There's a three way Democratic primary to take on Rodney Davis in Illinois' 13th Congressional district. I asked the candidates questions about energy and climate change issues, and amazingly enough, they all responded. Their responses are up at Huffington Post blog.
All three accept the scientific consensus about climate change. Republican Rodney Davis continues to use the climate change denier talking point that there's still an ongoing debate about whether man-made pollutants are contributing to the problem.
All three candidates think federal oversight of fracking is too weak. One supports a fracking ban now, and another will support a ban if fracking can't be proven safe. They also spoke about how to tackle climate change and their position on fossil fuel subsidies.
Check out their full answers and please share!
Showing posts with label IL-13. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IL-13. Show all posts
February 24, 2014
October 11, 2013
Rodney "Double Talk" Davis still pointing fingers in partisan constituent letter
Congressman Rodney Davis is already notorious for not taking a clear, solid stand on almost any issue. The government shutdown has pushed his double talk to absurd new levels.
A letter apparently sent from his Congressional office is making the rounds on facebook. The shutdown hasn't stopped Davis from using his government office to spread highly partisan talking points blaming Democrats for a manufactured crisis. The letter states no less than six times that Davis doesn't support a shutdown. He blames Obama and Congressional Democrats three times.
Unfortunately for Davis, TV commercials and some reporters are pointing out that he signed a letter with 80 other Republicans promising not to vote for any appropriation bills that include funding for Obamacare. The idea of being held accountable for his shutdown pledge must account for the sense of panic and desperation in his letter.
An underlined sentence claims, "I have supported and the House of Representatives has passed four bills to fully fund the federal government and I will continue to do so when presented with the opportunity."
But, that's not accurate, because none of those bills funded implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Whether Davis admits it or not, Obamacare is now part of the federal government. Nowhere in the letter does Davis pledge to vote for a clean bill without shutdown strings attached.
It's obvious when Davis speaks that he feels very passionately about stopping people from getting health insurance. He clearly believes this issue is important enough to force a government shutdown. Davis owes voters the respect of defending his signature on the shutdown letter instead of pointing the finger of blame at everyone else.
I was taught that an adult takes responsibility for their actions.
A letter apparently sent from his Congressional office is making the rounds on facebook. The shutdown hasn't stopped Davis from using his government office to spread highly partisan talking points blaming Democrats for a manufactured crisis. The letter states no less than six times that Davis doesn't support a shutdown. He blames Obama and Congressional Democrats three times.
Unfortunately for Davis, TV commercials and some reporters are pointing out that he signed a letter with 80 other Republicans promising not to vote for any appropriation bills that include funding for Obamacare. The idea of being held accountable for his shutdown pledge must account for the sense of panic and desperation in his letter.
An underlined sentence claims, "I have supported and the House of Representatives has passed four bills to fully fund the federal government and I will continue to do so when presented with the opportunity."
But, that's not accurate, because none of those bills funded implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Whether Davis admits it or not, Obamacare is now part of the federal government. Nowhere in the letter does Davis pledge to vote for a clean bill without shutdown strings attached.
It's obvious when Davis speaks that he feels very passionately about stopping people from getting health insurance. He clearly believes this issue is important enough to force a government shutdown. Davis owes voters the respect of defending his signature on the shutdown letter instead of pointing the finger of blame at everyone else.
I was taught that an adult takes responsibility for their actions.
August 7, 2013
Rodney Davis Peddles Debunked Tractor Dust Regulation Conspiracy Theory
The EPA wants to regulate tractor dust. Can you believe that? It's getting to the point where a man can't even drive his tractor down a dirt road without big government getting in the way!
That's what Congressman Rodney Davis wants you to believe anyway. It's a good soundbite and the fact that it's complete nonsense hasn't stopped some politicians from peddling this conspiracy theory no matter how many times it's debunked.
Davis sponsored an amendment to let the Department of Agriculture comment on EPA regulation. In speeches and press statements, he argued that EPA is out of touch with rural America by reviving the old yarn that they want to regulate tractor dust on dirt roads.
Congressman John Shimkus was telling this dusty story back when Rodney Davis was still on his staff. Since then, the EPA administrator has said several times that there's no plan to consider regulating tractor dust, and multiple news organizations have debunked the talking point. At this point it should be absolutely clear to everyone that it simply isn't true.
Undeterred by reality, there's even a bill called the "Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act." What it actually does is prevent EPA from enacting regulations of soot and particulate matter that are only applied to major sources of industrial pollution, not farms. These are pollutants, often from coal power plants, that cause lung disease, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and other deadly health problems.
In other words, this has nothing to do with protecting rural America. Politicians who talk about tractor dust regulation want rural Americans to fight for the coal industry's right to kill them a little faster.
Davis offered his amendment to the REINS Act, which was passed by the House with his support. This Tea Party bill is designed to kill new regulation that protects the environment, public health, or deal with climate change. One expert put it this way:
Davis does his best to sound like a reasonable moderate in press interviews. But judging by his actions, he has the same extremist anti-environment, anti-health agenda as his mentor, John Shimkus.
That's what Congressman Rodney Davis wants you to believe anyway. It's a good soundbite and the fact that it's complete nonsense hasn't stopped some politicians from peddling this conspiracy theory no matter how many times it's debunked.
Congressman John Shimkus was telling this dusty story back when Rodney Davis was still on his staff. Since then, the EPA administrator has said several times that there's no plan to consider regulating tractor dust, and multiple news organizations have debunked the talking point. At this point it should be absolutely clear to everyone that it simply isn't true.
Undeterred by reality, there's even a bill called the "Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act." What it actually does is prevent EPA from enacting regulations of soot and particulate matter that are only applied to major sources of industrial pollution, not farms. These are pollutants, often from coal power plants, that cause lung disease, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and other deadly health problems.
In other words, this has nothing to do with protecting rural America. Politicians who talk about tractor dust regulation want rural Americans to fight for the coal industry's right to kill them a little faster.
Davis offered his amendment to the REINS Act, which was passed by the House with his support. This Tea Party bill is designed to kill new regulation that protects the environment, public health, or deal with climate change. One expert put it this way:
The REINS Act is a proposal that may seem benign and appealing on the surface, but in fact, it is radical in concept and would be perilous in execution. The bill could, in effect, impose a slow-motion government shutdown, and it would replace a process based on expertise, rationality and openness with one characterized by political maneuvering, economic clout and secrecy. The public would be less protected, and the political system would be more abused. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more far-reaching, fundamental and damaging shift in the way the government goes about its business of safeguarding the public.
Davis does his best to sound like a reasonable moderate in press interviews. But judging by his actions, he has the same extremist anti-environment, anti-health agenda as his mentor, John Shimkus.
June 21, 2013
Attack against Erika Harold a reminder of Rodney Davis' subtle appeal to prejudice
That didn't take long. An Illinois Republican party official made a racist and sexist attack against Erika Harold two weeks after she announced her campaign for Congress. The ugly comments by the chair of the Montgomery County Republican Party have gotten plenty of coverage so I won't repeat them here. Conservative talk show hosts are advised to wait a week before going back to arguing that racism is no longer a problem in America.
Her opponent in the Republican primary, freshman incumbent Rodney Davis, did the right thing by removing the official's name from a list of supporters on his website and asking him to resign as party chair.
The episode reminded me of a piece of Davis campaign literature I wrote about last year as an example of "othering" or as I like to call it, fill-in-the-blank-prejudice. A Davis campaign representative handed it out during a 9-12 & Take Back America event in Montgomery county, which is now looking for a new Republican chair.
During campaign season, 9-12 groups were usually careful not to make overtly racist slurs, but the movement includes plenty of appeals to a vague sense of America as they know it being under attack by this new socialist black President and his scary allies. So, it's no wonder that the Davis campaign would give the group literature claiming that he's one of them. It says Davis will represent "Our America" where people put in an honest day's work.
The card doesn't need to tell a 9-12 group in an overwhelmingly white small town who those other people are from somewhere else where they don't put in an honest days work and who aren't part of "our america." They can fill in the blanks. This the same crowd who claim that most of their state tax dollars are being taken from rural downstate and spent in Chicago because that's where most of the welfare recipients live. Of course, that belief is absurd since much of rural Illinois is poor and most of the state's millionaires and Fortune 500 companies are located in the Chicago area.
Apart from the racist and sexist remarks, it's worth noting the point made in the offensive email about Harold. The author feels that Davis represents him and conservatives in the district, despite suggestions that Harold might be a more conservative alternative. The reason for those conflicting perceptions about Davis is the result of a campaign strategy that carefully presented two different images of himself.
Davis mostly avoided forums where the public could ask questions during his '12 campaign. He made an art of avoiding specifics about where he stands on nearly every controversial issue. He spent most of the campaign speaking at private events held by Republicans and conservative groups, and went out of his way to make sure his comments weren't recorded. He talks about bipartisanship and working with Democrats in press interviews. But, he has a much more conservative and partisan message for the closed-door events where he spent most of his time campaigning.
Davis continues to promote his image in the press as someone who can be bipartisan. He needs to since a majority of voters chose another candidate in the last election. But, despite her buzz in the national press, I don't believe Harold will gain much traction with conservative groups in the district. The 9-12 crowd in Montgomery county and other conservative groups who hear Davis talk in private still believe he's one of them. They believe he'll represent their America.
Her opponent in the Republican primary, freshman incumbent Rodney Davis, did the right thing by removing the official's name from a list of supporters on his website and asking him to resign as party chair.
The episode reminded me of a piece of Davis campaign literature I wrote about last year as an example of "othering" or as I like to call it, fill-in-the-blank-prejudice. A Davis campaign representative handed it out during a 9-12 & Take Back America event in Montgomery county, which is now looking for a new Republican chair.
During campaign season, 9-12 groups were usually careful not to make overtly racist slurs, but the movement includes plenty of appeals to a vague sense of America as they know it being under attack by this new socialist black President and his scary allies. So, it's no wonder that the Davis campaign would give the group literature claiming that he's one of them. It says Davis will represent "Our America" where people put in an honest day's work.
The card doesn't need to tell a 9-12 group in an overwhelmingly white small town who those other people are from somewhere else where they don't put in an honest days work and who aren't part of "our america." They can fill in the blanks. This the same crowd who claim that most of their state tax dollars are being taken from rural downstate and spent in Chicago because that's where most of the welfare recipients live. Of course, that belief is absurd since much of rural Illinois is poor and most of the state's millionaires and Fortune 500 companies are located in the Chicago area.Apart from the racist and sexist remarks, it's worth noting the point made in the offensive email about Harold. The author feels that Davis represents him and conservatives in the district, despite suggestions that Harold might be a more conservative alternative. The reason for those conflicting perceptions about Davis is the result of a campaign strategy that carefully presented two different images of himself.
Davis mostly avoided forums where the public could ask questions during his '12 campaign. He made an art of avoiding specifics about where he stands on nearly every controversial issue. He spent most of the campaign speaking at private events held by Republicans and conservative groups, and went out of his way to make sure his comments weren't recorded. He talks about bipartisanship and working with Democrats in press interviews. But, he has a much more conservative and partisan message for the closed-door events where he spent most of his time campaigning.
Davis continues to promote his image in the press as someone who can be bipartisan. He needs to since a majority of voters chose another candidate in the last election. But, despite her buzz in the national press, I don't believe Harold will gain much traction with conservative groups in the district. The 9-12 crowd in Montgomery county and other conservative groups who hear Davis talk in private still believe he's one of them. They believe he'll represent their America.
November 9, 2012
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:
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!
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!
November 4, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
November 1, 2012
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:
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.
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.
October 28, 2012
What song is John Shimkus sharing with Rodney Davis? Funny Video!
Someone took video of Congressman John Shimkus sharing his iPod earphone with Rodney Davis. What did Shimkus think so was good that he wanted to share it with his BFF, Rodney? This cracks me up...
October 27, 2012
Government jobs lower Springfield area unemployment
Put some plastic on the floor before reading. Heads may explode.
The State Journal-Register reported that Springfield area unemployment is at a four year low, and it's mostly because GOVERNMENT DOES CREATE JOBS. According to an economist quoted in the article, “Most of the increase was in state and local government."
Did you know that was possible? Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney and the rest of their crew keep telling us that "government doesn't create jobs." They repeat it over and over again, as if saying it enough times will make it true.
Even congressional candidate (and lifelong government employee) Rodney Davis said the line in Springfield, where state and local government agencies are the top employers, followed by the health care industry, which is heavily dependent on federal spending. The same is true for the entire 13th Congressional district, and somehow, not everyone laughs when a talk-radio Republican trots out this talking point.
Springfield used to be known for having a recession-proof economy. The ups and downs of the national economy had less impact locally because Springfield's top employers were state government agencies that maintained a stable jobs base. That changed after Illinois elected a self-described "Reagan Democrat" who badmouthed bureaucrats and eliminated thousands of state jobs from the area.
Cuts to the state workforce created a localized recession. The anti-government conservative ideology did to the Springfield economy what no previous recession had been able to do.
When conservative candidates use this line, they're essentially saying that most of the people in central Illinois have jobs that don't really count. I don't understand how a public employee could vote for a candidate like that and still maintain self-respect about their job.
Did you know that was possible? Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney and the rest of their crew keep telling us that "government doesn't create jobs." They repeat it over and over again, as if saying it enough times will make it true.
Even congressional candidate (and lifelong government employee) Rodney Davis said the line in Springfield, where state and local government agencies are the top employers, followed by the health care industry, which is heavily dependent on federal spending. The same is true for the entire 13th Congressional district, and somehow, not everyone laughs when a talk-radio Republican trots out this talking point.
Springfield used to be known for having a recession-proof economy. The ups and downs of the national economy had less impact locally because Springfield's top employers were state government agencies that maintained a stable jobs base. That changed after Illinois elected a self-described "Reagan Democrat" who badmouthed bureaucrats and eliminated thousands of state jobs from the area.
Cuts to the state workforce created a localized recession. The anti-government conservative ideology did to the Springfield economy what no previous recession had been able to do.
When conservative candidates use this line, they're essentially saying that most of the people in central Illinois have jobs that don't really count. I don't understand how a public employee could vote for a candidate like that and still maintain self-respect about their job.
October 25, 2012
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:
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.
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.
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.
October 24, 2012
John Boehner Champaign welcoming committee video and photos
Republican House Speaker John Boehner held a fundraiser in Champaign for Congressional candidate Rodney Davis. This would be the same Rodney Davis who frequently talks about the need for bipartisanship.
This would be the same John Boehner who pledged that the stimulus bill wouldn't get a single Republican vote. House Republican leaders adopted an obstructionist strategy during a time of national crisis for political gain, even before Obama introduced the stimulus bill. Shouldn't anyone who cares about bipartisanship distance themselves from a leading partisan obstructionist like Boehner, or at least condemn his actions?
For those who missed it like I did, here's news coverage of the fundraiser and protest.
Two videos of the protests are online. I laughed during the first one at the guy who thought he was going to shoo away the protesters off the sidewalk so easily.
Action Now tweeted a few photos.
This would be the same John Boehner who pledged that the stimulus bill wouldn't get a single Republican vote. House Republican leaders adopted an obstructionist strategy during a time of national crisis for political gain, even before Obama introduced the stimulus bill. Shouldn't anyone who cares about bipartisanship distance themselves from a leading partisan obstructionist like Boehner, or at least condemn his actions?
For those who missed it like I did, here's news coverage of the fundraiser and protest.
Two videos of the protests are online. I laughed during the first one at the guy who thought he was going to shoo away the protesters off the sidewalk so easily.
Action Now tweeted a few photos.
The next big campaign event is tonight's 13th Congressional district debate in Springfield. I'll send tweets and blog afterward.
October 21, 2012
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.
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.
October 17, 2012
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.
Themes
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.
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.
October 15, 2012
Funny video busts out Rodney Davis' amnesia about years as political insider
There's a new video on YouTube that starts out with Republican Congressional candidate Rodney Davis saying it's absurd for people to call him a Washington insider. It then details his years as a political operative close to the Republican Washington establishment, cleverly set to the music of "You're My Best Friend" by Queen.
I found it at a twitter profile spoofing Davis, @NotYourAmerica. Whoever created it also tweeted several of my blog posts about the race. The name references a piece of Davis campaign literature I wrote about that claims, "THEY CALL THIS THE 13TH DISTRICT. BUT IT'S REALLY OUR AMERICA." That ugly piece of political "othering" was handed out at a 9-12 meeting where organizers, in all seriousness, called Obama a socialist traitor who's trying to destroy America.
The twitter handle uses the "Our America" line to lampoon Davis' views that suggest he's living in some other America, different from the reality everyone else experiences. For example:
I found it at a twitter profile spoofing Davis, @NotYourAmerica. Whoever created it also tweeted several of my blog posts about the race. The name references a piece of Davis campaign literature I wrote about that claims, "THEY CALL THIS THE 13TH DISTRICT. BUT IT'S REALLY OUR AMERICA." That ugly piece of political "othering" was handed out at a 9-12 meeting where organizers, in all seriousness, called Obama a socialist traitor who's trying to destroy America.
The twitter handle uses the "Our America" line to lampoon Davis' views that suggest he's living in some other America, different from the reality everyone else experiences. For example:
#InRodneysAmerica being #Bipartisan means supporting almost every GOP-leadership policy position, and then having them raise money for you.I did a few of my own.
#InRodneysAmerica coal mining made everyone in eastern Kentucky, southern Illinois and West Virginia filthy rich. lol
#InRodneysAmerica your HMO never told you what doctors you can see. Must be nice.If anyone else uses the #InRodneysAmerica hashtag, let me know.
October 10, 2012
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.
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.
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.
October 8, 2012
Run, Rodney, Run!
At this point in the campaign it's obvious that Republican Congressional candidate Rodney Davis is mostly speaking to partisan crowds and avoiding tough questions from the public. He's still not telling the public if he agrees with the anti-science conspiracy theories of his previous boss, John Shimkus, who has been appearing with him at events around the district. There haven't been any debates and he isn't attending public forums.
And now, the video tracker following the race has released a greatest hits video of Davis ignoring questions about Medicare.
What makes it entertaining is that, judging by the voice of the person holding the camera, it sounds like he's running from a sixteen year old girl.
Davis' habit of looking through people who ask him questions as if they're not there reminds me of one of my favorite Beatles songs.
October 7, 2012
Does downstate Illinois need better energy journalism?
David Roberts has an interesting article at Grist in response to a reader asking how energy journalism can be better. It got me thinking about my experiences giving interviews and pitching stories on energy topics in Illinois.
He writes that journalists and politicians are mostly sleepwalking into the great crisis of our time. With rare exception, we don't have energy-specific journalists.
He goes on to write that journalists generally view energy stories from the angle of of their beat, and that isn't well suited to an issue like climate change that intersects so many national and international problems. How do journalists used to looking through one lens paint the bigger picture?
Roberts' observations make a lot of sense when I think about my interactions with the regional press.
Like most papers, the State Journal-Register doesn't have a writer dedicated to energy. Several years ago I never would have expected to write that the best reporter on energy at the SJR is the business editor. Tim Landis covers developments in the regional coal industry without the critical view I would take. But, when there's a controversial story, he does a good job of getting different perspectives and explaining complex issues. I'm consistently impressed by his work.
On the political side, there has essentially been a blackout on climate change at the SJR. In last year's Springfield city election, they failed to ask candidates about clean energy or climate change even though the city council oversees our public utility. The decision to build a coal plant and purchase wind power was one of the hottest local government issues in the past decade but the SJR felt the top issue to cover at the utility was patronage hiring.
Their election coverage this year is no different. Every candidate is asked about the conservative wedge issues of guns and gays, but nothing on climate change. Despite the fact that state and national legislators will spend far more time on energy issues than gun control or gay marriage; despite the fact that climate change is the subject of intense citizen interest; and despite the fact that every paper in the region believes the impacts of climate change are a front page story when droughts hit farmers and rivers flood. In the 13th Congressional district race, political reporters across the district have helped Rodney Davis continue ducking the most pressing issue of our time. It's difficult for me to understand why.
Roberts didn't write about the biggest obstacle to good energy reporting specific to downstate Illinois: the political and cultural influence of the coal industry. The Belleville News-Democrat and Southern Illinoisan are the worst offenders I've seen at publishing articles that lack any hint of objectivity about coal and allow falsehoods to go unchallenged. A recent pro-coal editorial in the Southern Illinoisan was so astoundingly out of touch with reality that it could make even an industry lobbyist blush. The editors haven't updated their perspective on energy in at least 20 years.
Papers like those help create a bubble in southern Illinois coal country that holds to delusional claims long discarded by informed people in the rest of America. I expect politicians in the region to cowardly pander to coal industry interests, but the press should have a better relationship with reality.
I'll end on a positive note. Illinois Times is the best source for environment and energy reporting in the region. Time and again they've covered important stories in depth that were largely ignored by others. Patrick Yeagle writes most of their energy stories now, but there have been others like R.L. Nave and Amanda Robert. Illinois Times is essential reading if you care about energy and the environment.
Getting fair coverage on energy is an uphill battle in Illinois coal country. But, there are many good reporters in the region, and I've often been surprised to get excellent coverage in press outlets that I expected to be biased against my viewpoint. Attitudes may change more slowly in downstate Illinois, but they are changing because the nation realizes climate change is an economic and moral challenge that must be met.
He writes that journalists and politicians are mostly sleepwalking into the great crisis of our time. With rare exception, we don't have energy-specific journalists.
There are finance and business journalists who cover energy as a commodity business, tracking global supply and demand flows, prices, futures trading, all that sort of stuff. There are business and tech journalists who focus on cleantech. There are environmental journalists, who tend to cover energy (when they do it) through the lens of enviros vs. polluters. And there are political journalists who cover energy as a campaign and/or policy issue, sometimes as a specialty, more often as part of a portfolio.
He goes on to write that journalists generally view energy stories from the angle of of their beat, and that isn't well suited to an issue like climate change that intersects so many national and international problems. How do journalists used to looking through one lens paint the bigger picture?
That is not necessarily something that comes easily to journalists, especially old-school reporters. Pushing climate change or energy poverty into a conversation where it hasn’t typically appeared and isn’t typically taken seriously can feel like advocacy or moralizing. It pushes against some quiet but insistent social and professional pressures. Right now, frankly, think tanks, NGOs, and bloggers are doing a better job of it.
Roberts' observations make a lot of sense when I think about my interactions with the regional press.
On the political side, there has essentially been a blackout on climate change at the SJR. In last year's Springfield city election, they failed to ask candidates about clean energy or climate change even though the city council oversees our public utility. The decision to build a coal plant and purchase wind power was one of the hottest local government issues in the past decade but the SJR felt the top issue to cover at the utility was patronage hiring.
Their election coverage this year is no different. Every candidate is asked about the conservative wedge issues of guns and gays, but nothing on climate change. Despite the fact that state and national legislators will spend far more time on energy issues than gun control or gay marriage; despite the fact that climate change is the subject of intense citizen interest; and despite the fact that every paper in the region believes the impacts of climate change are a front page story when droughts hit farmers and rivers flood. In the 13th Congressional district race, political reporters across the district have helped Rodney Davis continue ducking the most pressing issue of our time. It's difficult for me to understand why.
Roberts didn't write about the biggest obstacle to good energy reporting specific to downstate Illinois: the political and cultural influence of the coal industry. The Belleville News-Democrat and Southern Illinoisan are the worst offenders I've seen at publishing articles that lack any hint of objectivity about coal and allow falsehoods to go unchallenged. A recent pro-coal editorial in the Southern Illinoisan was so astoundingly out of touch with reality that it could make even an industry lobbyist blush. The editors haven't updated their perspective on energy in at least 20 years.
Papers like those help create a bubble in southern Illinois coal country that holds to delusional claims long discarded by informed people in the rest of America. I expect politicians in the region to cowardly pander to coal industry interests, but the press should have a better relationship with reality.
I'll end on a positive note. Illinois Times is the best source for environment and energy reporting in the region. Time and again they've covered important stories in depth that were largely ignored by others. Patrick Yeagle writes most of their energy stories now, but there have been others like R.L. Nave and Amanda Robert. Illinois Times is essential reading if you care about energy and the environment.
Getting fair coverage on energy is an uphill battle in Illinois coal country. But, there are many good reporters in the region, and I've often been surprised to get excellent coverage in press outlets that I expected to be biased against my viewpoint. Attitudes may change more slowly in downstate Illinois, but they are changing because the nation realizes climate change is an economic and moral challenge that must be met.
September 25, 2012
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.
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.
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.
September 19, 2012
Rodney Davis has more trouble answering questions again, and again, and...
A pattern is emerging in Rodney Davis' campaign for Congress (IL-13). He's trying to run without answering tough questions or taking clear stands on controversial issues. He mostly attends private Republican events and has so far avoided public forums where he would have to answer difficult questions.
When a reporter asked about his previous support for the Ryan budget he said he supported some parts but not others. But, he wouldn't say which parts. When asked if he supported the parts that cut Medicare he "didn't want to get boxed in" by taking a position.
Then he scurried away when I asked him about climate change during a press conference about flooding. How does someone rationalize holding a press conference about flooding along the Mississippi and NOT talk about climate change?
When people posted dozens of questions on his campaign page asking for his position on climate change his campaign ignored them and deleted every single question, no matter how politely worded. During a press conference on energy policy (held at a gas station outside the district) he still managed to avoid explaining whether he shares the anti-science, conspiratorial views of his former boss, John Shimkus.
Back in June he walked away from a voter who asked if he supports the Ryan budget and ignored a group who asked if he would support a minimum wage increase. This Tuesday, Action Now gathered outside Davis' $250 a plate fundraiser at the Illini Country Club. They asked, once again, why Davis is holding private events outside the district instead of answering tough questions.
Action Now has an online petition asking Davis to hold a town hall meeting in Springfield. It makes the modest request that Davis:
Davis isn't the first candidate to try getting elected by ducking controversial issues. Many consultants will advise that it's a smart strategy. Sometimes it works. Usually, a candidate isn't shy about where they stand if their views are in line with the district they're running in. What it suggests is that Davis holds extremist views similar to those of his former boss, John Shimkus, and he knows that isn't the kind of Congressman most voters in Illinois' 13th district are looking for.
Then again, he might just be auditioning for a part in the traveling production of Monty Phyton's Spamalot.
When a reporter asked about his previous support for the Ryan budget he said he supported some parts but not others. But, he wouldn't say which parts. When asked if he supported the parts that cut Medicare he "didn't want to get boxed in" by taking a position.Then he scurried away when I asked him about climate change during a press conference about flooding. How does someone rationalize holding a press conference about flooding along the Mississippi and NOT talk about climate change?
When people posted dozens of questions on his campaign page asking for his position on climate change his campaign ignored them and deleted every single question, no matter how politely worded. During a press conference on energy policy (held at a gas station outside the district) he still managed to avoid explaining whether he shares the anti-science, conspiratorial views of his former boss, John Shimkus.
Back in June he walked away from a voter who asked if he supports the Ryan budget and ignored a group who asked if he would support a minimum wage increase. This Tuesday, Action Now gathered outside Davis' $250 a plate fundraiser at the Illini Country Club. They asked, once again, why Davis is holding private events outside the district instead of answering tough questions.Action Now has an online petition asking Davis to hold a town hall meeting in Springfield. It makes the modest request that Davis:
I won't hold my breath, but accepting their petition would show that Davis is willing to appear to groups other than the Republican party faithful.
- Run a clean, transparent campaign. As working parents who hold one, two and sometimes three jobs, we cannot easily attend events if we are given only 24 hours notice. We need adequate, advance notice before a meeting is held.
- Answer our questions. We deserve to know where Davis stands on issues that affect us, including the creation of good jobs, stopping cuts to vital services and ensuring the top 1% pay their fair share.
Davis isn't the first candidate to try getting elected by ducking controversial issues. Many consultants will advise that it's a smart strategy. Sometimes it works. Usually, a candidate isn't shy about where they stand if their views are in line with the district they're running in. What it suggests is that Davis holds extremist views similar to those of his former boss, John Shimkus, and he knows that isn't the kind of Congressman most voters in Illinois' 13th district are looking for.
Then again, he might just be auditioning for a part in the traveling production of Monty Phyton's Spamalot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)