Lincoln's Ghost
Lincoln's ghost would be saying 'where were the other candidates?'. Lincoln was a third party candidate and if Abraham Lincoln had faced the same political discrimination that are piled on third parties now by the two parties in power, and especially the media, we would be saying 'Abraham who?'. Abraham Lincoln would not have been on the ballot if he faced similar requirements that now oppress third parties, and if the League of Women Voters were around at the time sponsoring the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates, they never would have happened. (Side note here that Lincoln shunned the idea of women voting.)
Here is part of Lincoln's original Republican Party Platform.
1. Resolved, That we believe this truth to be self-evident, that when parties become subversive of the ends for which they are established, or incapable of restoring the government to the true principles of the Constitution, it is the right and duty of the people to dissolve the political bands by which they may have been connected therewith, and to organize new parties upon such principles and with such views as the circumstances and the exigencies of the nation may demand.
Sure, Lincoln may indeed have smiled at the sight of two black males running for US Senate in Illinois. But Lincoln would have been absolutely disgusted with the actions of his current Republican Party, the current Democratic Party, Barack Obama, the League of Women Voters, and most all of the media in Illinois.
If Lincoln were around today would he be a Libertarian? Probably not. I would venture to assume that Lincoln would not be voting for Barack Obama simply because Obama does not believe in "the true principles of the Constitution" as Obama's actions prove he rejects true democracy and free and equal elections. And make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is the reason why Libertarian Jerry Kohn and independent Albert Franzen will not be in the debates. Lincoln would believe that Barack Obama and his Democratic Party have indeed "become subversive of the ends for which they are established", and Lincoln would have no option but to think the same of his Republican Party after their actions also prove their disdain for free and equal elections.
So Mr. Zorn, would Abraham Lincoln's Ghost be smiling watching the US Senate debate in the Old Capitol? No. On the whole, Lincoln would be utterly disgusted by the actions of Barack Obama, the current Republican Party, and most of the media. I suspect largely because of the corrupt nature of both major parties in Illinois and their enormous lust for power evidenced by our state election laws, that like switching from Whig to Republican, Abraham Lincoln would again venture on to a new party that had not "become subversive of the ends for which they are established". But knowing the media in Illinois and organizations like the League of Women Voters, Abraham Lincoln in today's age would be totally ignored.
I believe that Abraham Lincoln would think as I do about this US Senate race. A candidate that does NOT believe in the principles of democracy is NOT qualified to be a US Senator. A vote for Barack Obama is vote for political discrimination. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for continued corruption like Chicago's "Hired Truck Scandal" that took place under his nose in his own district. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for subverting the principles of our Constitution to solely benefit Barack Obama's lust for power over the obligation of free and equal elections. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for the behavior of Michael Madigan in removing candidates from the ballot. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for the anti-democartic coronation method used by Lipinski to crown his son. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote against democracy, against equality, against fairness, against our Constitution, and against the America our founders envisioned. These are the thoughts that Lincoln's ghost more likely would conjure watching the unequal, unfair, un-American, and discriminatory debate in our Old Capitol last week. As for Alan Keyes on this matter, his mouth is much bigger than his actions can back up.
There would be no Abraham Lincoln if the leaders of his day shared Barack Obama's views in favor of political discrimination, silencing legitimate and essential political voices, unfair ballot access laws, unequal elections, and special rights and privileges for the powerful, connected few.
Bold is mine
OOPS So now we have confirmation that the League of Women Voters in Illinois is not only unfair, but they are incompetent as well.
On Saturday they posted this on the front page of their website.
In conjunction with the League of Women Voters, Channel 7 will air a debate among Obama, Keyes and senatorial candidates Albert Franzen and Jerry Kohn at 7 p.m. Thursday. Channel 7 news anchor Ron Magers will moderate the event, featuring a panel of journalists including Channel 7's Andy Shaw, Sun-Times columnist Laura Washington and Carlos Hernandez-Gomez of WBEZ-FM (91.5).
Again, Jerry must be in the debates, right? Wrong. It was "just" an error. An error I've had to explain to a good 30 callers this morning and even more emails wishing Jerry luck in the debate.
I see John Kerry is demanding equal time from Sinclair because of them running the piece on Kerry's military record. Where are all the Democrats demanding equal time and fairness for the rest of us, or does that only apply to you? Evidently, it's not fair to John Kerry to run a piece negative to his jasmin live campaign, but John Kerry and Barack Obama think it is perfectly fair what they do to "other" candidates.
I won't point you to their website, but I also want to mention something else about the League of Women Voters in Illinois. They put out an "Election 2004 Issues Guide", and link to it on their front page. They list the Presidential candidates as Bush, Kerry, independent Ralph Nader, and the Green Party's David Cobb. Well, Nader and Cobb AREN'T on the Illinois ballot, or even on the ballot in as many states as Libertarian Michael Badnarik (48), but the League of Women Voters in Illinois DO NOT list Michael Badnarik in their guide. Can you say damages? Can you say illegal in-kind campaign contributions? They're very lucky we don't like playing their legal games. A wise man pointed out to me that the average age of the members of the LWV is getting higher and higher. That may explain something.
An apology
Keeping me honest Not that I was intentionally untruthful, but I'll apologize for getting and giving the wrong facts anyway. I've gotten so accustomed to Republican corruption I got sloppy. That and I'm still a little cranky after our 25,000 valid sigs in 90 days petition drive that is a mockery of the free and equal elections called for in the Illinois Constitution.
First, Bryan Hartman is NOT a state employee as I thought in the previous post. An apology directly to him, Tom Cross, and their crew is owed and I'm man enough to give it. I was wrong and I apologize. I'm not a journalist and didn't check my sources before blabbing, and that's all my fault. Lesson learned. Not that it's particularly easy to find out exactly who IS on the state payrolls, such as Kevin Artl, who IS a state employee (according to the state directory) and who DID inspect candidate filings during the course of normal business hours in the spring of 2004. I jumped the gun seeing as Illinois Republicans used at least 73 state employees (some of them proven to be on the state clock) to kick us off the ballot in 1998, and Illinois Republican Chair Judy Baar Topinka is under a federal grand jury investigation for using Treasurer employees to try to kick us off the ballot in 2002. Maybe Leader Cross can help Topinka answer the question about where her Chicago employees were on June 28, 2002.
Second, likewise I was wrong on the address. There is a difference between Suite 204 and Suite 205 at the exact same street address. It really is nicely convenient to have a district office (paid by taxpayers) in the very next suite as your campaign office. Sure, it makes for a nice cover that state employees aren't walking to the next cubicle to do campaign work. I'll give Tom Cross and his crew the benefit of the doubt that they don't share state employees with campaign employees from one cubicle to the next, although it could raise one's concern.
I believe those are the two very important facts that I horribly got wrong. Again, I apologize for that. There was no excuse for that. Thank you to Chris Rhodes and the JoinCross crew for correcting me. You are doing your jobs well.
However, here are the facts that I believe I got right or that we've now learned.
FACT: Libertarians can be useful at keeping politicians honest, and the opposite applies as well. This is what democratic elections are suppose to do, but we've been woefully missing in Illinois.
FACT: 50% of the State Representative and State Senate elections in 2004 are not being opposed by the Republicans and Democrats. 50% of Illinois voters will have no choice on the ballot and no choice as to who will represent them in Springfield. 50% of the politicians will waltz into their own coronation without any competition. At the same time, Illinois maintains some of the most anti-democratic election laws in the WORLD to keep competition off the ballots. It is harder to run for US House in Illinois than it is in any other state in the US. It is harder to run for President in Illinois based on signature requirements and established party status than any other state in the US, except for Oklahoma.
FACT: Bryan Hartman is an employee of the House Republican Organization, NOT the House Republican Staff. Most people don't know the difference, but there is one. So HRO has admitted they are actively sending their employees to copy Libertarian candidate filings in preperation of kicking them off the ballot. This demonstrates that they are spending more money and effort kicking candidates off the ballot that would be on the ballot in 42 other states with less anti-democratic election laws, than they are trying to squelch illegal campaign activity within their own party. If Libertarian candidates are kicked off the ballot, we know it was under orders from Tom Cross. I say if Cross is successful kicking Libertarians off the ballot, they owe us one and should push legislation that treats ALL candidates for office EQUALLY without discriminating against anyone. And to be consistent, if Cross is going to hold Libertarians to the precise rule of election law, they should do the exact same thing with President Bush. If he doesn't, he's a hypocrit and shows he's more interested in political power than the RULE OF LAW and treating all Americans equally under the law instead of blatant favoritism and special privileges for a select few.
FACT: Tom Cross has a district office (paid by taxpayers) in the very next suite as his campaign organization's office. Same address, same building, same floor, just one door over. They will maintain that state emloyees in one office do not help in the other office also. We'll leave it to people's common sense and knowledge of past practices whether or not the two are kept perfectly seperate.
FACT: Kevin Artl IS a state employee for the House Republicans and he was doing campaign work in spring 2004 during normal business hours. So while Bryan Hartman is off the hook, our FOIA request with the Comptroller on Kevin Artl may shed some interesting facts.
FACT: Tom Cross continues to support Judy Baar Topinka as the ILGOP state chair even though she has been accused of using her state employees on the clock to do campaign work by a federal grand jury. As far as I know, Tom Cross has not used his position to call for any answers from Topinka about where her www.jasminelive.online employees were on June 28, 2002. It apears that Cross has just turned the other way with this allegation of unethical activity that is against Federal Law. And yes, Topinka was alleged to be using state employees on the clock to try to kick Libertarians off the ballot in 2002, even after Ryan got caught doing the same thing in 1998.
FACT: Tom Cross voted for and pushed a bill that would let Bush ignore Illinois election law while forgiving $1 million in campaign fines against Illinois Democrats. Business as usual? Ethics? Is it ethical to let politicians get away with breaking Illinois campaign rules just because your candidate for President can't abide by a deadline? I pissed them off with my wrong facts, but this should piss everyone in Illinois off. How many people can go to a judge and get their speeding tickets forgiven because the judge once got a speeding ticket himself? How many people can go to the IRS and get their late filing penalties forgiven? That's exactly like what Tom Cross and the House Republicans did by voting to forgive $1 million in campaign fines.
FACT: Tom Cross' predecessor, Lee Daniels, is under a federal grand jury investigation for using state employees on the clock for campaign work. (As is Michael Madigan and Emil Jones.) Cross or no one else in the ILGOP has called for Daniels to resign his state representative seat, and they are in fact supporting his re-election. They barely got him to resign his Chairship of the ILGOP and his House leadership position. While Daniels was doing this, NO ONE in the ILGOP, except Cal Skinner at the time, stepped up publicly to call for an end to this illegal activity. Everyone in Springfield knew it was happening, even though they'll claim ignorance. The Dems didn't say anything, because they were doing the same things. There was an agreement between the Reps and Dems NOT to rat on each other. That explains why no Republicans have even mentioned the investigations into Madigan and Jones. Bi-partisan corrupt politics as usual in Springfield.
FACT: Republican Governor George Ryan (under indictment now) used 73 state employees to kick the Libertarians off the ballot in 1998. Some of those were proven to be on the state clock. Tom Cross said and did nothing about this while it was happening. Go along and get along I guess.
FACT: Tom Cross has been a State Rep. since 1993 while all the corruption in Springfield was going on, federal grand jury investigations launched, state budgets were being doubled, more than 70 Republican operatives indicted and convicted, two ILGOP State Chairs being investigated, and who knows what other hanky panky that has gone on without one public word of rebuke (that I have seen or heard about) against those that care more about maintaining political power than meeting the needs of our residents. I suppose we are lucky Tom Cross hasn't been directly involved in any of this quite yet, but what has he honestly done to stop it?
I've owned up to my mistakes and answered the questions asked of me. Your turn. Why forgive $1 million in campaign fines against Democrats? Why let Bush ignore election laws, while holding Libertarians to the letter of the law? Why no public rebuke of past illegal campaign activities by both Republicans and Democrats? Why the silence when there was proof this was going on? What are you going to do about Topinka? What are you going to do about Kevin Artl? What are going to do about Illinois election laws when we find out Iraq and Afghanistan (along with most democracies in the world) have less restrictive ballot access laws than Illinois does?
It's easy being defensive when people get their facts wrong, but let's see what kind of future leadership we can expect from Tom Cross when he is faced with correct facts. My guess is ignoring or claiming ignorance while maintaining unethical business as usual. Prove me wrong, please. I honestly wish the Libertarian Party didn't have to exist because the Republicans and Democrats would abide by the rule of law and our Constitutions, and didn't become power hungry and corrupt. How about it Leader Cross? How about taking the real lead on ethical government, treating all people equal under the law, ending political discrimination, pushing for free and equal elections, not ignoring corruption in your midst, and doing the business of Illinois voters?
That's the best way to get rid of Libertarians, not proving yourself to be a hypocrit. You won't see us demanding the General Assembly pass a law to allow our Libertarians on the ballot that didn't meet all of the anti-democratic requirements to get on the ballot, unlike you are doing with President Bush, and possibly switching Jack Ryan. I dare you to stand up for the rule of law and free and equal elections and make me a friend instead of an enemy.
If you do kick our Libertarians off the ballot, it also tends to show you are just a chicken. We're Libertarians for pete's sake. What are you afraid of? Because of the Bush ballot issue, this is the year you should believe in letting the chaturbate voters decide at the ballot box who they want, instead of deciding elections with anti-democratic election laws like you always do. And yes, Democrats are just as bad if not worse, but that is no excuse for your actions.
UPDATE: It's pleasant to get threatening phone calls from Republicans after something like this. That's a nice touch, really. I'm sure it will help your cause to have some Republican mob-style thug come to my office and "beat (me) within an inch of (my) life" as he said, because just outright killing me would be wrong I guess.
UPDATE II: I'm sure it was just a cranky Republican not officially associated with the party, so no blame but to the individual there. I got similar calls after my press conference was covered all over the state about keeping Bush off the ballot, so it's nothing new. That's politics in Illinois for ya. I'll bet cranky Libertarians have done similar stupid pranks in the past also. However, if you read my obituary in the next few weeks....
Computer Problems
As if I'm not busy enough, I waited too long before adding another hard drive and wiping the machine to start with fresh installs. Running around the state has kept me from completing the job but I'll be back to normal in a few more days. I am enjoying all the interest in our campaigns that have made it impossible to keep up lately, though.
One nugget. I met with the League of Women Voters - Illinois, and CH. 7 ABC-Chicago last week about their US Senate debate. Bill Pascoe is a nice enough guy. Robert Gibbs called it in, which I wanted to do instead of driving from Peoria for the 10:30 am meeting. Albert Franzen was there also. Doesn't look good right now for the League of Women Voters inviting Jerry Kohn to the debate.
LWV has changed their requirements for an invitation to the debates. A candidate has to get 10% in an independent statewide poll that includes all candidates on the ballot within a 25 day period. No such poll has been done yet, but I'll bet ABC-Chicago does one in that 25 day period. The LWV requirement in the last statewide election for Governor was 5%, but they don't want to get snubbed again by the Rs and Ds like they did in 2002 so they upped it to 10% so the LWV doesn't have to include a Libertarian and risk losing the debate altogether. That's just how it works.
The LWV sponsored Senate primary debates this year also, and they only required a candidate to get 6% for those debates. My suggestion to them was to use the 6% again so that all candidates are treated equally. I also pointed out that their 10% requirement in a poll that includes all the candidates on the ballot may exclude all the candidates if such a poll is not conducted. Keyes and Obama also have to get 10% in such a poll, but if one is not taken they don't qualify either. I didn't like their answer to that curveball.
Believe it or not, but there are federal laws that address debates that have to be followed. That is very easy to do while also excluding alternative candidates, but the laws have been broken before.
I happen to think the majority of Illinois voters that plan to watch the debate would like to see all the candidates included. Honestly, I think if Albert Franzen weren't in the picture, Jerry Kohn would have a much better chance of being asked to the debates. We'll see if the LWV and ABC-Chicago do the right thing. Unfortunately, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
As for challenging Keyes, it wasn't worth it. I planned to challenge on the basis of the election law being unclear on Republicans replacing their US Senate candidate. The challenge was already written up and ready to go, but then the SBoE went ahead and voted on it when certifying candidates. Since we had no intention to take it further than the SBoE, largely due to expensive lawyers, there was no reason to file an objection when the SBoE had already voted on the issue.
Challenging based on the "technicality" of an improper Vacancy form was seriously considered and also written up. The outcome to that was not predictable at all and most probably would have just made a big mess. I do believe the Rs and Ds should be held accountable to most of the same laws they hold us accountable to while the laws are still there. Getting on ballots - democracy - shouldn't be the game they have turned it into and I'd prefer not playing their games, but I will when the situation calls for it. This situation wasn't clear enough. My beef is with Topinka's past involvement with Libertarian challenges, not with Keyes' campaign that does return phone calls.
Leave Me Alone
Today, they are better than I The JoinCross crew were gentlemanly enough to accept my apology, and that is more than commendable. Tip of the hat. I've never met him or his crew and I'm sure they are all regular folks like most of us are.
A lot of people probably have no idea who Tom Cross is, or just how much power he has in Illinois. Not that that is a bad thing, just how uninformed most people are. They have better things to do than follow Illinois politics closely, and there's nothing wrong with that. Well...don't get me started there.
Tom Cross has a very tough job, however, because a lot of responsibility comes with the position he is in. Power is a tool that can be used many ways. Primarily for good, bad, or indifference. I do trust that Tom Cross is not using that power for "bad", which is something I can't wholeheartedly say about Blagojevich, Madigan or Jones. Being in the position he is, Tom Cross has a big political bullseye on him, and I'll be better about pulling the trigger especially since the last shot was aimed at my own foot. But I hope he remembers that bullseye is always there and he lives up to the great responsibility he has. I'd rather see him succeed than fail, at least on the issues we have in common.
Upon reflection, this 90 day petition drive hell has changed my outlook some, and I need to remember some things I usually stick to. First, working together on common goals. I know I've often said that I'd rather work together with Republicans and Democrats and Greens and Independents and others to achieve those goals we have in common. I believe I have backed up saying that by also doing that. I've worked with Republicans and Democrats and Greens and Independents on common issues and will continue to do so.
Through the Leave Me Alone coalition, I've come to know many great activists and we've shared information about common issues. I helped the Green Party, albeit in a small way, just on Monday, and we'll be working together more on election law issues. I've offered the Nader campaign advice on Illinois petition challenges, since it looks like the Democrats want to cheat Nader voters from their choice. That might also be helping the Republicans since it could put Illinois a bit more in play assuming Bush gets on the ballot. I used to consider myself a Democrat, so I've given them votes in the past. My actions have shown I work well with others, so I think I can get back to my more usual cooperative self. Especially since I just might be on the ballot as a hint might suggest.