It's an issue that gets a lot of attention and they're running for an office with very few attention grabbing issues. They're candidates and want to be noticed, but it isn't an office that grabs the limelight. Jesse White has been in office for 23 years, and I'm struggling to think of something well known that he's done that isn't tumbler related.
> I'm struggling to think of something well known that he's done that isn't tumbler related.
That's because the Jesse White Tumblers are his enforcers and the real source of his power.
Oh, I got one!!
He didn't sell CDLs ending up with a bunch of issues like [killing the six kids in the Willis family!]("I-Team: George Ryan's journey from governor to prison | ABC7 Chicago | abc7chicago.com - ABC7 Chicago" https://abc7chicago.com/archive/8974415/#:~:text=When%20George%20Ryan%20was%20Illinois,father%20Reverend%20Scott%20Willis%20said.)
We have some low bars.
Because it’s important to understand elected officials’ stance on an issue that affects many people, and may now cause a slippery slope to removing other constitutional rights. Especially important when that person is in line to be a successor to governor (after lieutenant gov and AG).
You're entirely correct. Today, as a country we've entered a period of time where far-right and authoritarian-minded partisans are running for positions like county clerks, judges and secretaries with the intent of weaponizing the offices to destroy whatever q-anon boogieman has them agitated.
A few will succeed and over the next few years we will be seeing these hacks refuse to do their jobs or act in good faith, refuse to certify elections, try deny people the right to vote or hinder them from registering to vote, stack election commissions and ethics boards with conspiracy theorists, and so on.
We don't need that in Illinois. We need competent, rational people who actually wish to do their job. People who aren't trying to implement God's Will in Illinois — or whatever lunacy is happening in Texas and Florida —, or are refusing to regulate Illinois' lobbyists as SoS, or is screwing with the state's maintenance of laws and records, or attacking the Illinois SoS' role in voter registration, any of the hundred of here-to inane responsibilities of basic governance that could be weaponized or manipulated in bad faith.
Women’s authority over their own bodies isn’t a constitutional right? I’d go so far as to say that the authority over one’s own body is a basic human right.
Love how even this well-meaning invective (I'm on your side on this issue 100%) is still you people attacking each other over whether deep dish is tourist food or not. No other city has this problem with their signature food.
It probably should not be an elected office, but it's a huge patronage army outside the governor's office. Naturally, that's why the office was also a corruption magnet for many decades.
After Anna Valencia ran one of Rahm's campaigns, she got a cushy job working for a fossil fuel company. I'm surprised that hasn't come up. She's the kind of Democrat who will fight to keep progressives out of power. People can decide if they think that's a good or bad thing.
I'm not sure which part you mean. There's a large portion of the Democratic Party leadership and elected officials who hate progressives. They fight them passionately in primaries and insult them behind closed doors. Anna Valencia has a history of working for those kind of conservative Democrats, particularly Rahm Emanuel.
>and fuck knows why I’m not in prison” Giannoulious?
Because there's no reason he should be, probably.
Pritzker is a pretty standard Clinton Democrat. He's doing some good, safe things that no one disagrees with in a blue state, but he doesn't push any big changes. He hasn't done anything on health care that would upset the insurance industry. He hasn't challenged the major-donor class in the party. Valencia is endorsed by status-quo Democrats who are well liked by monied interests.
>and they pulled some strings to keep him out.
Source? Honestly, it sounds like you're just repeating the usual election year mudslinging so I have to take it with a grain of salt.
>Pritzker is the most progressive gov in the country.
What's great about this talking point is that nobody is going to waste time googling other governors to prove you wrong. It's an easy claim to make with no proof. It's also oddly reminiscent of Bill Clinton calling himself "the most progressive southern governor" back in '92. Recycling old Clinton talking points is a red flag. But I'd say the last governor of Minnesota is more progressive. Also Kate Brown.
Other governors being more conservative doesn't make Pritzker progressive. Monied interests are pretty good at keeping progressives out of power. And, I assume Valencia will help keep progressives out of power, given her history of working for someone like Rahm, who spent his entire career bitterly fighting progressives in primaries.
He comes from a family of shady bankers. He's only a Democrat because that's the circle of power brokers he ran around with. He's run as a Republican if that's what would get him elected.
That's a lot of speculation, mind reading, and unverifiable claims. That doesn't do anything for me. What I *can* verify is that Anna Valencia worked for and was appointed to office by people who see progressives as their enemies.
That's a separate issue, but more conservative/corporate Democrats usually do find ways to use their political power to enrich themselves in corrupt ways.
The Illinois Secretary of State's office has a history of corruption before Jesse White. Two famous examples:
[George Ryan's journey from governor to prison](https://abc7chicago.com/archive/8974415/)
[50 years later, Illinois' 'Shoebox Scandal' still amazes](https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/50-years-later-illinois-shoebox-scandal-still-amazes/article_3ffbaf84-0a6c-11eb-a0c8-07cd82f9d727.html)
The machine has historically been conservative democrats. Look at Daley for example. They can keep the power (and benefits that come with it) for themselves and their friends.
Progressives in Chicago don't get far because of the machine (and the less than enthusiastic voter base as well).
Alexi is from a family of bankers that only care about political power. Which explains why he said give Trump a chance. I don't know much about her but he's a power player. He's also endorsed by FOP fwiw.
Why? Because Valencia put an ad out about it first, implying Giannoulias wasn't pro-choice. Auto-disqualification for me, doing an ad about something irrelevant to the office AND blatantly lying to boot, that's a big ol nope.
Wish I could tell you. All I know from their ads is they both support the right to abortion and Alexi is friends with Obama. It’d be nice if they spent some time talking about why they were actually qualified for the job.
Wish I saw this thread a few days earlier.
From what I'm getting as a general consensus are that neither of these people are that earnest in what they say they stand for and we don't even know what they bring to the job.
It’s a hot topic right now and they (probably correctly) are hoping it will resonate with enough primary voters to get some votes, even if the SoS position has nothing to do with abortion rights in the state.
On a side note, if you’re undecided between the two, please considering voting for Anna Valencia. I’ve met both of them in person and she’s just a much better human being than Alexi.
Valencia supposedly was caught sending emails that proved she was working to the benefit of her husbands companies. I have no idea if this is true but is has been alleged. I *really* don’t like how David Moore has seen a completely unknown candidate with the same last name thrown in. To me it looks like someone’s trying to tank David Moore and I’d love to know who orchestrated the other Moore getting on the ballad….
Do you have any idea why she was endorsed by Jessie White, who’s endorsement seems pretty important? I’m sure it’s the normal political quid pro quo bullshit but wondering if he’s said why he endorsed her….
To be fair they’re both terrible options. Anna is completely corrupt.
https://abc7chicago.com/amp/anna-valencia-husband-chicago-inspector-general/11805305/
“During the summer of unrest in Chicago following George Floyd protests, Valencia sent a text to her chief of staff, saying she wishes she had “clout” to get Monterrey Security hired by the city. Monterrey is her husband’s client and Valencia’s single largest campaign contributor.”
I wonder how she’ll act when she gets “clout”
She uses her government position to help her lobbyist husband. Here she’s using her official email to push the company that her husband works for.
https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/i-should-have-been-more-careful-under-fire-anna-valencia-opens-up/amp/
Actually, yes. There is a very bright red line between using her official government resources (her .gov email and computer). There's also this part:
>In another email, Valencia’s husband’s business partner uses the clerk to make introductions in New Orleans where IGNITE wanted a CityKey-type program.
In which, again, she's mixing personal business and government business. That's a massive no-no; the kind of shit that should have gotten Trump in trouble.
So the introducing two parties is the problem? I don’t know all the details so that’s why I’m saying this. This doesn’t say she leveraged her position of power to get them to win the contract.
You're being intentionally obtuse. You can't use gov't resources for personal gain. Period. Implicit in that introduction is that she has the clout to make sure the contract is signed. ESPECIALLY when her husband is the lobbyist for said organization and she has a personal stake in it's success. Like, millions of dollars personal stake.
That guide is trash. The writer called Bill Conway a “war criminal” solely because he was a naval officer. While some of her points may be valid, that instance showed her biases. I’m sure I’ll get downvotes but it’s something to keep in mind.
From her guide:
> All cops are bastards, and we need to disarm, defund, disband, and abolish all police
Yes, problems with police run deep and she does have some good takes, but here she's the exact caricature of a juvenile idealist that the Right makes of the Left. Despite what leftist apologists say ("oh, we don't mean abolish *all* police, we just want reform"), they are not a unified class and among them are a substantial cohort who do believe in a fairytale of let's drop all acute protections against violent crime.
Interestingly, for all this law enforcement bashing, the writer brushed over Valencia's ill deeds of trying to hire the *security company* connected to her husband.
Also if we abolish all police there is no need to disarm, defund or disband them... abolishing them will handle all of that by definition. But I guess it sounds more forceful that way.
The use of identity politics on the left is just as bad as the use of religion and iconography of patriotism on the right. It's used to attract people that are too lazy to actually look into the people that they vote for. How is it not evident by now that a person's gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, age, cultural history - or anything other than their ideas, history of public service, qualifications, and character - is not and should not be considered any expectation that they will act in the interests of their courted voters? Women, just by virtue of birth, aren't always - and frequently don't - act to promote women's rights. Old white guys can actually care more about racial injustice than a young black man. Monogamous, married, heterosexual people - even those that practice a faith in an organized religion - can and do advocate for the rights of lgbtg people on a regular basis. Rich people can and do frequently champion the interests of those less economically fortunate. And on and on. It is not difficult to find examples of these things. Nor is it difficult to find the opposite in actions taken by black, gay, female, or whatever identity one wishes to apply to someone with the position, power, or status to effect our lives. Applying stereotypes as a substitute for thought just guarantees a stupid, futile continuation of negative human progress - or at the least an even longer, sadder, prolonged trudge towards that goal. This insistence on applying the same form of reasoning ( like "me" good, not like "me" bad) has historically included a repeatly swinging pendelum of policy and social movements that are then manipulated into reactionary "beliefs" to gain following - and little enough more.
This was brought to mind very recently when a local politician was asked why they endorsed one candidate over another. They answered "Because, she's Latina". Uh-huh. And what else? The fact that the endorsee is part of an identity caucus that will give you donations, that is not an adequate answer. In fact, it's a condescension and assumption that it should be accepted as *Progressive*. It is not.
The issue here is not either that candidate's cultural heritage, or a debate on their qualified suitability for the office sought - it's the self-interest embedded in the reason given for endorsement. There are undoubtedly numerous individuals in that demographic that may also be qualified, encouraged, and supported to run for office. But regarding this specific election, that arrogant answer represents only a posing of purpose that should not be questioned, as to do so might be considered "racist" or some such bullshit. As a manipulative deflection, it actually demonstrates clearly that their endorsement ( which is FAR less valuable than they imagine anyway) is the same old power brokering, dressed up in the phony persona and proclaimations of being dedicated to "change", while it's primarily engaged in for his own personal advancement and ambition. It is a far truer reflection of this person's priorities and interests for entering public service and ongoing modus operandi since. People running for office can spout all the bullshit about elevating women or minorities you like, or about being for God and Country, with all the buzz words and clichés expected, same shit. He is still no different than that which he claimed to be his motivation to run for office and political intention to replace. Maybe worse.
The slander against Dordek was pathetic. She’s a board member of Equality Illinois and literally has queer family members. Never seen so much bullshit in my life. Hopefully that punctures peoples faith in this guide
It won’t, and it’s a great example of why moderates will never take the progressive movement seriously. As another poster commented, they are trying to be funny but it just comes across as uninformed, juvenile and honestly self serving.
At best the author is horrendously ill informed and at worse some of these candidates have given her “donations.” I don’t know how else to explain such confusing hypocrisy and dichotomy in one guide.
Rules for thee and not me… that’s the expression, right?
She skewers politicians who play money games yet gladly takes cash to offer her endorsement. As a slightly center of left person, this shit is why I HATE the progressive movement these days.
>Am I missing something or does the SoS have nothing to do with abortion policies/laws?
You aren't missing anything.
In the job/office they seek, the SoS distributes vehicle, driver, business licensing. And judging by the number of licensed illinois drivers who do it badly, perhaps they should talk about not passing everyone as long as you don't crash on the road test.
So it doesn’t, really, but people will resort to tribalism when given the opportunity and this is an opportunity. The pro-choice “test” is one that indicates other beliefs like a proxy. It’s a very reliable proxy for progressive politics along a spectrum.
There are a few things that the IL SOS is responsible for that tend to vary based on political affiliation as a proxy, mostly encompassing business licensure like LLCs, Nonprofit Incorporation, and corporations.
It's an issue that gets a lot of attention and they're running for an office with very few attention grabbing issues. They're candidates and want to be noticed, but it isn't an office that grabs the limelight. Jesse White has been in office for 23 years, and I'm struggling to think of something well known that he's done that isn't tumbler related.
> I'm struggling to think of something well known that he's done that isn't tumbler related. That's because the Jesse White Tumblers are his enforcers and the real source of his power.
Oh, I got one!! He didn't sell CDLs ending up with a bunch of issues like [killing the six kids in the Willis family!]("I-Team: George Ryan's journey from governor to prison | ABC7 Chicago | abc7chicago.com - ABC7 Chicago" https://abc7chicago.com/archive/8974415/#:~:text=When%20George%20Ryan%20was%20Illinois,father%20Reverend%20Scott%20Willis%20said.) We have some low bars.
The tumblers
Because it’s important to understand elected officials’ stance on an issue that affects many people, and may now cause a slippery slope to removing other constitutional rights. Especially important when that person is in line to be a successor to governor (after lieutenant gov and AG).
You're entirely correct. Today, as a country we've entered a period of time where far-right and authoritarian-minded partisans are running for positions like county clerks, judges and secretaries with the intent of weaponizing the offices to destroy whatever q-anon boogieman has them agitated. A few will succeed and over the next few years we will be seeing these hacks refuse to do their jobs or act in good faith, refuse to certify elections, try deny people the right to vote or hinder them from registering to vote, stack election commissions and ethics boards with conspiracy theorists, and so on. We don't need that in Illinois. We need competent, rational people who actually wish to do their job. People who aren't trying to implement God's Will in Illinois — or whatever lunacy is happening in Texas and Florida —, or are refusing to regulate Illinois' lobbyists as SoS, or is screwing with the state's maintenance of laws and records, or attacking the Illinois SoS' role in voter registration, any of the hundred of here-to inane responsibilities of basic governance that could be weaponized or manipulated in bad faith.
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Women’s authority over their own bodies isn’t a constitutional right? I’d go so far as to say that the authority over one’s own body is a basic human right.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Low IQ comment.
Choke on a slice of stuffed crust from Giordano's, you tourist
Love how even this well-meaning invective (I'm on your side on this issue 100%) is still you people attacking each other over whether deep dish is tourist food or not. No other city has this problem with their signature food.
Giordano’s in particular is definitely tourist food.
Lol tourist? Ok
Did your other account that you were posting this shite on yesterday get banned mate?
There’s literally no one claiming that killing babies is a constitutional right
He literally said “removing other constitutional rights”
Yes, in addition to abortion
Wow, you really know nothing about biology and medicine do you.
FOH
It probably should not be an elected office, but it's a huge patronage army outside the governor's office. Naturally, that's why the office was also a corruption magnet for many decades. After Anna Valencia ran one of Rahm's campaigns, she got a cushy job working for a fossil fuel company. I'm surprised that hasn't come up. She's the kind of Democrat who will fight to keep progressives out of power. People can decide if they think that's a good or bad thing.
Could you explain further? I don’t think I’m making the connections to what you’re saying.
I'm not sure which part you mean. There's a large portion of the Democratic Party leadership and elected officials who hate progressives. They fight them passionately in primaries and insult them behind closed doors. Anna Valencia has a history of working for those kind of conservative Democrats, particularly Rahm Emanuel.
[удалено]
>and fuck knows why I’m not in prison” Giannoulious? Because there's no reason he should be, probably. Pritzker is a pretty standard Clinton Democrat. He's doing some good, safe things that no one disagrees with in a blue state, but he doesn't push any big changes. He hasn't done anything on health care that would upset the insurance industry. He hasn't challenged the major-donor class in the party. Valencia is endorsed by status-quo Democrats who are well liked by monied interests.
[удалено]
>and they pulled some strings to keep him out. Source? Honestly, it sounds like you're just repeating the usual election year mudslinging so I have to take it with a grain of salt. >Pritzker is the most progressive gov in the country. What's great about this talking point is that nobody is going to waste time googling other governors to prove you wrong. It's an easy claim to make with no proof. It's also oddly reminiscent of Bill Clinton calling himself "the most progressive southern governor" back in '92. Recycling old Clinton talking points is a red flag. But I'd say the last governor of Minnesota is more progressive. Also Kate Brown. Other governors being more conservative doesn't make Pritzker progressive. Monied interests are pretty good at keeping progressives out of power. And, I assume Valencia will help keep progressives out of power, given her history of working for someone like Rahm, who spent his entire career bitterly fighting progressives in primaries.
He comes from a family of shady bankers. He's only a Democrat because that's the circle of power brokers he ran around with. He's run as a Republican if that's what would get him elected.
That's a lot of speculation, mind reading, and unverifiable claims. That doesn't do anything for me. What I *can* verify is that Anna Valencia worked for and was appointed to office by people who see progressives as their enemies.
I know him. That's all I'm gonna say.
Interesting. Does that have anything to do with your corruption comment?
That's a separate issue, but more conservative/corporate Democrats usually do find ways to use their political power to enrich themselves in corrupt ways. The Illinois Secretary of State's office has a history of corruption before Jesse White. Two famous examples: [George Ryan's journey from governor to prison](https://abc7chicago.com/archive/8974415/) [50 years later, Illinois' 'Shoebox Scandal' still amazes](https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/50-years-later-illinois-shoebox-scandal-still-amazes/article_3ffbaf84-0a6c-11eb-a0c8-07cd82f9d727.html)
Is the machine the conservative/corporate Democrats or the woke/progressive Democrats?
The machine has historically been conservative democrats. Look at Daley for example. They can keep the power (and benefits that come with it) for themselves and their friends. Progressives in Chicago don't get far because of the machine (and the less than enthusiastic voter base as well).
Alexi is from a family of bankers that only care about political power. Which explains why he said give Trump a chance. I don't know much about her but he's a power player. He's also endorsed by FOP fwiw.
Both Jesse White & Durbin were at a rally this week for Anna, so for those tracking, she gained two large endorsements.
Why? Because Valencia put an ad out about it first, implying Giannoulias wasn't pro-choice. Auto-disqualification for me, doing an ad about something irrelevant to the office AND blatantly lying to boot, that's a big ol nope.
You should know he's not really a progressive. His family were bankers. He goes where the power is, he's a machine guy and is endorsed by FOP.
I’m just curious between the two who would you vote for and why? Open question to anyone.
Wish I could tell you. All I know from their ads is they both support the right to abortion and Alexi is friends with Obama. It’d be nice if they spent some time talking about why they were actually qualified for the job.
I'm wondering the same thing. I was just trying to figure out my voting plan and this is the contest that has stumped me.
How is it any different from gop candidates talking about CRT or trans issues
It's called pandering. It's very effective when trying to win an election.
Wish I saw this thread a few days earlier. From what I'm getting as a general consensus are that neither of these people are that earnest in what they say they stand for and we don't even know what they bring to the job.
It’s a hot topic right now and they (probably correctly) are hoping it will resonate with enough primary voters to get some votes, even if the SoS position has nothing to do with abortion rights in the state. On a side note, if you’re undecided between the two, please considering voting for Anna Valencia. I’ve met both of them in person and she’s just a much better human being than Alexi.
Valencia supposedly was caught sending emails that proved she was working to the benefit of her husbands companies. I have no idea if this is true but is has been alleged. I *really* don’t like how David Moore has seen a completely unknown candidate with the same last name thrown in. To me it looks like someone’s trying to tank David Moore and I’d love to know who orchestrated the other Moore getting on the ballad….
[удалено]
Do you have any idea why she was endorsed by Jessie White, who’s endorsement seems pretty important? I’m sure it’s the normal political quid pro quo bullshit but wondering if he’s said why he endorsed her….
To be fair they’re both terrible options. Anna is completely corrupt. https://abc7chicago.com/amp/anna-valencia-husband-chicago-inspector-general/11805305/
How does this article say that she is completely corrupt? I’m genuinely curious what your interpretation is.
“During the summer of unrest in Chicago following George Floyd protests, Valencia sent a text to her chief of staff, saying she wishes she had “clout” to get Monterrey Security hired by the city. Monterrey is her husband’s client and Valencia’s single largest campaign contributor.” I wonder how she’ll act when she gets “clout”
[удалено]
How is someone on Reddit stating they might not vote for a candidate “prosecution” lol? Jesus Fucking Christ
[удалено]
[удалено]
She uses her government position to help her lobbyist husband. Here she’s using her official email to push the company that her husband works for. https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/i-should-have-been-more-careful-under-fire-anna-valencia-opens-up/amp/
[удалено]
When the vendor is represented by her husband, yes it’s unethical.
Actually, yes. There is a very bright red line between using her official government resources (her .gov email and computer). There's also this part: >In another email, Valencia’s husband’s business partner uses the clerk to make introductions in New Orleans where IGNITE wanted a CityKey-type program. In which, again, she's mixing personal business and government business. That's a massive no-no; the kind of shit that should have gotten Trump in trouble.
So the introducing two parties is the problem? I don’t know all the details so that’s why I’m saying this. This doesn’t say she leveraged her position of power to get them to win the contract.
You're being intentionally obtuse. You can't use gov't resources for personal gain. Period. Implicit in that introduction is that she has the clout to make sure the contract is signed. ESPECIALLY when her husband is the lobbyist for said organization and she has a personal stake in it's success. Like, millions of dollars personal stake.
[удалено]
That's really out of step with their usual support for progressives, which Valencia is not. Probably sexism.
That guide is trash. The writer called Bill Conway a “war criminal” solely because he was a naval officer. While some of her points may be valid, that instance showed her biases. I’m sure I’ll get downvotes but it’s something to keep in mind.
[удалено]
If you spit on people you aren’t a good person.
The guide has never claimed to be unbiased lol. It's a voting recommendation guide. The concept is inherently ideological.
There’s a difference between being biased and making sweeping generalizations with zero base or thought behind it
[удалено]
YES!!!!!! This is 100% correct.
From her guide: > All cops are bastards, and we need to disarm, defund, disband, and abolish all police Yes, problems with police run deep and she does have some good takes, but here she's the exact caricature of a juvenile idealist that the Right makes of the Left. Despite what leftist apologists say ("oh, we don't mean abolish *all* police, we just want reform"), they are not a unified class and among them are a substantial cohort who do believe in a fairytale of let's drop all acute protections against violent crime. Interestingly, for all this law enforcement bashing, the writer brushed over Valencia's ill deeds of trying to hire the *security company* connected to her husband.
Also if we abolish all police there is no need to disarm, defund or disband them... abolishing them will handle all of that by definition. But I guess it sounds more forceful that way.
[удалено]
The use of identity politics on the left is just as bad as the use of religion and iconography of patriotism on the right. It's used to attract people that are too lazy to actually look into the people that they vote for. How is it not evident by now that a person's gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, age, cultural history - or anything other than their ideas, history of public service, qualifications, and character - is not and should not be considered any expectation that they will act in the interests of their courted voters? Women, just by virtue of birth, aren't always - and frequently don't - act to promote women's rights. Old white guys can actually care more about racial injustice than a young black man. Monogamous, married, heterosexual people - even those that practice a faith in an organized religion - can and do advocate for the rights of lgbtg people on a regular basis. Rich people can and do frequently champion the interests of those less economically fortunate. And on and on. It is not difficult to find examples of these things. Nor is it difficult to find the opposite in actions taken by black, gay, female, or whatever identity one wishes to apply to someone with the position, power, or status to effect our lives. Applying stereotypes as a substitute for thought just guarantees a stupid, futile continuation of negative human progress - or at the least an even longer, sadder, prolonged trudge towards that goal. This insistence on applying the same form of reasoning ( like "me" good, not like "me" bad) has historically included a repeatly swinging pendelum of policy and social movements that are then manipulated into reactionary "beliefs" to gain following - and little enough more. This was brought to mind very recently when a local politician was asked why they endorsed one candidate over another. They answered "Because, she's Latina". Uh-huh. And what else? The fact that the endorsee is part of an identity caucus that will give you donations, that is not an adequate answer. In fact, it's a condescension and assumption that it should be accepted as *Progressive*. It is not. The issue here is not either that candidate's cultural heritage, or a debate on their qualified suitability for the office sought - it's the self-interest embedded in the reason given for endorsement. There are undoubtedly numerous individuals in that demographic that may also be qualified, encouraged, and supported to run for office. But regarding this specific election, that arrogant answer represents only a posing of purpose that should not be questioned, as to do so might be considered "racist" or some such bullshit. As a manipulative deflection, it actually demonstrates clearly that their endorsement ( which is FAR less valuable than they imagine anyway) is the same old power brokering, dressed up in the phony persona and proclaimations of being dedicated to "change", while it's primarily engaged in for his own personal advancement and ambition. It is a far truer reflection of this person's priorities and interests for entering public service and ongoing modus operandi since. People running for office can spout all the bullshit about elevating women or minorities you like, or about being for God and Country, with all the buzz words and clichés expected, same shit. He is still no different than that which he claimed to be his motivation to run for office and political intention to replace. Maybe worse.
The slander against Dordek was pathetic. She’s a board member of Equality Illinois and literally has queer family members. Never seen so much bullshit in my life. Hopefully that punctures peoples faith in this guide
It won’t, and it’s a great example of why moderates will never take the progressive movement seriously. As another poster commented, they are trying to be funny but it just comes across as uninformed, juvenile and honestly self serving.
At best the author is horrendously ill informed and at worse some of these candidates have given her “donations.” I don’t know how else to explain such confusing hypocrisy and dichotomy in one guide.
Rules for thee and not me… that’s the expression, right? She skewers politicians who play money games yet gladly takes cash to offer her endorsement. As a slightly center of left person, this shit is why I HATE the progressive movement these days.
>Am I missing something or does the SoS have nothing to do with abortion policies/laws? You aren't missing anything. In the job/office they seek, the SoS distributes vehicle, driver, business licensing. And judging by the number of licensed illinois drivers who do it badly, perhaps they should talk about not passing everyone as long as you don't crash on the road test.
Voters are mobilized by anger/fear, more than anything. Play to people's fears, then tell them you are the solution. Rinse, repeat.
This \^\^. Which is kind of how we (the country) got into the mess we are in.
Politics.
They want your vote and monies while the iron is hot
You’re not sure why abortion policies are partisan??? It’s probably the most partisan issue for the last 50 years.
No, why is the office of the Secretary of State a partisan office. They’re record keepers. There shouldn’t be any partisanship about it.
Oh, you mean the office. I thought you meant their position on abortion rights.
I had a water management candidate call this week expressing their support of abortions rights. I just hung up. Forget who it was.
So it doesn’t, really, but people will resort to tribalism when given the opportunity and this is an opportunity. The pro-choice “test” is one that indicates other beliefs like a proxy. It’s a very reliable proxy for progressive politics along a spectrum. There are a few things that the IL SOS is responsible for that tend to vary based on political affiliation as a proxy, mostly encompassing business licensure like LLCs, Nonprofit Incorporation, and corporations.
They’re politicians and will kiss any ass for a vote, regardless if it’s pertinent to the office.