Illinois' 13th district waits to find out who will represent them in Congress

I received David Gill's email ending his Congressional campaign. With less than 1% separating the two candidates, it's perfectly reasonable for everyone to make sure the person with the most votes won, even if that took a little time.

In a race this close, it's easy to look at one thing or another that might have changed the outcome, and many of those observations will be valid. For example, having a regional press that engaged in fact-checking the candidates may have had an impact. The most frequently mentioned factor is David Hartman's independent candidacy. I suspect most of his votes came from people who liked the idea of voting for someone with "independent" next to their name, even if they knew little or nothing about him. But, Hartman did sound much closer to Gill on the issues, so maybe that helped swing the election to Davis.

More importantly, Hartman's inclusion in the race allowed Rodney Davis to run an extremely negative campaign. It meant that Davis didn't need to worry about alienating independent voters and Democrats with negative attacks because he didn't need to win their votes. He didn't need to win them over to his views. He only needed to make Democratic-leaning voters so disgusted with the race, and raise negative perceptions of Gill enough, that they would vote for an anonymous, independent alternative instead. It was a smart strategy in a district where a majority don't agree with Davis' strongly conservative positions.

The Republican News-Gazette outlined the Davis campaign strategy in an early September editorial, in which they encouraged voters in Democratic Champaign county to vote for Hartman as a protest to negative campaigning. They must have guessed that things would get uglier. The editorial even echoed Davis' complaint that "the DCCC started it" with the George Ryan ads (which were 100% accurate). The News-Gazette strategy memo explains why most of the ugly attack ads came from the Davis camp. Davis had the most to gain and almost nothing to lose by going negative. Despite their early editorial for Hartman, the News-Gazette later endorsed Davis.

Now, we get to discover who we elected. Will it be the Rodney Davis who spoke to the media about bipartisanship and working together with Democrats? Or, will it be the Davis who gave a series of highly partisan speeches, with super-partisan John Shimkus in tow, to Republican crowds at private events, where he spoke proudly of how much work he does to build up the Republican party?

Will it be the Davis who said in Normal that he supports the wind energy tax credit, or will it be the Davis who said in Springfield that tax cuts to benefit clean energy companies are the first loopholes he would eliminate? Will it be the Davis who says reducing the debt is his top priority? Or, will it be the Davis who refused to name any specific tax increases or spending cuts he would support?

I suspect (and hope) that a Davis who resembles his mentor, John Shimkus, will have a very difficult time getting re-elected in this district. Maybe Davis will suppress his inner conservative in favor of representing the district. Off-year elections like 2014 favor Republicans. There won't be an Obama landslide again, so you never know.

Gill's email gave his take on which Rodney Davis the district will tolerate:

The incredibly close outcome of this congressional election, along with the re-election of President Obama and a Democratic Senate, have proven that knee-jerk conservative policies will not succeed in this country nor be accepted by most of the people in this district. It will require compromise and common sense solutions to govern this nation and to serve this region. I have faith that the people and the press in the 13th District will be watching closely. 

What everyone knows for sure is that a result this close means the race will be hotly contested again next time. Central Illinois went many years without a truly competitive Congressional contest. With a district drawn this evenly divided, we should start getting used to more political ads. Campaigning for the 2014 Congressional race should begin sometime shortly after this Thanksgiving. Enjoy!

Is Rodney Davis being honest about his relationship with George Ryan? Selective amnesia about raising thousands from Ryan managers and large donation to Ryan campaign.

My patience has worn thin listening to Rodney Davis complain about campaign ads on his ties to convicted former Governor George Ryan. Davis claims the ads by DCCC are misleading, but Davis has never denied the basic facts: that Davis worked for George Ryan and was on Ryan's clout list. If you look at the bigger picture, Davis' denials smell funnier than the original ads.

Davis says the ads are false because they call George Ryan "Governor," while Davis worked for Ryan only while he was Secretary of State. That's irrelevant nitpicking, especially since Ryan was convicted for what he did as Secretary of State. Davis further refutes the ad by saying he was a low-level, anonymous employee who never took favors from George Ryan. He doubts that Ryan even remembered his name or knew who he was.

As I wrote before, Davis was granted a leave of absence from his job with the Secretary of State's office to run for State Representative in 1996. That's a pretty big favor not available to people in most normal jobs.

I decided to do a little fact checking with the Illinois State Board of Elections. Davis donated $200 to the Ryan campaign fund in December of '96, shortly after losing his campaign for State Representative. There was no reporting requirement for smaller donations at that time, so there may have been additional unrecorded contributions, such as low-dollar tickets to fundraisers.

I tried to confirm that the donation isn't from a relative in Taylorville with the same name but the Davis campaign isn't very responsive to me right now. Regardless, I found something much more interesting.

Campaign finance reports from the time period Davis ran for State Representative aren't online, so I went to the state election office in Springfield to pick up a copy. I scanned some of the results and uploaded them here. As I looked through the documents, I googled the names of large Davis contributors from outside Taylorville. In most instances, I found that those individuals were working for George Ryan.

Davis raised thousands in campaign contributions from management staff in Ryan's Secretary of State office.

The most generous donor was Craig Roberts, who was serving as a high ranking aid to George Ryan and would later become Chief of Staff to Congressman John Shimkus.  Over the campaign, he gave a series of donations and in-kind contributions totaling over $4,700.00. That's pretty generous for someone taking a public salary.

Others include April Cook, who contributed a series of donations and in-kind contributions coming to $579.63. She worked in the Secretary of State human resources division. Jane Vredenburgh, an executive assistant to the Secretary of State, made multiple donations adding up to $650.00, and in later years would be a major Shimkus donor as well. Deb Detmers was manager of the Indexing Department where Davis worked, finance director of the Ryan campaign fund, and later moved to the Shimkus staff. She helped Davis too, making in-kind contributions.

Judging by the items donated, it appears that management staff were helping Davis host fundraising events. One wonders how many other Secretary of State employees made smaller, unreported donations at Davis campaign events hosted by their coworkers and bosses.

All of this by itself isn't necessarily anything sinister. It's not unusual to raise political funds from co-workers. Davis and his donors may even have left Ryan's office to work for Shimkus because they were bothered by corruption in the office. But, if that's the case, then why not say so? Why the amnesia routine?

What makes it significance is the context of what was happening in the Secretary of State office under George Ryan. Employees were expected to buy campaign fundraising tickets and do political work, sometimes on state time. As one article put it: "In offices all over the state, employees came to believe that their careers, evaluations, promotions, and pay increases all depended on their ability to raise campaign contributions for their political patron, then-Secretary of State George Ryan."

Davis donated to the Ryan campaign fund at a time when employees were pressured into doing so. In fact, the supervisor of his department, Deb Detmers, testified in court that she was pressured to meet quotas for selling fundraising tickets to employees she supervised.

Let me restate that. The supervisor of Davis' division pressured her employees into buying fundraising tickets for the Ryan campaign fund, and she also gave significant support to the Davis campaign. Davis must have had some kind of super anti-corruption Cryptonite suit to remain untouched by everything going on around him.

Davis was a Republican precinct committeeman, active in campaigns, and a candidate for office when employees were expected to participate in the Ryan political machine, sometimes on state taxpayer time. Managers in that same political machine were helping the Davis campaign. As the DCCC ads say, that would put Davis "in the middle of it."

Based on his own statements, and documented evidence, we know that, while working for the Secretary of State, Davis:

• Was granted a leave of absence to run for state elected office.
• Served as a Republican precinct committeeman. 
• Donated to Ryan's campaign fund.
• Was on the clout list so Ryan would remember his name.
• Saw George Ryan at multiple political functions outside the office.
• Had Ryan managers as major campaign donors.
• Had a supervisor who pressured employees to donate to Ryan's campaign.

An anonymous, low-level employee is someone who people appreciate for pitching in a few bucks toward office Birthday parties, not someone who raises thousands of dollars from management.

Can anyone really believe that the head of a political machine like George Ryan's was unaware that one of his employees was running for an elected position that would vote on his office's budget, and in the process, raised thousands from his management staff? It's simply absurd.

Several news outlets in the district have engaged in the "both sides are doing it" cliche in regard to misleading campaign ads. The ads attacking David Gill are dishonest because they grossly mischaracterize his position on Medicare. The ads tying Davis to George Ryan are called misleading because...well...they just are because Davis said so.

The reality is that Davis has a case of selective amnesia regarding his time working for Ryan. The ads about George Ryan and Rodney Davis are not only accurate; they merely scratch the surface.

Rodney Davis makes wacky claim that climate change stopped 16 years ago

How did I miss this whopper?! Republican Congressional candidate Rodney Davis claimed during a radio interview that climate change stopped sixteen years ago.

Clearly, you can tell that's true because over the last several years we definitely haven't had an unusual degree of extreme flooding along the Mississippi, no extreme droughts, and no Frankenstorms. Oh yeah, wait, those things are happening more often and it's exactly what scientists told us to expect as a result of climate change.

You can listen to his comment after the 42:00 minute mark during a Focus interview on WILL public radio. A caller asked Davis how he plans to deal with climate change (no, it wasn't me this time). Davis answered by claiming that, according to recent reports, "global warming stopped about sixteen years ago."

Then he launched into his usual repetition of the Exxon/Koch Brothers talking point that there's still a debate about whether man-made pollution is causing the crisis. It's the argument climate change deniers have retreated to now that it's impossible to ignore the change that's already happening. As always, he dodged saying where he stands on whether man-made pollutants are the problem. He has gone through the entire campaign refusing to tell which side of that debate he's on.

The caller interrupted Davis to tell him "that's absolutely wrong" about climate change stopping, and challenged him to talk to a noble prize winner at the University of Illinois about the scientific reality. That guy deserves a gold star. He may have been referring to a Professor of Atmospheric Science, Don Wuebbles, an outspoken, internationally recognized expert on climate issues who's right here in central Illinois.

I googled the wacky claim about global warming stopping sixteen years ago and discovered it has been making the rounds on right-wing blogs and talk radio shows like Glenn Beck. It started with discredited writer Davis Rose publishing an article in a conservative British tabloid, which claimed there's a report showing global temperatures stopped rising in 1996. The original report came from the British Met office.

The Met Office is the British version of the national weather service. They wrote a brutal, detailed response to what they describe as "misleading information" in the article. Here's may favorite part:

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

I can understand. Why bother asking for a comment if you're distorting an agency's data to claim something you know they will dismiss as false?

Their response gets technical, but they do point out that eight of the ten hottest years on record have been in the past decade. Looking at the broader trend, the "1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both." This is easy to confirm from multiple sources, such as those smarty pants who send people into space.

A Google search also turns up a load of responses from actual scientists who all debunk this bogus claim. It takes very little effort to confirm that the scientific community believes this writer is misleading the public.

What this suggests is that Davis will believe any inaccurate claim from conservative blogs or talk-radio that reinforces his views, and will repeat those falsehoods to the public without checking them out first. He's following the example of his former boss and BFF, John Shimkus, who went around his district misleading constituents with conspiracy theories about EPA regulating tractor dust on dirt roads, even after the EPA administrator told Congress that nothing of the sort was being considered.

I can understand why Davis mostly speaks to partisan crowds at private events. He has good talking points about bipartisanship and "all of the above" energy. But, it takes very little prodding for him to go off script and reveal how extremely conservative he really is. Putting Davis in front of moderate swing voters would only lose him votes. A district with over a dozen colleges doesn't want an anti-science Congressman.

Central Illinois has a long history of electing moderate Republicans from Ray LaHood To Abraham Lincoln. Rodney Davis is far outside that tradition.

Reviewing the latest IL-13 Congressional debate...IN SONG!

The Springfield debate for the Illinois 13th Congressional district race with David Gill, Rodney Davis, and John Hartman made songs pop up in my head left and right. So, I'm throwing some music into this post with song lyrics quoted by candidates.

Republican Rodney Davis made his usual opening statement, saying that:

• He's just a normal guy from Taylorville, not a Washington insider.
• He's the best qualified candidate because he knows how to get things done in Washington after working on Congressional staff for John Shimkus.

No one points out that those are two clearly opposite, contradictory statements. I kind of like it because it reminds me of the old SNL Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer skit where Phil Hartman acts like a dumb, confused cavemen, right before making an articulate, complicated legal argument.

Democrat David Gill began with his usual stuff about being an ER doctor and wanting to counter the corporate special interests who have too much power in Washington.

I groaned when the first question was the cliche complaint about negative campaigning, but overall, I think the organizers did a great job picking topics. Davis played the persecuted martyr routine pretty hard, even though a majority of the spending by outside groups is on ads attacking his opponent. As Davis whined about the negative attacks against him, I couldn't help but remember that "Dr. Radical" was making another appearance outside the debate. That's the childish costume character Republicans send to hang around outside Gill events.


(He probably gets paid to do this)


(Group outside the debate protesting Davis' policies for the 1%)

Then the music started. Independent John Hartman brought up the Chuck Berry classic, No Particular Place to Go. I missed something he said but I think his point was about reducing pollution from cars. Hartman has a way of saying something you probably agree with that still leaves you scratching your head. Like the way he takes a good stand in favor of gay marriage, but with the oddly offensive comment that he can tell being gay isn't a choice by the way gay people talk with a lisp. OK then.



Chuck Berry was part of the high speed rail discussion, but not many songs have been written about trains. Kidding! I've been listening to this Old 97's album a lot lately.



Gill spoke in favor of building more mass transit and made the night's first mention of climate change. I thought Davis would talk more about working with local officials for corridor consolidation but he steered the conversation toward tax cuts. The biggest challenge for Springfield is that local leaders procrastinated a decision on where to route train traffic for so long that federal stimulus funding ran out. Calling for more tax cuts and less federal spending would seem to go against Springfield's need for more federal rail money, but no two contradictory ideas ever intersect in Rodney's America.

After all my griping about the State Journal-Register ignoring climate change in their political coverage, I have to give big props to Bernie Schoenburg for asking directly whether the candidates believe man-made pollution is causing the problem and how that influences their views on what action to take. I didn't expect that question to happen in a debate co-hosted by the Chamber of Commerce.

Once again, Rodney Davis dodged giving a direct answer, as he has many times during the campaign. He claims the debate is about how much man-made pollution is contributing to the problem. He, once again, didn't say where he stands in that debate, but it's not hard to figure out. Casting doubt about the scientific consensus is the strategy employed by oil interests like Exxon and the Koch brothers. They want the public to think there's still an unsettled debate within the scientific community. Both Exxon and Koch PAC gave the maximum allowable contributions to the Davis campaign, and he faithfully mimics their talking points.



Both David Gill and Hartman acknowledged the reality that the scientific community is nearly unanimous about the desperate need to reduce man-made climate change pollution. Both called out Davis for his misleading statement, and Davis, once again, failed to respond.

Getting back to gay marriage, Gill talked about his support by saying love is one thing there's never too much of in the world. And, just for a moment, I thought he might break out into the Burt Bacharach standard. I was sadly disappointed, but politicians singing is always a disaster.



The audience was pretty quiet but I heard a reaction to two statements. First, when Gill brought up that Davis was selected as a candidate by a handful of Republican Party leaders and that "we don't know what promises he made" to get the nomination during those closed-door meetings.

The biggest audience reaction of the night was to Rodney Davis claiming that he's the "only candidate on the stage" who will protect Social Security and Medicare. That was too much for people to take after Davis campaigning on repealing Obamacare, and introducing a plan that would essentially privatize Medicare. You could hear loud scoffing and laughter from the skeptical audience.

David Gill was aggressive. I think he did very well, but I'm obviously biased. I'll finish with one last song about the debate showdown. This one features a British band that used synthesizers, but before England jumped the shark with New Wave synth-pop.

District 13 Congressional debate in Springfield Wednesday

Wednesday, October 24 is the next 13th district Congressional debate in Springfield hosted by the Citizens Club. It will include David Gill, Rodney Davis, and independent John Hartman. I plan to be there tweeting at 7pm in the Hoogland center, but it will also be televised on TV20.

Did anyone notice that the usually-Republican-leaning State Journal-Register endorsed Democrat David Gill? That took me by surprise. Even more so because they mentioned climate change.

Congressional candidates Gill, Davis occupy same stage but different realities. IL-13

Democrat David Gill and Republican Rodney Davis shared the same stage for their debate tonight, but they're clearly not living in the same reality. Let's review a few issues.

Debt and Taxes

Rodney Davis started the debate by saying his top issue is cutting the national debt. His plan for doing so is to cut taxes. Seriously. He wants to reduce revenue to bring down the debt. He doesn't believe in that arithmetic thing Bill Clinton was talking about. 

Later in the debate a student question raised the obvious. Are spending cuts alone, without a tax increase, enough to deal with the debt, and what specifically would you cut from the budget?

Davis again repeated the magical debt-reducing tax cut theory that worked so well for George W. Bush. He didn't name any specific spending cuts he would support. He told the university audience that his unspecified spending cuts would free up more money to spend on student financial aid for college.

In a single debate, Davis claimed that everyone will get tax cuts, that tax cuts will reduce the deficit, that only things you don't like will be cut from the budget, and all the spending you do like will still be increased. Also, everyone gets a unicorn that farts glitter.

David Gill said he supports ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but does not support any tax increase on the middle class. Unlike Davis, he named something specific he would cut. Gill thinks we should already be out of Afghanistan and that military spending can be cut as we withdrawal. 

Gill's plan of proposing specific cuts in a bloated part of the budget, and expiring the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy could be described as a reality-based strategy to cutting the debt. Counting on trickle-down tax cuts to magically grow the economy, as Davis suggests, is exactly how we got the debts of the Reagan and Bush years.

Energy and Climate Change

The moderators didn't bring up climate change, but David Gill did twice. First, he brought up the droughts that hit farmers hard this year and spoke about the need to keep things from getting even worse due to climate change. He later said he takes a science-based approach to the issue, and that it's a real problem we need to deal with. 

Gill says that if we're going to subsidize energy sources that it should be clean tech development rather than subsidies going to oil and dirty energy. He brought up the dirty industry dollars going to the Davis campaign several times, including donations from Exxon, Exelon, and the Koch brothers.

Davis debated both Gill and his own flip-flopping positions on energy. First, he said he opposed federal support to clean energy projects like Solyndra. When asked directly about the clean energy tax credit for wind, he said he supported it, even though he opposed them just last week. Later, he went back to attacking federal spending for clean energy yet again.

Davis flip-flopped three times in under an hour, and never said a word about climate change. He doesn't appear to believe in either science or arithmetic.

Health Care Choice

Rodney Davis repeatedly used the fear tactic of telling people that universal health care will result in the government dictating their choice of doctors and health care decisions. He believes a "market-based" insurance system will give people the freedom to choose their own doctors and health care options. It gets truly bizarre when Davis supports this argument by pointing to his own experience while being on a government, taxpayer-funded health care plan provided by his federal government job.

In contrast, Gill argues that, with his plan, government wouldn't get in the way of personal health care decisions. It's not a problem now with government plans like Medicare. He pointed out that it's the private insurance companies who restrict people to a primary care physician and limit health care decisions, not the government.

I've had health care decisions limited by my insurance company. They told me what doctors I could see and I had to wait for care until it was approved by insurance industry bureaucrats. That's the real world in my personal experience. Limiting patient choice is the core business model of the private HMO insurance system. That's the "market-based" system Davis would push us all into, where insurance companies increase their profits by denying people health care options. Once again, Davis appears to be living in a world of make believe.

Themes

Both candidates were polite, but they got in a couple of digs. Davis brought up Gill's previous runs for Congress and referred to him as a "career politician wannabe." Davis and the press have collective amnesia about Davis previously running and losing for office twice. He ran for State Representative and mayor of Taylorville.

Gill ended the debate quoting the line, "I'll stop telling the truth about you when you stop telling lies about me." Burn.

Gill's biggest theme of the debate was hammering away at the corporate influence in Washington corrupting democracy and working against the interests of the average person. Several times he spoke about the massive amounts of corporate special interest spending for his opponent. 

Davis kept going back to tax cuts and deregulation as the solution for all that ails, aka, "take two tax cuts and call me in the morning."

The moderators did a good job managing the debate. They simply talked over either candidate when they tried to go over time.

The debate showed two very different candidates with contrasting philosophies. It's refreshing to have an independent-minded Democrat in this race who isn't afraid to stand up for his principles.

Rodney Davis denies science behind climate change. Would kill green jobs in Illinois.

It finally happened! During an interview with the State Journal-Register editorial board, Rodney Davis was asked if he accepts the scientific consensus behind climate change.

The question came near the end of their interview with the three candidates in the 13th district Congressional race (at 53:00 in the video online). It was finally discussed after independent candidate John Hartman scolded the SJR editorial board for not asking about an issue as important as climate change. When asked if it's man-made, Hartman spoke about the broad scientific consensus that man-made pollution is driving the climate crisis.

David Gill reinforced the position on his campaign website, saying, "It's not a question of belief, it's a question of what is. The science is extremely clear on this. It's very, very real and it's a grave threat. Irreversible damage is already taking place now. The failure of the Exxon-Mobil funded politicians in Washington D.C. to address it appropriately is perhaps the biggest mistake that we're making."

Gill didn't mention that his Republican opponent, Rodney Davis, already took the maximum allowable campaign contributions from Exxon and the Koch brothers PAC. Both Exxon and the Koch brothers funded deceptive propaganda campaigns to spread doubt about the science of climate change. Does Davis represent the views of his corporate sponsors who try to undermine science?

Davis claimed that, "I think we all agree that climate change is reality. There's a debate between how much of it is man-made and how much of it is due to natural causes."  He didn't say where he stands in that debate.

Once again, Davis dodged saying plainly what he believes about climate change science. Furthermore, his claim about the debate is misleading. There's broad scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are driving greenhouse gasses far beyond normal levels, causing the planetary emergency we face now.

After it became impossible to deny that climate change was already happening, the deniers switched to the "natural causes" argument in an attempt to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Davis is repeating the misleading talking points used by the fossil fuel industry and their puppets like Glenn Beck, James Inhofe, and John Shimkus. He passed on the opportunity to distinguish himself from the anti-science conspiracy theorists who support his campaign.

Davis even brought out the old straw-man argument I often hear from coal industry spokesmen, that we can't power the country on wind and solar alone. Back on planet reality, no one is seriously proposing we try doing that in the near future. What people do propose is that we create jobs by quickly building a ton of new clean energy. Unfortunately, Davis made it clear in his interview that he opposes meaningful policies to expand wind and solar.

When pressed about what tax loopholes he would close, Davis said “I would like to take away the energy tax credit that gave us the Solyndras of the world.”

First of all, Solyndra made news because it defaulted on a Department of Energy loan guarantee, not because it received a tax credit. Second, Davis personally spoke in favor of a loan guarantee from the same Department of Energy program for a proposed coal plant in Taylorville that was five times bigger than Solyndra's loan.

What's even more baffling about his position is that the production tax credit for wind power is one of the few tax cuts proven to create jobs here in Illinois.

Five to ten thousand direct and indirect jobs are created from Illinois' wind-based maintenance, construction, and manufacturing sectors. The rapid expansion of wind power in Illinois is partly due to the production tax credit.

The tax credit is scheduled to expire soon. Wind power companies argue they need the certainty of knowing it will be extended before launching new projects. Ending the tax credit, as Davis suggests, would destroy construction and manufacturing jobs in Illinois.

Davis speaks frequently about cutting taxes to create jobs and the desire small businesses have for certainty. Extending the production tax credit does both of those things for the wind industry. It's exactly what Davis claims to support in principle, but for some reason, he flip-flops when it comes to wind power.

Ending the production tax credit is the one and only tax increase Rodney Davis claims to support. It takes a real zealot to put thousands of people out of work just to spite clean energy.

When asked if he would also cut tax subsidies to the oil industry, Davis retreated into his standard talking points, defended how the oil industry uses the money, and spoke about the need for more refineries. He never directly answered the question, but he made it clear that he supports oil subsidies.

Davis worries a cap-and-trade system would hurt the economy. He says nothing about the economic impact of more frequent extreme weather events like droughts, flooding, and wildfires that wreak havoc on communities. I didn't hear anyone claim the recent drought was good for Illinois agriculture or hope that we get many more years like it. Doing nothing about climate change will bring economic disaster, and in contrast, building new clean energy is the best jobs plan anyone has come up with.

Voters have a clear choice in this election. One candidate, David Gill, takes a rational approach that respects science. He sounds as though he understands that we must take bold action to reduce climate change pollutants. The other, Rodney Davis, mimics anti-science conspiracy theorists and would subsidize oil and coal while Rome burns.

Here's the full hour-long video of the candidate interview.

 

Rodney Davis supports Bush economic policies on steroids and radical deregulation.

Rodney Davis released an economic plan today and (big surprise!) he thinks we should go back to the George W. Bush policies of more tax cuts and deregulation. Didn't that work so well last time?! He calls his plan "back on track" and it certainly would get us back to the Bush policies that lead to the economic collapse.

Davis thinks we should extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires instead of using that money to balance the budget. He also repeated one of my favorite talk-radio cliches in his press release when he said, "government doesn’t create jobs."

He claimed government doesn't create jobs at a press conference in Edwardsville, where the top employer is big government state school Southern Illinois University. He's running in the Illinois 13th Congressional district where the top employers are the State of Illinois, Illinois public universities like SIUE, UIUC, ISU, and UIS. The next top employers include public K-12 schools, and hospitals, which are heavily dependent on government funding from Medicare and Medicaid.

Does Davis have no f*ing idea where most of the people in this district work for a living?! And, oh yeah, Davis also spent his entire adult life working in government jobs. Who created his jobs working for George Ryan and John Shimkus? The tooth fairy?

Davis also came out in support of the REINS Act. This would allow Congress to approve or repeal "any regulation that has $100 million economic impact or greater." That number is small enough that it would apply to any significant regulation on large corporations. It's being pushed heavily by the Koch-funded Heritage Foundation.

Regulation would be taken away from professionals trained to understand the industry they oversee and placed instead in the hands of a Congress that's taking campaign contributions from corporate special interests.

Workplace safety, clean water, clean air, consumer protection, child labor. Say goodbye! All could be weakened or repealed as soon as a regulated special interest bribes Congress with enough campaign contributions.

It's a recipe for taking us back to a pre-Roosevelt economic policy. I mean Teddy Roosevelt, not Franklin.

Davis' campaign likes to throw the word "radical" around a lot when talking about his opponent, David Gill. But, Davis just released the most radical, extremist position I've seen this election season. It's pretty clear now why he took so long to tell people where he stands on the issues.

Nasty attack site complains about negative campaigning. Order a Dr. Radical.

I've heard that Republicans have a guy following around Democratic Congressional candidate David Gill in surgical scrubs and calling himself "Dr. Radical." The Illinois Republican Party (where Gill's opponent, Rodney Davis, used to be Executive Director) has a website to match, complete with a cartoonishly bad photoshop job of Gill putting on a surgical glove, as if he's about to perform a colonoscopy.

The website is mostly full of gross distortions about Gill wanting to end Medicare, when the reality is that he would essentially extend it to everyone. But, the best part is when this sophomoric, ugly campaign site accuses David Gill of "not running a positive campaign." Seriously!



This made me laugh for a good ten minutes. Isn't that the perfect conservative talk-radio style attack? The site is saying, "We expect you to run a positive campaign while we call you childish names and lie about your platform." It reminds me of Mitt Romney's recent whining that Obama is running a negative campaign after Romney spent the past year lying about Obama's record. Davis and Romney want everyone else to follow the rules they ignore.

It's standard operating procedure for talk radio conservatives to accuse Democrats of anything shameful that Republicans are in the process of doing. My favorite was during the Mark Foley Congressional page scandal when Fox News kept bringing up a similar 30 year old scandal involving a Democrat. Was that supposed to be an excuse for Foley?

Another example is when you have a candidate, like Rodney Davis, who wants to put everyone's health care in the hands of the private insurance industry, which obviously wouldn't include a public program like Medicare. Falsely accusing Gill of wanting to end Medicare is a tactic to blur the distinction between the two candidates. Now, reporters who want to seem balanced will write headlines like "both campaigns accuse the other of attacking Medicare" and the issue is successfully obfuscated. The tactic usually works.

I'm not sure how effective this attack will be. Dr. Radical sounds more like a cool comic book character. Are people really scared of the word radical anymore?

When discussing this with a friend, we had the thought that "Dr. Radical" sounds more like a mixed drink. Which begs the question, what ingredients would make up a Dr. Radical?

I'm guessing it would have to include my favorite soda, Dr. Pepper. I remember finding out in the Ken Burns Prohibition documentary that some people got around the law by obtaining a prescription for supposed medicinal use of alcohol. Also, it was common for doctors to use whiskey for treating various ailments during the Civil War.

When General U.S. Grant was accused of being a drunkard, Lincoln famously asked the accuser to find out what brand of whiskey Grant drinks and send a barrel to the other generals. Legend has it that Grant preferred Old Crow whiskey. Coincidentally, Grant sided with the "Radical Republicans" during his Presidency. Being "radical" in those days meant you had crazy ideas like smashing KKK terrorism and guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race. As the saying goes, conservatism is the worship of dead radicals.

So, clearly, a Dr. Radical drink would mix Dr. Pepper and Old Crow whiskey. If anyone decides to try one let me know if it's any good.

And if you want to show Rodney Davis that negative campaigning backfires then you might donate to David Gill.

FaceMob floods Rodney Davis with climate change questions. Still no answer.

If you were watching Rodney Davis' campaign Facebook page Sunday afternoon you would have seen a flood of questions from citizens asking where he stands on climate change. They're still waiting for an answer.

I wrote about Davis ignoring my question and hurrying away when I asked if he thought floods and droughts are getting worse due to climate change. That's not the only question he's dodging. He attends very few public forums where he will have to answer questions from the public, and he won't get specific about where he stands on many major issues. Would he respond to citizens on his campaign Facebook page asking about climate change, the great challenge of our time?

I repeated my own question about floods and droughts.

Mr Davis, you didn't answer my question about whether you think floods and droughts in Illinois are getting worse because of climate change. It will be devastating to farmers, residents, and the regional economy if the extreme weather disasters we've had the last few years become the new normal. Do you acknowledge the scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are contributing to climate change and what would you do to solve the problem?

Dozens of questions by others were posted on his page.



My respectful questions were removed quickly and I was banned from commenting on his Facebook page again. That didn't surprise me. After a while, every mention of climate change by anyone was deleted as quickly as it was posted. Even the most politely worded questions were removed, like this one:

Thank you for putting forth an energy policy but I'm unclear about your stance regarding climate change. Since I will likely not be able to attend one of your appearances, might you be able to respond in this forum? Thanks so much.

That got deleted. As were these questions.



Many more excellent banned questions can be viewed at my Flickr set. I captured many, but not all, before they were removed by the Davis campaign. My favorite was posted under a photo of a campaign sign in a soy field.

Wonder where he stands on climate change? Rodney are you going to answer ever? It might help out the bean field?

Questions in response to the energy plan posted on his main campaign website haven't been removed yet. I'm sure they'll get to those after they read this blog post so catch them while you can. A couple of voters there let Davis know they aren't happy about their questions on Facebook being ignored and removed.

Congratulations, by not answering my question and blocking me from your Facebook page, you've just proven how you will not work with people who may disagree with you. When running on the spirit of working with others, you blatantly shut out a possible voter. I was a swing voter. I wasn't entirely decided on David Gill today. You've just changed my mind, and the mind of my husband, and the mind of my friend, all who were honestly considering a Davis vote. NEVER shut out a possible voter. Politics is about addition, not subtraction. Thank you.

The fact that he was able to hold a press conference on energy policy without any reporters pressing him for his stance on climate change is inexcusable. If record-setting heat waves, extended droughts, and extreme flooding year after year are front page news then climate change is important enough for journalists to ask questions and expect answers.

Davis did tell one reporter that his former boss, Congressman John Shimkus, has "lead the debate" on energy issues. What Shimkus has done is wage a war against science, spread misleading conspiracies about non-existent EPA regulations, and attempted to make climate change a religious issue. John Shimkus' unique interpretation of the Bible doesn't represent the many people of faith who understand that we must deal with the climate crisis. I'd like to know if Shimkus represents the kind of leadership Davis will follow.

Running for Congress in one of the nation's most competitive races takes a lot of work. But, there are only a few things most voters expect a candidate to do at minimum. One of them is to explain where you stand on the most important issues of the day. His opponent has no trouble saying on his website that, "David Gill is a man of science, someone who uses technical results in the ER to diagnose and treat illness and injuries. Our approach to addressing the growing problem of climate change and environmental damage needs to be scientific and fact-based, too."

If Rodney Davis is unwilling, or incapable, of answering questions, then he probably shouldn't be running for office.

Rodney Davis' copy-and-paste energy plan ducks climate change (IL-13)

Republican Congressional candidate Rodney Davis announced his energy plan in Springfield Tuesday. The campaign apparently forgot to send my invitation but you can see the plan posted online. The plan consists of several paragraphs in a press release filled with familiar talking points.

Davis supports an "all of the above" energy policy. If that sounds familiar it's because "all of the above" is also supported by Rodney Davis' former employer, Congressman John Shimkus, plus Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, David Gill's previous challenger in the Democratic primary, oil industry lobbyists, the US Chamber of Commerce and nearly everyone else with a consultant who reads polling data. It's used by so many politicians with vastly different energy policies that the phrase has become a meaningless cliche.

Like John Shimkus, Davis opposes new EPA regulation of coal, cap-and-trade, and any method of putting a price on carbon. He supports building the Keystone XL pipeline and subsidizing every energy source imaginable. That's known as the "now taking campaign donations from all sectors of the energy industry" subsidy policy.

Davis will also oppose what he calls "radical" international efforts to reduce carbon pollution that causes climate change, such as the Kyoto Protocol. One hundred ninety-three nations already signed the Kyoto Protocol and the United States is on target to meet Kyoto carbon levels thanks to the large drop in coal power generation.

Hint: When you oppose something accepted as a necessity by nearly every nation in the world, and we know it can be realistically achieved, then the radical you're looking for is in the mirror.

What the energy press release doesn't mention is climate change. That's something like holding a press conference about apple pie and refusing to talk about apples.

I understand his reluctance. Davis must pander to a Tea Party base who believe climate change is a U.N. socialist conspiracy to rule the world. At the same time, he's running in a very slightly Democratic district that includes at least a dozen colleges. The 13th Congressional district doesn't want a Congressman who's anti-science.

And so, the silence continues.

Rodney Davis out of touch on health care

Illinois' 13th Congressional district is one of the top pick-up opportunities for Democrats nationally. It's a newly created, Democratic-leaning district with no incumbent after Republican Tim Johnson dropped out of the race.

The State Journal-Register surprised me with something I rarely see in the press anymore: an article that delves into a specific issue instead of relying on soundbites and polling numbers.

The newly selected Republican candidate, Rodney Davis, makes several comments about health care in the article that suggest he fits the mold of his current boss, uber-partisan Congressman John Shimkus. Davis spoke about his wife having cancer, which thankfully, she survived.

“With the extensive bureaucracy of Obamacare, I’m not too sure we’d have that same result today,” Davis told Sangamon County Republicans when he appeared before committeemen last month.

Really? A claim as outrageous and inflammatory as suggesting that people would die as a result of Obamacare bureaucracy should be backed up. Unsurprisingly, the article provides no quote of Davis explaining exactly what provisions in Obamacare would result in people dying due to lack of care. Probably because it's stupid bullshit. It's a line that sounds good in Republican committee meetings but there are some of us who like to hear claims backed up by things like facts and reality.

Davis goes on to claim that single-payer health care would “cede control of where and when we seek medical treatment to a faceless bureaucrat.” He also suggests Americans are happy with their current health insurance.

Really? Like most people, I'm very familiar with "faceless bureaucrats" telling me where I can seek medical care and what treatment I'm allowed to have. They're the bureaucrats who work at the for-profit insurance companies and HMOs I've been covered by, NOT the government. They tell me which doctors in the network I'm allowed to see and what procedures they'll cover, instead of leaving those decisions to me and my doctor. Apparently, Davis is just fine with faceless bureaucrats dictating health care decisions, as long as they're making money for a private insurance company.

I can understand why Davis is out of touch with what health care is like for most people. His opponent, Dr. David Gill, pointed out why.

“God bless Mrs. Davis for surviving,” Gill said of his opponent’s wife. “But should she go on to have a problem, if they didn’t have that taxpayer-subsidized, political operative, congressional employee, gold-plated Cadillac type of health insurance, there’d be some jeopardy in terms of purchasing or getting coverage for anything related to a recurrence or a late metastasis showing up.”

Yes, Davis is another one of those Congressional hypocrites who want to deny others from having the same big-government health insurance he enjoys.

In his comments about Obamacare, David Gill shows he understands what the real problem is for those of us who have to deal with those insurance company bureaucrats making health care decisions for us.

“At the end of the day, it delivered 32 million more people into the clutches of a private healthcare industry whose main mission is not to preserve or maintain health,” Gill said. “Their main mission is to maximize investor return. That is at the root of the problem.”

Amen.