padding:10px 0 0;

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Republicans Can't See the Forest for the Trees

It is hard to get the last word with an Attorney that is also a well connected Lobbyist.

At 11:54 AM, September 13, 2006, matt jones said...
Look, you make a valid point about shearer's disclosures, spring valley, VA, Peoria, wherever else. I don't know why he doesn't tidy this up, except for the fact that it really doesn't matter, except for political punditry.
...
I'm sorry if I've offended (albeit belatedly) you by pointing out that shearer actually resides in peoria in response to your attacks on "his evil-ness".

As I have written before several times on this site, is Shearer deliberately trying to mislead. If a campiagn bookkeeper doesn't update the books, that is sloppyness, but when Shearer files to run as a precinct committeeperson with a Peoria address the same week he lists an address in Spring Valley to request copies of Bill Spears nominating petitions he is a liar(to someone).

So where does Steve Shearer live? Does he really live in Peoria? Or is the address a front so they can play the "Chicago Democrats" card they so love. He is also working for Jerry Weller, Does he still keep an address in Washington DC, where he has acted as a Political Consultant. You have failed to offend me, but why carry water for guys like Schock, Leitch or Shearer; an unethical opportunist, an adulterer and now apparently, a lair(to either the county clerk or the IL State Election Board). If Shearer lies about his residence, what else is he lying about?

I am not a high paid Washington DC consultant that can bring Speaker Dennis "the Diabetic" Hastert to town to raise big gobs of money from lobbyists. However, I will give the Spears campaign a slogan for free, use it all you like:

No More Queer Eye, We Want A Straight Guy.

posted by Willy Nilly @ 7:41 AM   5 comments

5 Comments:

At 11:52 AM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous matt jones said...

At the risk of continuing this seemingly endless (and pointless?) dialogue, let me make one point, make a lawyerly suggestion and reiterate my request. First, people sometimes do have more than one house, mailbox, or residence, so perhaps, the "Where does he live?" question is answered by yes to all. I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. Second, while sexual orientation and truthfulness are not fodder for defamation suits, adultery can be. It's not likely you'd be sued, and please don't take this as a threat from me, cause it isn't, but that kind of name calling can be perilous. Third, is your implication, on behalf of Bill Spears, that Schock's orientation is the reason to vote against him? Not that Bill's experience addressing local issues makes him better qualified; not that Bill's positions on the budgeting, pension, health care or education issues is more in line with the voters; not even that Schock has failed to do constituent service, missed votes and generally ignored the district. No, based on your postings, Schock is unqualified to be elected because he's gay (according to your rumor an innuendo), supported by a person who violated his wedding vows (according to your rumor an innuendo) and his campaign is managed by a person who lied about where he lives (unless he really does have 3 houses) able to get the public support of a man you attack for a disease (I didn't realize that Hastert had diabetes). For the record, I'm defending these Republicans as much as I'm attempting to elevate the debate somewhere above the "so's your old man" level so far exhibited. Unless personally attacked, I will let this be my last word from me. And once again, thanks for calling me connected....

 
At 1:12 PM, September 20, 2006, Blogger Kankakee Voice said...

I see a pattern here. Shearer, Weller, Schock.... all sleaze all the time - they could use that as their campaign slogans. So Weller and Shock are gay. Or Shock is gay and Weller is bisexual? (Personally, I don't buy the Weller marriage.) Hmmm. Don't care, but then don't vote against other people's civil rights and women's right to have control over her own body.

I think the 'where do you live' point is a valid and serious point to bring up. If people name an address as where they live, or two or three, and they are public figures, or using an address for purposes to attack other public figures, they should then explain why they have two, or three or four addresses and how much time they spend at each one. Sunlight (and transparency) are good disinfectants. Public figures should be held to a HIGHER standard of ethics and appearances than the average guy on the street. They chose to run for public office. Just being able to use any address any time for any reason is not accpetable to most people. Most of the public does care where someone lives. We at least want to know why someone has who says they live someplace in one situation, but then in another situation, say they live some where else. Yes, most of us are interested why that would be. Or why someone would say they live somewhere, but then are NEVER there, like Weller and his wife supposedly living in Morris, Il.

 
At 1:58 PM, September 20, 2006, Anonymous matt jones said...

kankakee, so are you saying shearer is a public official and therefore his address is relevant, or is your gripe about the questions about Weller's residences or perhaps more accurately his wife's? I agree that if a politician, candidate or elected, cannot prove that they live within the district, then THAT is an appropriate issue. It was for Don Saltsman years ago and it is today. As for the tie between orientation and civil rights or a woman's right to control her body at least you are making the point (I think) that it would be hypocritical to want to protect rights for your personal circumstances but oppose it for those similarly situated. However, I do not think it would not be hypocritical if a) they were not gay ( or bisexual) or b) they were gay but did not believe in "gay rights". e.g. is J.C. Watts a hypocrit for not supporting gay rights or a woman's right to control her body if he himself had not supported affirmative action? Calling someone a sleaze because you believe they are conservative on social issues and you believe they are gay or bisexual, without proof, is hardly elevated debate. Kankakee, if you think schock and weller are wrong on the issues you cite, say so. But to resort to name calling demeans your argument. If you think being gay or bisexual is disqualifying for public office, say so. If you have proof of their sexual orientation and their belief in rights for gays they are not willing to support for others, say so. I've known Bill Spears for more than a decade and I'm quite certain he has more to say about why voters should choose him than "schock is a sleaze" or "schock is gay". He has a record, he has public positions, he has something more than this. Blogs serve a really useful purpose sometimes, at the moment, this one does not.

 
At 5:41 PM, September 20, 2006, Blogger Willy Nilly said...

By "queer eye", I mean fashion forward, if you take that to mean something else as it applies to this post shame on you.

You stated earlier that Shearer is a "bona fide local" now he could have three addresses and it doesn't matter to you. You still haven't answered why he used 2 addresses in one week.



Go ahead and scold me all you like, but next time you see Schock, ask him to tone down his "Chicago Democrats" schtick. We both have a pretty good idea what the answer will be.

Democrats stand idly by too often when being smeared by Washington DC Republican hate machines.

 
At 7:53 PM, September 20, 2006, Blogger Kankakee Voice said...

Mr. Matt Jones, I don't think it's a real conversation you want. But I would like to make one thing very clear. I do not think anyone's sexual orientation, gay, straight or bi-sexual qualifies one for sleazy. It's PRETENDING to be of a certain sexual orientation one is not and so seem, to certain people, that one is morally superior to another human being, that qualifies one for the SLEAZY label.

Sleazy is easy with Weller. Look at who and how he married. Look at the majority of his campaign donations and then his votes. Look at the 3 major congressional scandals going on now, Abramoff, Cunningham and DeLay. Weller has at most 2 degrees of separation from any of them.

Schock ditto on the sexual orientation issue. Shearer? I watch and listen to how he conducts and sets the tone for the Weller campaign, sleazy. Very Sleazy. Birds of a feather and all....

 

Post a Comment

<< Home