No, Scheuer’s just an idiot
Sorry Jeff, anyone running a campaign who relies upon some clown who doesn’t sign a contract or pay someone money is an idiot. It’s pretty much the definition of idiocy.
The number of morons who think they’ll represent themselves as a consultant or operative in campaigning is astounding and to be that naive and then not to check up on the guy is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. It’s dumber than doing pay for play radio at the minimum price and then having the host attack you after they cash the check.
My college advisor complained about my coverage of his petition snafu, which was a far smaller number. And he’s even more pissed at himself for not monitoring the situation better. I certainly don’t owe it to Bill Scheuer to be nice to him because I support Bean.
This isn’t a mistake someone who just fell off the turnip truck makes, it’s the sort of mistake someone still on the turnip truck makes. Maybe someone did pull one over on him and if there is some evidence great. Right now, it’s Bill Scheuer and a conspiracy theory. Given the Constantine guy doesn’t appear to be the guy who actually showed from the articles.
But how could you possibly trust your entire campaign to some clown you don’t know anything about, you haven’t signed a contract with and you haven’t paid? What was the other plan? If he has union support, he should have been able to get some troops and some suggestions for a reputable consultant. Or at least done a google search for Anthony Constantine Illinois which before this story broke turns up the only guy who fits any sort of political description is an employee in Lipinski’s office. Or I go to the Board of Elections database and see the only donations/expenditures to this company are related to the 23rd Ward.
You might be able to convince me someone committed fraud, but so do people who send out the Nigerian e-mails. The people who fall for those are idiots too.
If you take the Progressive Punch ratings, Lipinski comes in at 79, Bean comes in at 75 out of 100. Bean is in a 56% Bush District. Lipinski is in a 59% Kerry District. Bean’s vote on bankruptcy reform was inexcusable, but I also can see that any of the Republicans who ran would have done the same thing.
Further, Lipinski’s environmental commitment is especially questionable given he has a good friend in one of the worst polluters in the nation, Holcim.
Finally, trade issues count less to me than social issues. CAFTA was a bad bill, but I’m rather agnostic on it similar to Brad DeLong. Where Bean deviates from Democratic positions the most are less obnoxious to me than where Lipinski deviates.
June 30th, 2006 at
I can’t (and won’t) argue with you about the aspect of trusting someone to get 10,000 signatures. I’m one of a handful of people in Illinois that has run a petition drive of more than 14,000 signatures in 90 days, which is what Bill faced. I know how to run a petition drive and how to follow-up and how to not trust anyone who says they have sigs until I see them.
But I would like you to address the rules that Bill faced to get on the ballot in the first place, and justify the rules the Democrats expected him to abide by. Only 4 times in the history of the United States of America has a candidate for US House been able to get on the ballot when facing a signature requirement of more than 10,000 signatures. That’s less than .0000001 percent. And in all 4 instances they had well over 90 days to get signatures and didn’t face the restrictions on who could sign a petition that we do in Illinois.
No one has EVER gotten more than 13,000 signatures to run for US House (which is what Bill needed), let alone in 90 days as YOUR Democrats require in Illinois. No one has EVER done this in Illinois for US House. EVER. EVER. EVER.
After census re-districting (2002, 2012, etc.) Illinois only requires 5,000 signatures. Why isn’t that enough for the Democrats and Melissa Bean who will undoubtedly try to uphold the WORST BALLOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS IN THE WORLD, to kick Bill off the ballot?
If Melissa Bean and the Democrats use the WORST BALLOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS IN THE WORLD to kick Bill off the ballot, then everyone who supports her should be considered nothing less than a fascist and an ANTI-Democrat. Yes, those are harsh words but please go ahead and argue with me in favor of our worst in the world ballot access laws. Melissa Bean deserves absolutely no one’s vote. If you can’t trust an elected official to support free and equal elections, you can’t trust them with ANYTHING!!!
Arguing Bill isn’t a good candidate because he can’t manage a petition drive is certainly fair game and I would agree whole-heartedly. But arguing Bean and the Democrats are moral or right in kicking him off the ballot for not meeting requirements which are the WORST IN THE WORLD in just plain anti-democratic, fascist, dispicable. and shameful.
Every American and Illinoisan, Democrats included, SHOULD be condemning the requirements Bill faced to get on the ballot. If Melissa Bean can’t do that, she doesn’t deserve a single vote. Shame on her.
July 2nd, 2006 at
boo hoo for scheuer! he has no public support and we should be ashamed of that?
there’s really no need to address the rules on petition drives here. yes, the number of voter signatures is high, but certainly not excessive. getting 14,000 signatures in 90 days is a good test of both one’s organizational abilities (iow, the viability test) and one’s public support. scheuer failed both. period.
you *might* have had a better argument before the popularization of the internet. but the fact is that scheuer could have had his supporters download his petition and collect signatures. the singular report that i’ve received suggests that people in the district were aware of bill’s pettiness and refused to play along. voter signatures were harder to obtain than usual.
but bill scheuer is exactly the kind of candidate you don’t want on the ballot — someone who has no intention of winning and only wants revenge (to knock off bean). his public and private statements alone are sufficient reasons for everyone to support a high level of proof that a candidate is serious about running before allowing them on the ballot.
while i certainly would agree that every citizen has a right to be on the ballot, i also know that the public has a right to set conditions that force candidates to prove their seriousness. i’ve been an (international) election monitor in a place that allowed more than a hundred candidates for a single race. the ballots were pages and pages, and there were less than a dozen races on that ballot. if you want to suppress the vote, then easily-accessible ballot access is the quickest way to do that.
quite frankly, the arguments of those who argue jeff’s position are not well thought out…