off:

“I am not perfect because perfection means nothing is lacking which according to its nature it should possess. That is the definition of infinite perfection which in itself has all possible excellence and excludes all deficiencies. Only God is absolutely perfect. The nature of virtuous humanity is that it has a finite nature and possesses all the advantages corresponding to its nature.”

And he would say: “Right you are, Mr. Roeser—but even with those qualifications, sir, you are not perfect!”
None of us had the guts to say “by that yardstick, neither are you, Father Ernie!” because in those tender years, by God, we thought he was.

So Dillard’s being not perfect suits me just fine. The important thing is that…for me and the things I believe…he is almost phenomenally right-on. First things first: I’m a social conservative. Which means legislatively I’m pro-life…and frankly a lot of sleazy things I’m against.

The Key Voters’ Guide.

So comparing what I am with the excellently annotated Illinois Family Institute Voters Guild 2010 which was handed to me after church at Saint John Cantius last Sunday by a volunteer…here’s his record.

He is (a) pro-life…(b) against civil unions which extends marriage benefits for same-sex partners…(c) against medical marijuana which authorizes people to grow and possess 6 marijuana plants and 2 ounces of marijuana—which is important because what we don’t need in this country now is to send a message to youth that we’re lowering the bars on acceptance of a drug that enables them to run the risk of addiction and which when used in excess direly affects memory, judgment and cognitive ability (besides which the “medical” part is a dodge because pharmacology has many substitutes to relieve pain other than smoking grass).

Continuing: (D) he’s against the archaic notion of an Equal Rights Amendment which would move toward elimination of major gender distinctions and gender-distinctive organizations i.e. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and would propel women to register for Selective Service…(e) is for the Marriage Amendment that would institute a ballot referendum before Illinois voters to enable them to decide whether the state Constitution should be amended top define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Still continuing: and (f) is opposed to “sex education” in schools which requires them to teach so-called “age appropriate” information including (according to SEICUS which stands for “Sexual Education and Information Council of the United States”)– a group that opposes abstinence training as detrimental to youth), including training in condom usage and presentation of homosexuality as a positive alternate life-style.

In addition to which he’s on record as opposing a hike in the state income tax from 3% to 4.5% and is against authorizing Illinois drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens.

Finally…something which wasn’t listed on the flyer…is this. At a time when neighborhoods are threatened with the specter of lawlessness, the goofy idea that if you take away guns from average people, crooks will somehow obey and there will once again be peace in the valley. Not so. Far more important, as Prof. John Lott has written—without refutation—is that there should be encouragement for law abiding citizenry to own weapons and subscribe to the canons of safety…for their own protection and that of their families.

Conceal Carry.

Kirk Dillard early on was the author of the Conceal Carry bill. It didn’t pass because its commonsense flew in the face of conventional and misguided liberal “wisdom.” But he authored it and still stands by it.

Does this mean he’s perfect? Of course not. Every official …even the best of them…differ from what you and I might call de rigeur. I remember 69-year-old Ronald Reagan, then the ex-governor of California, standing before the bar of criticism of right-to-lifers because as governor he mistakenly…and I say it was a huge mistake…signed into law the most liberal abortion bill in the country—rivaling the bill signed by Nelson Rockefeller of New York. Reagan said it was a mistake. Big mistake.

His critics said there was another guy running for president who had a more perfect record…not just on pro-life but on lots of things—not having ever voted for a tax hike (when Reagan had to grudgingly sign a big tax hike to balance the state budget). They were right: Congressman Phil Crane of Illinois was far more perfect on conservative issues than Reagan. In fact of him it could be said that he was 99 and 55/100ths % pure whereas Reagan was in the 44/100ths % category.

The Rap Against Reagan.

Phil Crane whom I knew well then, supported consistently for congressional reelection all through his nine terms in the House, campaigned against Reagan in the New Hampshire primary saying…truthfully…that Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in California history…that he created an entirely new agency in a state that was then in technical deficit, to fight smog…that he had vowed to sign the Brady gun control bill…that as a former union leader he strenuously opposed the Taft-Hartley Act, a landmark in labor-management relations…that he supported a California constitutional amendment that allowed professedly gay teachers in public schools to teach (so long as they were not advocates of their lifestyles).

On all these things, Crane was right. But somehow the people saw in Reagan not just a conservative but a personality with a kind of twinkling civility that could convince people to his side.

Crane got 1.8% of the vote in New Hampshire. A decent man and a patriot he went back to the House and continued to serve honorably and well.

Reagan went on to what historians epitomize as glory.

Yeah, But the Obama Ad…

The biggest rap used by some conservatives against Kirk Dillard is that he did a TV tape that was used in an Obama commercial in 2008. Sure. But when they say he voted for Obama, that’s the dividing point. Wrong. He voted for and campaigned for McCain. Do I think the Obama statement was a mistake? Of course, just like I think…

And this is far-far worse…Reagan’s support of a draconian abortion bill was…just as I think Reagan was wrong to set up another governmental agency to fight smog when the federal was all that was needed…that he did a dumb thing by appointing Sandra Day O’Connor who was never pro-life…or that he did another dumb thing about appointing Anthony Kennedy to the Court…or that he took back his early tax cuts in his first term by yielding to a slight tax increase. Or that he yielded to the temptation that he could bargain with the enemy ala Iran Contra—motivated by the concern he felt for the imprisoned CIA operative Buckley which impelled him to make a series of bad decisions which he owned up to.
I could go on and on. The big things he did, though, cancelled them out (all except, in my mind, his irrevocable abortion bill signing). He won the Cold War. He instilled the confidence that spurred the economy to prosperity. With his twinkling civility he sold the concept of traditional conservatism to the American people. He pushed SDI which caused Gorbachev’s knees to buckle.

A Twinkling Civility.

All of which proves Fr. Ernie’s contention: we are human. We are not perfect. The only Perfect Being is God. All of us are well down the line. But the major thing is not just one’s actions, it’s what one believes. Increasingly, modern liberalism—an respectable belief when I traveled with candidates including some Democratic ones—increasingly modern liberalism has been taken with the creed of secularism.

…That the view of man being affected by divine providence is.;.well…embarrassingly corny…that the trouble with a seriously professed Christianity is that it postulates that God created the world and thus implies that all man’s development depends ultimately on Him (they’re right!)…that production of goods and services and the utilization of the state as ultimate Protector constitutes the real bases of society. And this leads to the ultimate liberal heresy: The material is the only reality—and the material is in man’s power to control. Man does not need to depend on any Deity beyond man’s own genius to transform this world into a paradise on earth.

So I say: enough with the nit-picking. This guy said such-and-so at a church picnic 12 years ago…this guy has freckles. It’s time to understand that what is needed to run state government is experience, sagacity, good will…all these things plus what Reagan had to got him through many a tight spot—and which Kirk Dillard has:

God willing he will be elected and continue as the man he is…not perfect but endowed with a tough inner core…flavored with a twinkling civility.

**
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer.

volsbear
01-26-2010, 06:27
That was a long time ago.

If you check your recent edition of Illinois Outdoor News, you'll find him quoted as stating that he would FAVOR an assault weapons ban and would only "consider" signing a CCW bill.

He's no different than any other machine political from Chicagoland.

05FLHT
01-26-2010, 07:18
Personal preferences aside, it comes down to a vote between Ryan, Mckenna and Dillard. Ryan and Mckenna are AGAINST RTC and FOR AN "ASSAULT" WEAPON BAN. Dillard is endorsed by they ISRA and GAT Guns. The name of the game is to get the "best" candidate you can on the ballot.

Like I said, I like Andzrejewski, but don't see him being able to pull off the primary at this point. Do I vote for the ideal RTC candidate, split the vote, and hand the primary to Ryan or Mckenna? All that serves to do is leave us with a choice of worse vs worst.

smullen
01-26-2010, 10:16
Bill Brady...what an unfortunate last name for anyone trying to run on a pro 2A platform.
:rofl:


Was thinking the same thing...

05FLHT
01-26-2010, 14:07
New poll showing Dillard ahead of Ryan.

http://thecapitolfax...-take-the-lead/

The Republican race is even more up for grabs with five candidates polling within eight points of each other. Kirk Dillard is at 19%, followed by Andy McKenna with 17%, Bill Brady with 16%, Jim Ryan at 13%, and Adam Andrzejewski at 11%. Of the remaining candidates only Dan Proft with 7% is not in double digits.

At this point it seems the momentum is with Dillard, McKenna, and Brady with Ryan suffering from whatever the reverse of momentum is but on the Republican side it is definitely anyone’s game.

A week out from the primary there are still ten plausible match ups for the general election with five Republicans and two Democrats in serious contention- it’s not too often you see this kind of pile up so late in the game.

The full results, including crosstabs, are here.

Important note: This is not the poll that Fox Chicago had last night. I’m choosing not to post that poll until I can find out more about it.

In Illinois, Dillard is a win. Ryan, Mckenna, Quinn or Hynes is a major set back. Now is not the time to split the vote and put in Ryan or Mckenna.

volsbear
01-26-2010, 19:20
That's pretty tight. I wonder if Brady can manage a 3 point swing by Tuesday.

SIUC4
01-28-2010, 00:29
You have to account for the plus and minus 3% for error in most polling systems, 3% is very fathomable to overcome, the only problem that I forsee is that there are going to be many many more voters who do not care/want CCW than those that do....

05FLHT
01-28-2010, 07:15
You have to account for the plus and minus 3% for error in most polling systems, 3% is very fathomable to overcome, the only problem that I forsee is that there are going to be many many more voters who do not care/want CCW than those that do....

That is what I believe Dillard is playing to and why the ISRA endorsed him.
Ryan/Mckenna and Quinn/Hynes are all opposed to citizens carrying firearms and for blanket "assault" weapon bans. Their views and positions are set in stone. With Dillard, you need to read between the lines of his answers.

Some people may not like this, but IL is not Mass. Illinois is VERY liberal/democratic, with a minor conservative/republican base and historically few independent voters. You cannot just expect that southern Illinois values will carry the same weight in Cook and the collar counties.

Krigloch
01-28-2010, 22:17
Dillard is our best bet....

dorfinator
01-28-2010, 22:57
Can someone please tell me why anyone that cares about gun ownership still lives in that state? Or any state for that matter north of the Mason/Dixon line?

MakeMineA10mm
01-29-2010, 06:46
Personal preferences aside, it comes down to a vote between Ryan, Mckenna and Dillard. Ryan and Mckenna are AGAINST RTC and FOR AN "ASSAULT" WEAPON BAN. Dillard is endorsed by they ISRA and GAT Guns. The name of the game is to get the "best" candidate you can on the ballot.

Like I said, I like Andzrejewski, but don't see him being able to pull off the primary at this point. Do I vote for the ideal RTC candidate, split the vote, and hand the primary to Ryan or Mckenna? All that serves to do is leave us with a choice of worse vs worst.

But in my view, personal preferences should NOT be set aside. Your contention gives too much power to the media and instills a belief in people that they must vote for political expediency, rather than on principle.

I read your long post, and it was very good. I would only respond by saying, I will not compromise my principles to vote for the "lessor of two (or insert appropriate number here) evils." I'm sure the good Father you spoke of above might have spoken about that.

The ONE and only one mistake the Founding Fathers made was to cave in to political expediency resulting in slavery being endorsed (or possibly a better word would be condoned) in the Constitution as it existed from 1783 through the 1860s. That was based on political expediency, and it resulted in the bloodiest war in our history, and an on-going social problem 200+ years later (with not end in sight, I might add).

Sure, I understand that you'll argue that without some politically expedient trade off on values, we'd never get anywhere, and that the United States may have failed as a country if we had broken up in 1790, because of discord over the slavery issue. But, I'd counter with the argument that maybe something better would have come out than a faulty Constitution that lead to a Civil War and social unrest/upheaval/crime for the rest of this country's existence... Or, it may have regressed and lead to us being back under British sovereignty, who knows?

The crux of the problem as I see it, is people will not take the time to truly and intellectually evaluate the issues and create an informed opinion/value and then stick to those principles and vote them at the polls. People tend to either vote for the guy who promises to give them something (modern-day liberals, who are really just socialists in disguise, a.k.a.: Barrack Obama), or they vote for political expediency because they've been misinformed that the right guy can't win.

Well, I won't be sucked in to those ways of thinking. What's right for America and Illinois is a person with values of Bill Brady. And, no, he's not perfect, just like none of us, but he's better than the alternatives according to my values, and that's what matters. Will I fall on my sword to vote my values? Absolutely.

05FLHT
01-29-2010, 06:47
Can someone please tell me why anyone that cares about gun ownership still lives in that state? Or any state for that matter north of the Mason/Dixon line?

Because I am an American who understands what a fundamental right is...and want it back.

Honestly, I would love to migrate to someplace warm...today's high will be 16 degrees. Unfortunately, my wife has a job she likes, my kids are in a good school and all of our family is here.

05FLHT
01-29-2010, 07:08
MakeMineA10mm,

You have passion. You are not wrong to have passion, most people don't. That is why we here in IL are in this mess. Most people do not pay attention to what is happening around them, do not focus on what is important and attribute to much to a name or legacy.

Bottom line this is going to be a race between Mckenna, Ryan and Dillard. No candidate is going to win IL without appealing to Cook and the Collar Counties. Right now, coming out strong for right to carry and against an "assault" weapon ban may sound great to you and me, but it will not win an IL election. Dillard knows this, "whatever" he really feels (and remember he is endorsed by the ISRA and GAT Guns (BTW GAT makes a living off of selling "bad" semi-auto handguns and "scary" black rifles)) and is appealing to the "less" conservative vote.

I like Andzrewjeski, but he is not going to win the election. Do I still vote for him on principle and end up with Ryan or Mckenna, or do I vote Dillard because he is the best electable candidate?

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/il_2010_gov_rasmussen_125.php

IL: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 1/25)

Rasmussen
1/25/10; 527 likely Republican primary voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen: Reps, Dems)

Illinois

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
20% McKenna, 16% Ryan, 13% Dillard, 11% Brady, 11% Andrzejewski, 8% Proft

2010 Governor: Democratic Primary
43% Hynes, 37% Quinn

volsbear
01-29-2010, 08:25
OKay then, 05. But your citation, Dillard is 7% behind with a margin of error of 4.5%. That's insurmountable with 4 days left. So why not vote your conscience?

05FLHT
01-30-2010, 13:41
I've had/still have a bumper sticker on my back window for Andzrewjeski. Unfortunately, he is too far behind at this point. Again, do I vote for Andzrewjeski and put Mckenna/Ryan in office, or do I trust the ISRA and go with a more electable (and gun friendly) Dillard.

I'm going to be voting Dillard.

MakeMineA10mm
01-30-2010, 16:45
Just got a mailer today about Dillard (paid for by McKenna) which pointed out that Dillard supported Barrak Obama even after he announced higher taxes, AND Dillard was one of only a small handful of republicans who voted for tax increases here...

Funny how one RINO tries to sell out another RINO by pointing out the RINO-like behaviors of the other... If the Republicans in Chicago / collar counties cause one of the RINOs to be elected, than so be it. I won't vote for any of the three front-runners, because that's all they are - RINOs.

I'm not so much passionate as I am FRUSTRATED! What are the Chicago Republicans thinking? Have they not tired of the Chicago way? (It's not a very right-wing way of doing things...) Or are all the Chicago republicans THAT left-leaning? Have they been infiltrated or indoctrinated through too much affiliation/contact with Chicago liberalism?

dorkweed
01-30-2010, 22:31
All the more reason I'm voting for Andrzejewski in the primary. I don't vote against people, I vote "for them"!!!!! If Dilrod wins, I'll vote for him, but not until then,:embarassed:

05FLHT
02-01-2010, 08:12
Just got a mailer today about Dillard (paid for by McKenna) which pointed out that Dillard supported Barrak Obama even after he announced higher taxes, AND Dillard was one of only a small handful of republicans who voted for tax increases here...

Funny how one RINO tries to sell out another RINO by pointing out the RINO-like behaviors of the other... If the Republicans in Chicago / collar counties cause one of the RINOs to be elected, than so be it. I won't vote for any of the three front-runners, because that's all they are - RINOs.

I'm not so much passionate as I am FRUSTRATED! What are the Chicago Republicans thinking? Have they not tired of the Chicago way? (It's not a very right-wing way of doing things...) Or are all the Chicago republicans THAT left-leaning? Have they been infiltrated or indoctrinated through too much affiliation/contact with Chicago liberalism?

This has been discussed extensively at illinoiscarry.com -

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20054&st=0

IL gun owners, specifically those who wish to further the cause of carrying a firearm for self defense need to focus on the "best" ELECTABLE candidate. There is no candidate who I think is perfect. There are some who I "feel" are better than others. There is only one however, who is both ELECTABLE in IL and for lawful citizens carrying a firearm for self defense.

MakeMineA10mm
02-01-2010, 17:25
Sorry, but I voted for Bill Brady today... :wavey:

05FLHT
02-02-2010, 14:37
Sorry, but I voted for Bill Brady today... :wavey:

You picked you pony, I picked mine, off to the races we go! The way I see it, anybody other than Ryan/Mckenna or Quinn/Hynes in the Governors mansion is a win. I think we can both agree on that!:cheers:

volsbear
02-02-2010, 20:02
Nevermind.

volsbear
02-02-2010, 22:17
If Brady wins this despite the ISRA's snubbing, their political weight will be roughly NILL.

05FLHT
02-03-2010, 05:42
Dillard or Brady is a huge win for IL! Less than a 1500 vote difference. Also, looks like Quinn edged out Hynes. Hopefully we can get a candidate certified on our side w/out any public infighting, and the democrats continue to drag each other through the mud.

volsbear
02-03-2010, 06:38
Bigger problem is that almost 1,000,000 people pulled democratic ballots. I think the GOP ballot count was only about 800,000. Brady has some ground to make up on Quinn or we're stuck with this bastard for another 4 years.

05FLHT
02-03-2010, 08:50
Bigger problem is that almost 1,000,000 people pulled democratic ballots. I think the GOP ballot count was only about 800,000. Brady has some ground to make up on Quinn or we're stuck with this bastard for another 4 years.

I'll take those odds! What has Quinn done except talk about a 50% income tax increase and let a bunch of violent offenders out early?

volsbear
02-03-2010, 09:08
I'll take those odds! What has Quinn done except talk about a 50% income tax increase and let a bunch of violent offenders out early?

I don't disagree. But don't think for a minute that the dems aren't going to paint Brady as en evil gun-loving pro-lifer who wants to lock up half the city of chicago.

05FLHT
02-03-2010, 12:08
I don't disagree. But don't think for a minute that the dems aren't going to paint Brady as en evil gun-loving pro-lifer who wants to lock up half the city of chicago.

Half of the city of Chicago should be locked up. The problem is Quinn keeps letting them out. Jokes aside though, what we finally have is a pro RTC candidate for Governor. I feel a heck of a lot better right now not having to worrying about Ryan or Mckenna.

volsbear
02-03-2010, 12:42
Half of the city of Chicago should be locked up. The problem is Quinn keeps letting them out. Jokes aside though, what we finally have is a pro RTC candidate for Governor. I feel a heck of a lot better right now not having to worrying about Ryan or Mckenna.

You should still worry about Ryan (and maybe McKenna). Ryan in particular is exactly the kind of ********* who might use his reputation to swing some moderates over to the left side of the aisle in order to rebel against the party for failing to adequately support him. Ryan is a RINO and at some point, he WILL succomb to his political machine background. He's brokered more democratic-centered deals than he has Republican since he held office. His allegiance is to the left.

MakeMineA10mm
02-03-2010, 14:40
If Brady wins this despite the ISRA's snubbing, their political weight will be roughly NILL.

PRECISELY why the ISRA made a huge mistake. They should have just published what stand each candidate took on the gun issue and pointed out their pro- or anti-gun votes/history, and let the ISRA members include that in the other factors that help make their decision. THEN, they'd still have juice with whoever the candidate is. The time to endorse is the GENERAL election, NOT the primary. ISRA isn't the only ones to make this mistake - the NRA does it on the national level all the time.

I sometimes think there's so much "Chicken-Little" attitude in these organizations that they are their own worst enemies...

For all the nay-sayers out there who said Brady was not in the top 3 and had no chance - Again, I'll repeat my prior point - Don't listen to the media!! At one time the media had a place in our republic as a watchdog, but in general, the media has lost it's objectivity and it's weight. They'll never learn either... I've cancelled all subscriptions to all newspapers over 15 years ago because of their politicizing (usually to the left) and corrupting their truly important role of watchdog...

If you're worried about Brady being able to beat Quinn, I'd say this: If there's EVER been a time that a non-machine politician can become governor in Illinois, THIS IS IT! Quinn's mis-steps, on the heals of Blago-gate, on the heals of the conservative backlash against Obama means NOW IS THE TIME that there's the best (and likely only) chance to have a real conservative not beholden to Chicago in office. We'll see.

GO BRADY!!! :wave:

volsbear
02-03-2010, 14:48
PRECISELY why the ISRA made a huge mistake. They should have just published what stand each candidate took on the gun issue and pointed out their pro- or anti-gun votes/history, and let the ISRA members include that in the other factors that help make their decision. THEN, they'd still have juice with whoever the candidate is. The time to endorse is the GENERAL election, NOT the primary. ISRA isn't the only ones to make this mistake - the NRA does it on the national level all the time.



GO BRADY!!! :wave:

Yes. Okay. But in my personal opinion, the error by the ISRA and NRA wasn't JUST that they endorsed Dillard. You don't screw a friend. Period.

Character counts. And the ISRA president doesn't have it.

05FLHT
02-03-2010, 18:04
Yes. Okay. But in my personal opinion, the error by the ISRA and NRA wasn't JUST that they endorsed Dillard. You don't screw a friend. Period.

Character counts. And the ISRA president doesn't have it.

As long as everybody can come together and play nice now, we have a shot.

MakeMineA10mm
02-03-2010, 22:04
Yes. Okay. But in my personal opinion, the error by the ISRA and NRA wasn't JUST that they endorsed Dillard. You don't screw a friend. Period.

Character counts. And the ISRA president doesn't have it.

I have no argument with your point. Agree wholeheartedly.

I think Pierson does a great job of getting people worked up, which is needed, but he's also rather gruff and uncouth. I think he alienates as many people as he attracts. His administrative abilities seem fine, and he (along with the paid lobbyist) seems to stay on top of issues at the capitol, but in the political arena and in PR, I think he hurts us as much as he helps us. (In other words, "a wash," "push," or neutral-value.) I'd like to see someone more like Wayne LaPierre in charge at ISRA, but Wayne LaPierre-types tend to rise up and go further...

volsbear
02-04-2010, 04:19
Yeah Pierson is a little too rough around the edges. I think that in order to properly lead a statewide organization like that, given the drastic differences in culture between different parts of the state, that a more savvy guy might be more appropriate.

4TS&W
02-06-2010, 23:41
I voted Brady, and heard the night of the election that he only got 6% of the vote. The next day he was the leader by the slightest of margins. I think the downstaters votes came in with a deluge. I voted Brady, and I think if ISRA would have done the right thing and backed him, this would not have even been close. I hope Dillard does the right thing and loses gracefully. Now with the Dem Lt. Gov candidate, a GOP win seems more likely than ever..

volsbear
02-07-2010, 02:37
I voted Brady, and heard the night of the election that he only got 6% of the vote. The next day he was the leader by the slightest of margins. I think the downstaters votes came in with a deluge. I voted Brady, and I think if ISRA would have done the right thing and backed him, this would not have even been close. I hope Dillard does the right thing and loses gracefully. Now with the Dem Lt. Gov candidate, a GOP win seems more likely than ever..

Dillard was on a Chicago-based radio station on Friday saying that he plans on asking the supreme court for a recount if the margin was "close." And as of right now, I think the margin is about 400 votes with as many as 5000 provisional and absentee ballots uncounted. So we'll see.

I think it would show a great deal of party cohesion if whoever loses would simply bow out gracefully and put his full faith and support toward the winner. The democratic party in Illinois is reeling right now. It's time to start acting like the party who has their crap in order.

MakeMineA10mm
02-07-2010, 21:32
Dillard was on a Chicago-based radio station on Friday saying that he plans on asking the supreme court for a recount if the margin was "close." And as of right now, I think the margin is about 400 votes with as many as 5000 provisional and absentee ballots uncounted. So we'll see.

I think it would show a great deal of party cohesion if whoever loses would simply bow out gracefully and put his full faith and support toward the winner. The democratic party in Illinois is reeling right now. It's time to start acting like the party who has their crap in order.

I agree, but you know that won't happen. Whoever loses by a few hundred votes is going to demand a recount. Saw Dillard on TV a couple days ago saying that the margin is 5/10,000 of 1% of the votes cast. That don't sound like a graceful bow-out... If the recount goes the opposite way of the initial count, you don't think Brady will challenge it? This will wind up in the Courts...

MakeMineA10mm
02-13-2010, 10:37
Bigger problem is that almost 1,000,000 people pulled democratic ballots. I think the GOP ballot count was only about 800,000. Brady has some ground to make up on Quinn or we're stuck with this bastard for another 4 years.

In my precinct, we typically have 400 Democratic voters and 90 Republicans. This primary 200 Rep. ballots were pulled and the large number of first time Republicans said, "I'm a democrat, but I'm sick and tired of Chicago and Obama!"

Don't give up the ship!! This is the BEST chance in my lifetime of getting a down-stater in the governor's mansion and giving the Chicago machine a run for it's money in the legislature.

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!! :elephant:

volsbear
02-16-2010, 06:48
In my precinct, we typically have 400 Democratic voters and 90 Republicans. This primary 200 Rep. ballots were pulled and the large number of first time Republicans said, "I'm a democrat, but I'm sick and tired of Chicago and Obama!"

Don't give up the ship!! This is the BEST chance in my lifetime of getting a down-stater in the governor's mansion and giving the Chicago machine a run for it's money in the legislature.

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!! :elephant:

I'd love to not give up. But it's been hard, considering Brady's campaign won't even return multiple e-mails I've sent offering help.

MakeMineA10mm
02-16-2010, 22:26
Don't despair. His campaign is incredibly small, and they get thousands of phone calls and e-mails per day. Right now, they're in a holding pattern waiting to see what transpires with the final count...

volsbear
02-17-2010, 06:53
Oh yeah, I know his campaign is small. That's the problem, and the nature of my e-mails. Myself and at leat one colleague are willing to make it bigger!

MakeMineA10mm
02-17-2010, 18:34
Oh yeah, I know his campaign is small. That's the problem, and the nature of my e-mails. Myself and at leat one colleague are willing to make it bigger!

I'm sure they'll very much welcome your aid when it's time.

The point I was trying to make (not to clearly - sorry) is that there is no campaigning right now. They have to wait to see what the certified results of the primary are. If Brady is declared the winner, he will have the backing of the state-wide Republican Party. If he loses, he won't need any campaigning help...

What could be done RIGHT NOW is a donation to his campaign, as it appears, no matter which way the race is called, there is going to be a recount and then a court action, which costs mucho bucks...

volsbear
02-17-2010, 19:29
I believe the court action has to come first. I tihnk you have to make your case to the high court FIRST. But that's just how I understand it.

4TS&W
02-23-2010, 11:19
Any word or update?

volsbear
02-23-2010, 19:29
The Illinois State Board of Elections has until March 5th to certify the election. As of close of business yesterday, 31 jurisdictions still had not yet submitted their final provisional and absentee ballots to Springfield.

05FLHT
02-24-2010, 06:03
The Illinois State Board of Elections has until March 5th to certify the election. As of close of business yesterday, 31 jurisdictions still had not yet submitted their final provisional and absentee ballots to Springfield.

Dillard seems ready to concede to Brady. The tone has been kept very cordial considering how close the race was. From Tribune article, it seems they are planning to work closely to retake the Governors mansion.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-gop-gov-race-0224-20100223,0,6782256.story

volsbear
02-24-2010, 09:35
Dillard said last week that he won't likely contest the final vote count unless the margin is less than 75-100 votes.

05FLHT
02-24-2010, 10:10
Dillard said last week that he won't likely contest the final vote count unless the margin is less than 75-100 votes.

I think he "officially" set it at less than 100 votes.

I am very, very impressed thus far with the way the Republicans have handled themselves post primary. The liberal media was anticipating and set to capitalize on any post primary party infighting, which has just not materialized. This is the unified front that we need to have a chance come November. Again, I am very impressed. Lets hope it holds up.

On a side note, I would love to see Dillard (and the entire party for that matter) out publicly stumping for Brady should he be on top at the end. We would do well to keep a grass roots feel with town hall style rallies, and avoid the barrage of back and forth campaign adds we are used to.

volsbear
02-24-2010, 10:17
The big question is what Jim Ryan will do. He's a republican, but in name only, and tends to vote liberally. While he only finished 4th in the primary, his name carries enough weight to sway a great deal of moderates.

05FLHT
02-24-2010, 17:01
The big question is what Jim Ryan will do. He's a republican, but in name only, and tends to vote liberally. While he only finished 4th in the primary, his name carries enough weight to sway a great deal of moderates.

The IL GOP endorses law abiding citizens being allowed to carry concealed weapons. He can tow the party line, or the party can cut him loose. His, along with Mckenna's, loss should be a wake up call.

MakeMineA10mm
02-26-2010, 10:45
I'm sorry but moderates really burn my butt. Quit trying to make everyone happy (which you can't do) and pick a position and stick to it. Try applying logic rather than emotion to the situation and evaluate principles and values and then choose.

I also have a burr under my saddle about any political party picking to compromise certain principles in order to gain votes (from the moderates).

This is why the Tea Party movement has grown so rapidly. These are old-school, down-home, grass-roots conservatives who wish we could get away from all the silliness and stupidity (politics) of the major parties and get back to some core AMERICAN principles.

volsbear
02-26-2010, 19:41
True, but as the Tea Party gains political strength, they'll float more radically right and start to scare the hell out of people. I've already seen our local groups spouting some pretty scary stuff.

05FLHT
02-26-2010, 20:00
True, but as the Tea Party gains political strength, they'll float more radically right and start to scare the hell out of people. I've already seen our local groups spouting some pretty scary stuff.

You hit the nail on the head with that one. The movement is also starting to fracture, some issues being more important to some than others.

MakeMineA10mm
03-01-2010, 20:50
VERY interesting article here about Dillard and Brady keeping their contest and integrity clean! Dillard says he's only waiting/hoping for a clerical error, and otherwise, he is helping Brady with advice about the collar counties/etc.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-gop-gov-race-0224-20100223,0,6782256.story

volsbear
03-01-2010, 21:29
I think Brady/Dillard/party-leadership have done a great job being a first class act. It would've been real easy to sling mud, but they have seen the big picture.

volsbear
03-05-2010, 16:47
So it's official. The ISRA screwed a long time friend and lost. Niiiiiiiiiiiice job, morons. Thank God Brady is a man of honor.

4TS&W
03-09-2010, 23:55
SWEET!!!!

193 votes!!!!

Less than 2 votes per county!!!!

(I was one of those votes he got by the way - in case you couldn't tell, lol)

Now to make it count in November, because if we don't win then, all of this is moot.

devildog24
03-20-2010, 19:03
so it's official. The isra screwed a long time friend and lost. Niiiiiiiiiiiice job, morons. Thank god brady is a man of honor.
isra said the foid card would be good deal in 1968 when it passed too. I would say they helped create a police state. Illinois carry might be a better organization to support.

4TS&W
11-03-2010, 01:04
Well, he's down about 8,500 votes.. with 99% precincts counted.. looks like we lost a close one... military absentee votes not counting and felon votes/illegal immigrants votes counting probably made the difference in this one..

MakeMineA10mm
11-10-2010, 09:03
Indeed. With the way the votes came out (Quinn really only won the counties in inner-city Chicago and possibly East St. Louis), I wonder about fraud in the vote counting (or maybe who voted [dead, twice, etc.]). Unfortunately, with the liberals in control, no one will blow a whistle and challenge this. I find it unbelievable with the way the overall vote went across the country that this race was lost by less than 20,000 votes.

Wisconsin's legislature and governor have changed over to conservatives. I wonder if they'll finally get CCW passed? Wouldn't surprise me, and more power to them. It's just frustrating we'll be the last state in the nation with no CCW...